1

I'm not referring to drugs that harm the body. I am asking about someone who uses opioid pain killers to feel "high" and as a coping mechanism. The route of administration is not dangerous like needles or smoking.

DanF
  • 70,416
  • 8
  • 59
  • 244
Sochacz
  • 477
  • 2
  • 12
  • 1
    See this related question on marijuana, and note the weakness of the arguments against it. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10609/is-one-allowed-to-smoke-marijuana – mevaqesh Jan 11 '18 at 17:47
  • 6
    Taking pain killers to feel "high" does hurt you. I don't know where you learned otherwise. – ezra Jan 11 '18 at 17:51
  • 1
    Adding to what @ezra stated, let's start with a general rule. One is not allowed to intentionally harm his body. Now to the analogies - There are several places in halacha, Ramaba"m among one place and I think O.C. in another, that prohibit someone from excessive eating (after he eats enough to satisfy his hunger) b/c that harms the body. Halacha, likewise, prohibits drunkenness b/c it harms the mind and causes bad behavior. There's enough scientific evidence showing the harmful bodily effects of long-term opioid use. I would think that it would be prohibited. – DanF Jan 11 '18 at 18:12

1 Answers1

2

In my understanding, Mutar and Asur are not dichotomous values of the Halakha, rather it is a long scale ranging from very bad explicit sins to highest levels of Kiddush Hashem.

Depending on person's spiritual level on this scale, all behaviors are valued as either Isur or Heter, relatively to his level. For example, using opioids for recreation for a Torah scholar would fall under Bitul Torah and be seriously Asur, but for one who use it to stay away from adultery or eases keeping Shabbos, that can turn into not only Mutar but almost a Mitzvah.

My point is, that as smoking (or other use) is not an explicit prohibition, it must be seen relatively to one's spiritual level.

Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57
  • 1
    There is something called objective halakha. Not everything depends on a person's level. That idea is antithetical to Judaism. If you didn't mean literally everything, then please edit to clarify. – mevaqesh Jan 12 '18 at 00:13
  • I think your confusing level (whatever that is) with intent. – Double AA Jan 12 '18 at 01:07
  • @mevaqesh This line of thought actually points to an interesting dichotomy that I have been wanting to post as a question, but cannot figure out how to phrase. Everyone knows that there is objective halakha, but I have also heard rabbis say that what is acceptable (or at least not terrible) for one person could be totally forbidden for another. It seems to be wrapped up with ideas around how people were raised, what community they are part of, etc. Is there a name for this concept that I could research to formulate a more coherent question? – Mike Jan 12 '18 at 03:29
  • @Mike Yes. That is basically true, although halakha constitutes both the minimal non-negotiable requirements for a Jew, and the primary path for Jewish religious expression, there are other sorts of behaviour that can be considered crude or inappropriate, and as one develops must (for meta-halakhic reasons) learn to avoid. An example of such behaviour would likely be drunkenness. – mevaqesh Jan 12 '18 at 07:17
  • @Mike [cont.] Importantly, while something permitted by halakha may nevertheless be inappropriate sometimes (for reasons outside the halakhic system), that which is forbidden by the halakhic system cannot generally be justifies from outside the system. This post (apparently) confuses meta-halakhic stringency over halakha, with meta-halakhic leniency against halakha. – mevaqesh Jan 12 '18 at 07:18
  • 1
    @mevaqesh none of these comments are even tangentially connected the OPs answer - please remove – Shoel U'Meishiv Jan 12 '18 at 11:00
  • 1
    @shoel you are not correct. They relate to Depending on person's spiritual level on this scale, all behaviors are valued as either Isur or Heter, relatively to his level. – mevaqesh Jan 12 '18 at 16:41
  • @mevaqesh I agree with him, we should open a different question on this topic. – Al Berko Jan 13 '18 at 16:45
  • As noted, your sweeping anti halakhic statement is false. Maybe you didn't mean it. Regardless you need to clarify that here. If you also want to ask a separate question, that is fine. – mevaqesh Jan 14 '18 at 03:16