gobilalitha wrote:Arasi ... ... ....after reading so many arguments for and against alcoholism, thoughwritten in excellent language, my head reels without even sniffing the stuff,leave alone consuming .bye for the subject. gobilalitha
Sorry, but I have to just hark back and answer this one.
As far as I remember, alcoholism has been barely mentioned in this thread. This state of physical addiction to alcohol is a dreadful medical condition, and of course, a destroyer of careers, families and lives.
You may say to me that a non-drinker simply never became an alcoholic, and I'd have to agree that that is a fact. Even moderate consumption of alcohol entails some risk to the health. But the vast majority of the world's alcohol drinkers are
not alcoholics, and stand only a small risk of becoming so.
You can also say that even the non-addicted drinker can cause great damage to themselves, their family, other road users if they drive, and so on. This is also true; my personal opinion is that alcohol is a drug the human race would be better off without.
The risks of addiction to tobacco are far, far higher, with probably the majority of smokers doing so because of addiction. Addiction is different to habit; addiction is a state of the body becoming physically reliant on a substance, hence the symptoms of withdrawal. It has been said that nicotine
is more addictive than heroin. Not only are the dangers of damage to one's own body from smoking, as great or worse, than drinking alcohol, they are also more damaging to those around.
There are more ways of consuming tobacco than smoking it of course. The decorous musician on stage consuming his paan, or especially the Ghutka (can't spell it)
could be called a drug addict, whereas the ones consuming a bottle of wine in a foreign hotel are probably not.
Drugs of various kinds continue to destroy the lives of people, including musicians of all cultures, but it is necessary to take an informed, rather than an emotive view of these things, and to see what is harmful, and what is not. Or at least, what is more, and what is less harmful, rather than what has simply become culturally acceptable or unacceptable.
The true ascetic may claim that even tea and coffee should not be consumed, let alone drugs of a more mind-altering or pleasure-inducing nature --- but then what of the Sadhus of parts of Northern India, who famed for their cannabis intake, and among whom at least a few must be genuine holy men.
Simply, none of us have
the answer to these questions.
Humanity is imperfect; very imperfect.
(now I go back to read the subsequent posts)