On morality, The German philosopher Immanuel Kant states that one ought treat others as ends in themselves and never merely as means. This, I believe, to be reflexive; namely, one can not treat themselves as a mean or merely a thing.
One’s obligation to oneself consists of a ban against designating their selfhood as a toy to sheer inclinations. This obligation has an exceptionally swaying logic that pertains to human dignity. Since the epitome of human dignity is to never deal with others or yourself merely as a thing, it appears that the manipulation of a human being via drug-induced pleasures should be regarded as an obvious infringement of human dignity. Drug-induced pleasures interfere with one’s selfhood, and they seem to degrade a being to a plaything of inclinations. Thus, human dignity is severed when the emotions are dominated by drug-induced sense of happiness.
Let us go on further in the illustration of drug-induced happiness; here, the individual is dispossessed of the ‘freedom to experience unhappiness’. Submitting the mind to the control of a drug debilitates ‘free will’ and sabotages any neutral inclinations. Dignity fundamentally entails that one’s ‘freedom to feel unhappiness’ is wholly assured, as this is a vital component to the conception of an authentic life. Consequently, individuals under the influence of drugs are conquered by complete undivided plaything of inclinations, and appear be devoid of dignity.
Extrinsic control of the mind obliterates its intrinsic functional value
philosophical Epiphany 
Are you referring to legal or illegal drugs? I would contend that the choice to use drugs belongs to the individual. Legally prescribed drugs do give choice over to external agents, including doctors and government.
After all, the only difference between legal and illegal drugs is politics. Think of something like Ritalin, which is often forced on kids in school, yet if they sell it on the street, it is a felony.
I don’t believe in any drug laws, because they create artificial circumstances that lead to over-prescribing, over-use, misuse, and secrecy. They also give enormous power to external, blind authority to deny an individual’s autonomy. Did you know that prescriptions were not required until 1953?
LikeLiked by 6 people
100% agree with you on the politics.
LikeLiked by 3 people
moi aussi!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with what you said. Politics has a huge outreach.
My hopes of writing this post were to cover not explicitly (legal or illegal) drugs. But the impact of recreational drugs that stimulate or induce pleasure and its relation to human dignity
LikeLiked by 2 people
I understood that. The very concept that “recreational drugs” are somehow bad because people like them is false. Natural earth products, such as opiates, marijuana, and cocaine, are infinitely safer than the patented synthetics. The brain has cannaboid receptors for a reason. Also true with opiates. “Endogenous opiods” are released normally to cope with pain.
So-called “recreational drugs” have also traditionally been part of religious ceremonies, long before the gun-toting Europeans decided to own and control natural earth products through laws. Carlos Casteneda mentions peyote and mushrooms in his Don Juan series. I could go on and on, but will sign off with one last comment.
Corn liquor, otherwise known as ethanol, has been used medicinally since man discovered it. Not only does it induce sleep, it is a natural anesthetic and disinfectant, used extensively in wartime to dress wounds and relieve pain.
I recommend not being so quick to categorize these natural products. Turn off the TV awhile and give yourself a break from the patent-and-money-churning industry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I personally had not known that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Drugs are neither good not bad. See the essay, http://www.sgi.org/about-us/buddhism-in-daily-life/changing-poison-into-medicine.html. When I studied medical parasitology, I learned that the only way to eliminate some parasites was to use substances often used for assassinations. The substance is neither good nor bad. The outcome of how we use it can enhance dignity or destroy dignity. Maybe both at the same time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I fully agree. Nothing is good or bad on its own, it all pertains on how we perceive it and it’s functional effect. The term Drugs in my post only pertains to ‘recreational’ drugs that are “pleasure-inducing”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Drugs are like signposts: they can point the way but they should never be confused with getting there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
👏👏👏
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am firmly against the casual use of mind-altering substances ~ even if they are needed for medical reasons I would prefer to explore other possibilities first. But then, I am a recovering alcoholic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your input 🙂
Every drug is different, some are good, some are bad, and others are beneficial. It becomes a gray area when the drugs interfere with our emotions and threaten our dignity
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will you recover therefore from the need to decide what others put into their bodies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a fascinating argument against the use of mind-altering drugs. Two things come to mind for me. One: the use of psychedelics to achieve altered states of consciousness could be thought of as an expansion of self-hood. Two: unfortunately, many who turn to drugs are already suffering from a lack of freedom. Anxiety, depression, or other intolerable circumstances have led them to a state in which they will try anything for relief.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I love the thoughts that were provoked. On the second point I agree that patients should have access to drugs as a therapeutic measure. The concern only pertains to recreational drugs.
I must say however, your it’s thought is very very impressive 😮
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can fructose be used as a recreational drug. Am I high if I eat too many apples.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Kerberos616.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on PenneyVanderbilt.
LikeLiked by 1 person