Holmes,
Thanks for the replies. I should have known better than to post a message just before two days of my Japanese final exam... in other words, sorry for the slow response.
--------------
In writing up a reply to this post, I realized (duh) that both of our points are important. For those with your "religious pressure to legitimatize pleasure," I understand your point, and I agree.
I guess my point was that, for those who don't feel that religious pressure, there's still some reason why the drugs in question are considered "bad." Some has to do with "what is normal." Some has to do with pragmatic concerns (i.e. legitimatizing pleasure within the framework of a co-dependent society (i.e. I don't want to work for somebody who is viewed as a "laze", i.e. lazy person)).
With that in mind, here's a much shortened version of what I was in the process of writing as a response. I guess my "disagreement" now changes to "view from another important factor in the problem." Please read it as such.
-----------
For example one may certainly use all sorts of chemicals to treat a cold or flu or other injury and end up nearly incomprehensible... or at the very least unable to operate machinery like your car. That is not a problem. Yet take a drug with the same effects but only because it will make you feel good, and suddenly it is a no no.
I disagree with your example here. The effects of flu medicine are called "side-effects," and are undesired. A cold or flu medicine that works without side-effects would be greatly popular.
The idea that pleasure must be legitimaized is a religious one and does not come from human assessments of normality. I feel that that is what is at work here, given examples like the above.
That is not a problem.
But it is a problem. But the side-effects are not deemed "severe enough" (deviant from the normal) to be of concern. That's the (supposed) role of regulation of such drugs, to control the severity of side-effects of drugs available for public consumption. Drugs with "severe" side-effects are illegal to distribute.
So in other words, it is a problem.
Heck, we are now trying to drug kids so that they do not act like normal children in order to keep them in line and working productively.
Right. It's sad. The only basis we have for saying "it's sad" is simply that the kids are "not normal." And I think a lot of people don't like it, simply because of that idea.
But heaven forbid they should "feel good" either by not taking the drugs which help them focus on nonfun, or take other drugs which might make them feel good without any other benefits.
It just depends on what you think the problem is. For those who think "altering the 'normal' state 'artifically', and maybe for those with religious tendencies to legitimatize pleasure, it's bad to give the drugs to kids. So giving them more drugs to 'solve' the problem isn't the solution; it's just compounding the trouble. Best thing to do is to stop giving them drugs.
And yes, I realize that's not really your point. And yes, I also realize that the position "altering the 'normal' state 'artifically' is a somewhat problematic position." But there are no non-problematic positions, at least given the thinking I've done so far.