Should the state drug people to make them less violent, happier, smarter, etc?

This would be through compulsory injections/medication that we would be required to take (think of the films The Giver and Equilibrium).

It may be quite authoritarian, but if it was benevolent (i.e. just useful medication) then I think I would be fine with it. Society would undoubtedly improve. If medicine advanced, it might get to the stage where we remove almost all violence through medication.

Views?

Reply 1

Photovoltaic.

Original post by Lady Comstock

Have seen this kinda chit in movies. Never works out.

Reply 2

Tiger Rag

No. Not all drugs affect people in the same way. And some of us take enough drugs everyday. Already up to 6 and don't want to take any more, thank you.

Reply 3

Pathway

People shouldn't be forced into taking something that could impact their health. That's a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

Reply 4

Tiger Rag

The side effects of some medication is absolutely horrible. I currently take something which can give me seizures and can mess up my kidneys. It has also left me chronically dehydrated and gives me pins and needles in both feet and one hand.

A lot of people (including me) have also complained it makes them feel rather dopey.

Reply 5

earthworm

The state do this already, under section 3 of the mental healh act.

Reply 6

DiddyDec01

Or Equilibrium.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7

username1221160

A state which forces injections on people for a theoretical medication that fundamentally altered their personality is an inherently violent one. Such a scenario wouldn't create a better society, just a society of placid, obedient drones.

Reply 8

trustmeimlying1

Original post by Tiger Rag

what yeh taking

Reply 9

viddy9

Original post by Lady Comstock

Making people less violent, more ethical, more intelligent and more happy can be carried out in a variety of ways. Individuals should be free to take drugs without significant harmful side-effects that achieve these purposes, and indeed some individuals do so already. Nonetheless, I do not believe that the state should force people to do these things.

The same applies for more sophisticated methods of achieving some of these goals. Genetic engineering, for example, could be used to lower the intensity of the pain that we experience (indeed, individuals with some variants of the SCN9A gene experience lower intensities of pain than those with other variants), or indeed eliminate involuntary suffering altogether. Suffering does serve a purpose, but advances in neuroprosthetics could mean that cyborgification of our bodies could replace feeling pain when it comes to detecting harmful stimuli.

Similarly, genetic engineering could be used to raise our hedonic set-point, so that our average levels of happiness are higher. But, again, using Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis or indeed genetic engineering of the human germline to code for these characteristics should be voluntary; the state should not force this onto people.

One area in which the state should take an active role is with the issue of non-human animals, particularly those in the wild. As part of a broader project to increase happiness and eliminate suffering in the world, we would also have to end suffering in the wild as well. That would mean phasing out predation, either by sterilising predators or genetically engineering them to become herbivores. This would be a massive task and the state would also have to control the populations of the prey so as to ensure that a population explosion does not occur.

These ideas are closer to the mainstream than one might think: there have already been proposals to eliminate malarial mosquitoes through genetic engineering, for example.

Reply 10

Tiger Rag

Original post by trustmeimlying1

what yeh taking

Topirimate

Reply 11

Captain Haddock

Nah I'll just keep doing it myself thanks.

Reply 12

Jack Butters

Original post by Lady Comstock

Yeahhhhh no, Although I agree with how it works at the moment (doctors can sedate violent patients or inmates) i don't think it's right to drug people as a precautionary measure. In my opinion, seems like a way of dehumanising society as a whole.

As stated in the other comments, drugs affect different people in different ways (hence all the side effects listed on any medication). Money saved on policing due to lower crime rates would probably have to be reinvested in medical care.

that being said, I agree with the legalisation of marijuana, great for the economy, less addictive than already legal substances and just because you make it legal, doesn't mean everyone is going to start using it. Revenue created from the sale of it could be reinvested in R&D/production of the plant and also into medical care in regards to any mental health problems that may occur while the plants strains are still being tested and fine tuned.

Reply 13

Joinedup

Original post by Lady Comstock

Perhaps also watch (or read) 'A Clockwork Orange'

If you've removed the freedom to make 'bad' choices from people doesn't that mean you made them less human?

Reply 14

llys

To make them less violent, yes - either that or lock them up for good. Sorry if a violent person disagrees, that's their own fault. I'm also in favour of chemical castration.

To make them happier, or smarter, no, though perhaps these drugs shouldn't be illegal, so everyone could take them if they wanted to.

Reply 15

username1967813

Original post by Lady Comstock

One of my fave films. I clicked on this thread and wondered if it would be mentioned. Also reminds me of Brave New World

I believe that taking drugs simply to suppress violent behaviour only is too simplistic. I'm no psychologist but I think human emotions are very complex and it would be impossible to selectively suppress certain ones; you'd either have to suppress all of them (like in Equilibrium) or none of them

Reply 16

Drunk Punx

Everyone should get a joint with their weekly paypacket tbh.

Srs. Kinda difficult to beat someone up when the couch is too damn comfy to warrant leaving it for anything other than food.