I don’t drink alcohol or take any drugs recreationally, and never have. I realize that that puts me in a fringe minority of the population, especially because it’s not for any kind of religious reason. The drive to use psychoactive substances is nearly universal, so I’m an outlier. Why do I value personal teetotalism?
I consider Penn Jillette an inspiration for this decision. Penn’s libertarianism obviously doesn’t imply personal or political teetotalism, but personal teetotalism does offer a solid rhetorical point for libertarianism: that one can choose not to consume even a legal substance like alcohol highlights that the primary basis of a choice to use a drug isn’t the law. Having this rhetorical point isn’t a reason for Penn or me to choose teetotalism, but it is an additional compatible argument that disconfirms the omnipresent claims that libertarians advocate for drug legalization only out of a selfish, personal desire to use drugs.
One core reason for Penn’s teetotalism is simply that he wants to be smarter, and using psychoactive drugs recreationally obviously makes you stupider, even if just temporarily. James Randi, who is an inspiration to Penn Jillette for his scientific skepticism, is also a teetotaler. Randi articulates part of my justification for teetotalism: having control over your mind and understanding and addressing reality as accurately as possible. This is a big part of my justification. Once you study a bit of the literature on heuristics and biases, you’ll realize that your own map of reality is already hopelessly flawed. It seems base to me to handicap myself even more.
It is often said that the young drink to rebel. I just never picked up this habit. Maybe it was just to express my own individuality, rebelling against the popular notion of youthful rebellion? I have always been weirded out by conformity.
It’s not just that as a utilitarian I want to appreciate and understand every precious moment of my own existence. It’s also that as a materialist atheist I recognize that consciousness arises from a physical process in the brain only. Taking a psychoactive substance isn’t modifying the access point to the mind; it is modifying the mind itself.
How does this play out socially? I find that drinkers roughly fall into two categories, those who use alcohol as a substitute for experience, and those who use alcohol as a complement for experience. I should caveat that obviously one person can be a different kind of drinker at different points in time.
Some people drink as a substitute for meaning and happiness. Unsatisfied with their classes, jobs, careers, or personal lives, they drink for a temporary escape. These kinds of drinkers have little to look forward to other than a break from an otherwise unfulfilled life.
Others use drinking as a complement to their own lives. Already having attained, or at least successfully striving for meaning, purpose, and value in their lives, personal and professional, they use alcohol to enhance their lives, enjoying the physiological effects for their own sake, enjoying the taste of the drinks for their own sake, and perhaps using alcohol as a social lubricant.
I think that substitute drinkers often suffer low self-esteem, and that they have a hard time socializing with principled teetotalers like myself. In a social situation, a substitute drinker feels threatened by a composed, happy teetotaler who doesn’t use alcohol as a crutch. By juxtaposition, the teetotaler’s very presence calls attention to the substitute drinker’s void by not validating the substitute drinker’s behavior. Since they’re Insecure, substitute drinkers more often seek to socialize with other substitute drinkers to validate their decisions. Humans, after all, do have biological drives for conformity.
There’s a habit among substitute drinkers to use the nuances of drinks as a vehicle for vacuous conversation. I find excessive deliberation about a drink’s attributes, or talk about what a drink says about a person, endlessly insipid.
Complement drinkers on the other hand, well-adjusted and secure, can socialize with teetotalers quite well, because complement drinkers are not threatened by teetotalers. Complement drinkers can be interesting, can abstract, and can carry on conversations about more interesting things than the drink they’re holding and what exists only in their immediate vicinity.
Exclusively socializing with other non-religious teetotalers would be a quixotic task, since there are too few, so I do my best to seek out complement drinkers instead of substitute drinkers.
Cross-posted to The Paltry Press
{ 3 comments }




More Thoughts & Corrections on Gender Neutrality
by Aaron on May 25, 2011
in Philosophy,Psychology
Reader V.A. Luttrell writes in to correct a mistake I made in the last post on gender neutrality in children:
1. I think you are conflating, based on this sentence and the surrounding paragraph, gender and sex. They are, in fact, two different if related things.
She’s right, I did mean “sex” instead of “gender”. And admittedly, by saying sex is mostly binary, I was trying to sidestep the whole issue of the sexual spectrum and intersexual folks. Mostly out of laziness, but also because it’s secondary to the point of the post.
Of course the toys one buys children will have an impact on how they see the world, and their place in it. But the answer isn’t to shelter your child from influence, or to coddle them from the very real existence of gender stereotypes and roles. It’s to provide them alternatives, and a framework for evaluating how important those assumptions have been to them. Consider a boy child picking up a clearly feminine doll, like a Barbie or that new creepy doll that simulates breastfeeding. If that is the only available toy it’s a much less meaningful choice than if he walked past or rejected a hyper-masculine army man to get to it.
Concerning the impact of implicit gender roles, there’s some evidence that implications are much less weighty than one might think. Chaz Bono talked in the Old Grey Lady about his innate feeling of ‘wrongness’ when confronted with his nominally female identity:
I knew my whole life something was different. As a small kid, I could be one of the boys, playing sports, fitting in. When I hit puberty, I felt like my body was literally betraying me. I got smacked everywhere with femaleness. That was really traumatic.
The things we’re given and the ideas we’re saddled with aren’t what determine us, unless we abdicate the unique set of responsibilities and thoughts we all have. These parents are trying to make a grand indictment of some “system” at the expense of their child, when they could achieve the same result by nurturing Storm’s creativity, imbuing Storm with a sense of both responsibility and possibility, and gifting Storm with a questioning mind unsatisfied by assumptions or the status quo. That is, they could achieve all they’re trying to prove by being good parents, but soldiering away like that wouldn’t get reporters in the house or give them a stage for their sweeping pronouncements.
Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”
V.A.’s whole comments are worth reading, and admittedly I tried to talk about gender without invoking the sexual identity spectrum because that is a broader, murkier, and less interesting discussion. You should feel free to behave how you like, as long as you don’t hurt anyone. That goes for sex, politics, how you conduct your business, and what you put in your body.
{ 1 comment }