fatherphil

how is it moral or immoral to use drugs (including alcohol) to recreationally alter ones state of mind?

Philosoft

I suppose it depends on the basis of one's moral principles. A moral system predicated on empathy, or avoiding harm to others, would probably not entail moral prohibition of recreational drug use as a general principle. Although, on a case-by-case basis, questionable situations might arise - for example, taking LSD while driving one's family cross-country.

christ-on-a-stick

I don't see the act of choosing to alter one's brain chemistry through ingestion of *any* substance as a moral issue in and of itself . Moral/ethical issues arise only in regard to if and when said choice affects others to which there is an obligation.

Monkeybot

Ditto, there's nothing inherently wrong with recreational use of drugs -- but when drugs interfere with other moral responsibilities, that instance of drug use is wrong.

Godless Dave

Ditto what the above two said. If I smoke pot, no moral question at all. If I'm so addicted to pot I don't pay attention to my kids, there's a definite moral question. If I buy pot that I know originated with vicious murdering gangsters, there's also a moral question - similar to ones that arise if you buy any product; there are many perfectly legal corporations that promote poverty, violence, and injustice throughout the world.

For the record, I don't have kids, and my pot comes from hippies in Texas.

Sarpedon

Many chemicals are routinely released into the blood stream and brain by our own bodies, with mood-altering effects. Why should these outside chemicals be considered different.

fatherphil

many would say to boycott nike because of their business practices. yet no one really concerns themselves too much about the living conditions of the peons within a drug cartel.

does the use of a narcotic by someone who can still function in society give a tacit approval of its use by those who can't? it almost seems like a parymid scheme.

was china correct in fighting to prevent the open sale of opium to its population?

is society completely unaffected by your drug use? could it not benefit by you being in control of all your faculties at all times?

if your neighbor needed help at a moment that you were stoned, would you be less able to help him?

fatherphil

but they are different. but for the sake of arguement, then lets just limit the discussion to those chemicals which are not produced naturally by our own bodies and assume that the ones our bodies produce provide a cosmic benefit to us that we can not fully comprehend.

christ-on-a-stick

For some, yes. For others, no. Same with alcohol, cigarettes, *food* (all those pesky medical costs associated with obesity!!!), cars (lots of reckless drivers), etc. etc.... Not all drug use precludes "being in control of your faculties". In addition, "being in control of all your faculties" is not "necessary" at all times - if you're chilling out in your (or another's) private residence to relax or party or whatever, how is this relevant? Obviously scenarios of people being under the influence while working or responsible for another fall into the already-mentioned category of "affecting others".

Philosoft

By this logic, no one should run 3 miles for excercise, because the ensuing fatigue might also prevent you from helping your neighbor. The "unusual circumstances" argument is rarely persuasive. We can't possibly be in a position to most effectively deal with emergencies at all times.