But I'd argue that if morality starts with an individual then we need an account of what makes him or her be moral. — tim wood

Morality is preferences about interpersonal behavior. It's not any particular preferences. Many people have many preferences in common, and that's both due to biological similarities and cultural influences, but morality isn't cultural primarily, because cultures can't literally make judgments. Only individuals can.

But now you. In the US, taking illegal drugs, moral? Immoral? Is there any way it can be moral?
— tim wood
I don't have an answer to this - I'm still trying to figure it out. That's why I'm asking questions. — EricH

Leaning either way?

Speed limits are not so simple - a whole separate topic.
— tim wood
What are the criteria for deciding which laws fall into a separate topic? Many people would consider taking certain drugs under certain situations to fall into the same category as exceeding the speed limit.

What topics? Some people who take illegal drugs do so unintentionally - accidentally? I'm going to guess that most speeders do not even think in terms of speeding. They do not, for example, get on a highway with a speed limit of 55 or 65 and consciously say to themselves, "I'm going to speed at 75-85 mph." They just do it.

Let's try this for simplicity's sake to see if it creates some clarity: If there is something, anything, wrong with taking illegal drugs, then it is wrong to take them, and on that understanding immoral as well, because it is immoral to choose to do the wrong thing. Question: is there anything wrong with taking illegal drugs? Yes? No?

And, if you were in a country in which all drugs were legal, would there then be anything wrong with taking such drugs? If there is no law against and nothing else wrong, then it seems to be a choice of no moral significance. But is that an accurate representation of how it is taking them?

some of us have a sense of humor and some do not.

carry on.

is there anything wrong with taking illegal drugs? Yes? No? — tim wood

No. That's simple enough. ;-)

some of us have a sense of humor and some do not.

carry on. — Arne

I didn't take what you initially said at face value. That was the point (I added on to your sarcasm, at least, I thought so).

And, if you were in a country in which all drugs were legal, would there then be anything wrong with taking such drugs? If there is no law against and nothing else wrong, then it seems to be a choice of no moral significance. But is that an accurate representation of how it is taking them? — tim wood

Maybe it's a matter of relevance? Some people are known to huff glue, paint and cleaning products. It's not common enough to merit legal relevancy though -- people in the US can do this legally. I bet if the practice become prevalent, citizens would make complaints, lawsuits would ensure ("my kid wouldn't have huffed fumes if your school didn't leave paint idly lying around, and everyone knows huffing is how kids resort to trying to get a high now; this needs to be addressed and scrutinized.")

The specifics differ, but the overall issue would remain: there's something that people are using to alter their state of consciousness aimed at euphoria and it's believed the risk outweighs the perks. You don't see parents getting worked up over the rush their children get out of consuming pop rocks or the hightened energetic output they get from caffeinated beverages, not to the extent of feeling it moralistically poses a threat to the wellbeing of the nation's kids.

What makes ruling the use of drugs in this manner immoral while there are other ways -- arguably less effective and more harmful that are still an option to anyone looking to try to get in some way high -- not immoral to also make a legal acknowledgement of and enforce safety measures of regulation out of the sheer risk and known instances of use? Because it doesn't catch on, it's ineffective, so, it doesn't merit regulation? Or maybe because there isn't a sub-cultural identity to huffing chemicals?

Do you personally find that if huffing chemicals was as pervasive as the use of heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, etc. that it would be immoral not to make using it this way punishable by law for the moral of posterity?

Maybe insight to answering this question can be found by asking others: Why is it no longer immoral to observe the eighteenth ammendnet of the United States? Why should there be a twenty-first ammendnet to repeal the initial ratification of the eighteenth ammendnet? Why was the eighteenth ammendnet ever proposed in the first place? Hm...

Moreover, was it ever immoral for citizens whom disagreed the eighteenth ammendnet to disobey it before it would be repealed by yet another ammendnet, considering it would eventually go through a change in legality?

Do you personally find that if huffing chemicals was as pervasive as the use of heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, etc. that it would be immoral not to make using it this way punishable by law for the moral of posterity? — THX1138

A tension clear in this thread is between those who suppose they can do what they want whenever they want and it's no one else's business. On the other side are those who recognize that usually it is their business, whether they want it or not. I cannot help but reproduce here Terrapin's answer just above:

is there anything wrong with taking illegal drugs? Yes? No?
— tim wood
No. That's simple enough.) — Terrapin Station

No? And that's the dimension of the problem. Estimated deaths due to drug overdoses in the US in 2017, 70,000+. About 200 dead people per day every day!
(https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates)
According to Terrapin, there is nothing wrong there.

I think my answer to your question (which because of the way you wrote it I do not completely understand) lies in my post you quoted. Yes, subject to legal controls. There is very little most of us do that is done in a vacuum or in isolation. All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way. I call that community. And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control. Whether or how are different topics. But the right is there. And for the most part, for the good.

That covers duty to others. There is also duty to self. There's a morality there as well. And within certain bounds, also subject to law.

Maybe insight to answering this question can be found by asking others: Why is it no longer immoral to observe the eighteenth ammendnet of the United States? Why should there be a twenty-first ammendnet to repeal the initial ratification of the eighteenth ammendnet? Hm... — THX1138

Maybe you'd like to take on Terrapin's answer, above.

got it. :smile:

though most of us are quick to agree that morality and law are not the same thing, most of us are also quick to forget it.

is there anything wrong with taking illegal drugs? Yes? No? — Tim wood

No. That's simple enough.) — Terrapin Station

IMO, there is something "wrong" (immoral) with going full laissez faire in the case of drugs. That would be reckless. Even alcohol use and smoking have regulations set in place, for the "right" reasons.

But that's the point, they have regulations, which means they have their place in society. Because society still refuses to apply the same kind of moderation to other substance use, there's no opportunity to put circumstances in place to determine how to most appropriately make drug use inclusive. To me, this is why drug use currently contends with unchecked corruptability and is resoundingly epitomized by worse case scenario (by the worst cited cases). In hindsight, going about it in a "it's the principle of the matter" way defeats the purpose, especially when you take the link of statistics tim wood himself provided into account.

Like anything else, there needs to be a middle ground, a grey area. Otherwise, mutiny insues when there's no room for trial and error, or even being allowed a chance of incorporation.

I think my answer to your question (which because of the way you wrote it I do not completely understand) lies in my post you quoted. Yes, subject to legal controls. There is very little most of us do that is done in a vacuum or in isolation. All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way. I call that community. And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control. Whether or how are different topics. But the right is there. And for the most part, for the good.

That covers duty to others. There is also duty to self. There's a morality there as well. And within certain bounds, also subject to law. — tim wood

I truly believe your motives are founded in noble intention, tim wood. Still, I think there are blind spots and a bit of rigidity here.

I say this from personal experience. Being an individual born in the US, I find that for me it is difficult to feel connected to the community I find myself in the middle of, to feel unified with this society. Does that make me a terrorist? I don't want to terrorize anyone. It's not like a switch with the only two settings being "camaraderie" or "contrarity to camaraderie." I'm somewhere in between, and to many aspects of little to no pertinence to me, downright indifferent and aloof. I am, however, not antipethetic to aspects of society I find not particularly relatable to me.

I agree with you in that there ultimately is a responsibility we have to one another. I guess were I deviate from this considering your take is in the implied nature of how in practice.

I come off as conspicuous and unapproachable, yet, non-threatening and self-possessed. I live off the road your residential neighborhoods is situated off of, but I am homeless and am trespassing on the city property further out and parallel to you and the other families dwelling there. What am I? A nuisance? A trespasser? An ignominious character that serves as an example for you to relay to your children as a cautionary tale of some grim alternative? Am I a person? Am I symbolic, to be objectified? I'm not your neighbor, am I? I'm in the "wrong" aren't I?

Maybe buy a drone with a camera and scope out my concealed lifestyle, for the sake of community vigilance, a preemptive assessment. Maybe do some mild tracking if you happen to be driving back home and notice me on my bicycle off to do who knows what when not dwelling in the woods barely half a mile away from your proprietary home and those of the neighboring peers you've come to bond with, value and look out for.

And maybe one day, your spouse is crossing the street and I happen to be riding my bicycle on the other side of the road. A car is speeding right through because the driver is too busy arguing with his girlfriend in the passenger seat and is blind with self-contained rage. The road is hilly and your wife and I don't notice them until the car is flung over the arched road with a reverberating roar of it's engine. My instinctual reaction is to veer of the sidewalk and shield the woman who is a perfect stranger to me.

I'd do that, and to be honest, I don't entirely know why, but I know I would.

So yeah, I may not be uber ideal on paper nor the authority on morality, productiveness and don't manage to properly dispose of debris I tend to accumulate in my makeshift abode. I don't have resentment toward the American dream or those whom are living it much closer to their ideal than I am.

Yet at least two or three times a day, my presence is an allergy to those in the community approximated to me, and the methods employed to gage me (so to speak) do make me feel cancerous. The gawking and mockery make me feel "wrong."

IMO, there is something "wrong" (immoral) with going full laissez faire in the case of drugs. — THX1138

You don't seem to mention what you think is wrong with it.

Estimated deaths due to drug overdoses in the US in 2017, 70,000+. About 200 dead people per day every day!
(https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates)
According to Terrapin, there is nothing wrong there. — tim wood

Correct. Why on Earth you'd think that anyone would have some moral obligation to do everything they can to live as long as possible, I don't know.

All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way. — tim wood

There's no way these things are anyone else's business so that there's a moral problem with them. The moral problem would be prohibiting people from doing things that are risky, that can threaten their own health, even their own life.

And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control. — tim wood

Implied . . .via people who want to control others making it up?

There's no way these things are anyone else's business so that there's a moral problem with them. — Terrapin Station

I had a neighbor who beat his wife. When I objected, he told me to mind my own business. How do you suppose I knew he beat his wife? The deeper point is that we're mostly all mostly closely connected. If it could truly be the case that your behaviours would be no business of mine at all, likely I'd go my way. But it isn't.

And you're a person for whom there is nothing wrong with taking illegal drugs, a remarkable statement that takes you beyond the boundary of reasonable, rational discussion. It is on a par with Trump's claim that his was the largest inauguration celebration in history. That is, in his case, a very big lie. What in yours?

Still struggling huh?
Using illegal drugs is unlawful, not immoral. Two. Different. Things.

IMO, there is something "wrong" (immoral) with going full laissez faire in the case of drugs.
— THX1138

You don't seem to mention what you think is wrong with it. — Terrapin Station

The greater risk for potentially uninformed and unprepared fatality comes to mind. A thirteen year old shooting up for the first time and dying of an overdose because his friend Wayne -- who's only two years older than him -- has been using for years and knows how to measure and administer, what can go wrong? Something like that can be made much less probable with protocol in place, that is what I see wrong about laissez faire drug use, it seems right to instead offer higher fatality drugs in a drug shop (let's call it). You must be of an adult age, and a licensed professional measures and administers, lowering the risk of unnecessary fatality.

You can't smoke in many establishments to prevent second hand smoke, can't actively drink or already be drunk while you drive or are a teacher instructing children, etc. Makes sense that restrictions be especially applied to partaking in recreational heroin, cocaine and crystal meth given the symptoms.

Unless you also don't agree with the restrictions on smoking and/or drinking (you seem to allude to not being up for placing any sort of restriction/regulation in the least bit, I could be wrong).

Leaning either way? — tim wood

I promise you that at some point in the conversation I will give my take on this and give you the opportunity to critique it. But right now I'm still trying to fully understand your position. It may seem like some of my questions come across as implied criticisms, but that is not my intent - at least not at this stage of the conversation. :smile:

Anyway, can we review your last comment/question - I did not quite follow what you were saying:

And, if you were in a country in which all drugs were legal, would there then be anything wrong with taking such drugs? If there is no law against and nothing else wrong, then it seems to be a choice of no moral significance. But is that an accurate representation of how it is taking them? — tim wood

On Monday December 10, 2012, the private consumption of marijuana was legalized in Colorado. So, as I understand your position, at 11:55 PM on Dec 9, 2012 it was immoral to consume marijuana and then at 12:01 AM it was no longer immoral. Or to put it another way, the immorality has nothing to do with the drug usage, but is only linked to it's illegality.

Am I accurately getting your position? Or am I getting this wrong and your position is that marijuana usage is immoral even if it is legal?

I had a neighbor who beat his wife. When I objected, he told me to mind my own business. How do you suppose I knew he beat his wife? The deeper point is that we're mostly all mostly closely connected. If it could truly be the case that your behaviours would be no business of mine at all, likely I'd go my way. But it isn't. — tim wood

Inflicting nonconsensual violence on another person isn't at all the same thing as people engaging in consensual activities. It certainly is your business if someone is inflicting nonconsensual violence on someone else. It's not your (moral) business what people consensually choose to do.

a remarkable statement that takes you beyond the boundary of reasonable, rational discussion. — tim wood

It's not "beyond the boundary of reasonable, rational discussion" just because you say it is.

All I can imagine is that you're so ingrained into the current status quo that you can't parse something that would be that different from it.

The greater risk for potentially uninformed and unprepared fatality comes to mind. — THX1138

What do you believe it's at all difficult to be informed about here?

Also, in your view it's morally wrong to do something to yourself that you're uninformed and unprepared for because?

I think my answer to your question (which because of the way you wrote it I do not completely understand) lies in my post you quoted. Yes, subject to legal controls. There is very little most of us do that is done in a vacuum or in isolation. All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way. I call that community. And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control. Whether or how are different topics. But the right is there. And for the most part, for the good.

That covers duty to others. There is also duty to self. There's a morality there as well. And within certain bounds, also subject to law. — tim wood

That's some sense of entitlement there if your generalization here is sufficient to allow "right thinking members in the community" (as you've so coined) to compromise other members within the community's individual rights automatically at the very whiff of daned "immorality."

I had a neighbor who beat his wife. When I objected, he told me to mind my own business. How do you suppose I knew he beat his wife? The deeper point is that we're mostly all mostly closely connected. If it could truly be the case that your behaviours would be no business of mine at all, likely I'd go my way. But it isn't. — tim wood

Things aren't always what they seem though. Ever hear of role play? What if (hypothetical, not really wondering in the case of the couple you're actually referring to) they were role playing and didn't want to break scene because of your interruption? Anyway, the thing to do would be call the police -- this is the authority in whose jurisdiction this ball falls in the court of, not you. Not to make the woman being beat a statistic overall, but, in these cases, it's often probable shes had numerous opportunities to take off on this guy yet doesn't really put herself in a position to where she reasonably rids herself of her supposed stalking, abusive husband (subconcious role play that convienently releases her of having responsibility of her "abuse," how convienent for her, must be fun feeling like Helen of Troy with everyone having to rescue the helpless damsel irl).

Just want to make it clear that this man is still an abuser, but if his wife developed Stockholm syndrome -- like many women in these situations do -- then she isn't entirely helpless, she is enabling this pattern. Call the police for the beating, call a psychologist for her mental health. Any woman in her right state of mind would find a way to break out of this otherwise.

Why isn't calling the police on active crimes a viable option? Citizens are taxed for them to civilly serve and interfere in these instances.

The greater risk for potentially uninformed and unprepared fatality comes to mind.
— THX1138

What do you believe it's at all difficult to be informed about here?
— Terrapin Station

To me, it wouldn't be like ordering the wrong part to your car because of going by your mechanic friend's advice or getting the wrong diaper size for your kid. A mistake in drug usage isn't always that reversible, and has the very real possibility of being fatal. Maybe Wayne's confidence in his drug related skills are off, but it's his friend -- who just wants to get high and not die -- who could end up dying.

I dunno, that's just me. I have tried out cocaine once and crystal meth about five times. I don't have friends with drug know how, these were just other guys I met up for random hook ups and coke or meth was offered. Honestly, I would've felt more confident if I had gotten high on these in a place like a hookah bar.

I also liken it to surgery. You want someone who knows what the heck they are doing when you are getting something that sensitive done.

I guess if the law didn't need to weigh in on restricting who can do these things, I'd hope it would at least allow for the option of finding people verified to have experience and skill for peace of mind.

Still, I'd find it wrong if it wasn't more of a given (for my and others' benefit, we don't all have it -- connections -- like that, and can get duped with fake merchandise or another drug that isn't at all what was requested), which is why I apply morality when considering this not being the standard.

All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way.
— tim wood

There's no way these things are anyone else's business so that there's a moral problem with them. The moral problem would be prohibiting people from doing things that are risky, that can threaten their own health, even their own life.

And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control.
— tim wood

Implied . . .via people who want to control others making it up? — Terrapin Station

Although I do believe there should be some reasonable regulation or protocol to avoid living in a world like The Purge, I side with you on with the "My business is my business" approach (considering I'm a Schizophrenic with this exact acute concern).

Using illegal drugs is unlawful, not immoral. Two. Different. Things. — DingoJones

How about both. By the way, are you on with Terrapin that there is nothing wrong with taking illegal drugs?

On Monday December 10, 2012, the private consumption of marijuana was legalized in Colorado. So, as I understand your position, at 11:55 PM on Dec 9, 2012 it was immoral to consume marijuana and then at 12:01 AM it was no longer immoral. Or to put it another way, the immorality has nothing to do with the drug usage, but is only linked to it's illegality. — EricH

Yes, as to illegality. As to harm, I'm agnostic on marijuana because I don't know about it. People I've met who take it say it's harmless and wonderful. People I've met who have taken a lot of it over time say it does harm and is not so wonderful. Maybe it's like cigarettes: one will do you short term damage, but it won't kill you, and you might not even notice the damage. More and it gets more damaging and over time more dangerous.

So-called dangerous drugs, that are a danger to self and others and community, then I think there's a moral question. Legalization and some appropriate controls solve a lot of problems. But allow me this question: is it immoral for an alcoholic to drink?

"My business is my business" — THX1138

Yep, pretty much, if you can keep it your business! If you cannot, then the claim itself is pretty foolish, yes?

Yep, pretty much, if you can keep it your business! If you cannot, then the claim itself is pretty foolish, yes? — tim wood

Everyone chooses what part of their lives to share. I never reveal my full hand of cards. What I share on here I'd never share irl. Last thing I need is someone with some personal vendetta against certain aspects about myself going for me out irl when I don't go on that way. All the people I've significantly wronged -- which I can count with my ten fingers (without needing to use them all) -- I've reached out to and without being made to have to, acknowledged my wrongdoings and asked for their forgiveness. I'm fortunate that they were all kind and sincere enough to help me not hate myself for what I've put them through. No lynchmob, no getting-back-at-him antics, no mind games. I doubt I can ever get close to the kind of individual who'd resort to doing that to someone and considering it a rightful duty anyway.

Perhaps instead of immoral we could say repulsive. When people get into excess food, alcohol, or drugs. When the drugs do the user, they can become immoral, selfish, dishonest, abusive. They spend every dollar they have, sell everything, then beg steal and borrow to get money for drugs. They don't give a damn about anyone.
I suppose there can be some that can do a little and leave it, but has anyone ever said that a person was better after they started doing heroin?

How about both. By the way, are you on with Terrapin that there is nothing wrong with taking illegal drugs? — tim wood

No, not both. Two. Different. Things.
You continue to conflate morality and the law.
There is nothing morally wrong with taking an illegal drug unless there is a moral/immoral reason not to take the drug. It doesnt matter if its legal or not, because it is a moral question not a legal one. Get it? Moral and legal are two different categories, if you are asking a question about what is lawful or unlawful then it is a legal question...if you are asking about what is moral then it is a moral question. They are two different things with different priorities to different people and different goals.
As has been pointed our before, your framing of the question is tainted by your moral objections to taking drugs. Thats whats driving you here, obvious to anyone reading. If you want to ask an honest question then you would be asking whether or not it is moral to break any law....but of course your whole premiss goes up in smoke once you do that because its so so easy to show that in fact breaking the law can be the most moral thing to do.

I know what you mean.
So I really am out of here now, It's been a hell-uva ride. A rollercoaster of downs and downs. But I feel on the level now. Peace to all.