Conversely, we can be naive and claim that we don't know where the heroin someone is doing is not supporting evil empires or states, like the Taliban. Most drugs have some point of origin and fund some activity.

As I say, it would be naive to feign ignorance and claim that it's a non-issue. But, some drugs are rather harmlessly attained, as you mention magic mushrooms or pot. Not all drugs have been made by North Korea, for example.

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

Right. Let's look at that:

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. — Michael

These are responses? Make it clear to me how they're responses? They're plain evasions. So what is it? Stoned? Stupid? Liar? Tell me. I'd like to know. Or just a joker, not to be taken seriously - certainly not to be respected.

I was a meth addict for 17 years, it had its toll on everyone in my family — Daniel Cox

That's a very tough road. Clearly you know about the harm that illegal drugs cause.

Yeah, I got a bit crazy doing drugs and some people, family & friends, were hurt indirectly, — Daniel Cox

What was indirect about it? Is that what "some people, [your] family & friends" would say, that you caused them no harm directly?

In any case, directly or indirectly, your community was harmed. Or do you say it wasn't? That is, what is it you're challenging?

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. — Janus

Air is dangerous, don't you realize that if you breathe you will eventually die? Maybe we should ban air! And I agree that gambling is not so good. Maybe as a recreation, but not as a business. The long standing question is, what does legal gambling do for a community? Nothing good, much bad. It adds nothing to the economy - except for sparse tourist dollars, but is rather just a redistributing of local money, with most of it going into the pockets of casino owners.

And mushrooms. Ok, there are no mushroom cartels, no supply chain of dealers. Individual has some and uses them privately. Not much to complain about there relative to a lot of things. Are they illegal? Does he or she run a material risk of arrest? I am not talking about being a goody person. Instead it's about immorality. Something most addicts can't seem to get a handle on - except S., who operates in his own world.

The idea is we all share a world. In that sharing we all also share an obligation not to harm others. in many areas there is a trade-off of risk for benefit. Driving cars is an example of such an activity. 40,000+ killed in 2018, and 2017, and 2016. Or even war! 58,000+ in the entire Viet-Nam war. Did you notice the citation above about drug ODs? 70,200+ in 2017. That's just the killed. Cost? The sick, the dead, the injured, the harmed? The expense and collateral damage? But hey, no harm. Just innocent fun, Just some stoners getting high. No problem. Maybe drug users should have to pay for their fun....

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/281776

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/281787

First you asked me to describe a scenario with drugs that doesn’t cause harm and I explained how such a question doesn’t address my critique, which is that even if drugs cause harm it might not be immoral to take them. Given that I haven’t claimed that taking drugs doesn’t cause harm, why are you asking me to describe a scenario where they don’t?

Then you asked me about letting my younger sister take illegal drugs, but as per our first exchange you clarified that legality is irrelevant - some “bad” drugs might be legal in one country but it is still (allegedly) immoral to take them - and you counted alcohol as one of these “bad” drugs, so I explained that I was OK with my younger sister using a “bad” drug - but again, not that this has anything to do with my critique that you haven’t justified your assertion that causing harm of any degree is immoral.

So rather I think you’re the one trying to deflect by asking irrelevant questions that don’t address the missing piece of your argument. If you don’t justify your assertion that causing any kind of harm is immoral then your argument doesn’t get off the ground.

Conversely, we can be naive and claim that we don't know where the heroin someone is doing is not supporting evil empires or states, like the Taliban. Most drugs have some point of origin and fund some activity.

As I say, it would be naive to feign ignorance and claim that it's a non-issue. But, some drugs are rather harmlessly attained, as you mention magic mushrooms or pot. Not all drugs have been made by North Korea, for example. — Wallows

It's still not clear to me just what the issue is, though. I don't see how the illegality, per se, of a drug makes it harmful to the community. And hasn't made his claims any clearer, as far as I can tell.

If one wants to argue that obtaining an illegal drug from dealers could be supporting an industry that harms people and communities, then it should be pointed out that the same may be said for many legal products.

So, what it really comes down to is; what is the real difference between legal and illegal activities, morally speaking, if we are using harm to define something as immoral, given that at least some illegal activities do not seem to harm people and communities, whereas as at least some legal activities do seem to harm people and communities?

We just don't seem to be getting to the point at all on this issue, but just kind of going around and around, traversing a downward spiral. The end point will come when we all disappear up our own arses if we're not careful!

So, what it really comes down to is; what is the real difference between legal and illegal activities, morally speaking, if we are using harm to define something as immoral, given that at least some illegal activities do not seem to harm people and communities, whereas as at least some legal activities do seem to harm people and communities. — Janus

If we pass over the notion of harm it could be argued that it is wrong to break the law, and so ipso facto wrong to take illegal drugs.

But somehow I don’t think that this is what most anti-drugs people have in mind, as they seem to also oppose decriminalisation (on moral grounds?).

I guess that could be a point, but I think it would be a difficult argument to make that just because some activity is illegal it is therefore necessarily immoral.

Is it your position that illegal drugs cause no harm, and if they cause harm there is no immorality in it?

Gun deaths in the US were about the same as vehicle deaths, some 40,000+ in 2018. Drug deaths not quite double that at 70,000+. Let's consider usage. Vehicle miles in the US in a year are a lot. And there are a lot of guns in the US. From our friend the internet:

"Heroin – Roughly 626,000 Americans suffer from heroin addiction/abuse..

"Opioid Painkillers – Misuse of opioid painkillers is much more widespread that heroin use. Currently, roughly 1.8 million Americans have diagnosable painkiller problems.

"Cocaine – Diagnosable addiction/abuse impacted about 867,000 cocaine users in 2016.

"Methamphetamine – Methamphetamine abuse/addiction affects approximately 684,000 U.S.

Sources:
https://www.transformationstreatment.center/resources/overdose/many-americans-addicted-drugs/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/30/as-fatal-overdoses-rise-many-americans-see-drug-addiction-as-a-major-problem-in-their-community/

Call it three million. Probably fewer with multiple addictions. Or depending on the exact statistics, more. Call it more, ten million. Let's try some math - though not my strong suit.

3.2 trillion miles driven in the US. That works out to .0000000125 deaths per mile.

Maybe 400 million guns in the US. About one death per 10,000 guns, or .0001 - probably not a useful way to measure gun deaths.

ODs. For mathematical convenience, let's say there are seven million addicts in the categories above. 70,000 / 7,000,000 = .01. One percent per year of addicts die per year. Figure accurate? Close enough for government work, as they say. One dead addict per one hundred addicts per year, roughly.

And this is just the deaths. For every death there is a whole spectrum of added harms, to person, to community.

It's argued above that "drugs, per se, are not immoral." In a narrow sense, sure. People are immoral. Addicts are immoral, and the people who supply them, immoral. Denial on this is just a river in Egypt. I don't have any more to add, so done.

Is it your position that illegal drugs cause no harm, and if they cause harm there is no immorality in it? — tim wood

No, my position is that you haven't justified your assertion that if something causes harm then it is immoral. Perhaps some things are acceptable even if they cause harm.

No, my position is that you haven't justified your assertion that if something causes harm then it is immoral. Perhaps some things are acceptable even if they cause harm. — Michael

Not if, but maybe. Lots of things may cause harm. Further, as I think you've implied, it's never the thing itself, but the use and the user, through the consequences of the use. Name something that does cause harm in use, that is moral to use. I cannot think of anything.

Well, I think we can both agree that kids taking drugs is not really a good thing for society or any community. And, kids seeking out drugs, will invariably impact one's community some way or another.

But, looking at some method to asses the impact of drugs on a community, then I suppose if you're inclined to assume a utilitarian calculus, then, drugs will always retard the development of a well functioning society or community.

No, my position is that you haven't justified your assertion that if something causes harm then it is immoral. Perhaps some things are acceptable even if they cause harm. — Michael

Utilitarianism seems to require a reduction in overall harm, but the punishment cannot obviously exceed the harm of the drug itself.

Is it your position that illegal drugs cause no harm, and if they cause harm there is no immorality in it? — tim wood

My position is that you should listen to what we're saying and what we're asking, and then respond properly, instead of responding to a question with a different question, or going off on a tangent which misses the point.

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). — tim wood

It isn't a salient point, and the reason why it isn't is because we're all aware of the existence of alcoholics, and that alcoholism is a problem. I don't think that anyone here would say that it's a good thing. And yet several of us are nevertheless making a point along the lines that it's okay to take at least some drugs in at least some circumstances. You are just talking past us with much of what you're saying. It's not reasonable to focus on more extreme cases in this situation, because they don't do anything towards arguing against the points we're making. I have an inkling that that might be a fallacy of some sort. Broadly speaking, it would be a fallacy of irrelevance.

Is everyone who drinks alcohol an alcoholic? No, obviously not. So then we can cut out the cases of alcoholism and narrow it down to the other cases. The reasonable thing to do here, Tim, is to think about potential counterexamples to your claims, not to single out the more clearcut cases where it is a bad thing.

Do you want to be reasonable? Or do you want to push an agenda by singling out more obviously bad cases to push the notion that drugs are bad, mmmkay?

drugs will always retard the development of a well functioning society or community. — Wallows

Viz. hippies

drugs will always retard the development of a well functioning society or community.
— Wallows

Viz. hippies — Merkwurdichliebe

A community of narrow-minded jerks will always retard the development of the open-minded and positive philosophy and lifestyle associated with hippies.

:flower: :flower: :flower:

Heyyyy man. Can't we all just get along, mannnn.

It's so lame.

First you asked me to describe a scenario with drugs that doesn’t cause harm and I explained how such a question doesn’t address my critique, which is that even if drugs cause harm it might not be immoral to take them. Given that I haven’t claimed that taking drugs doesn’t cause harm, why are you asking me to describe a scenario where they don’t? — Michael

Possible explanations would be that he's not a good listener or just wants to push an agenda.

Don't get me wrong, fuck Society (qua. the entrenched system) too.

Yes, Eric Cartman. You're right.

Screw us guys, you're going home?

Any time you make a South Park reference, you get two thumbs up.

:up: :up:

We just don't seem to be getting to the point at all on this issue, but just kind of going around and around, traversing a downward spiral. The end point will come when we all disappear up our own arses if we're not careful! — Janus

You've done a good job at highlighting a likely double standard. The problem here is that Tim seems more interested in pushing the line that drugs are bad than in such criticism. I wish I could say that this is an isolated problem, but it doesn't seem to be. It seems to be a general problem spanning other topics.

@Wallows is another one who usually doesn't respond properly when I make a criticism of this form, relating to recreational activities.

We just don't seem to be getting to the point at all on this issue, but just kind of going around and around, traversing a downward spiral. The end point will come when we all disappear up our own arses if we're not careful! — Janus

I believe such a thing is inevitable.

Sadly, you're probably right. :groan:

:cry:

Sorry, Wallows, but I can't see any relevance here to the points in question.

Puzzling it is...and annoying! But I seem to be controlling myself for now... :halo:

Puzzling it is...and annoying! But I seem to be controlling myself for now... :halo: — Janus

That it's annoying, I agree with. That it's puzzling, I would qualify. It would definitely be puzzling if we knew nothing of psychology, or if everyone was perfectly rational. But neither of those are true. It's less puzzling when thought about in the right way. It can be easy to slip into the expectation that others be rational, and to end up puzzled when we find that they're not. People can get emotionally invested in something to the point that it interferes with rationality, and with self-awareness. They often think they're being rational.