OFF: definition of "recreational" [kill this thread!]

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> > what exactly is a "recreational drug user"?  hell, when I smoked pot and did
> > all that shit I considered myself a drug user...these people try to make the
> > use of drugs sound less serious by saying "recreational", as if there are
> > certain exceptions or they need some reassurance that what they are doing is
> > ok...who defines the terms of who is recreational and who is a downright
> > junkie??  you and I can tell the difference between Ertyl Mackelschneid that
> > smokes pot once a month and Jimmy the Bed-Ridden Junkie that boots heroin on
> > the hour, every hour...but hey, they're both drug-users...Jimmy's just as
> > recreational as Ertyl, he just does it more often!  {and a miracle if he's
> > still alive!!!!}
>
> The term is from the literature, and is not intended merely as a
> "conscience easer."  As I understand it, a "recreational"  drug user is
> someone who is, at best, psychologically addicted; a "non-recreational"
> ("habitual") drug user is someone who is physiologically addicted.  AFAIK

It's not as straightforward as that since some drugs are not physically
addictive (in the medical sense of the phrase). The line between legal
and illegal drugs is also a fairly arbitrary one. Coffee and tea
drinkers, as well as chocolate eaters and drinkers of alcohol are also
drug users. We tend to assume that since these are legal, all users
are by default "recreational" ones although we recognise that some
people are not merely "social" drinkers of alcohol. Similarly with
heroin, the default assumption is of an addict with some vague
recognition that there might be "recreational" users.

Perhaps a more realistic way to differentiate patterns of use is to look
at the effect on the user's life. Someone who's beating their spouse
because of alcohol, failing at their job because of cocaine, making
themselves ill through heroin, or making themselves unpopular with their
friends through excessive pot smoking is more than a "recreational" user.

Drugs in and of themselves are no more threatening than a jar of
parsley, it's how people use them, and how that affects the lives of
themselves and the people around them that can create problems. It's
likely that some drugs will cause more problems than others.

Not that there's much point rerunning the legalisation argument, but it
does seem kinda weird that illegality generally seems to multiply most
problems associated with drug use as opposed to actually alleviating them.

> Paul.

FoFP