What a horribly judgemental view of those who take recreational drugs. I think that that is far more immoral than the act of taking recreational drugs.

Oh, it is you, the one with great views...... :) me and you had a great exchange of views, I thought we were not going to comment on each other's posts?????

plus a few seconds of the 5th (that scene in the Simpson's where the whole town gets up to leave the symphony after 5 seconds of Da Da da Daaaa nails it). — ZhouBoTong
Haha, that's brilliant. I didn't know of that scene. — S

The Simpsons are full of great little scenes like that. I can't even tell you what episode that was from because the whole scene was only about 10-20 seconds.

Can you guarantee to control your drug use and it's effects on you and others? — tim wood

Can you guarantee to control your emotions and their effect on you and others? One might say that people don't choose to be emotional where as they choose to do drugs. However, anyone that has ever practiced controlling their own emotions would say that we do in fact choose our emotions (to a limited extent), and everyone who has a laissez faire attitude about emotions is just contributing to the problem.

I can guarantee that any drug use I partake in will be FAR less harmful than many actions that result from unrestrained emotion.

Just like emotions, one should not assume that all drugs affect all people the same. Even hard psychedelic drugs - some people will be aware they are on drugs, no matter how intense the effect - if one is aware they are on drugs, they will limit their actions. If I just stay in my house the whole time, what is the worst that can happen?

Question: are you a member of a community? Assuming your answer is yes, does your taking illegal drugs do your community any harm? Answer: of course it does. Question: the people you hurt, is it all right for you to hurt them? Is it all right with them? Did you get their permission?

Seems harsh, but the situation is harsh. The fact, for fact it is, that some of the harm is not-so-visible and sometimes seems unimportant is often used as an excuse, but is in fact no excuse whatsoever, and is, in fact, a hallmark of the manipulative behaviour of the addict. "But it's my life, my choice! Leave me alone it's none of your business," cries the user/addict! If only. But it is everybody's business will they or nil they. As such, legalization and control make a lot of sense. But I have to wonder if the drugs in question are simply too powerful.

Assuming your answer is yes, does your taking illegal drugs do your community any harm? Answer: of course it does. — tim wood

excuse me? how so?

And what about my emotions analogy?

I can re-word:

Question: Are you a member of a community? Assuming the answer is yes, do your emotions do your community any harm? Answer: of course they do. Question: the people you hurt, is it all right for you to hurt them? Is it all right with them? Did you get their permission?

Seems harsh, but the situation is harsh. The fact, for fact it is, that some of the harm is not so visible and sometimes seems unimportant as is often used as an excuse, but is in fact no excuse whatsoever, and is, IN FACT, a hallmark of the manipulative behavior of those who lack emotional control. "But it's my life, my choice! Leave me alone its none of your business," cries the emotional addict! If only. But it is everybody's business will they or nil they. As such, mindfulness training makes a lot of sense. But I have to wonder if the emotions in question are just too powerful.

Are you arguing that "emotions" are somehow comparable with taking illegal drugs? If you can do that , then you can compare anything to any end or purpose. But instead of that nonsense, why not establish the legitimacy of the comparison. Maybe this start, "Taking illegal drugs is like having emotions because...".Go ahead!

Answer: of course it doesn't necessarily, and even if it does to some extent, the community isn't everything. It is pretty mindless to just assume that the right thing to do is to just submit to the status quo, as reflected in the community.

The community says, "Drugs are bad, mmmkay", and the individual is just supposed to respond, "Oh, alright then".

It is pretty mindless to just assume that the right thing to do is to just submit to the status quo, — S

MIndless if done mindlessly. Not mindless if done not mindlessly. It appears you might be on the mindless side. Are you?

MIndless if done mindlessly. Not mindless if done not mindlessly. It appears you might be on the mindless side. Are you? — tim wood

Maybe, but I'm having fun.

does your taking illegal drugs do your community any harm? Answer: of course it does. — tim wood

You say this as an assertion, without any form of justification. Is there any justification, evidence, or anything like that?

Really? Are you for real? Around here we call it the opioid crisis. Where are you from?

From a .gov, "National Drug Overdose Deaths—Number Among All Ages, by Gender, 1999-2017. More than 70,200 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, including illicit drugs and prescription opioids—a 2-fold increase in a decade. The figure above is a bar and line graph showing the total number of U.S. overdose deaths involving all drugs from 1999 to 2017." But gosh, that's just the ODs.

So, yes, I assert that taking illegal drug harms your community. Any argument with that?

Are you arguing that "emotions" are somehow comparable with taking illegal drugs? — tim wood

I thought I actually provided evidence of their similarities. Oh well.

"Taking illegal drugs is like having emotions because..." — tim wood

both can lead to potential harms if they are used irresponsibly

That was easy. Next question?

Really? Are you for real? Around here we call it the opioid crisis. Where are you from?

From a .gov, "National Drug Overdose Deaths—Number Among All Ages, by Gender, 1999-2017. More than 70,200 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, including illicit drugs and prescription opioids—a 2-fold increase in a decade. The figure above is a bar and line graph showing the total number of U.S. overdose deaths involving all drugs from 1999 to 2017." But gosh, that's just the ODs.

So, yes, I assert that taking illegal drug harms your community. Any argument with that? — tim wood

Does this even begin to address the points people have been making in this thread? I could similarly pull statistics to show that processed sugar has and does kill far more Americans than opioids. But I would NEVER pull those statistics as evidence that ALL sugar should be banned at all times.

You seem to be arguing that if we can identify anything as POTENTIALLY harmful, it should be eliminated. And yet you ignore that most human activity has some harmful component if you look close enough.

I guess I don't see your point.

I might as well ask again in this thread...

When does a drug have some utility? When it's bestowed by some authority behind it and has some social good to promote?

Here in the US, we have Schedule I, II, III, and IV drugs. Schedule I drugs have no conferred utility according to authorities. Yet, according to people behind research institutes like MAPS, there's some utility to be had behind the use of certain Schedule I drugs, like LSD or psilocybin.

Anyway, I think, some drugs, like LSD or psilocybin have some utility, where other's don't, even if they are legal.

For example, methamphetamine is a Schedule II drug, that can be prescribed by psychiatrists, as Desoxyn. Does that mean that it should be a Schedule II drug? Seemingly so.

To self-negate (or propose a third alternative), I don't think there's any utility in viewing drugs as conferring some purported utility. Yet, I'm not so hot on the idea of legalizing them, as much as decriminalizing them.

Question: are you a member of a community? Assuming your answer is yes, does your taking illegal drugs do your community any harm? Answer: of course it does. — tim wood

Can you justify your claim that taking illegal drugs necessarily harms the community? On the face of it, that seems like a ridiculous statement.

both can lead to potential harms if they are used irresponsibly — ZhouBoTong

Used? Human beings have emotions; they don't use them. And the harm of illegal drugs - tell me this. In most of the countries of the world, how can you even have illegal drugs without doing some harm?

Or tell me this: illegal drugs are not harmful. Is that what you're saying? Or are you arguing that it is theoretically possible for a person to both have and take illegal drugs and both have done and do no harm? How? And then try for the real world.

If you're arguing for legalization, I'm agnostic on that. But you appear to be arguing that illegal drugs do no harm. Maybe I'm misreading. What exactly are you arguing?

I am arguing that illegal drugs do harm. How do I know? How can anyone not know? Statistics are a clue. What most people say and what most people do and what most people think are clues. I've been robbed by people who take drugs. I've talked to addicts who take drugs. I've lived in communities harmed by drugs Across the entire spectrum, everyone condemns drugs except addicts and the people who sell them drugs. What have you got? Some abstract argument not in any touch with the world?

Seem to me you do not know what a category error is. Sugar is dangerous? Maybe sugar should be banned? Every thing is dangerous. Shall we ban everything? Or the reverse, everything isdangerous, so everything is ok? These are all implicated by your form of argument.

The question here is if illegal drugs do harm. I think the verdict has been delivered around the world and the answer is yes. Now argue that they're not, and never mind inappropriate comparisons.

Yet, I'm not so hot on the idea of legalizing them, as much as decriminalizing them. — Wallows

This has the mark of sense to it!

I'm told that those addicted to drugs (maybe not every drug) eventually have altered brain chemistry (not my words). The idea is that an addict as a practical matter cannot choose not to take drugs, or at least not without a lot of help. I buy this, mostly on authority and the rest on the testimony of addicts.

Decriminalization but also control. How? Dunno, to be worked out. In my city are methadone clinics. Anyone can drive by every morning and see people lined up for their dose. Of those I've asked, 100% would prefer not to have to be there.

Can you justify your claim that taking illegal drugs necessarily harms the community? On the face of it, that seems like a ridiculous statement. — Janus

I suspect you are using "community" in a sense that differs from mine. My sense is that every individual is a member of multiple communities corresponding to the number of ways that a community can be defined. I argue that every community is harmed, but the largest community is probably not harmed by any relatively large increment by one instance of one use of an illegal drug. But each community has equal standing as a community, therefore, the claim of harm, substantiated by the harm done all communities, is the most substantiated by the harm done to the community the most harmed.

But perhaps this way: can you indicate a community of which the user is a member that is not harmed?

But perhaps this way: can you indicate a community of which the user is a member that is not harmed? — tim wood

I still don't understand why you think any community, let's consider just the immediate family, for example, is necessarily harmed by one of their members taking illegal drugs. Are you talking only about addictive drugs? All of the addictive drugs? Also, what about legal drugs? Are you saying that the user's community is harmed when she or he uses any drug at all? If not, then what precisely would it be about the illegality of a drug that makes it necessarily harmful?

And the harm of illegal drugs — tim wood

yes yes "illegal." I noticed your focus on that earlier and figured we were on a philosophy site so we were above such considerations (isn't this debate, in a practical sense, about whether or not the drugs SHOULD be illegal?)

Used? Human beings have emotions; they don't use them. — tim wood

This implies a COMPLETE lack of control over emotions, and that is exactly the problem I am referring to. Either you use your emotions, or they use you. And yes "control" is a much better word than use, but close enough for the analogy.

Seem to me you do not know what a category error is. Sugar is dangerous? Maybe sugar should be banned? Every thing is dangerous. Shall we ban everything? Or the reverse, everything isdangerous, so everything is ok? These are all implicated by your form of argument. — tim wood

That is exactly what your argument looks like to me. That was the point.

And your focus on "illegal" seems puzzling. While I am not trying to equate the 2, wasn't much of the Civil Rights Movement "illegal" and "harmful" to society? Should it not have occurred? Or would you just say IN THAT CASE the pros out-weigh the cons? With drugs being illegal, can't we EASILY say the CONS out-weigh the pros?

(1) Shopping causes waste in the form of garbage and contributes to the destruction of the environment.
(2) If we want a healthy environment, then shopping should be illegal.
(3) We need a healthy environment to survive.
(4) Thus, shopping should be outlawed.

In conclusion, the community doesn't really know what is good for itself.

Let them eat drugs!

Substitute "consumerism" for "shopping" if that makes the argument more compelling.

I still don't understand why you think any community, let's consider just the immediate family, for example, is necessarily harmed by one of their members taking illegal drugs. — Janus

Consider the contradictory: no immediate family member is ever harmed by a family member who takes illegal drugs. I doubt you agree with this. So right away we acknowledge that some immediate family members are harmed by a member who takes illegal drugs. In what way? Given the only qualification is that the harm is caused by the family member who takes illegal drugs, then it must come from the taking of illegal drugs. But it is true that in every family in which an immediate family member takes illegal drugs, that the family member takes illegal drugs. In as much as the harm comes from that, then every such family is subject to that harm.

We can strengthen this a bit if you will attempt to describe a family (as community) that is immune to harm from one of them taking illegal drugs. I do not think there is such a family.

Now I suspect you confused harm with some specific harm. That is, that if the community is not harmed in some particular way, then it is not harmed. Let's consider that, but indirectly first and then directly. A madman with a gun bursts into your house and fires off a hundred or so rounds, and then runs off. You and your family exaine each other and by some small miracle no one is shot. Question: has your community - your family - been harmed? You can answer, "Not shot!" but that is not an answer to the question. I think most folks would understand that your family had been harmed, the lack of a specific injury irrelevant. This is also captured in the notion of the distinction between assault and assault and battery. You can certainly be assaulted without being battered.

More directly, your community is threatened by everything that threatens any and every community when a member takes illegal drugs. Even if none of those is realized. And the harm extends beyond the family. You and your immediate family share larger communities, have them in common. The taker of illegal drugs harms those as well, and in harming those causes additional harm to his family. He harms them directly, and indirectly through harming their shared communities.

But what are these threats, concretely? Do we really have to go there? Among them, the threat of theft, of arrest, of injuring the mental and physical health of community members. Of dealing with criminals, of being a criminal, and so on. If you're thinking to dismiss these on a no-blood, no foul basis, that won't work. Each of these threatened harms, even if not realized, become harms in themselves.

There's really no escaping it. The taker of illegal drugs betrays all of his communities. And even if he abandons his community and they forced to think it best, but the loss is still a harm.

Agree or disagree. If you disagree, on what grounds, or evidence, or justification? I ask because I think there is no legitimate argument against.

Would most of these harms to the community be wiped out if certain illegal drugs were decriminalized? For example (and this is just an example, not something I have encountered), take the person who uses magic mushrooms to help ease her anxiety and depression. As long as the person is doing it in their home and not operating any heavy machinery, and all of their daily responsibilities have been taken care of (never mind that many people can still perform duties while "high" on this drug); is the use of magic mushrooms harming the community given the drug is no longer criminal?

You could substitute a number of illegal drugs for magic mushrooms. I tend to agree with you, however, that herion is a hell of a bad drug.

Seem to me you do not know what a category error is. Sugar is dangerous? Maybe sugar should be banned? Every thing is dangerous. Shall we ban everything? Or the reverse, everything is dangerous, so everything is ok? These are all implicated by your form of argument.
— tim wood

That is exactly what your argument looks like to me. That was the point. — ZhouBoTong

Yeah, that's pretty funny. You asked him whether all sugar should be banned because his bad argument could lead to that conclusion, and then his response is to try to turn that on you, as though it was an implication of your argument instead of his.

Does the harm only ensue on account of the drug being illegal?? If so, explain why. Also, you didn't answer my question re alcohol. Let's deal with these questions first so that I can ascertain just what you are thinking here.

There's really no escaping it. The taker of illegal drugs betrays all of his communities. And even if he abandons his community and they forced to think it best, but the loss is still a harm. — tim wood

Is it taking drugs that is the problem or is it that these drugs are illegal that is the problem? If some drug was legal in one country and illegal in another would the (im)morality of taking it depend on which country one was in?

Would most of these harms to the community be wiped out if certain illegal drugs were decriminalized? — Noah Te Stroete

I concede this - maybe change "most" to "many." That would presumably eliminate the bad guys. And the presupposition is that the drug has a medicinal effect, a sketch of medicinal drugs being that they are better than they ailment they're prescribed/taken for, and make a person better and return him or her to the world. In this are presupposed the benefits of the powers of the drugs used beneficently.

You mention a "bad drug." Maybe this is a useful distinction. Some drugs are bad drugs. But what do bad rugs do, that leaves them bad even if decriminalized? They make users sick and take them out of the world, and in so doing harm the community of the user in a variety of ways. Fair enough?

That’s fair. It seems rational to me.