contemplating chicken: various thoughts

having a philosophical/moral quandary

It’s not related to anything specific in my life, just some things I’ve been reading.

But:

I am trying to figure out if it is possible to simultaneously … judge and not-judge, I guess? I’m reading a series of articles on Feministe (yeah, I need to branch out my blog reading, ugh, but right now about one SJ blog is as much as I can handle keeping up with, so if anyone has any idea for more comprehensive blogs, that’d be great) on redefining what health means, and what being “mentally ill” or “mad” means, and what choices are “healthy” or “unhealthy.” I’m familiar with some of this stuff from FA, which is to say — you can’t judge whether someone is healthy by looking at them, and even if you could, it’s none of your business.

But, while I think that people making the choices that are best for their own health is important, I have a hard time with some of the logical extensions of total bodily autonomy.

For instance: I do not think trying or regularly using meth is a good idea, and I would discourage anyone who was thinking of it. I would not want to hang out with someone who was a regular meth user (even if it was legal), and I would probably go to some lengths to avoid them (not to be nasty, but we have some meth addicts who come into the clinic sometimes, and they are not fun to talk with.)

Some people are probably more inclined to addiction than others. Does this mean that personally discriminating against them in this way is oppressive? (For the record, I wouldn’t support denying anyone healthcare, housing, etc. base on drug use alone, though if it came along with a history of violence or … or … I’m not sure … things would get confusing fast. So, systematic denial of things necessary to live = bad, but I am pretty sure that even if there were not institutional barriers in place that make life harder for a person addicted a drug like meth, I personally would probably still be discriminatory — i.e. I would not hire a person I knew to be addicted to meth without reeeeeeeally compelling evidence that they were extremely functional, because to my knowledge using that particular drug majorly screws with various skills that are important to most jobs — reading facial expressions, reading and speech comprehension, sense of time, etc. This may or may not be morally correct, which is what I’m trying to figure out here.) I’m referencing meth specifically because it’s the only “hard” drug that’s really prevalent around here, and because … there aren’t really casual users of meth. (With something like alcohol, it’s easy to say, “Just use in moderation and no problem!” though I think that skates around the issue of what we owe to people who can’t use in moderation. If addiction is an uncontrollable state, how is it different from a disability? Is it?) 

It’s one thing to legalize drugs and say “Hey we’re not going to throw you in jail for using this now,” but if they (regular users of drugs) are still effectively shunned and shut out of productive jobs, decent housing, etc. they would still be fucked. But (while this obviously varies enormously by drug and by person): Some drugs (such as meth!) really do fuck up your ability to be a person who carries out your basic responsibilities to other human beings. Or, they magnify problems that people already have (alcohol.) So, to me addiction seems a little different than most types of disability. It’s hateful and dangerous to characterize disability as a terrible state of being that must be avoided at all costs. And … I wouldn’t categorize drug use or meth use like that, because obviously it’s not the worst thing ever and people who are addicted are still human beings, but it’s pretty bad and something I would hope people wouldn’t enter into without making a thoughtful choice rather than just … falling into it. 

Is drug use different from other “choices” (scare quotes very deliberate) that people criticize, that may not be (or definitely aren’t) choices at all? I mean, once someone’s addicted to … meth (sorry it’s my go-to example) it’s really fucking hard to get off of it. If addiction develops the act of using sort of leaves the arena of “bad choices” and enters into that of “facts that are there and have to be dealt with.” So … how do you deal with it? Is it possible to characterize something as an undesirable state of being without shaming and hurting people who are already there? 

One of the frustrating things is that (I think) the people who end up dealing with the fallout of addiction are typically not people who receive any benefit in return for doing so. Being the family supporting an alcoholic (for instance) seems like it has some similarities or parallels to being the unpaid carer for someone elderly or disabled. You can’t in good conscious leave the job undone, but it’s rather cruel to expect someone to give up all their free time and energy to deal with a family member’s (or friend’s, or whatever’s) problems. So … is the solution to pay people to deal with the fallout? A new cadre of social workers for those who are addicted? (Obviously we don’t have enough highly-valued carers as it is, but I’m trying to envision what the system should look like, I guess.)

There are a lot of intersections here with race, class, and gender, too, that I’m not getting into, mainly because I am ill-informed and need to read more (I have a couple books to start with, anyway.)

I think I can sum up this way: Is it possible to simultaneously say:

1. “Using this sort of drug is not the best choice, and I would encourage you not to do it”

2. “You, as an individual person, have every right to make your own choices, even if they are what I would consider terrible ones”

3. “People who use drugs still deserve healthcare, decent food, decent housing, and other things that we agree human beings should in general have”

and 

4. “I, personally, do not want to deal with you in a drug-altered state”? 

Or is one of those things profoundly hypocritical?

Tags: this is a very long post about drug use and attempting to figure out an ethical position on it.