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. — S

I think it is universally accepted that drugs that are habit-forming are bad stuff. Let's call a spade a spade, not a gardening tool?

I think this question can be broken down some:

1. Is doing anything illegal immoral?
2. Is marijuana consumption immoral?

1. Typically in democratic societies, laws are created and enforced by society for society. In some ways laws can be thought of as an agreement between individuals in a society and the state/government. So if something has been deemed unhelpful or harmful to a society and its values to the extent it has been written into law, then it must be immoral to commit acts of civil disobedience in a democracy where it is assumed there are peaceful and constructive ways to contest law...right?

Well yes and no.

For civil disobedience to be considered immoral you would have to at least assume there was no bias in democracy however, with many first world democracies being a result of colonialism, the foundations of our current day laws are already biased. So as has been the case with cultural revolutions, be they race, gender, or class related, civil disobedience is sometimes the only way for the minority to be heard.

For something to have moral value, more than one sentient being needs to be present otherwise we're left with the moral equivalent of the proverb "if a tree falls in the woods with noone to hear it, does it make a sound."

So, from the viewpoint of civic duty - no you don't always have to follow the law to be moral, but are you not following the law in order to achieve a greater good? If you're using marijuana privately and noone knows about it, does it matter?

2. Marijuana is a psychotropic drug which alters brain activity. On a scale of intensity I'd put this substance on the 'mid to low' end of the scale. I think like other substances that alter the biochemistry of people, the morality of use is context dependent. Like Alcohol in certain amounts at specific occasions seems to be ok, in contrast large amounts too often leads to anti-social behaviour, dysfunction and even permanent physical damage/death. With Marijuana I think if you have reasonable amounts, at reasonable intervals and you can still function well in your roles (as a family member, parent, student, employee etc) then it is fine. I'd link Morality with responsibility for substance taking. If your substance isn't negatively impacting on the quality of your life and those around you, then I think it is morally acceptable to break the law and fight for legalisation should there be proven benefits of taking the substance. If your habit is out of control and you become a burden on society then I think it becomes immoral to continue to take the substance and it would be immoral to take at any point after it has been established you have a problem.

Oh also when a substance is illegal you need to consider where you're getting the substance from. Is your money helping gangs etc?

Are you the kind of person you'd want in your community?. — tim wood

Yes of course. I'm very pro-subversion. The kind of person I don't want is someone who'll follow a law they don't agree with simply because it's a law. I'm not saying any law is a law simply to be a law (and it's ridiculous that anyone would read anything I said that way), I'm talking about motivations for following it. I'm talking about "I don't agree with this law, I don't agree with the reasoning for it, I don't agree with the context that the reasoning and law arise in, I think it's a bad idea, I disagree with it morally, etc. , so I'm not going to follow it (unless the risks of getting caught breaking it are too great)" as opposed to someone saying any or all of that yet thinking, "But it is the law after all, so nevertheless I must follow it/I have a moral duty to follow it." The latter is what I don't want.

I think it is universally accepted that drugs that are habit-forming are bad stuff. — Wallows

No. Nothing - or maybe next to nothing - is universally accepted, and this is certainly no exception. What you're talking about is not an uncommon opinion, but not an opinion that is shared by everyone. These opinions can be contagious, but unless you've experienced it yourself, you can never know what it's like to the full extent, and sometimes that experience can turn out to be different in ways than what you might expect or have been lead to believe.

Virtually any drug can count as habit-forming, and not everyone thinks that all drugs are bad stuff. And even the more extreme ones are not universally considered to be bad stuff.

Let's call a spade a spade, not a gardening tool? — Wallows

Okay, good idea. So let's be clear that drugs are drugs - a physical substance - and considerations are considerations - something like a judgement in this context. You won't find "badness" under a microscope, no matter how hard you look.

Yeah, I don't think that they're "bad stuff" just because someone has a habit with it. Much more is necessary for me to think that a situation is bad for someone other than the person having whatever drug habit. (And I have tons of prolonged experiences with people with drug habits --I've been a professional musician my whole life.)

No. Nothing - or maybe next to nothing - is universally accepted, and this is certainly no exception. — S

Forgive me, but you sound like one of those flat-earthers that insist that their opinion is valid even if science proves them wrong countless times.

What you're talking about is not an uncommon opinion, but not an opinion that is shared by everyone. — S

It's shared enough by my dealing with hearing about how meth destroyed lives or how heroin broke families apart.

These opinions can be contagious, but unless you've experienced it yourself, you can never know what it's like to the full extent, and sometimes that experience can turn out to be different in ways than what you might expect or have been lead to believe. — S

Actually, it's not a personal opinion. I am currently in a substance abuse program at my county clinic to address my own addiction stemming from the fallacious belief that I know what's best for me(!), when in fact it was a really bad idea.

Okay, good idea. So let's be clear that drugs are drugs - a physical substance - and considerations are considerations - something like a judgement in this context. You won't find "badness" under a microscope, no matter how hard you look. — S

Yeah, sure it's just a drug until consumed, which them alters your mind in unpredictable ways. In ways that might not be in your best interest.

Forgive me, but you sound like one of those flat-earthers that insist that their opinion is valid even if science proves them wrong countless times. — Wallows

Given that there are flat-Earthers, saying that "The Earth is universally considered to be spheroid" is wrong, isn't it? It doesn't matter how invalid or "proven wrong scientifically" they are. It would still be false to say that "The Earth is universally considered to be spheroid."

Forgive me, but you sound like one of those flat-earthers that insist that their opinion is valid even if science proves them wrong countless times. — Wallows

Except I said nothing whatsoever about validity. I just rightly corrected your naive assumption that your view is universally accepted. And science hasn't proven me wrong on that point once, let alone countless times. So your comparison makes little sense. It's just an attempt to poison the well.

It's shared enough by my dealing with hearing about how meth destroyed lives or how heroin broke families apart. — Wallows

Yes, it's an opinion shared by many people. I haven't denied that, have I? But providing examples which align with your view doesn't mean that there are no exceptions. In all likelihood there are.

Actually, it's not a personal opinion. I am currently in a substance abuse program at my county clinic to address my own addiction stemming from the fallacious belief that I know what's best for me(!), when in fact it was a really bad idea. — Wallows

It's a personal opinion based on your own bad experience. That's often a recipe for bias.

Yeah, sure it's just a drug until consumed, which them alters your mind in unpredictable ways. In ways that might not be in your best interest. — Wallows

It's predictable that taking drugs puts your mental health at greater risk. If you were a doctor, and your patient was showing signs of psychosis, and you were investigating possible causes, then it shouldn't come as a big surprise in connecting all the pieces if you discovered a history of drug abuse.

Nope. Most (not all) places, each law has its reason. A layering of reasons, actually. A citizen of such a place has an implied duty to know those reasons (i.e., ignorance is usually not exculpatory). That is, most law is particular with respect to what it controls. If you break a law for your own reasons, you haven't really broken it, you've just been stupidly ignorant. On the other hand, if you choose to break the law for reasons that seem good and sufficient to you, then the question, do you know all the reasons? If not, back to stupid ignorance. Breaking the law for some over-riding principal is serious business. In effect you're not merely violating some rule, but breaking law itself.

Call it a failure to reconcile purpose and intent with consequence. But get that right and you may have grounds.... — tim wood

I will disagree with the notion that ignorance of the law is not a good defense because we move around a lot and when we are new to the community, we have not had time to learn the customs of that community. However, the saying ignorance of the law is not a good defense, applies to unquestionable rules of human decency. You don't rape your neighbor's wife or kill someone for a loaf of bread because everywhere this is a violation of human decency. However, when in Rome one should do as the Romans do. That is to say, a newbie may be forgiven for violating a custom, but not rules of human decency.

When it comes to rules of human decency and an ideal world Cicero said this

Cicero wrote the following in De re publica (On the Republic):

"There is a true law, right reason, agreeable to nature, known to all men, constant and eternal, which calls to duty by its precepts, deters from evil by its prohibition. This law cannot be departed from without guilt. Nor is there one law at Rome and another at Athens, one thing now and another afterward; but the same law, unchanging and eternal, binds all races of man and all times." — wikapedia

He goes on to tell us, no amount of prayers, or sacrifice of animals, or burning of candles will change the consequences of our words and deeds. The consequences will follow the laws of nature, no matter what our god thinks of us. There is no pleasing a god and getting out of trouble. What happens is a result of our own words and deeds.

Laws about smoking pot are more a matter of custom than a law of nature. Getting stoned and driving or operating machinery is violating a law of nature because it does impair our judgment and we should not be driving and operating machinery when we are stoned. But if you are kicking back and have no responsibilities at the moment, I don't think mother nature cares if you get stoned. The moral would be don't get stoned when have responsibilities demanding your attention, but if this is your downtime, you can use it as you choose.

We should tax sugars because they are habit forming and can be very harmful to humans when too much is consumed. I would be delighted if there were no alcohol but that is unlikely, so the next best thing is taxing it enough to pay for all the damage caused by alcohol. It is interesting to see what we have done regarding laws and smoking. I used to smoke at least a pack a day in the comfort of my home, or any place where I wanted to smoke. Now I can't even smoke in my home because I am a renter and would be evicted if I smoked anywhere on the property. I think this is excessive. If I were still smoking the new laws would impinge on my freedom too much.

No. Nothing - or maybe next to nothing - is universally accepted, and this is certainly no exception. What you're talking about is not an uncommon opinion, but not an opinion that is shared by everyone. These opinions can be contagious, but unless you've experienced it yourself, you can never know what it's like to the full extent, and sometimes that experience can turn out to be different in ways than what you might expect or have been lead to believe. — S

universal truths? People do drugs, including alcohol, because they want to alter their consciousness. When our consciousness is altered, there is a risk of poor judgment. Is there any time or place in the universe when this is not true?

I will disagree with the notion that ignorance of the law is not a good defense because we move around a lot and when we are new to the community, we have not had time to learn the customs of that community. — Athena

Whether something is a legal defense isn't a matter of opinion, but is a matter of law. For example,, if I'm from Colorado where pot is legal and I smoke pot in Utah where it's illegal but I don't know it, I can't avoid prosecution by pleading ignorance of the law. It's not a recognized defense. On the other hand, if I shoot you to protect myself from you shooting me, I can avoid prosecution by pleading self-defense because self-defense is a recognized defense.

Universal truths? People do drugs, including alcohol, because they want to alter their consciousness. When our consciousness is altered, there is a risk of poor judgement. Is there any time or place in the universe when this is not true? — Athena

I think that the first statement is only generally true, not universally true. I can think of exceptions. Some people do drugs out of peer pressure, for example. I agree that when our consciousness is altered, there is a risk of poor judgement. I can't readily think of an exception to that.

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? — Drek

Partly. If you read Crito, you find that Socrates's "opinion" is more than just opinion. I'm willing to suppose as well that Socrates possessed a sense of proportion and would not have been willing to die just for any old reason. His stance(s) are principled and reasoned, and the quality of his arguments instructs then, now, and presumably for as long as people reason. That is, you can argue that he didn't have opinions, but rather had reasons and knowledge.

I will disagree with the notion that ignorance of the law is not a good defense — Athena

It's not any defense at all. It may be an excuse, and maybe a reasonable excuse - although never a good one. If you're looking to give an account of an action that turns out to be against the law, ignorance may underlie that action. But again, not a defense. You're clearly a smart person; what has caused you to believe it was?

Yeah, true he had reasons not opinions, that's amazing he gave his life for Athenia. He would have been a huge hypocrite and everything he taught would be less appealing, too. Thanks for the help!

@Athena It really does suck that "ignorance doesn't hold up in the court of law" for honestly mistaken people, but people who are dicks can say "I didn't know" and really knew all along. Then those assholes walk around. Making a joke of the courts it would be like one free pass on everything you didn't know about. Which is a gripe of mine with education sometimes... basics of this OUGHT to be taught in high school. It is legal not to but i find it a disservice.

Given that there are flat-Earthers, saying that "The Earth is universally considered to be spheroid" is wrong, isn't it? It doesn't matter how invalid or "proven wrong scientifically" they are. It would still be false to say that "The Earth is universally considered to be spheroid." — Terrapin Station

That's not even an argument, is it? Sure, I can hold the belief that Earth is flat; but, that just doesn't make it so.

Except I said nothing whatsoever about validity. — S

Great, so maybe we can talk about validity(?) Is it healthy to be a drug user? Again, the consensus seems to point towards a flat 'no'.

Great, so maybe we can talk about validity(?) Is it healthy to be a drug user? Again, the consensus seems to point towards a flat 'no'. — Wallows

"Unhealthy, therefore immoral" is about as good an argument as "Illegal, therefore immoral".

"Unhealthy, therefore immoral" is about as good an argument as "Illegal, therefore immoral". — S

But, we're talking about validity, so arguments can rest now.

But, we're talking about validity, so arguments can rest now. — Wallows

Not before they've had a bedtime story and a kiss good night.

Not before they've had a bedtime story and a kiss good night. — S

Okay... Haha.

And some heroin.

That's not even an argument, is it? Sure, I can hold the belief that Earth is flat; but, that just doesn't make it so. — Wallows

No, and it's not meant to be an argument. It's just a comment about what it conventionally refers to for something to be universally held or not.

For sure we live in a society obsessed by being technically correct and I believe this is a serious threat to our liberty. In the past, we cared more about the spirit of the law, and said tyranny is going by the letter of the law. I won't argue that we are not highly concerned about technical correctness today. However, in the past there was room for a judge to say, we will overlook your violation this time, but if it happens again, you will be punished for the infraction and this one too. We relied on the wisdom of judges and didn't make the state the authority over punishments. A wise person isn't wise if s/he does not take ignorance of law into consideration.

This is not the only time in history that a society became overly concerned with technological correctness. I question if this concern for technological is a good thing?

However, in the past there was room for a judge to say, we will overlook your violation this time, but if it happens again, you will be punished for the infraction and this one too. — Athena

Sure, but the judge didn't allow as to ignorance of the law (maybe some did); the law was applied, and an amnesty given. And there seems to be a movement back to the wisdom of wise judges. Mandatory sentencing had its day (although I do not think it's dead, yet), and was seen and is seen as being essentially racist and misogynistic. The president and state governors in my opinion should commute the sentences of most if not all of the women, especially the African-American women, sentenced under mandatory sentencing guidelines to long, hard time for relatively minor, or very minor, drug offenses. Obama did some, Trump, I think one. Trump could do a lot more, and to his credit if he does....

Sure, but the judge didn't allow as to ignorance of the law (maybe some did); the law was applied, and an amnesty given. And there seems to be a movement back to the wisdom of wise judges. Mandatory sentencing had its day (although I do not think it's dead, yet), and was seen and is seen as being essentially racist and misogynistic. The president and state governors in my opinion should commute the sentences of most if not all of the women, especially the African-American women, sentenced under mandatory sentencing guidelines to long, hard time for relatively minor, or very minor, drug offenses. Obama did some, Trump, I think one. Trump could do a lot more, and to his credit if he does.... — tim wood

Ignorance of the law cannot be allowed or forbidden by a judge. It just is. From there the ignorance is something to take into consideration before punishing the offender, or not. It is a matter of the degree of the wrong. To break a law because of ignorance of the law, is not the same as intentionally breaking the law.

But I don't think people with educations focused on technology are aware of the difference? It seems to me people educated for technology are pretty black and white. It is right or it is wrong. Trump must stick with right or wrong thinking because that is the level of thinking of his supporters. His followers want a strong man (very narrow-minded), not someone like Obama.

It is a matter of the degree of the wrong. — Athena

Well, if as you say ignorance is exculpatory, then for the ignorant, there is no crime, yes?

Suppose that somebody was tee-total most of their life, yet had not worked for years due to treatment resistant depression and addiction. For such a person, could it be immoral for them to not experiment with illegal drugs?