It would seem to be that you're trying to decide if something is immoral, and you're looking at the thing itself to tell you. But morality/immorality exists prior to the thing questioned. — tim wood

So, we have turned towards some moral absolutism or objective infallible truths about drug use. I don't see how you arrived or anyone for the matter could arrive at this conclusion.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

No, we have not. Not in any way whatsoever. — tim wood

Then elucidate how have you arrived at your conclusion, because we can run around in circles saying that drugs are bad because they are illegal, and they are illegal because they are bad.

Forgive me if I have construed a straw man out of your position; but, you haven't been entirely forthcoming in presenting your reasoning.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

No. I haven't the strength or time. — tim wood

Oh dear...

And you and others are not really interested - that from the tenor and progress of the thread. — tim wood

How presumptuous. I'm going to assume you think I've been trolling you or some other nonsense, when in fact I'm quite interested in how you are deriving your conclusions. Or as a teacher would say, "Show your work." Maybe I would be able to learn something from you.

Your not really making sense. Its not immoral to break a law that isnt moral and in fact morality sometimes demands you break the law.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

That's because you haven't understood the tension in this thread — tim wood

I think I have. The OP asked, "Is it immoral to take illegal drugs" which most people understood to be a discussion of the morality of taking drugs that happen to be illegal (the main point would be SHOULD they be illegal).

Then you dropped a philosophical whopper on everybody:

Are all illegal acts immoral? Yes. — tim wood

You are aware that most of us in this thread strongly disagree with that? (well I do anyway, I think others agree if I am reading their posts correctly) Also, that is a huge philosophical topic of its own. You might as well have said, "of course it is immoral, God said so" and then got angry when we all stopped and said "wait, how do you know there is a God?"

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

You are going to have to produce an argument to justify your idea that it is always immoral to break a law if you want anyone to take your position seriously. For example, if I sincerely believe a law is itself immoral then it would be immoral not to break it, or at least if I have no personal interest in breaking it, to lend moral support to those who do have such an interest.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

So mocking me is essentially mocking yourself as not merely ignorant - we're all ignorant - but stupid in that you cannot or will not recognize kinds of sense and arguments that run back as far as writing, made by people whom ignorant people sometimes find fashionable to dismiss because, apparently, they think it makes them look smart. Don't be one of those people. — tim wood

I haven't mocked you, while I don't deny others have. So, nobody is pissing on your shoes and claiming it is raining here, or not me at least.

Give me some reading material, as you claim you aren't here to preach or teach; but, share some thoughts, which aren't entirely clear to me as of yet.

Make your case! — tim wood

Morality and Law are not the same thing. This should be obvious given the huge historical examples where a law was very clearly not moral. Another thing to consider is a moral that you hold can be made illegal, and then you are suddenly immoral regardless of the merits of your original moral position. Failing to recognise the distinction is non-sensical, it renders morality meaningless, arbitrary. A lawmaker could make anything moral or immoral, no matter its merit, no matter if the lawmaker was crazy, or evil. It makes no sense.
Thats my case above. Refer to it in your counter arguments because im not going to repeat it next time you ask me to “make your case!”. Ive done so, and clearly pointed it out to you now.
You are free to not make the distinction between law and morality, but then you need to make that case before asserting it is immoral not to follow any particular law.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I think it is rather the case that you are unjustifiably generalizing. You claim that "the bad is always there"; but why is it always bad to break the law? You have to show that the bad is always necessarily there in order to be able to justify your assertion that it is my burden to "argue it away".

I point you toward Plato's Crito and Phaedrus. Kant's Groundworks for a Metapysics of Morals. — tim wood

Okay, I'm not well versed in Kant, as much as I should be... Plato, I'm more acquainted with.

Thoreau — tim wood

Hmm, that's a tricky one. Wasn't it Emerson or Thoreau that watched the village ablaze and did nothing, while afterward he was imprisoned for his inaction?

But, if you're looking for figureheads to prop up, then perhaps Nelson Mandela needs mentioning here, don't you think?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

A disgusting way to express whatever you're expressing. — tim wood

So, let me try and be more explicit. What's your issue here as you seem to have taken a combative tone? Returning to the OP, and what I have said, marijuana is legal in my state yet illegal on a federal level. You seem to have turned a blind eye on this fact, which puzzles me.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

If the law and morality are distinct, then its only immoral to break a law that is moral. Thus when you ask if it is immoral to do illegal drugs what you are really asking is whether or not it is immoral to do drugs.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I don't know if it's been pointed out yet, but if illegality equates to immorality, then the state is the ultimate authority when it comes to determining good and evil. Fascism, to me, is a very dangerous prospect.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Im not going to answer your question, as it doesnt address anything Im saying. Its just you reasserting what you have already claimed. This is merri-go-round discussion, but im not going to play with you. You asked me to make my case, I did. You have chosen to ignore it.

the point I've been pushing up a cliff in this thread, is that breaking the law is immoral; — tim wood

It is only immoral in the eyes of the state. This does not necessarily hold true to the opponent of state law. A criminal has every right to consider it his ethical duty to break the law.

But, the greatest problem with regarding state law as the ultimate authority on good and evil, is that it validates the moral right of tyrannies like the Soviets or Nazis. If state law is morally right, then it is impossible to argue that the holocaust and red terror were evil.

I think Tim's argument is something like that in principle it is always morally wrong to break the law. But that principle is based on the idea that laws are in principle moral. If laws are moral in principle, then it is the principled dependence of law on morality that is being asserted and not the principled dependence of morality on law. So, if you say that it is in principle morally wrong to break the law on the stipulation that laws are in principle moral, then what you are really saying is that it is in principle wrong to do something morally wrong, which is an empty tautology.

All this is OK in principle, but when it comes to breaking actual laws, which may or may not be moral; the "in principle" argument fails.

Yes, i think you are right.