From, "If I don't take my meds, I will not feel like me," to, "I feel more alive when I take drugs." These quotes account for a large fraction of the developed world's population who is willing to rely (at least partially) on drugs to define them. I've had friends tell me that if they don't take their Adderall in the mornings, they won't feel quite themselves. Some people have said they can't work unless they're high. I can even say I feel a bit "off" when I don't get a solid amount of caffeine in my body.

The notion that the things we do affect and define our identity is nothing new. Coined by Jean-Paul Sartre, the existentialist put it like this: “Existence precedes essence." In short, Sartre is saying that we are first created, and then through the decisions, we make and actions we take, we begin to define our own identity-- our own essence.

Jean Paul Sartre, though never specifically endorsing the use of drugs, certainly would have erred on the side of pro-drug use. In a 1971 interview about existentialism, Sartre explains his extended relationship with drugs. Minuscule crabs started to appear when he took a drug called Mescaline. At first, he was terrified, but he eventually began to see the crabs as little companions. Sartre said that once he was used to them, he would wake up and say, “Good morning, my little ones, how did you sleep?” Sartre embraced his use of drugs and made them a part of who he was-- a part of how he lived his life.

For Sartre and those alike, drugs can become a part of who a person is-- an extension of who they are. Drugs serve to emphasize and bring out positive characteristics. They have the ability to enhance the human experience for everyone.

Drugs also allow humans to function at maximum capacity. Without the help of a drug, someone who has an attention-deficit disorder might not do as well in a class without taking Adderall. Those who deal with serious anxiety in their everyday life could curve that struggle by regularly taking Xanax.

It's important to also note that experiences outside of explicit drug use can also cause chemical reactions in our brains that have the same (at the very least, similar) effect on us as drugs. When we go hiking and see a breathtaking view, the adrenalin and dopamine released can be compared to a high from taking tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-- or even the concept of “Runner’s High”. Aren’t these experiences all on the same plain? Why do we accept one, but sweep the other under the rug?

However, from a Darwinian perspective, any need to use drugs would be seen as a weakness. Even if it was simply needing a cup of coffee in the mornings to drive to work without crashing your car. Dependency is a result of human failure in one area or another. An addiction to caffeine shows an inefficiency in an individual, for they are not able to wake up and perform at a level of 100.

The same thing applies to diabetics-- a need for Insulin to survive shows an inefficiency in the human body.*

Any dependency on a drug points to weakness.

Yet there is an important distinction to make as we approach this ideology from a Darwinian perspective. There are two types of dependencies on drugs: voluntary and involuntary. Someone who has hereditary diabetes or epilepsy has no choice in their need for drugs. These types of dependencies would fall under the involuntary category. Someone who smokes weed to enhance their experience of life, and feels the need to do so every day to feel “normal,” would fall into the voluntary category.

In the instance of an involuntary dependency, it is still a weakness, but it is something that is out of the person's control. A weakness, per se, but it is unavoidable, ergo it's irrelevant to the argument.

In the instance of a voluntary dependency, as argued by Darwin, this would be the ultimate weakness. Darwin and Nietzsche would argue that making the decision to rely on a substance to "normalize" life experience would be a crime against humanity; it's a step in the wrong direction.

Another point people tend to make against the use of drugs is that they create an artificial person instead of serving as an extension of who they are. It's not genuine. They are operating through a lens so that no one can know the real them.

So do we stop looking down on voluntary drug dependency and start embracing it as part of someone’s personality? Or do we start holding seemingly-minor addictions to a higher standard?

The answer to these questions (and a majority of social issues) are not going to have a black or white answer. People are versatile, dynamic, and infinitely unique. We cannot apply universal rules to universally different people. Where one rule may seem applicable to one person, it may not mean the same to another.

We need to keep in mind that the "social rules" we may or may not impose on drug usage should serve a purpose, and that purpose should be to cultivate a community of perpetual growth.

If a rule might cause a specific person to grow, it should be imposed. However, if that same rule inhibits someone's growth, it should not be implemented.

If we think that behavior is the problem and rules are the solution, we have missed a very important truth about humanity. I learned this truth in my time in the British Virgin Islands (while cleaning public school property and pulling up weeds, the locals said that when you take them out, you need to take them out at the root so they won't grow back). Similarly, if we choose to solely control behavior, it will grow back in one way or another. Rather, if we go into the root of the behavior and dig it out, the behaviors will stop.

*DISCLAIMER

Just because someone has diabetes or Alzheimer's or (insert disease/condition here) does not make them any less of a person. Failure in the human body that is beyond control is not reflective of the person who operates the body.