Farren

By creating ill will and diminishing wellbeing when the absolutist morality is actually exercised in th real world. I think my previous posts qualify this statement so I don't want to rehash it again.

fatherphil

abel, extheist dragged religion into it and that was whom i was addressing.

but if the "absolute moralist" like myself excercises his moral beliefs in the real world what ill will is created? is well being diminished by my belief that drug abuse is wrong? what of the beilief that my making such a statement is wrong? do realize that i've encountered my share of folks on this board who maintain that i'm wrong about so many things i've said here. is that wrong of them?

majestyk, i grabbing at straws here. could you just present one thing that you would unequivically state is "wrong" for anyone to do?

Majestyk

Rape. Theft. Murder. Deceit. If, situations can be produced for these acts to be justified, the act itself is still wrong and some form of restitution, atonement, or confession needs to be made after the situation is resolved.

On a side note, Phil; I can’t argue this in a vacuum. Your opinion is justified. I just can’t let it go without stating my opinion that criminalization is wholly destructive to our society as well as the individuals who are caught up in it. Even though you are not arguing the criminalization aspect on this thread.

fatherphil

thanks majetyk, we are in agreement over the wrongness of the 4 actions you describe.

don't sweat the last point too much but realize the cost on society that legalization would bring.

Majestyk

Already have. My position is unchanged. The cost of legalisation pales in comparison to the cost of criminalisation. It's just easier to ignore the cost of criminalization because, the judicial/penal system keeps it out of the mainstream view. Out of sight, out of mind.

We only see the heroic actions of law enforcement battling the evil drug dealers.

fatherphil

do you think there is no cost on society by increased drug use or do you think those costs are still less than what we pay now for crimilization? but if you had your way, you'd certainly be giving the tobacco companies a new lease on life.

remember that those involved in the illegal liquor trade did not exactly go straight with the end of prohibition.

Majestyk

Is there evidence to claim we would see an increase in drug use? We would almost certainly see a change in drug use but we are using drugs on a regular basis, now.

Absolutely. *edit* Whether usage stays at its current level or increases exponentially.

My only problem with tobacco is the subsidies provided to tobacco farmers.

Many of them did. The users were at least no longer criminal. The producers and distributors who continued in illegal activities were, either already inclined towards criminal behavior or committed to criminal status because of crimes associated with their previously criminal activity. They just lost one, extremely profitable, revenue source.

Btw, Why did it require a Constitutional Amendment to criminalize alcohol but not other narcotics?

miscreant

False premise there. You're implying that the tobacco companies are being sued for selling cigarettes. But that's not the case, they are being sued because they knew about the dangers it posed to the people smoking, and tried to cover this information up. If they had been straight forward when they found out that smoking was harmful, they would not be in the doghouse now.

I have yet to see you posit a good argument why people using recreational drugs is wrong. You said that the societal contract requires me to bring the 'best' I have to the table... but I don't see how you figure that either. Being part of the society means you're supposed to coexist with the others in your society and generally keep conflict to a minimum.

If my drug use is not affecting anybody else, then I fail to see how you can claim I'm being immoral.

Yes, there may be effects on society of drug use. But there are effects on society of essentially any activity you can name. I can just as easily claim that the overall effects of religion on society are negative since it discourages critial thinking in many of its followers, but I would not consider that ample reason to ban religion.

You have to have a better reason than I don't like it and a portion of the population that does it get addicted.

Another point is that you have no way of quantifying the positive effects it has on society. How do you quantify people's enjoyment of their leisure time?
You also never know how many things are a result of the altered state of mind that these drugs induce.
The first machine for gene sequencing was thought up while the inventor was high on LSD.

And to quote a Tool CD:

"I believe drugs have done good things for us. I really do, and if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favour, go home tonight take all your albums, all your tapes, all your CDs, and burn them. Because you know what, the musicians who made all that great music that has enhanced your lives throught the years... reeeeeaaaalll fuckin high on drugs."

Miscreant

fatherphil

tobacco companies would move into the legal trade of marketing drugs as would other corporations. there would be a strong push to encourage more consumption of the product on all levels. surely these efforts would pay off by increasing the number of consumers. with that increase there would be an increase in the number of health and addiction problems associated with drug use. these issues would soon rival if not surpass the level of problems from alcoholism and tobacco use.

as for the positive side, i've always thought that truly creative people were able to create without being high. but i suppose non motivated folk are also non motivated when sober. who knows?

i hope this dream of legalized drugs never comes to pass in this country. but by all means, let it happen accross europe and asia.

Abel Stable

I think its rather ignorant of you to comment on (or make judgements about) someone's creative process. Even if you are an artist yourself, it's no more than an arrogant aside.

You might also want to recall that morphine was available over the counter less than a century ago, marijuana was very popular during prohibition (and was criminalized mostly as an anti-immigrant law against migrant Mexicans). Legalization might not be an answer, but decriminalization (of "soft drugs") is a step in the right direction. Marijuana is less harmful than both alcohol & tobacco. Canada has recently been making some sweeping steps in a move towards decriminalizing marijuana. I suppose in a few years we'll see to what extent their society is changed by this. Something tells me that it won't be much.

And another note- The United States has the highest per capita prision population in the world. The majority are non-violent drug offenders- whose lives & families have been far more devestated by their incarceration than by the effects of drug use. For every ten alcoholics mistreating their loved ones, there is someone being locked up for growing pot in their basement. Drug-trade violence is a direct result of the black market. The ongoing "War on Drugs" is a tremendous failure & waste of money.

There are too many angles to approach in a single post, so I won't even try. Maybe if I have the time I'll look for some articles to post. For now, I'm just thinking out loud.
Drug laws are bound to change. Maybe not for 50 or 100 years, but a change will come. Since this isn't a thread on drug legislation, I'll leave it at that.