I know when I've done too much. — S

Usually, you find that fact out the hard way, with habit-forming drugs. Or your closest friend tells you to need to sign up for rehab over your benzodiazepine habit. If you're lucky, your family will notice a change in behavior and they might chime in also.

It is only a problem when it affects your family and responsibilities, it is addiction, but if everything that's addicting is immoral what are you to do? But, that is more of a problem with neglect than purely drugs. To my understanding.

Keep in mind you're against Socrates, not for yourself, not against me. — tim wood

Do you agree with him in that respect or not? If so, then I'm against you. I told you that I'm not interested in simply arguing against Socrates. And why haven't you presented this argument in defence of your position, whether you came up with it yourself or borrowed it from someone else?

I think that's true in most cases, but pragmatism isn't necessarily a virtue. We do all sorts of things that have no utility. An ethic of pragmatism sounds pretty dull. — Hanover

Yeah, but it's a realistic way to address the issue. Talking about what Kant would have wanted to Jeremy Bentham's satisfied pig doesn't lead us anywhere in the discussion, and we might as well talk with a wall or a book.

There are many who live their lives taking various recreational drugs throughout their lives (not me, by the way) and live happy lives. — Hanover

Yeah; but, if you asked the few of them that don't feel addicted to them if they could live their lives without the drugs, then they'd probably say yes, also. So, save the money!

What book/source says Socrates said it was immoral to break the law no matter what? I want to read it for myself. Breaking a law for breaking a law's sake is immoral. If you have a good rationale or other morals and you disagree with a law wouldn't it be wise to break it?

American Revolution happened on that basis.

Usually, you find that fact out the hard way, with habit-forming drugs. Or your closest friend tells you to need to sign up for rehab over your benzodiazepine habit. If you're lucky, your family will notice a change in behavior and they might chime in also. — Wallows

Yes, finding out the hard way, but that doesn't have to be the end of the world. You can learn a lesson and adjust appropriately going forward. It doesn't have to be rehab, addiction, or an alarming change in behaviour. That's just resorting to more extreme circumstances in an attempt to bolster your argument.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Yes, finding out the hard way, but that doesn't have to be the end of the world. You can learn a lesson and adjust appropriately going forward. It doesn't have to be rehab, addiction, or an alarming change in behaviour. That's just resorting to more extreme circumstances in an attempt to bolster your argument. — S

So, I have no idea what is your point here. I want to have my cake and eat it too? Usually, I don't know people addicted to drugs that can moderate their use over long periods of time. You have extraneous factors contributing to one's demise, like stress from a job that exacerbates drug use, or tolerance, or responsibilities conflicting with one's drug use.

Maybe in a perfect world, you get to have your cake and eat it too; but, I don't see this happening unless you're fabulously rich or some other factors.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I am not in favor of liberty without education in good moral judgment.

Drugs can enslave people and when they become addicted they loose control of their lives and can unintentionally hurt others. That is why they are controlled or illegal.

If a potentially harmful substance is made legal it absolutely should be taxed to cover the problems that can result from the substance.

With freedoms, there must be responsibilities. We seem to be at a time in history when people want freedom but not responsibility?

I follow laws if: (a) I agree with the law, or (b) the risks of getting caught breaking it are too great.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

So. "He was wrong," and, "not difficult to convincingly argue against." But you're not interested. Sorry, you're not meeting minimum standards for a discussion, here. It's admittedly prudent to back away from arguing with Socrates; try to do it with a little more grace. — tim wood

Why won't you simply say whether or not you agree with him? I've asked you directly twice now. At first you seemed to agree, but now it looks like you're the one who is backing away. You won't even present the argument, expecting me to look it up instead. I disagree with Socrates inasmuch as I disagree with the conclusion, provided it is as you say. And I disagree with it for obvious reasons, which are essentially no different to the reasons other participants in the discussion have given. There's no good reason to think that there are or could be no unjust laws. Examples can be provided if need be, but that really shouldn't be necessary. And I have no duty to follow unjust laws. Why would I? Do you have an argument for that or not? I don't want to be wasting my time here.

Can you work with Prohibition... let's not get ahead of ourselves and go down that bloody and scary part of history. I'm imagining more Renaissance a form of enlightenment not bloodshed.

@Athena "With freedoms, there must be great responsibilities" "We want freedom and not responsibility"

I guess it's a generational thing, but I'm very responsible and really care about doing right by society. I have joined the military, been to college, help out a methed out mother of 4, and have helped other homeless people and drug addicts. I am giving.

I knew what sexual abuse was at age 4. Where was the responsible generation before me on this one?

But policies and social pressures:

College was crammed down our throats and now 30% of people have a bachelors or higher and it's the new high school diploma WITH debt. Middle skill jobs are the most to go.

Corporations are squeezing more time out of us for less pay. Employers want pre-packaged employees.

Education is hit hard by moral relativism. I'm not alone on this. they aren't teaching us Civics anymore. It's changed.

Politics need I say more? Lobbying. Money is speech. Occupy Wall street (had some good premises) The border. Politicians do dumb things.

The school shootings too and the government WANTS to BAN guns. Obama shed a tear for it.

And you want me to NOT smoke pot?

So, I have no idea what is your point here. — Wallows

What don't you understand about it? I don't think I was saying anything particularly hard to grasp.

I want to have my cake and eat it too? — Wallows

No. There's nothing incompatible with taking drugs and doing so in a responsible enough manner.

Usually, I don't know people addicted to drugs that can moderate their use over long periods of time. — Wallows

We weren't talking specifically about drug addicts, so that's moving the goalposts.

You have extraneous factors contributing to one's demise, like stress from a job that exacerbates drug use, or tolerance, or responsibilities conflicting with one's drug use. — Wallows

You can have a bunch of problems ranging from those more manageable to those more severe, but don't kid yourself into believing that it'll inevitably lead you to ruin, because it doesn't have to be like that. That's just slippery slope scaremongering nonsense. I'm not quite sure whether it's stemming from naivety or whether you just have some axe to grind.

Maybe in a perfect world, you get to have your cake and eat it too; but, I don't see this happening unless you're fabulously rich or some other factors. — Wallows

A perfect world isn't necessary, and I'm not arguing in favour of having your cake and eating it - that's just your misinterpretation. Perhaps you could explain why you think that that's what I was suggesting.

What don't you understand about it? I don't think I was saying anything particularly hard to grasp. — S

I'm a little slow. What was your point again?

I'm a little slow. What was your point again? — Wallows

What's wrong with my original wording?

What's wrong with my original wording? — S

So, in my own words, you're the whole premise is that it's immoral to prevent one from being able to indulge in any drug because it's limiting one's freedom?

So, in my own words, your whole premise is that it's immoral to prevent one from being able to indulge in any drug because it's limiting one's freedom? — Wallows

No, I'm not arguing in favour of having no restraints whatsoever. I'm in favour of self-restraint and intervention when the situation calls for it. I'm also in favour of greater freedom than what the current laws are designed to curtail, and I don't agree with things like your rule about only trying a drug once, and I don't agree with the picture you're painting in terms of applicability to the general category of drug users rather than the smaller group of drug users with the problems you describe.

I'm in favour of self-restraint and intervention when the situation calls for it. — S

But, how? Drugs are addictive? How do you moderate their use on an individual level?

But, how? Drugs are addictive? How do you moderate their use on an individual level? — Wallows

Some drugs are more addictive than others, some people are more likely to become addicted than others, some people can cope better than others, and there's a whole spectrum of factors that play into that. But it's just will power to a large extent, which isn't all that complicated. You basically just exert your will to override a desire. We've all had that experience. You don't have to say yes or pick up the phone and make that call or whatever every single time. But if you switch from the broader category of drug users to the narrower category of drug addicts, then obviously that will have an effect, and how the topic is addressed will likely differ for most people, myself included. I wouldn't give the exact same answer for each change of scenario.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Some drugs are more addictive than others — S

So, you agree that heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine have no use to people due to their addictive nature? One doesn't just walk into Mordor unnoticed. It's hell to use those drugs even once.

FYI, usually addictive personalities are the ones that get most addicted. and yes there are WAY more addictive drugs than Marijuana. (Most of the excuses you hear from stoners is they don't want to.) A lot of other drugs it's a different story. Even ones doctors prescribe can be. Pain medications have been a problem with the Veteran Affairs for awhile now. Everyone is different.

Environment plays a huge role on dependence. Learned helplessness is another thing too.

Sure, I agree with Socrates argument as to the morality of breaking the law. I find his argument in Crito. I refer to it, because it's tedious to reproduce it here. You can find it on line easily. — tim wood

It's easy to find a copy of Crito. It's tedious to go looking through it searching for the argument you're referring to, then breaking it down into key premises and a conclusion. If it's your argument, as in the argument that you're appealing to in defence of your position, then it is your responsibility to present it if you really want a response from me. Otherwise it's an inconvenience that I'm inclined to deal with by adding it to a waiting list of things to do. And it's effectively a fold from you if you're not willing and able to present an argument in support of your position.

You keep backing away from the proposition and your claim. Of course there are laws most of us can agree are unjust, and perhaps they even are unjust. Your solution appears to along the lines of nullification and revolution. Either is destructive of the state. But if you want to know Socrates's argument spend just a few minutes with the Crito. — tim wood

I could go by recollection or go back over it, but neither prospect is very appealing to me.

Anyway, I was unfamiliar with the term "nullification" in this context, which is understandable considering that it's a term relating to the U.S. Constitution, and I'm from the U.K., which doesn't have a constitution and goes by a different system with different terminology.

I wouldn't necessarily advocate for revolution. That's an extreme measure. My first thought would be that reform is what would be required. And it would be utter poppycock to call an advocation of reform destructive to the state, especially without even knowing any specific details. Under the assumption that the state is indeed in need of reform, it would be highly misleading to call the implementation of that reform destructive, because it would be a restructuring, and the end result would be an improvement.

So, you agree that heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine have no use to people due to their addictive nature? — Wallows

No. Are you kidding me? That would require quite a big leap in the opposite direction from what I've actually been saying.

One doesn't just walk into Mordor unnoticed. It's hell to use those drugs even once. — Wallows

Do you know what? Based on that response, I don't think that this is going to be a constructive exchange. I think maybe I'll just leave you and your ingrained preconceptions be.

Socrates explains how it is a "general principle". Generally speaking yes, but like I said if it is unjust which is against generally what happens? I mean no one is saying they are constantly and blatantly creating unjust laws. Some laws are legit (most maybe?).

-Unneeded Space-

Socrates is a lot like Jesus they both died for standing up for what they believed in. Martin Luther King Jr. was similar. These people changed society and the laws. Not to keep them in place.

Crito shows me to stand up for what I believe in even if it means death. I'm willing to bet Socrates would still "Corrupt the youth". He still held his opinions.

Am I understanding it correctly?