Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
If I just assumed it and was happy with that assumption, I wouldn't have asked. I've made this assumption in the past and now there's a chance to challenge it and gain a little insight.
edit :
The assumption stems from that the only people I see who I know have tried heroin are homeless junkies (I don't know anyone with "normal" happy lives who's ever done it).
|
Hmm. That's odd. I know plenty of people who've tried it at least once. Many of them are happy, fully functional adults now. A lot of them were close friends. I was one of them, although I was always too scared to use a needle so I only snorted it.
But, speaking from experience, we weren't self-destructive junkies. We knew the risks, but were very curious as to what the fuss was all about.
I think there's a pretty evident line between recreational drug users and homeless junkies, although I do recognize that one can lead to the other, although I'm sure we all know it's not an inevitable conclusion that it will.
As far as whether someone should be considered "self-destructive" for using heroin recreationally, I fall back to what I asked you before about whether you view self-destructive behavior as negative via principle or effect, because if you've ever binge drank and ended up with a crippling hangover for a few days, with total knowledge of the possibility and health effects, not to mention drinking in a long term scenario, then that could be considered self-destructive as well.
In a self analysis of which you find the greater evil, to be more ok with one than the other would indicate a person's views of self-destructive behavior as not a matter of principle but of effect.
I was just trying to ascertain which of those you side with.