Does the harm only ensue on account of the drug being illegal? — Janus

Is it taking drugs that is the problem or is it that these drugs are illegal that is the problem? — Michael

C'mon guys! The illegality certainly makes for some problems that maybe decriminalization (point Wallow) would mitigate. In a sense, your question as it stands implies that existing law is the problem. Bad law can be a problem. (And mandatory sentencing was/is a horror that afflicts many relatively innocent people. In my opinion it's time for all who can be released, to be released!) But to my way of thinking, the issues of illegality are just a frosting that covers the deeper problem. Bad drugs make people sick and can and does make them behave badly, unacceptably sometimes criminally badly. But the issue is harm to community. Anyone challenge that?

What if addiction isn't about your chemical hooks? What if addiction is about your cage, what if addiction is an adaptation to your environment? - Johann Hari.

I've longed maintained, "If the people in my community would take the meds they need to then I wouldn't be on them." Is that a challenge?

haha! My wife complains about my laziness (which is due in large part to the psychoactive drugs I’m prescribed). Perhaps I should turn to cocaine to get up and get going? :wink:

Hi, There were some studies/experiments done in the early 20th century where some smocks took some rats, put then in some cages, and put some bottles, one of water and one of water laced with heroin. They discovered the rats preferred death by heroin over life.

Later on, a smock decided, "What if we don't put the rats in a cage, what if we made them a rat paradise? Let's see what happens." The rats chose the water which wasn't laced with heroin.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with anyone, I'm on psychotropic or psychoactive drugs too. I have to try extra hard not to be argumentative.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with anyone, I'm on psychotropic or psychoactive drugs too. I have to try extra hard not to be argumentative. — Daniel Cox

I find it cannot be avoided in a philosophy forum, but one can still be civil. I'm not all the time, but one can. :wink:

People are generally more civil here than in every other online community I've been a part of setting aside the holy ones.

Bad drugs make people sick and can and does make them behave badly, unacceptably sometimes criminally badly. But the issue is harm to community. Anyone challenge that? — tim wood

So could you clarify which drugs you’re talking about? Alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, meth, codeine, morphine? Which are immoral to take?

So could you clarify which drugs you’re talking about? Alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, meth, codeine, morphine? Which are immoral to take? — Michael

I would say it depends on the individual's constitution, how accustomed to the particular drug they are, and how well they can function on it. Some illegal drugs help people function better. For example, some people I used to work with couldn't work or function without cannibis. Cannibis, for me, makes me not function. Some people can drink alchohol responsibiy. Most people cannot, and it is legal.

What if addiction isn't about your chemical hooks? What if addiction is about your cage, what if addiction is an adaptation to your environment? - Johann Hari.

I've longed maintained, "If the people in my community would take the meds they need to then I wouldn't be on them." Is that a challenge? — Daniel Cox

I think it is a profoundly dangerous and damaging rationalization. "It's not your fault," is not the same thing as, "They made me do it." Your part is obscured and buried. Sickness may explain; sickness is not exculpatory. Bottom line it's a life we're living/leading. If you surrender your life to the influences of (the) other(s), then it's not your life anymore. The key word here is "surrender." In this life, you don't get to surrender except at the cost of your life or some part of it.

That is, if you're an addict, is that what you want to be? If no, then there's still the disease to be dealt with, a difficult and terrible fight that not everyone wins. But if you want to be an addict, then no life, except perhaps for the delusion of one, the lie that you have one.

So could you clarify which drugs you’re talking about? Alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, meth, codeine, morphine? Which are immoral to take? — Michael

Any which harm a community in any way. Alcohol, it would seem, harms through excess; others through being taken at all. Some claim cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, of which I'm not so sure, although I am sure that many cannabis users hold that opinion.

But a salient point is made about alcoholism. There are alcoholics who claim they're not alcoholics. But the criteria they do not use is the criteria that counts: does the alcohol use create problems in living for the user and his community? Yes as recurrent occurrence? Then alcoholic. Does the drug use create problems for the user and his or her community? Then immoral (among other possible things).

I find the immorality in a chain of cause and effect. And this might in some very strange circumstance obviate the immorality if either cause or effect were missing, or might except for damage to self. Most folks agree that self-harm absent an underlying sickness is immoral.

But let's summarize: in short, no sensible person thinks or believes taking illegal drugs is harmless. Some of the harm may not be immoral because the consequence of the act of a sick person. Beyond that, immoral. Is there any argument against this? Because this is't about my arguments but about the topic.

But the issue is harm to community. Anyone challenge that? — tim wood

We don't need to challenge what hasn't been properly justified. A few friends sitting by a campfire in the woods or in their own home, minding their own business and having a good time, is not in itself a harm to the community, and not everyone in the community is narrow-minded and judgemental. I've met members of the community who are okay with this sort of thing, and are not jerks or squares.

Do you distinguish injury and harm?

A few friends sitting by a campfire in the woods or in their own home, minding their own business and having a good time, is not in itself a harm to the community, — S

Agreed, even a good thing. But you have omitted what they're doing. That matters, yes? But we know you to be a contributor who denies communal responsibility and morality in favour of his own. Apart from displaying your cognitive shortcomings, here, what else you got?

Btw, is the "e" in your "judgement" and your "judgemental" a British thing? On this side it's judgment, judgmental. Thought you'd like to know.

Agreed, even a good thing. But you have omitted what they're doing. That matters, yes? — tim wood

No, not necessarily. That's your burden, not mine. If they were playing cards, would that matter? Would that be a harm to the community? You haven't reasonably justified that taking drugs in those circumstances is much different. And pointing to more extreme cases won't work, because not all cases are the same. It's unreasonable to tar with the same brush. And if you respond with something like "risk of harm", then you have a burden to explain how you're not just special pleading with drug taking, but you're presumably okay with other recreational activities which have a risk of harm, of which there are many.

Btw, is the "e" in your "judgement" and your "judgemental" a British thing? On this side it's judgment, judgmental. Thought you'd like to know. — tim wood

Yes, it's a British thing, and I alreay knew about the variation in spelling. The language is called "English" for a reason. I am English, and I speak English, not the bastardised American English.

I think that you haven’t justified your assertion that it is immoral to cause harm, where harm is defined in the broad sense that you’ve defined it. If you narrowed it down to things like murder and assault then I’d agree, but then it wouldn’t cover recreational drugs.

I think that you haven’t justified your assertion that it is immoral to cause harm, where harm is defined in the broad sense that you’ve defined it. If you narrowed it down to things like murder and assault then I’d agree, but then it wouldn’t cover recreational drugs. — Michael

I have to channel S. here and say I cannot help what you think. I've either justified it it or I haven't. Harm is harm. There may be big harm and little harm, short- and long-term, major/minor, you name the continuum, But harm is harm. Argue against the harm, not your perception of the degree (which I infer you argue is harmless for recreational drugs). And what, exactly, are "recreational" drugs?

More to the point is the world's verdict on illegal drugs. Never mind my arguments which are derivative, but against those that are material and substantive.

Harm is harm. There may be big harm and little harm, short- and long-term, major/minor, you name the continuum, But harm is harm. — tim wood

I’m not saying that harm isn’t harm. I’m saying that you haven’t justified your assertion that any and all harm is immoral.

Saying that if something causes harm (of any degree) then it is immoral is a non sequitur.

All harm is harm but it might be that not all harm is immoral.

No, not necessarily. That's your burden, not mine. — S

Ok. S. says that

A few friends sitting by a campfire in the woods or in their own home, minding their own business and having a good time, is not in itself a harm to the community, — S

without respect of what they're doing!

As noted above, in any ordinary sense we'd be in agreement, But this isn't. We're going back and forth on the morality of taking illegal drugs. Are you arguing that the complete activity is without harm? How did they get the illegal drugs, and where from? Or does not that matter? Are they all equal in their understanding of and consent to risk? And don't you revert to your solipsistic views of morality. If you plant yourself in that cave, you're beyond the reach of my light, a non lucendo!

Fair enough, though to my way of thinking off-track. No, the inanimate drug is in itself non-moral, sez I. It's the agency that matters as cause, and the effects of that agency as effect that matter as effect. And too, harm qua harm is not in itself immoral. But is that the harm you think is the subject here? Sketch for me a scenario where the taking of illegal drugs does no harm to any person or community - keeping in mind that no particular harm must necessarily be realized.

Or another way: your thirteen-year-old sister starts taking illegal drugs. Do you say, "You go girl! You're going to have a great time! Let me know if you need any money...". Is that what you say?

Or another way: your thirteen-year-old sister starts taking illegal drugs. Do you say, "You go girl! You're going to have a great time! Let me know if you need any money...". Is that what you say? — tim wood

I used to sneak alcohol to my brother and sister when they were that age.

Sketch for me a scenario where the taking of illegal drugs does no harm to any person or community — tim wood

Why? That wouldn’t address my concern. Rather I can sketch a scenario where harm might be caused by recreational drugs and yet the activity isn’t immoral - that of @S and his stoner friends camping in the woods.

I’m not saying that harm isn’t harm. I’m saying that you haven’t justified your assertion that any and all harm is immoral.

Saying that if something causes harm (of any degree) then it is immoral is a non sequitur.

All harm is harm but not all harm is necessarily immoral. — Michael

Indeed. His argument is a great example of simplistic, black-and-white thinking.

What's the harm to the community which you asserted? And to what extent is the supposed harm? And why should the community take priority? I just want an answer to these questions without you assuming something that isn't necessarily true of that scenario, like that we're talking about a bunch of hell raisers who could set fire to an old lady at the drop of hat, because they're wild and crazed and out of their minds.

...that of S and his stoner friends camping in the woods. — Michael

We had a good time. We actually met a few members of the community who were absolutely fine with us being there, doing what we were doing. We weren't causing any harm. We were being respectful. We were by a river, and there were a few narrow boats nearby. The owners came by a few times, walking their dogs. We greeted each other, stroked the dogs, had a brief conversation, and one of them let us sit in his camping chair.

Decriminalization but also control. How? Dunno, to be worked out. In my city are methadone clinics. — tim wood

That seems to make sense to me. Supply and demand I suppose. Eliminate the profitability of drugs and the house of cards topples down on its own.

Maybe a error to put you-all in one group. It's your several turns to say whether it's immoral to take illegal drugs or not. That is, zero or some or entirely. A little detail wouldn't hurt, either.

If it's too difficult, you could start with these that Michael ignored:

Sketch for me a scenario where the taking of illegal drugs does no harm to any person or community - keeping in mind that no particular harm needs necessarily be realized.

Or another way: your thirteen-year-old sister starts taking illegal drugs. Do you say, "You go girl! You're going to have a great time! Let me know if you need any money...". Is that what you say? — tim wood

And what, exactly, are "recreational" drugs? — tim wood

In a really nice way I think I am challenging your position. I was a meth addict for 17 years, it had its toll on everyone in my family not least of which were my Dad, the Admiral and my Son, born on All Hallows Eve '89. But the foundation of my truth is from my experience with God.

I'm the Son, the Child, my Dad & Mom loved the most and took the most pride in. My Son, Jason, was the only grandchild either of them knew when they were in their bodies. My Son now knows my bout with crystal-meth, the bullet (a year sentence) I served, and knows my 11 year victory over that drug.

Just sent my Son two hundred dollars the first of the month, his request. He asked me for money and I'll be sending him one hundred dollars every month June forward, the 200 dollars covered April & May.

6 years ago I made it my life's goal to beat my Co-Occurring dual diagnosis. I know the solution to the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Yeah, I got a bit crazy doing drugs and some people, family & friends, were hurt indirectly, but that's a glimpse at a very small picture in the grand scheme of things.

No regrets.

If it's too difficult, you could start with these that Michael ignored: — tim wood

I didn't ignore them. I directly responded to them.

I was a meth addict for 17 years, it had its toll on everyone in my family not least of which were my Dad, the Admiral and my Son, born on All Hallows Eve '89. — Daniel Cox

Would you call your addiction some form of self-medication? How do you rationalize the addiction part of your dual diagnosis?

We're always self-medicating. Have you seen the movie Soapdish (1991)? There's a scene where Celeste Talbert (lead actress of the soap opera) is feeling depressed and her personal assistant, Rose Schwarz, takes her to the mall and then pretends she doesn't know her, "Are you Celeste Talbert, the soap opera star?" Kind of shouts it and all the women at the mall go crazy fawning all over her.

A lot of people online, the communities where I've been arguing, label me a "theist" and then attack their own label, their own strawman argument. I attack them for being so stupid, but that's a part of my mental illness. If I really had it altogether then I'd love those people instead of attacking them back.

When we attack and insult another person there is a chemical explosion in our bodies, an emotionally charged psychic experience that transitions from the spiritual in a form of a pharmacological impact crossing the blood-brain barrier intact. Smoking cigarettes the impact is 7 seconds from inhalation. When we insult someone, both parties are physically infected contemporaneously, no time delay.

This all describes every aspect of what it means to be human. God has evolved us this way, to have this kind of effect on others. People who you insult and can't be impacted are the worst sort of psycho- & sociopaths.

I'm the last person in the world who rationalizes any of my addictions. I'm a huge porn addict, and a huge food addict. No rationalizing, boldly stating the Truth, the absolute truth. "Confess you sins one to another so that you can be healed."

Sorry for the long sermon.

Ok, understood. Though, to rationalize an addiction can be helpful in finding a way out of it.

I have ADD and have been prescribed many stimulant drugs. About a year ago I tried meth for the first time.

Been there done that...

How did they get the illegal drugs, and where from? — tim wood

What if the drugs are magic mushrooms, that were grown at home or picked in the fields? Where's the necessary harm in that?

Your reference to source seems to imply that by buying illegal drugs one would be supporting criminal activity, which is by definition harmful to communities. That may be so, but legal activities may also be harmful to communities. Gambling, online and in clubs and pubs, for example? Buying cheap goods from third world companies or buying pretty much anything form some multinationals you are supporting legal, but unethical exploitation and the terrible harm it causes to third world communities.