More nonsense to debate: A moral/philosophical justification for drug use

[DaMayor]

Originally posted by Section 8
Oh man, Dante's going to have a field day when he sees this stuff.

At least now I have something to look forward to once I finish this damn paper...

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by Section 8
I might just be completely delusional, but I just had a thought.

If everyone here is ballsy enough, instead of skipping ahead to society and ethics, perhaps we could discuss the metaphysical foundations of morality. IOW, start at the fundamentals.

If everyone stays critical, this could be fun...

I dont know if I'm up for it right now S8. Actually, the thought of that conversation makes me a bit twitchy... and yet the suspense is too great to withstand.

 

[maniclion]

Is it rational to gamble that there may or may not be a God and an afterlife? Is it rational to think that God wants you to offer him money? I mean why does God need money?

 

[DaMayor]

You're getting caught up in the man-made end/corruption of religion. Some of us who are "believers" ain't real happy with all of the snake oil salemen, and beggars for Jesus out there. Nor are we happy with the sad idiots who bite the hook for this stuff, thereby making the rest of us look like suckers.
DaMayor says keep your crystal cathedral and your bleached blonde witnesses on PTL.

 

[Eggs]

Guys, if we are to dicuss God we need to do it in another thread. This ones about a moral justification for drug use.

I'm fully up for the conversation, but not in this thread.

 

[DaMayor]

And your stance on the issue was..?

 

[Eggs]

I do believe that humans are capable of making rational choices and governing themselves.

That said, alot of progress would need to be made before allowing this in society. For one, most people lack the ability to take responsibility for themselves. As we talked about before with the bike and training wheels... we need to ween the people off the social "unaccountable bottle" that gets passed around these days and teach them that they are the ones that hold the keys to their lives, and the responsibility for whether they succeed or fail rests on their shoulders alone.

Our way of thinking is wrong, and until we make progress in changing that, the benifits of having it cannot be recognized.

To the point at hand, I do not believe rational benificial drug use to be immoral. Haha, of course there is no such thing as rational harmful drug use. There is a fine line between rational and irrational use however, and I do believe it a risky valley to walk in.

 

[maniclion]

Originally posted by maniclion
That reminds me of a Sublime song see my sig.

I think if they legalize the recreational things they can crack down on the stuff that really fuqs you up like ice, but theres money in wars and a drug war is good for our nation, right?

No one commented on this because it got lost between Brittney and Dantes ass, so here it is again.

My experiences with recreational drugs never turned bad or violent, the times I saw someone on drugs turn violent or go in the wrong direction were by chronic abusers. Some of our most creative artists used drugs to tap into their creativity, is it immoral that we indulge in music or movies by artists we know used heavy amounts of drugs in the process of their creations.

 

[DaMayor]

This was addressed in Dante's article, no? (Therefore, a rebuttal would be redundant, wouldn't it?)

I think we need to specify the type of "drugs" we're to debate. Certainly steroids could not be categorized along with, say, opium or crack cocaine.
On the other hand, I suppose one could argue that the type of substance is irrelevant, and that the real issue is man's ability or inability to use substance X responsibly, aka rationally.

Personally, I think that humans are not advanced enough to control their primal urges. We may flaunt our intellectual superiority over other creatures, but we are still "ID driven" beasts.

Anyone else care to chase their tail with me?

 

[Dante B.]

I'll get to all of this later.

I'm definitely up for the discussion, S8, if you'd like to kick it off.

BTW---am very pleased to see a good debate evolving. Puts me in a good mood.

 

[Eggs]

and thats what its all about sweet cheeks, you being in a good mood.

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by DaMayor
This was addressed in Dante's article, no? (Therefore, a rebuttal would be redundant, wouldn't it?)

The article is a starting point for conversation Then we debate it.

I think we need to specify the type of "drugs" we're to debate. Certainly steroids could not be categorized along with, say, opium or crack cocaine.
On the other hand, I suppose one could argue that the type of substance is irrelevant, and that the real issue is man's ability or inability to use substance X responsibly, aka rationally.

I think that we would have to specify which drugs. Namely, those that are very addictive and have no good side affects would be immoral to take. They only degrade human potential and create problems. Now, if the negative side affects were removed from them, I'd say that they should be allowed.

Personally, I think that humans are not advanced enough to control their primal urges. We may flaunt our intellectual superiority over other creatures, but we are still "ID driven" beasts.

And to this one must say that you are correct in part. That however is because he is not forced to. Society teaches him not too, then holds his hand and pats him on the back when he doesnt. Screw that, man is capable of physically (mentally, etc) to control himself. Not every person out there is a drug addict, not everyone cheats on their spouse, etc. There are cases all around us of control. And there are lots of cases of the lack of it. Those that lack it though can be made to have it. Or at least over gnerations it can be instilled.

Anyone else care to chase their tail with me?

Chase your own ass

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by maniclion
Some of our most creative artists used drugs to tap into their creativity, is it immoral that we indulge in music or movies by artists we know used heavy amounts of drugs in the process of their creations.

Perhaps that is like saying "He wouldnt have been such a great mathematician if he hadnt been confined to a wheelchair all his life."

Some of our most creative artists use drugs no doubt. Do they tap into some hidden creativity that cannot be accessed when the artist is in a sober state? I think not, I think that they might come to think so over time because being off the drugs makes them incapable of producing. However, being on does not help them produce.

Is it immoral to go to movies of heavy drug users? Not in and of itself, but if one considers the damage it might do to society by promoting drug use then it could possibly be. On the other hand, can we hold ourselves responsible for the weakness of others? I think not... indeed if a shark is hurt wont the others attack it? Rooting out weakness. Why then do we tread lightly in fear of exposing the weakness of others? Instead when it is exhibited we should remove it like it were a tumor.

"Its not a tumah!" - Arnie

 

[naturaltan]

You guys certainly provide interesting reading when work is slow. I wish I was educated enough to debate with you.

 

[Eggs]

Thats the fun part... we're not! Er, or at least I'm not. Grew up outside of a village for Gods sake

Shoot NT, dont be so patronizing, we know you can handle this conversation

 

[maniclion]

Originally posted by Eggs
I think that we would have to specify which drugs. Namely, those that are very addictive and have no good side affects would be immoral to take. They only degrade human potential and create problems. Now, if the negative side affects were removed from them, I'd say that they should be allowed.

Addictive physically or mentally. A person could be on steroids, become huge and become afraid of stopping because he doesn't want to lose size. After using for an extended period he will have neg. side effects.

Just because that one meathead or a handful of them couldn't quit means I can't do a cycle or 2 to accelerate my growth without the neg. side effect of going to prison.

If we educate more on the proper use of drugs instead of simply telling kids to just say no we probably would see more responsible uses of them. Problem is most are in the dark as to the reality of them to the point that when they try them for the first time they expect the worst then when they have a good time they forget about all of the negative things they were told about them cause they now seem grossly exaggerated.

 

[naturaltan]

Originally posted by Eggs
Thats the fun part... we're not! Er, or at least I'm not. Grew up outside of a village for Gods sake

Shoot NT, dont be so patronizing, we know you can handle this conversation

I have a hard time just understanding the thread ... never mind put three thoughts together to respond. But thanks for the vote of confidence.

I'm the guy S8 who rather avoid because I would prefer to talk sports than solve world problems.

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by maniclion
Addictive physically or mentally. A person could be on steroids, become huge and become afraid of stopping because he doesn't want to lose size. After using for an extended period he will have neg. side effects.

Physically specifically. The way to counter the mental addiction is by teaching people to be more responsible. Which is the difference in those that do a cycle here and there and reap the benifits from it without dipping into the pot of hazards.

Just because that one meathead or a handful of them couldn't quit means I can't do a cycle or 2 to accelerate my growth without the neg. side effect of going to prison.

Yep, I agree. So tell me, how many crack rocks should I smoke before it is immoral? I couldnt have one, because even that one provides negative side affects without ample rewards. The pay off isnt there.

If we educate more on the proper use of drugs instead of simply telling kids to just say no we probably would see more responsible uses of them. Problem is most are in the dark as to the reality of them to the point that when they try them for the first time they expect the worst then when they have a good time they forget about all of the negative things they were told about them cause they now seem grossly exaggerated.

I agree, equipping through knowledge is very important. Mixed with taking reponsibility for their actions and it would be the best way to handle the drug problem we now face.

 

[maniclion]

Take 2 of these and call me in the morning.

Actually crack is just cocaine, once they cut it and "rock" it they can sell it for cheap which makes it popular to the addicts.

Even with methamphetamines, they have their plus sides to the extent that the military issued them to soldiers to provide an extra boost during WW2, pilots as well, diet and alertness aids.
Now it is one of the scourges of our nation, why because it has been able to be produced in a bath tub for next to nothing and sold for nothing. You get high quicker off of ice than a case of beer. Now say we legalise it and better quality stuff is made at a higher price then it's popularity would diminish.

 

[Eggs]

Or would people just keep making it in their bath tubs?

Its hard to say... you might say that they dont do that with alcohol since it was re-legalized. I did, I made homebrew when I was a kid. Still remember that delightful yeast taste

 

[maniclion]

I was gonna mention that, but the wording was wrong so I killed it.

I do beleive that drugs can help you through mental barriers for creativity, you need to have a solid base before you go into that, but it does help as did steroids help Arnold (and Co.) get bigger. Some people can be creative without chemical reactions, some people can be big without steroids. Those who aren't and can't should be allowed to enhance mind or body correct?

 

[Eggs]

I dont think doing so with drugs in their current state would be a good idea. Perhaps over time the government (of some country ) will experiment with drugs and be able to remove more of the side affects. So no, I dont think that people should be able to do a line of cocaine to "open their mind". I do think that there are other methods that could be used that would be more responsible.

Instead of locking themselves in their hotel suite and coking it up, perhaps a better method would be parachuting, or scuba diving, or surfing.. or... there are many things out there that could potentially tap into our creative energies. *Reliance* on drugs makes us weak. Even with steroids. A non-steroid user can still get pretty big given the time and effort put into it. Reliance on steroids to stay big instead of intelligent bodybuilding is wasting human potential that we are born with.

 

[Section 8]

Originally posted by Eggs
I dont think doing so with drugs in their current state would be a good idea. Perhaps over time the government (of some country ) will experiment with drugs and be able to remove more of the side affects. So no, I dont think that people should be able to do a line of cocaine to "open their mind". I do think that there are other methods that could be used that would be more responsible.

Instead of locking themselves in their hotel suite and coking it up, perhaps a better method would be parachuting, or scuba diving, or surfing.. or... there are many things out there that could potentially tap into our creative energies. *Reliance* on drugs makes us weak. Even with steroids. A non-steroid user can still get pretty big given the time and effort put into it. Reliance on steroids to stay big instead of intelligent bodybuilding is wasting human potential that we are born with.

I think you're missing the point on the whole "drugs and cost/benefit ratio" thing.

There are very few drugs that have no positive benefits. Anything with mind-altering capabilities has the potential to be used in a positive manner, if the psychological need matches the potential psychological benefits of the drug in question. Some drugs - PCP and lithium come to mind - really don't have any practical medicinal use, because the dosage threshold for beneficial usage is so close to the threshold for toxicity.

Oxycontin is a drug that the nation is having huge abuse problems with. Many people are dying from it; does that mean its a bad drug? Certainly not. Many addicts call it the 'drug from hell.' Oxycontin is a non-analgesic opiod agonist. With non-analgesic opiod agonists, the point of diminishing returns is death; the more you take (that doesn't kill you) the better you feel. There is a common sense aspect involved. You don't take a pain killer that is stronger than morphine, separate off the membrane that is intended to release it over a 12 hour period, and snort the whole dosage at once. You also don't say "well, I would like to feel even better than I do now, so I think I'll take a bit more."

The same goes for cocaine. Chemically, it is very similar to ritalin. Just because it is possible to crack open and snort a 54mg tab of Concerta, and get as tweaked as you could from a line of coke - doesn't mean that it is a good idea. It also doesn't mean that Concerta is a bad drug. It means that some people are idiots.

I don't think that drugs should be legalized in the strict sense. I do think that people should be allowed to take their psychiatric health into their own hands, if they can demonstrate that they can do so responsibly. Misinformation abounds. There are many people who think they know what's good for them, without having a clue. On the other hand, there are plenty of people out there who could very effectively use drugs to improve their mental state and life conditions, but do not due the ridiculous costs of psychiatric treatment.

IOW, we need something of a test/disclaimer. Something in which people demonstrate that they fully understand the effects, risks, and potential for abuse of Drug X, at which point they acknowledge that if they choose to abuse it they will only have themselves to blame.

Of course (and this is why I think that if we are to debate fundamentals we are best off debating metaphysical fundamentals, instead of 'the moral implications of drug use in a world that does-not-but-could exist') all of this is impossible in the political atmosphere we presently have. Currently, if someone screws up, it isn't their fault, and everyone else is forced to foot the bill. We can't just give people the right to both use drugs that can have positive psychological effects, but negative physical effects, and at the same time force others to pay their medical bills for them. Socialized medical care is entirely incongruent with the legalization of drugs, as is drug legalization and welfare, unemployment compensation, etc.

Although, under our current system, we might also say that fast food should be prescription only, on the basis that gross obesity-related illnesses now cost the nation more money than cigarettes and alcohol, combined. But, that's just a personal gripe.

In order to debate in a manner that will come to 'real worldly' valid conclusions, we must first address the moral implications that are in store for us, as a society, of allowing people to hold more personal responsibility. Some form of 'welfare' needs to kept in place, but it needs to serve the purpose of allowing the children, of idiots, who show potential, to receive some kind of chance at making a life for themselves. First, we must address the political standards of government-assisted financial aid of any sort.

* I didn't get to say what I wanted to say in this post (or make it coherent), but I have to run to class.

 

[Dante B.]

I wasnt talking about ones ability to fit into society. Rather, intelligence, lack of disease, etc. Such as those people with a predisposition to cancer, or heart disease... etc would fit the ticket. Either way, I wasnt saying I agreed with the idea, but that potentially it would be beneficial. Not moral or right in any way.

And how would you measure intelligence.

Some are efficient at being stupid. Regardless, cleaning the gene pool would accomplish absolutely nothing.

Your Dolphins ability to learn the English language is over-stated That said, they are still more intelligent than half the population.

Knowing a word, and understanding a concept especially in relation to another one is what separates a (smart) human from a parrot.

An interesting experiment would be to raise children in seperation from everything to see if they exhibited similar tendencies towards moral characteristics without the influence of society.

Instinct with a sense of self-preservation is what created our original notion of ethics (in a very primitive sense).

That study wouldn't prove anything. What conclusions that one arrived at likely wouldn't be logically integrated into a coherent synthesis anyhow.

What he said.

On a different note, I personally believe that you can explain the actions of people - moral or immoral, rational or irrational with economic theory. "People act in their own interest." This sounds absurd at first, why would I rush into a burning building to save anyone, let alone a stranger if this were true. However, if my morality tells me that it is the right thing to do and I don't do it, I am going to have consequences, namely guilt. If my Christianity tells me how to act and I fail, I am going to have to answer for it. Therefore, it is in my best interest to do what some would say is irrational.

And what do you think economic theory is based off of, or rather, we created economic systems out of a sense of action and values.

As I stated earlier, the will to live--self-preservation--is not only the will to survive, but also the will to exist a certain way. That doesn't preclude self-sacrifice.

Dante, I am sure, would call me highly irrational for giving 10% of my income to my church. This is not in my "self interest" however, in my view, it is in my self-interested. I was taught to do, I believe I must, I would rather do it that face the consequences (both internally and eternally.)

No, I wouldn't call that irrational. I would call your take on this all irrational.

------

As stated, I'm not going to debate religion on here as I've dealt with is elsewhere, and that thread is still open.
--------


On drugs and artists:

"I suppose, in fact, that one wouldn't get much result by giving heroin and cocaine, however cunningly mixed, to the average man. You can't get out of a thing that which isn't there."


Aleister Crowley (Diary of a Drug Fiend)

and this is why I think that if we are to debate fundamentals we are best off debating metaphysical fundamentals, instead of 'the moral implications of drug use in a world that does-not-but-could exist'

Kick it off, my friend

 

[Dante B.]

<->