cpebbles wrote:Addiction and dependence are separate things, and refusing to be "cowed" into giving up a recreational drug is definitely a sign that you are dependent on it.
Perhaps you can explain why a healthy person is required to accept an employer's demands about off work recreational activities.
cpebbles wrote:I have an ideological problem with most drug testing, but I also have an ideological problem with casual drug use
I suspect the ideological problem is the real issue that you were avoiding with the word games about the definition of dependence. What is it?
cpebbles wrote:Addiction and dependence are separate things, and refusing to be "cowed" into giving up a recreational drug is definitely a sign that you are dependent on it.
Perhaps you can explain why one is required to accept an employer's demands about off work recreational activities.
Because of legal precedent. Even if it isn't just that an employer can fire you for using drugs, they can, and using in the face of that demonstrates impaired judgment.
cpebbles wrote:I have an ideological problem with most drug testing, but I also have an ideological problem with casual drug use
I suspect the ideological problem is the real issue that you were avoiding with the word games about the definition of dependence. What is it?
No, and I'm not playing word games so much as I'm avoiding using a poorly-defined and loaded term like addiction. Nevertheless, my ideological problem with drug use is basically that there is no rational reason for their use, they are harmful to the people who use them, and most people in the age groups where use is prevalent are far too stupid to make decisions about what they should be putting into their bodies.
cpebbles wrote:Addiction and dependence are separate things, and refusing to be "cowed" into giving up a recreational drug is definitely a sign that you are dependent on it.
Perhaps you can explain why a healthy person is required to accept an employer's demands about off work recreational activities.
cpebbles wrote:I have an ideological problem with most drug testing, but I also have an ideological problem with casual drug use
I suspect the ideological problem is the real issue that you were avoiding with the word games about the definition of dependence. What is it?
You don't have to accept their demands. Refuse to take the drug test and then find a different job. That job is not owed to you; it is yours because the employer gave it to you. If you don't like the terms of the job, don't work there.
I thought dependence implied cessation would lead to symptoms, while addiction implies continued use despite harm.
If I am a long distance trucker or retina surgeon, by all means I need drug testing. If I sell sporting goods, the boss is some kind of prohibitionist if drug testing is required.
slide_into_first wrote:I thought dependence implied cessation would lead to symptoms, while addiction implies continued use despite harm.
If I am a long distance trucker or retina surgeon, by all means I need drug testing. If I sell sporting goods, the boss is some kind of prohibitionist if drug testing is required.
"Addiction" has various definitions. I would say that you're right about dependence, and the word I should have used is "abuse."
FWIW, my friend took a drug test upon getting the job, but nowhere was it explained or detailed in a handbook that there would be random drug tests once employed. So however you define addiction, I don't think this applies.
cpebbles wrote:I certainly hope that the marijuana users here at least have the decency to make sure their supply chain ends with a burnout somewhere with a handful of growing lamps.
cpebbles wrote:Nevertheless, my ideological problem with drug use is basically that there is no rational reason for their use, they are harmful to the people who use them, and most people in the age groups where use is prevalent are far too stupid to make decisions about what they should be putting into their bodies.
I agree with you that there is a real ethical implication to purchasing drugs from violent cartels. I also agree that young people shouldn't do drugs, at least not much. Drugs + teenage hormones can be a dangerous combo. I disagree though that there is no rational reason for their use. There are lots of reasons for using drugs. As Nietzsche wrote, "For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication."
The pursuit of beauty and pleasure is entirely rational.
cpebbles wrote:Nevertheless, my ideological problem with drug use is basically that there is no rational reason for their use, they are harmful to the people who use them, and most people in the age groups where use is prevalent are far too stupid to make decisions about what they should be putting into their bodies.
I agree with you that there is a real ethical implication to purchasing drugs from violent cartels. I also agree that young people shouldn't do drugs, at least not much. Drugs + teenage hormones can be a dangerous combo. I disagree though that there is no rational reason for their use. There are lots of reasons for using drugs. As Nietzsche wrote, "For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication."
The pursuit of beauty and pleasure is entirely rational.
We drug test where I work. I don't know this for fact, but I imagine that insurors require employers to do drug testing, especially in situations where an employee will be operating machinery.
