WMN: t3_2ul1df_t1_cob3wmv

[TITLE]

CMV: I believe that a person who has not tried drugs (including alcohol) at least once is a person who is significantly missing out on a fundamental human experience. This is barring medical issues (including a family history of addiction)

[ytop3]

Title says most of it. I do not believe that one has to drink or use drugs recreationally. People don't enjoy everything universally, nothing is for everyone. It is okay not to like them, and it's okay not to do them. However, I believe that a refusal to try them (primarily, alcohol) at least once is missing out on a fundamental experience of being human and a person who thinks this ultimately holds an immature position. Drugs permeate human culture in an intimate way. From ancient poems to Shakespeare to Springsteen, intoxication is part of nearly every culture in human history. Furthermore, it is impossible to truly describe how it feels to be intoxicated to a person who never has been intoxicated. I mainly believe this to be true primarily for alcohol and marijuana, drugs that do not have a significant risk of addiction with one use and ones that have a significant amount of music, movies, and literature concerning them. EDIT: Wow, I'm a little overwhelmed by the responses- I will try to get to all of them! I repeatedly have posted in this thread that I regret the use of the word immature- I meant it more as permanently sheltered. Please remember that I am not arguing one should abuse drugs or alcohol or even use them frequently- I myself might drink once or twice a month, at most. I am arguing that everyone, barring medical reasons, should try them at least once in their life. My argument is that a failure to do so prevents someone from gaining an insight into a huge part of culture. Perhaps I should amend the argument to Western societies, but I have traveled in the Middle East and finding intoxicants there was not particularly hard. I would argue that the vast majority of cultures have some form of intoxicants. To those who have used drugs or alcohol, did you really understand the effects of them until you tried them? Could you truly understand how they made you feel?

[Fermats_Last_Account]

[STA-CITE]>However, I believe that a refusal to try them (primarily, alcohol) at least once is missing out on a fundamental experience of being human and a person who thinks this ultimately holds an immature position. [END-CITE]So I'm immature for making the rational choice to never do drugs? I've never done drugs before (I've drank a bit of alcohol and that's it) but I wish I didn't. I don't see how me not doing those things would even mean I'm immature. Do you know what immature means? I certainly feel I'm making the intelligent choice by not conforming to such low standards. [STA-CITE]>Drugs permeate human culture in an intimate way. From ancient poems to Shakespeare to Springsteen, intoxication is part of nearly every culture in human history. [END-CITE]Why should I care what it's done in the past to human culture? [STA-CITE]>Furthermore, it is impossible to truly describe how it feels to be intoxicated to a person who never has been intoxicated. [END-CITE]Why would I care about this feeling? Granted that you want everyone to have this "feeling" you describe, but I certainly think it's stupid of wanting people to experience this. [STA-CITE]>I mainly believe this to be true primarily for alcohol and marijuana, drugs that do not have a significant risk of addiction with one use and ones that have a significant amount of music, movies, and literature concerning them. [END-CITE]Okay... People say a lot about those drugs. That has nothing to do with why it's okay to do to a drug.

[cdb03b]

I prefer to follow laws than to break them for no productive reason. A productive reason would be like the sit ins during the civil rights movements, to get high is a selfish reason.

[AutoModerator]

**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/druglegislation#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=drugs&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *[I am a bot](/r/AutoModerator/comments/q11pu/what_is_automoderator/), and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[CommentDownvoter]

I think what you're saying is the following: There are some things that many humans do. In fact, a large percentage of humans do these things. If you do not do these things, then you are not experiencing something that a large percentage of humans experience. To me, that seems like a trivially correct statement. However, if you define "fundamental human experience" some other way, then how do you decide what a "fundamental human experience" is? What makes it fundamental? Dying from common illnesses or childbirth (prior to the advent of modern medicine and hygiene) was incredibly common. As well was living in nomadic tribes. Driving is pretty common, but cars have not been around for nearly as long. Same goes for phones or computers. Would you argue that someone who refused to drive or use modern technology was also missing this "fundamental experience"? What defines a "fundamental human experience"?

[Ajorahai]

Why do a person's medical issues and/or an activity's risk of addiction affect whether or not something is a fundamental human experience?

[veggiesama]

Trust is a big issue when it comes to drug use. Others seem to relish the idea of becoming pass-out, giggly, vomit monsters in front of all their friends, but I don't. Alternatively, being a lazy stoner who spends an hour pontificating on the meaning of the refrigerator door does not seem like a great way to spend my day. To be clear, I do drink on occasion (but rarely to excess, and NEVER to pass out), and I only tried pot once. My opinions on drinking modified but the spirit of my previous belief was still there: drink enough to dull but never enough to fully "intoxicate." So I'd give myself 1 out of 2 prediction points. My horizons were broadened but only because I didn't really consider "social drinking" to be a middle ground between abstinence and binge drinking before. It was a gradual process that didn't happen after one magical experience. However, trying marijuana was one of the worst experiences of my life. Initially interesting until a slight panic set in. Trouble focusing, no short-term memory. (That refrigerator door thing happened next.) Dehydration, napping, two day long headache/dizziness, nausea, laziness. So 2 out of 2 for predicting I wouldn't like it. 3 out of 4 ain't bad. I think it's very possible for people to figure out whether they want to try something illegal and/or dangerous before they try it. There's enough information out there to be your own judge. Sure, the marijuana thing for me was a learning experience, but if given the chance to do it again, I wouldn't. I also wouldn't advise people to stick their hands in bear traps while thinking maybe they'll like it even if I personally had a terrible experience with a bear trap once. I'd just say dude, don't do that, it's dumb and dangerous and a big waste of time.

[bighandxyz]

Doing things to not miss out is a silly reason for doing said things in the first place. If someone perceive being intoxicated as negative, then that's all the reason they need to be "missing out"

[nicklaz0001]

How could they perceive it as negative if they've never experienced it? And just to head off an easy response, to see something and to experience it are very different things.

[bighandxyz]

I mean you already answered your own question with your implications. Obviously seeing and experiencing are different, but that doesn't mean you cannot perceive something as negative based on known facts.

[_-_--_-_]

Well obviously most people are not perceiving marijuana based on the facts or it would be legal in all 50 states a long time ago. It slows the spread of cancer; I don't know how much more of a miracle drug people want.

[arewar]

How does this make sense? If I see someone break an arm, seeing them lying on the floor crying in pain, see them in the hospital recovering from surgeries, see them dealing with rehabilitation - that isn't enough information for me to decide that it's not a positive experience? I am able to judge it because I am a human being and I have empathy. I can see how a situation affects someone mentally, emotionally, physically, and their current and future well-being.

[zaron5551]

Are you going to try smoking Meth because you can't perceive it as a negative if you haven't tried it?

[_-_--_-_]

Meth is in a different category than weed and alcohol. Neither weed nor alcohol have the psychological dependence, or severe medical issues of meth.

[gunnervi]

[STA-CITE]>Meth is in a different category than weed and alcohol. Neither weed nor alcohol have the psychological dependence, or severe medical issues of meth. [END-CITE]Are you kidding? Alcohol has a high rate of abuse, and there are many medical issues related to overconsumption of alcohol (namely, alcohol poisoning - I.e., an alcohol overdose - and liver damage)

[bnicoletti82]

To quote the great James Randi: “I want to be, if I can, as sure of the world--the real world--around me as is possible. Now, you can only attain that to a certain degree, but I want the greatest degree of control. I've never involved myself in narcotics of any kind, I don't smoke, and I don't drink because that can easily just fuzz the edges of my rationality--fuzz the edges of my reasoning powers--and I want to be as aware as I possibly can. That means giving up a lot of fantasies that might be comforting in some ways, but I'm willing to give that up in order to live in an actually real world, or as close as I can get to it.” So, if you stand by the belief that a state of intoxication is a "human experience," you have to accept that it's a lesser state of existence.

[ytop3]

Because james randi said so?

[ytop3]

Plus, I'm not saying one should be intoxicated all the time, I'm arguing that one should try it once

[riggorous]

[STA-CITE]> However, I believe that a refusal to try them (primarily, alcohol) at least once is missing out on a fundamental experience of being human and a person who thinks this ultimately holds an immature position. [END-CITE]1. Why is it important that I have this fundamental experience of being human, or any fundamental experience of being human, for that matter? 2. Could you expand on your conception of maturity? If you measure maturity by the number of "fundamental human experiences" a person has had, how do you choose which experiences get to be fundamental, and why are they a superior measure of maturity than, say, age?

[_-_--_-_]

Well from a purely numerical standpoint you are "wiser" than someone who has not tried drugs or alcohol if being wise is having more experiences, assuming your experiences are generally the same except for drugs and alcohol. Additionally without doing either of these things you don't really understand what it means to be drunk or high. After doing these you might better understand songs or tv shows or other things in culture that were previously hard to understand without doing the experience yourself. Also I think a lot of people unfairly judge other who partake in these kinds of activities. If everyone had tried marijuana I don't think the negative stereotype of the stoner would be so common.

[riggorous]

[STA-CITE]> if being wise is having more experiences [END-CITE]Is it though? [STA-CITE]> Additionally without doing either of these things you don't really understand what it means to be drunk or high. [END-CITE]I also don't know how it is to have a penis or what it's like to be a lawyer. Is there any reason that not understanding these things makes me inferior to somebody who does? [STA-CITE]> Also I think a lot of people unfairly judge other who partake in these kinds of activities. [END-CITE]I'm getting the feeling that your actual CMV is "if you judge me for drinking, I'll judge you for not drinking NA NA NA NA NA NA".

[_-_--_-_]

You didn't really address any of my points. What is a better definition of wise if not having more experiences or a broader range of experiences? Yes, not having a penis or not being a lawyer makes you inferior when it comes to taking about or making laws about people who have or are those things. You have no firsthand experience so your opinion is less valid than someone who does. You also didn't address my point that drinking or smoking marijuana might help you better understand our culture or history. There are many mentions of both drugs (marijuana and alcohol) in tv shows, movies, books, ect. Without doing either, I think it would be hard to understand the character's motivations or actions in many of those culture objects. [Part where I insult you for having a different opinion than me]

[riggorous]

[STA-CITE]> What is a better definition of wise if not having more experiences or a broader range of experiences? [END-CITE]Well, one better definition is the [general definition of wisdom] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom): being able to understand the experiences that you have. [STA-CITE]> makes you inferior when it comes to taking about or making laws about people who have or are those things. [END-CITE]Well, sure, but that wasn't in your CMV. Also, no, not being x does not make your opinion automatically inferior to somebody who is x. For instance, somebody who has critically examined the interchange between sex and gender and how it presents in society would be a better lawmaker than just a random person with a penis. [STA-CITE]> You also didn't address my point that drinking or smoking marijuana might help you better understand our culture or history. [END-CITE]That's because you didn't tell me why I should strive to understand your culture or history. Perhaps my time is better spent understanding the culture and history of the prohibitionists or the Quakers, who have pretty much 0 exposure to alcohol. Also, is it the act of drinking alcohol that will help me understand you, or is it the act of drinking alcohol *within your cultural-historical paradigm* that will give me that knowledge? Because I imagine the social norms revolving around alcohol in America are different than in Italy are different than in Japan are different than in Saudi Arabia.

[ytop3]

Really, I want to change the perception of a judgmental attitude in my post- I feel like a lot of people are taking this argument the wrong way. I am not arguing that you are somehow a lesser person for not trying alcohol or drugs, I am arguing that if you haven't tried them, you fundamentally can't understand a huge part of human culture.

[riggorous]

[STA-CITE]> you fundamentally can't understand a huge part of human culture. [END-CITE]You do know that alcohol and drugs don't feature in many human cultures around the world? Like, there is no "world culture". There is the culture of American white people, which I think you're talking about, and then there are hundreds of other cultures besides.

[ytop3]

Haha, alright... What is hashish? Or saki? Or baijiu? Or peyote? From Wikipedia: "Chinese alcohol predates recorded history." So I don't think it's fair to say that I'm only discussing an American phenomenon.

[riggorous]

You're not discussing *only* an American phenomenon, but believe it or not, this phenomenon is not global. For instance, most slavic cultures use virtually no drugs except alcohol. Alternatively, North African cultures chew khat all day, but don't drink a drop of alcohol. And then there are various (smaller) cultures that consume neither. Furthermore, how *your* culture consumes alcohol is not congruent to how any other culture consumes alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is a cultural experience, yes, but it is not a *universal* cultural experience - because there is no such thing as universal culture. As such, you cannot say that somebody who doesn't drink alcohol is missing out on a *fundamental* human experience, because this experience is not fundamental.

[zaron5551]

What about drugs outside of pot and booze? Should everyone try every drug?

[ytop3]

No, because they don't permeate culture to the same degree. I would include tobacco but it really isn't as psychoactive as the others and doesn't include a great insight into culture. Caffeine, I suppose, should be tried too.

[zaron5551]

How do determine what degree of cultural permeation a drug has and what level of permeation makes a drug worth trying. I personally feel like there's a decent argument that psychedelics, opiates, cocaine, and amphetamines have permeated the culture, maybe not as much as pot or alcohol, but a lot of artists, musicians, and writers have spent a lot of time intoxicated on all those drugs.

[ytop3]

I think it's fairly obvious. I mean, do I really need to list the people who have tried alcohol or instances of people using alcohol and compare it to the degree of people who have done opiates? 3 out of the past 3 presidents have tried pot. I mean, look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politicians_who_admit_to_cannabis_use

[Fermats_Last_Account]

So the people who grew it... tried it? Not surprising since this is years old.

[Wizardoflalaland]

The distinction between intoxication that is fundamental to being human and destructive intoxication is completely arbitrary and culturally relative. Intoxication practices differ significantly between European, African, indigenous, East Asian, and Arabic cultures. Humans have been hunter gatherers for the majority of their existence (over 50,000 years), and the strength of mood altering substances that were taken by them were probably varied. There are lots of "fundamental" experiences that humans have had for the majority of their existence that many people agree should be avoided. I think that you have a modern liberal Western bias on what human experiences are "fundamental". Often, horrible things occur as results of intoxication that could also be considered "fundamental" human experiences (if fundamental refers to commonality) such as rape and lethal accidents. There is no scientific practice for measuring what experiences are essential to being "happy". Every person sets his own limits as to what is a "soft" or "hard" mood altering substance according to his own risk tolerance, short versus long term time orientation, and other circumstances. [STA-CITE]> ultimately holds an immature position [END-CITE]As explained above, you are ultimately arbitrarily saying that your preferences are "mature" while those that differ are "immature". Maturity is a completely culturally defined ideal, varying from being a 9 year old girl to a 21 year old educated white land-owning Christian male. My problem with your use of "immature" is that it is pejorative. I think that these labels are inappropriate for these types of preferences, and instead we should describe it for what it is "he/she prefers not to consume x and y mood-altering substance".

[ytop3]

I agree, it's why I repeatedly posted in this thread saying I regret the usage of that word.

[PresidentPlate]

I'm someone who never has tried alcohol or drugs. Actually, it goes a bit further than that. The only thing I drink is water. I have never felt an urge to try anything else, I have never tried pop, energy drinks, tea, you name it. I'm not *against* trying these things, I just have never wanted to. Alcohol is something I never want to try though. I've seen what it can do to people. Drugs are the same way, probably worse. You could make your exact same arguement about religion, to an atheist, just by changing a few of the words. Here, I'll show you. *I do not believe that one has to become obsessed with their religion, or even have one at all. People don't enjoy everything universally, nothing is for everyone. It is okay not to like it, and it's okay not to practice it.* *However, I believe that a refusal to try them (primarily, Christanity or Islam) at least once is missing out on a fundamental experience of being human and a person who thinks this ultimately holds an immature position. Religion permeates human culture in an intimate way. From ancient poems to Shakespeare to Springsteen, religion is part of nearly every culture in human history. Furthermore, it is impossible to truly describe how it feels to be a true believer to a person who never has been a believer.* *I mainly believe this to be true primarily for Christanity and Islam, because they are the two most widespread religions, and ones that have a significant amount of music, movies, and literature concerning them.* Each person has their own experience of being human, and I see no reason to change mine against my will just because the majority of the world happens to like something.

[ytop3]

Look, I think you're missing my argument- I'm not saying that you should do it for morale reasons. I'm saying that in not doing it, you are missing out on a very important part of being a consumer of media, and you fundamentally will never truly understand a huge portion of culture.

[Fermats_Last_Account]

Because we don't care about trying this "culture"

[ytop3]

Have you ever seen the Godfather? Read Othello or Joyce? Listened to the Beatles, Elvis, Kanye West, Metallica, or Sinatra? Then you have direct experience with this culture. And you cannot comprehend what it is they are talking about until you've tried it. Yes, this does imply that I cannot truly understand the writings of Burroughs or Coleman's Kubla Khan until I try some opiate. But the influence of alcohol on the development of human society and human stories is pretty undeniable, and I can reconcile not trying heroin with not understanding the works of two authors.

[Fermats_Last_Account]

I honestly don't care at all for this 'feeling' you want everyone to feel. I think it's lame.

[ytop3]

Haha, I feel as if you're painting me as some parody of a college bro telling you to chug down beers- I'm not. My point is that if you don't try it, you truly are incapable of understanding a huge portion of media and culture.

[Fermats_Last_Account]

Like I said, probably because I don't care about understanding those parts.

[NuclearStudent]

What even qualifies as a unique human experience? Understanding idioms of other cultures is a unique human experience, but I'm not going to say somebody who doesn't understand what the sound of one hand clapping is a fundamentally immature person.

[ytop3]

Yeah, you know, I need to amend my post. I'm a philosophy major and I remember studying koans, but I didn't achieve enlightenment from them. I'll give a delta to you, because yeah, it's obvious that there is no so thing as a fundamental human experience. I shouldn't have sprouted out a platitude as large as "FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN EXPERIENCE" I think I might post again, that not trying alcohol once prevents someone from understanding a huge portion of literature, which is a statement that more accurately reflects my views. ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NuclearStudent. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NuclearStudent)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[mizz_kittay]

[STA-CITE]> I believe that a refusal to try them (primarily, alcohol) at least once is missing out on a fundamental experience of being human [END-CITE]How far does that view of yours span? If I refuse to ever try a certain type of food - a broad category like meat - am I also missing out on a fundamental human experience? If I had never seen music performed in person, am I also missing out on a fundamental human experience? I'm just trying to figure out why you single out drugs and alcohol here. Is there something unique about them that makes them a fundamental part of the human experience while listening to live music isn't (or maybe it is), and what is that unique thing?

[ytop3]

Uhhhhhhhhhhh.... Yes! If you have not seen music performed in person, you are missing out on something that makes us human. I also want to point out that it is virtually impossible you haven't seen music performed live- I remember my little sister holding concerts for my family as a child. EDIT: to clarify, I grew up seeing music and participating in music, from singing nursery songs in preschool to recorder classes. I think virtually everyone has done that. Meat is a little bit different. I would say yes, but tentatively. We have incredibly good meat substitutes now. Furthermore, flavor doesn't cause a feeling inherently, rather, ones upbringing does. EDIT: to clarify, unlike drugs or alcohol, meat doesn't make you feel a certain way always. I think what makes it human is that it is very rare for an animal to cultivate intoxication as a good thing.

[oohshineeobjects]

Just because something is common doesn't inherently mean that it's right, at least not for everyone. I mean, what if someone's not religious? Virtually all cultures have some sort of spiritual custom, and it's pretty impossible to describe the sensation of feeling close to a deity or feeling one with nature. Are non-religious people being immature and missing out? What if a woman doesn't want to ever get pregnant? Some sort of tradition for celebrating and honoring motherhood exists in virtually all cultures, and it's impossible to describe the feeling of growing a human inside you. Are non-mothers being immature and missing out?

[ytop3]

Yes, people who are non-religious who don't have some form of ritual (be it meditation, a journal of thankfulness, therapy, etc) are missing out. I think this article sums up my thinking on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/opinion/religion-without-god.html I am a man and can't speak to motherhood. I really regret the use of the word IMMATURE- it dos not indicate a lack of maturity, it simply shows that they are missing a fundamental part of human culture and the human experience.

[oohshineeobjects]

The article you linked says that many non-religious people miss the solidarity that often comes with religion, not the actual religious beliefs. They didn't feel as though they were missing out with regards to belief in deities or spiritual rituals, only the sense of community, and the article demonstrates that they found ways to get that back without having to be religious, so they weren't missing out on any aspect of religion.

[ytop3]

But they are able to find a substitute that works for them. I would say that ritual is really, and that yeah, if somehow you did not have a ritual which you repeat on a near daily basis which you hold significant to your identity, yeah, you are missing a huge part of human existence. I would also argue that it is nearly impossible to find someone who doesn't incorporate ritual into their life.

[AntiChri5]

For most of history and throughout various cultures, never quite getting enough food and then dying of an illness that is now preventable was a fundamental human experience. Fundamental parts of the human experience aren't all good, friend. Im fairly confident i learned all i need to of alcohol when my drunken mother threw steak knives at me. We are all individuals, with our own personal preferences, biases, habits and hobbies. To insist we all *need* to experience certain things is incredibly arrogant. You like drugs and alcohol. Okay. I don't judge, enjoy. But i don't, and all i ask is that you respect that decision as much as i respect yours.

[ytop3]

∆ Please note- I respect you're choice not to do them- my argument is not that you are a lesser person. My argument is that you are incapable of understanding what it is like to drink or do drugs until you try them, and given their presence in culture, you probably should try one drug once. Furthermore, I would encourage you to seek therapeutic help for any abuse you may have suffered, and would remind you that millions of people drink without inflicting violence. But yes- it is not a fundamental part of the human experience. Nothing truly is, besides breathing.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AntiChri5. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AntiChri5)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]