But my argument is that those particular drugs offer no relief from any drudgery in our lives.
If they didn't offer relief people wouldn't take them.
But caffeine and nicotine* offer little more than addiction.
Completely wrong. Caffeine offers improved alertness, improved recollection, improved cognition, and improved sensation. (Nicotine offers weight loss, which I guess isn't exactly worth it.)
It's often posed to ethics students: "if you could take a drug with no side effects that would make you smarter, would you do it?" A certain kind of person always answers "no" as he takes a sip from a beverage that does exactly that.
Our brains run on drugs, Panda. None of these drugs could have any effect on your whatsoever if there weren't already receptors for them in your brain cells. Why are those receptors present? For your body's
own natural drugs. The drugs it's using to make you do some things and not do others. The drugs it uses to make you want to eat. To make you want to have sex.
I doubt if there are any cigarette connoisseurs.
quote:
Cigar Aficionado is an American magazine that is dedicated to the world of cigars. Published since September 1992, the magazine is known for its articles about different brands of cigars worldwide, and for the celebrities that have appeared on its cover. It is also noted for its opposition to the Cuban embargo. Subtitled as "The Good Life Magazine for Men", it is published by Marvin R. Shanken's M. Shanken Communications, who also publishes Wine Spectator magazine.
I don't understand how someone could survey the vast world of coffees, wines, cigars, even the underground culture of cannabis varieties, and conclude that every person who uses a drug for any purpose is just a strung-out junkie after nothing but a fix. That's like saying that everyone who has ever had sex is a slut.