Is it moral to take illegal drugs? — tim wood

So, the issue is how you framed the issue. According to my interactions with you in this thread, you operate on the basis an individualistic Kantian categorical imperative of not breaking the law, which is understandable. Though, what S is doing is not criticizing the Kantian individual, rather the laws that govern his or her behavior. So, don't take it personally, is all I'm saying.

Ad hominems aside, what's the issue here. Again, it's as if you have a hard time coming to terms with our drug-crazed culture here in the great States.

There's another philosophy forum that reviews every post made by some moderator. This site inherently gets a lot more traffic, and unless a revolution is fermenting I don't see the same peer-reviewed standards applying here as opposed to this place:

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums

Yeah, I heard the withdrawals can be pretty bad. One person told me in confidence that he would rather break his leg or arm than go through an opioid withdrawal. That being said, the inevitability of the withdrawals should give you some consideration about human rationality or rather irrationality.

Wallows is wallowing... :blush:

Lol, the vibrance of TimeLine will never fade.

Ah indeed. Don't know how that slipped my mind. His famous bicycle ride comes to mind.

Cool, so what are your grand plans in the scheme of things, disregarding everything that has been said thus far, catharsis and all that jazz?

Yeah, just to give you some reassurance that my intentions are clear, I am not a psychologist, am on disability myself due to schizophrenia/psychotic disorder, and I'm not trolling you otherwise I would have been banned a long time ago on this site. Though, people with less than sincere intentions can come along (doubtful). So, what I'm saying is I can relate in some small manner or form.

Do you mind me asking what antipsychotic are you taking? I'm like a Hindu cow on Zyprexa (Olanzapine). 20mg once a day. Haha.

Sorry if I asserted that if untrue. Like I said straw men are bound to arise over such an intricate topic.

Best regards.

Message a mod. Probably got caught by the spam filter accidentally.

Fatalism? Ouch. Well, you're allowed your subjectivity, so am I. — THX1138

I didn't mean it in the derogative sense that you'll always feel this way about the whole issue. It's just my sentiment that psychology is fatalistic in how they view motivations stemming from past experiences, instead of future rewards or goals in mind, where adaptation and the survival instinct reigns supreme.

I do feel damaged though, I can't deny that. — THX1138

In what sense? Morally, mentally, psychologically, or some other adjective?

Funny enough, the individuals whom have threatened to libel me are nearly all gay. Funnier still, many of them have their own stories about childhood sexual encounters with adults (neighbors, cousins, brothers, uncles, stepdads, even fathers and older friends of fathers). Even though they've snugly told me their accounts with a mischievous gleam in their eyes, they ultimately feel pedophilia is abhorrent and henious now. How convienent, guess there's a method to having your cake and eating it too after all. — THX1138

Glad your reaction is to laugh at the issue. I say try surrounding yourself with a different company or crowd instead of exposing yourself to future misgivings by other people.

So, I'm fatally (it seems) surrounded by hypocrites threatening to blast me because I'm honest about how I feel over my experience. — THX1138

Yeah, so change the crowd to more caring and emphatic people instead of exposing yourself (in some fatalistic manner) to abuse.

So, just taking a step back.

You, THX1138 have made the claim that if someone wanted to they could track you through invading your privacy.
I say there's nobody after you to quell your anxiety and paranoia.
You say that the police, the community you live in, friends, and other people are not your enemies yet play mind tricks with you like gaslighting and such stuff and were your oppressors in regards to the valence of your experiences.
I say that this view is distorted by most likely your diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and inability to integrate your experiences into a holistic whole.
You say that the pedophile that exploited you was some imagined father figure who showed you (possibly or in your view at least) love and care. Some promises may have been made and secrets to be kept by him towards you to feed this narrative.
I would say that what he did was wrong to be a child molester and predator.
Now, you would disagree with me on grounds of the authenticity and genuineness of the experience. I mean, some people like to drive their cars fast to get a thrill out of it, whilst I kind of grew out of that urge to wake up at 3AM and race on the freeway.

Is the straw man complete?

Now, I should ask, what are your goals in life after all these misfortunes that happened to occur to you, rather, unfortunately?

Your second sentence I do not quite understand. — tim wood

Well, you've placed your Kantian hero on a pedestal and gave him some sort of authority over all matters pertaining to morality and ethics. Quite an oppressive and stifling person to be around, hence not many nice things can be had with him or her.

As account, I suppose state sovereignty is an artifact of the ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution. — tim wood

You say that disparagingly. I find the sovereignty of states, as some sort of release valve for a populace.

Nope, not me. Certainly not Kant. His community was governed by humanistic reason. Not at all by community opinion. He was willing to look at and consider community wisdom, however, but not to be governed by it even slightly, if it conflict with reason. — tim wood

Yes, indeed there is a conflict here. Your authoritarian would be Kantian dictator is clearly infallible. So, I'll just keep mum to myself about the issue of drugs if I even encounter this Kantian ubermensch one day.

As addicts, not culpable. As people, culpable. As addicts, not people. As actions, immoral. As actions by an addict, immorality without a culpable agent. Please consider substituting "responsible" for "culpable." Culpability implies blameworthy, which implies an other who assigns blame or fault. Responsibility implies an inner obligation, which I think comports better with morality. — tim wood

To psychologize the issue, why the excessive compartmentalization? It's almost as if you're having trouble coming to terms with the fact that there is an opioid epidemic in the US or meth is being shipped by the ton from labs in Mexico to the States, et cetera, et cetera.

... but, these people were my oppressors. — THX1138

Fatalism aside, do you still feel that way to this day?

Wow, that's a lot to share. I will ponder over it over some time. In the meanwhile, try some meditation. You seem to be fragmented and have chosen to live in the past with these traumatic memories you are sharing. Just an observation; but, you seem to have sided with the ruthless exploitation of your would-be oppressor rather than with a community, the police, or friends. I'm not adept enough to give you advice on how to integrate these memories into your identity.

I hope you can find a home to further ensure some much-needed stability in your life.

Fair enough. Presupposed is that the drugs in question may be beneficial, and that the benefit outweighs any downside. Left is the matter of the community. — tim wood

Your concept of what constitutes a community is somewhat ambiguous. How do you explain the fact that certain states have opted for legalizing marijuana and yet, we still have on national level illegality towards the drug?

And to extend this, I hold that morality has a component of duty, as understood in Kantian terms. That is, that there are actions a person should undertake, and naturally would were they free. But that most people are not free, and thus have to work at duty, a fortiori, being moral. — tim wood

Yeah, and this explains why we can't have nice things. It's a gross ad hoc generalization to assume that duty supersedes any chance of making a humanistic mistake such as taking drugs. And, again, you seem to be advocating a Kantian ethical concern deriving from what a community deems as acceptable. So, I refer you back to my first paragraph of this post.

Hmm. I had occasions where I expressed my opinion to addicts I had met that I felt - had learned as a hard lesson - it was a fundamental error to regard an addict as a person while they were in the grip of their addiction. They all agreed without demur, even with some enthusiasm as if I had achieved some level of understanding. That is, the addict lies outside of considerations of morality or immorality, his or her actions as an addict on the level of the actions of animals, the morality being reduced to an abstract consideration. — tim wood

I can empathize with this view. Yet...

The addict as addict, then, is a personification of immorality. — tim wood

That's daft and doesn't really make sense. If the level of insight into their own condition is impaired by their addiction, then how does that make them culpable for the alleged immorality they are going about doing with their lives?

I guess if I'm not going to stop calling the World I'm in into question, it's only fair that I also never stop calling myself into question. Considering awareness seems to be a general preoccupation of mine. — THX1138

I don't see how that is possible. You have some options here:

Turn inward and internalize the issue, leading to some future ailments or exacerbation of current ones.
Look outward and blame society for what happened to you and form an attitude of disregard and hate.
Become indifferent towards both your internal and external struggles and go along jolly well...

I'd pick becoming indifferent along with recognizing the frailty and ineptitude of society for landing you on the streets along with nobody being there when you most needed to consult with someone before making your decision to spend time with the pedophile.

The most important question you could ask a hypothetical talking fish is what does the water feel like.

Metaphysics 101.

Psychoceramics...

You seem to have a lot of knowledge, but never until reading your post has it occurred to me that someone can have knowledge yet not know. — tim wood

Well, I tend to treat this place as a theater where instead of suspending disbelief I suspend judgment. The only way to maintain one's views while integrating new positions and thoughts on a topic. You should try it sometime. :sweat:

You write about the possible benefits of drugs and investigations into their powers, some appalling. And as well propaganda about drugs, and the allure and power of some of them that makes control very difficult. — tim wood

Yeah, I am cognizant of their deleterious effects along with potential benefits. Please keep in mind, that most of what I said in regards to drugs are meant to be taken in controlled settings and not haphazardly willy nilly on a whim.

But as S. points out with his usual asperity, the question isn't one of the hard ones, rather it's simple. It's in the OP: it is the OP! — tim wood

I'd like to point out that if you want to profess the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, then I can't stop you from doing so.

With your experience of drugs, can you look us in the eye and tell us that taking them has no aspect of immorality? (immorality as I have defined it - or if you don't like mine, then you offer one.) — tim wood

The only instances where this question has popped up in my mind is where was my money going and who was it supporting. I've taken many drugs produced by labs in China. I've been careful to never indulge in stuff like heroin (most likely originating from Afghanistan or Southern American cartels) or cocaine (South American cartels). I have no interest in heroin or cocaine. Now, I would redefine the morality of taking drugs as a more nuanced understanding as a clinical approach and understanding this in terms of not "good or bad" but rather to what end are these drugs being consumed(?) My understanding from my own experience is that self-medication was the primary motive for taking (predominantly) stimulants. I have pretty bad depression and ADD-PI (Attention Deficit Disorder- Primarily Inattentive). Stimulants would temporarily alleviate the ADD and depression and allow me to focus on schoolwork and some intellectually stimulating tasks, like reading a book.

Anyway, the issue really is about addiction in my opinion. If meth wasn't so addictive (I still crave it), then I'd be all for it. Pot isn't addictive; but, if my memory of statistics is correct it doesn't bode well for academic achievement, rather retards it.

Back when I was in college, some large percentage of the class I was taking an econometrics class dropped out, while the ones who remained were on Adderall. So, I might as well ask you the question, which isn't so loaded as the one in this thread, is it immoral to take performance-enhancing drugs?

So, I think you can play devil's advocate for so long, so here's my take.

Given that we prescribe in the great States, amphetamine or Ritalin to kids for ADHD, I find it highly dubious to say that pot should be illegal. Marijuana only became illegal because of the cotton and paper industry in the US. More people die yearly from aspirin than from marijuana. It's incredibly hard to overdose on marijuana if not impossible.

LSD-25 was created by the CIA through their MK-ULTRA program on assessing the possibility of creating Manchurian candidates or some really far out ideas like mind control. If you go deep enough into YouTube you can find testimonies by ordinary citizens about being test subjects for the MK-ULTRA program. Sounds wacky; but, it's true. After a psychedelic trip, there are irreversible changes that are elicited through epigenetic mechanisms. Core facets of personality are altered to some degree, such as openness, oneness, and appreciation of what one has. Microdosing LSD-25 is a hot fad nowadays. People from Silicon Valley are taking it under the assumption that it encourages creativity, productivity, and awareness.

Personally, I've tried many drugs and became addicted to some hard stuff like meth and 4F-MPH (analog of Ritalin; but, super potent and strong stuff). The military even assessed the possibility of amphetamine increasing the morale of soldiers during WWII. The results did not warrant further research on the topic, and the Nazis were quick to stop giving their soldiers Pervitin after seeing the emergence of psychosis after some nights of not having any sleep for the poor soldier. They even thought that sleep could be done away with entirely, which nowadays would seem absurd. Yet, we have created ergogenics like Modafinil for airline pilots or for those suffering from narcolepsy.

MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) is perhaps the only association investigating how psychedelics can be used to treat anxiety, phobias, OCD, alcoholism, addictions, depression, and some long list of other ailments of the mind. Ayahuasca is probably going to make a comeback to treat stuff like addictions and phobias. Ketamine is already being sold as a nasal spray in the States as of recent.

There's a lot to learn from these compound that scientists are researching and hoping with anticipation get government funding for.

I have always resented the "drugs are bad" mantra that goes around in schools. Deterrence just doesn't work against these drugs. It hasn't worked for alcohol during the prohibition period, and won't nowadays. I've heard that if you remove the "Whoo" factor or the taboo from such drugs, people would go on just fine with them.

Anyway, my two pennies.

I just ate my cake. — Sam26

Oh, did you. Do you think it is possible that Wittgenstein would have thought highly of these insightful sayings? I find them irresistibly concise and worthy of admiration to say something like "there is no free lunch". Something about them strikes a person as a bedrock and unshakable "truth or belief".

I really do wonder what impressed Keynes so greatly that he exclaimed that God [Wittgenstein] stepped out of the train [at some time].

Whatever floats your boat. — Sam26

Finally, someone else said it. It's really a great saying IMO. Somewhere up there with a rising tide lifts all boats, and there's no free lunch. And maybe even topping, you can't have a cake and eat it too.

Yes, you're most likely right, because he doesn't think outside of the box. — S

Yes, a box is enough entertainment for Oksa. How is she?

Hope this keeps you out of a Portuguese prison! — tim wood

Haha!

I never said that and I don't know why Portugal opted for decriminalization. Perhaps they wanted to become the next best narcotourist hub or destination after The Netherlands... Not being serious here.

I mentioned that because being well-informed clearly relates to responsibility. That's not unique to drug taking, that's true in general. — S

Well, trying to reduce the whole issue to a matter of taste or preference really isn't going to fly in @tim wood's mind. As to why this hasn't been pointed out already baffles me.

Anyway, S, I hope you test your drugs or MDMA and don't get a bad batch of 2-DPMP or 6-APB or 5-MAPB. Well, 5-MAPB is pretty hard to get; but, was indistinguishable from regular MDMA according to psychonauts.

Also, 2-DPMP or Ivory Wave was a direct causal link in the laws that got passed in the UK banning all designer drugs, bath salts, and research chemicals.

I have read and memorised a lot of information about drugs. — S

Well, my second living deals with synthesizing and distributing novel research chemicals from China to the world, so I'm not sure why this would give me any authority on the matter of assessing the merits of taking XYZ drug as does your non-facetious claim that you have memorized a great deal of info on the effects drugs have.

Anyway, since you know what's best for you, then I might as well just say, whatever floats your boat.

But why, exactly, did Portugal decriminalize drugs? — tim wood

Good question. I don't know. It seems that decriminalization was an alternative to the conservative agenda over here in the US.

I'm also from California where the black market will never be beat despite legalization of marijuana, which is the drug the OP had in mind.

decriminalization is not the same as legalization, yes? — tim wood

Yes. Though Canada is right now the leader in making marijuana legal on a national level.

Second question: Do you think drugs are good for people? — tim wood

Assessment of their utility isn't my background. But, again talking about marijuana it seems that the leaders in placing a value on its utility are Israeli medical professionals. Even places like Israel are changing their minds about the medicinal value of pot. Other drugs like heroin or crystal meth have little known utility apart from temporary pain management to treating ADHD. And methamphetamine can actually be obtained as a prescription here in the US.

Go figure...

Go back and read. The question goes to immorality. — tim wood

Yeah, I already read your post twice or so. Still, not everyone lives in the US where we still have pot as a Schedule I drug. If I happened to live in Portugal where all drugs have been decriminalized, then does your argument still apply?

You can tell that I'm an intelligent, thoughtful, well-read person. — S

Haha, I can't tell that. It's just a forum and I can't surmise what or who you may be.

Lol, then be facetious. Ain't none of my business what you take to get you through the day or night.

Anyway, if one assumes such a nonchalant attitude towards drugs, then all I can say is so be it.

But that's all he has to go by, and his pallette consists of just black and white. No grey. If it's illegal, it's wrong. If it causes harm, it's bad. If it's a drug, it's bad. If you take them, you're irresponsible. Community! Therefore wrong. — S

Yeah; but, some (not all) drugs are dangerous and irresponsible to use. So, I can see some merit to his argument about harm reduction. Funny enough, you might like this place called "Bluelight", a forum for drug users, which is all about harm reduction. So, even the most staunch drug users are aware of the fact that drugs can be a bad thing or at least can be harmful to the user if not others related or close to a drug user...

Ultimately, immorality is betrayal of self and community and self as community. — tim wood

Depends on where you live, don't you think? It also depends on whether one is addicted to a drug or not. Some drugs are just flat out dangerous and irresponsible to use, like heroin or methamphetamine. Some drugs have some utility, like pot or MDMA. So, I don't think painting with a wide brush is apt here, as some drugs have their uses. Also, the same rules don't apply to countries you don't reside in. Like Portugal, where all drugs have become decriminalized or Holland, which is eons more liberal than places like the States wrt. to drugs.

The point about Heidegger, in particular, is that he really was 'a philosopher of the human condition'. — Wayfarer

I'm afraid you'll have to expand on why you think that is. I don't think I'll ever get around to reading Heidegger as there's so much ambiguity around his treatment of philosophic terms and stipulations. Am I missing out on something big here?

adequately sophisticated formal system — Wallows

And, I'll just point out that this is gibberish. Q.E.D?

I think of the other two as far more academic specialists in their orientation. — Wayfarer

Well, yes; but, they attempted at answering the unsolvable in their own way (through logic). But, if logic fails to produce a valid "methodology" at such attempts, then I don't see how you're going to solve the problem in any other adequately sophisticated formal system. Hence, the seventh proposition of the TLP?

methodical attempt — Wayfarer

For some reason, this sticks out, and my answer would be to look at others (like Tarski or even Godel) for any kind of elucidation at such attempts.