On Moral Arguments Against Recreational Drug Use

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think we've seen the results of drug prohibition. There's two possible approaches. The authoritarian method is highly effective so, in a number of Asian nations the stance is basically "If you take drugs we will kill you". Then there is the western approach where governments attempt to temper the atrocities they cause, and the result is a huge buildup of organised crime.

So we have three choices:

1) To accept living under authoritarianism or a dictatorship with massive tax dollars spent on enforcement, incarceration and executions.

2) To accept pointless destruction of young lives in prison, fostering of organised crime, with huge tax dollars spent on enforcement, conviction, incarceration and treatment of addicts.

3) To regulate most recreational drugs, educate the populace in safety and efficacy, and collect taxes to handle the costs of education, administration and treatment of addicts.

3(a) school education about the use, abuse, and safe-use of drugs.

[henry quirk]

Said it before (and you communitarians artfully ignored or mischaractetized it): folks cooperate to satisfy individual agendas, not imitate ants.

Unions, nations, etc. come to be cuz individuals cooperate, not cuz pieces come together to form a machine.

That is: folks work together out of individual self-interest ('I wanna stay alive [or acheive sumthin'] and I have a better chance of doin' that if I work with these fellows here to hunt, to oppose the king, to build a damn, etc.).

Cooperation is a strategy, not the end goal.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Said it before (and you communitarians artfully ignored or mischaractetized it): folks cooperate to satisfy individual agendas, not imitate ants.

Unions, nations, etc. come to be cuz individuals cooperate, not cuz pieces come together to form a machine.

That is: folks work together out of individual self-interest ('I wanna stay alive [or acheive sumthin'] and I have a better chance of doin' that if I work with these fellows here to hunt, to oppose the king, to build a damn, etc.).

Cooperation is a strategy, not the end goal.

I think you are posting on the wrong thread. What has this got to do with moral arguments about drug use?

[Greta]

The bottom line of this issue seems to be, which sick people are worth putting resources into saving? Where is the line drawn and when are people written off as lost causes?

Our societies' pressures, complexities and crowdedness make it ever more difficult to find and achieve deep, lasting and satisfying connections with others. The resultant oxytocin deficit is increasingly believed to be pivotal to addiction.

So society creates conditions that promote addiction and then punishes those seeking a greater sense of peace and connection but are unable to find such peace through prescribed channels. The Catch-22 is clearly cruel and unethical and seemingly driven by the mild natural selection that politicians engage in every budget. Despite the rhetoric, "corperments"* clearly want the weak and unproductive to die as soon (and cheaply) as possible.

Prohibition is one way of doing this. If you are too "weak" to eke out a good life for yourself and resort to chemical compensation then the government will send you to prison to be bashed, raped and corrupted and hasten your demise, and they will deny you the help you need on the street. If you find illegal drugs help you get by in life then every election you will be demonised by politicians and they will compete to concoct policies that can bring drug users closer to an early death.

Ironically, the elderly who encourage this state-sanctioned bastardry are next in society's sights. Increasingly support will be withheld - and at no point will most join the dots and understand that they are reaping what they have sown. Just as they damned others to be lost causes they are quickly themselves becoming lost causes once they cease to be productive. Meanwhile, as populations grow, each life means a little less.

In a tribe with a dozen people, every person matters. In a tribe of seven billion, most people are completely expendable to the point where the bottom socio-economic rung would happily be jettisoned by "corperments" if they could get away with it.

* I am starting to use "corperment" because corporations are now largely controlling the decisions of governments.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The bottom line of this issue seems to be, which sick people are worth putting resources into saving? Where is the line drawn and when are people written off as lost causes?

Our societies' pressures, complexities and crowdedness make it ever more difficult to find and achieve deep, lasting and satisfying connections with others. The resultant oxytocin deficit is increasingly believed to be pivotal to addiction.

So society creates conditions that promote addiction and then punishes those seeking a greater sense of peace and connection but are unable to find such peace through prescribed channels. The Catch-22 is clearly cruel and unethical and seemingly driven by the mild natural selection that politicians engage in every budget. Despite the rhetoric, "corperments"* clearly want the weak and unproductive to die as soon (and cheaply) as possible.

Prohibition is one way of doing this. If you are too "weak" to eke out a good life for yourself and resort to chemical compensation then the government will send you to prison to be bashed, raped and corrupted and hasten your demise, and they will deny you the help you need on the street. If you find illegal drugs help you get by in life then every election you will be demonised by politicians and they will compete to concoct policies that can bring drug users closer to an early death.

Ironically, the elderly who encourage this state-sanctioned bastardry are next in society's sights. Increasingly support will be withheld - and at no point will most join the dots and understand that they are reaping what they have sown. Just as they damned others to be lost causes they are quickly themselves becoming lost causes once they cease to be productive. Meanwhile, as populations grow, each life means a little less.

In a tribe with a dozen people, every person matters. In a tribe of seven billion, most people are completely expendable to the point where the bottom socio-economic rung would happily be jettisoned by "corperments" if they could get away with it.

* I am starting to use "corperment" because corporations are now largely controlling the decisions of governments.

I think you are characterising this issue very narrowly.

"ADDICTION" has very little to so with this issue. - except that it is the raison d'guerre used to justify continual profiteering in the prison service, and the political kudos earned from the "war on drugs". Most recreational drug use has nothing to do with addiction at all, and proscription of drugs is not, and never was any kind of solution. Most people have taken cannabis, and the regular or repeated data points to a drug which is far from addictive. But similar stats exist for other prescribed drugs. Take them or leave them.

RIght now, in the USA, the world's largest prison population (per capita), is represented by more that 50% of drug related crimes; from drug gang murders, to addict related burglary and muggings.

Drugs represent one of the few opportunities for many communities for individuals to achieve a living. It only serves to re-inforce the inherent racist of the USA to pursue a policy of drugs proscription, when the vast sums spent on prisons might be more effectively spent on urban re-generation, education and economic stimulus.

[Greta]

I think you are characterising this issue very narrowly.

"ADDICTION" has very little to so with this issue. - except that it is the raison d'guerre used to justify continual profiteering in the prison service, and the political kudos earned from the "war on drugs". Most recreational drug use has nothing to do with addiction at all, and proscription of drugs is not, and never was any kind of solution. Most people have taken cannabis, and the regular or repeated data points to a drug which is far from addictive. But similar stats exist for other prescribed drugs. Take them or leave them.

RIght now, in the USA, the world's largest prison population (per capita), is represented by more that 50% of drug related crimes; from drug gang murders, to addict related burglary and muggings.

Drugs represent one of the few opportunities for many communities for individuals to achieve a living. It only serves to re-inforce the inherent racist of the USA to pursue a policy of drugs proscription, when the vast sums spent on prisons might be more effectively spent on urban re-generation, education and economic stimulus.

I agree. The story of pot is more complex, though.

Pot's initial prohibition in the US was a racist move by the US government to pressure weed-smoking Mexicans into leaving. It was never needed nor appropriate but has become kind of traditional - this ingrained idea that pot is some scary, terrible thing. I still remember my father fuming over his newspaper at the kitchen table on reading an article about all those young people "smoking heroin and injecting marijuana". Ignorant, reflexive conservative tribalism is largely what stands between society and rational drug laws. Also the liquor lobby.

Now smokers are getting addicted to smoking pot due to the tobacco they use as a mixer. If weed was legal, there would be non-addictive and more benign mixers available. Instead stoners become so addicted to the tobacco that they become depressed through nico withdrawal. Further, due to criminalisation, weed has become ever more potent and compressed due to the need for compact storage by criminal gangs.

Prohibition creates pressure for drug producers and sellers to create ever more compact and potent products. There was a time when most of the weed was coming from plantations run by dumb hippies in the tropics and subtropics. Easy picking for shiny new police helicopters, and the stings would generate triumphant news articles of "major drug busts", boosting the government's statistics in their "war against drugs". So pot was then grown hydroponically, with much more scientific focus on the genetics to maximise potency. So, instead of natural plants grown out in the fields there came genetically modified varieties of much greater potency.

When I speak of "potency" I'm not comparing even strong weed with any of the synthetic drugs. It's in a category of its own, but weed is still not as benign as it was, and the problem of nicotine addiction is a festering problem that is not addressed. The depressive effects on unacknowledged nicotine withdrawal in those who decide stop smoking weed can be highly problematic. The government just says "no" and does not allow instructions to be given to avoid problems for those who are not always obedient.

The same thing happened when synthetic weed was legal. The first batch of "Puff" (not the harsh stuff sold in tobacconists) produced a light high without the heavy body stone. It was very pleasant and peaceful. When the formula became illegal, the chemists tweaked it and the result was something far strong, and less similar to weed. Its formula was too outlawed and the next batch was downright trippy! Then the government banned every possible artificial substance not created by multinationals that is capable of making human beings feel happy. So everyone returned to the black market.

All of this is the fault of prohibition and its naive inability to accept the human condition. A huge number of people are clearly not happy living within the proscribed bandwidth of activities allowed, with the only legal way of altering consciousness being to render yourself insensible. Given the relative safety and comfort modern societies provide, many more people should be happy. However, there is a tradeoff - we gain safety and comfort but lost the natural environments to which our bodies evolved over millions of years. We lose our groundedness and we feel baseless, hence the creation of myths to find a link between themselves and the natural world their bodies unconsciously crave.

Now we are expected to simply ignore our occasionally-raging inner beasts - pop the beast on a shelf, out of sight out of mind - and get on with it. Where is the pressure valve? In an ideal world the love and support of a happy extended family and a successful career can overcome this lack. Let's say that covers about a third of the populace who are operating legally. What of the losers? What of those who are not allowed to contribute, their abilities superseded by machines?

They could try to black out their pain with booze, transfer the pain with cruelty or violence. They might drive themselves ever harder to reach a point where the discomfort goes away. They might just give up. Or they might have the option of using, rather than abusing, a plant that is capable of promoting happiness in those who may not have known the feeling in decades.

[Obvious Leo]

A nicely presented essay, Greta. Send a copy to your local state MP.

[Obvious Leo]

But go easy on the insults because I'm one of those dumb hippies.

[Greta]

Ha! One letter. First, a database would be updated registering one constituent in favour of relaxing prohibition. Then it would probably be sent to the Federal Police and ASIO for profiling.

[Obvious Leo]

Then it would probably be sent to the Federal Police and ASIO for profiling

They've probably already got substantial files on both of us, Greta, but I don't think the superannuated hippies attract the sort of intense scrutiny they once might have. Nowadays you've got to blow yourself to smithereens to get much attention and such self-indulgent behaviour is far too uncool for the likes of me.

[Arising_uk]

...
Drugs represent one of the few opportunities for many communities for individuals to achieve a living. It only serves to re-inforce the inherent racist of the USA to pursue a policy of drugs proscription, when the vast sums spent on prisons might be more effectively spent on urban re-generation, education and economic stimulus.

When I was teaching NEETs in inner-city London, apart from laughing at me about how much I earned a day compared to them, they told me that 'weed is called 'food' and when I asked why they rolled their eyes and said 'Because it puts food on the table'. Eye-opener that one.

[henry quirk]

As I say up-thread: decriminalize all them debbil chemicals...let folks eat, drink, smoke, pop, snort, and anally insert whatever they like.

Just make it clear up front the consequences are on the individual, not the taxpayer.

And, again: there are no moral arguments to offer for or against cuz there ain't no morality beyond personal preference and rationalization.

[henry quirk]

-Hey, have a toke!

Nah, thanks anyway.

-Why not?

Cuz I don't wanna.

-Man, that's no reason.

Man, it's the only one I need, only one you're gonna get, end of discussion.

#

-You know, that shit is no good for you.

Fuck you, I'm smokin' it.

-Why?

Cuz I wanna.

-Man, that not a good reason to poison yourself.

Man, it's the only one I need, only one you're gonna get, end of discussion.


Mind your own business; keep your hands to yourself.

[duszek]

Do drugs really have the power to recreate a human body in a way ?
To make it more alive and more healthy ?
Or is it the psyche which gets recreated to the detriment of the body ?

An aspirin can recreate the well-being but the kidneys suffer. The same with most pain-killers.

[Obvious Leo]

Do drugs really have the power to recreate a human body in a way ?
To make it more alive and more healthy ?
Or is it the psyche which gets recreated to the detriment of the body ?

An aspirin can recreate the well-being but the kidneys suffer. The same with most pain-killers.

There's no such thing as a free lunch in biology. A human body is the product of 4 billion years years of molecular evolution and any interference in its homeostatic balance comes with a price tag, which is always altered protein synthesis as well as imprecise cellular mitosis. That means we're all gunna die. However deliberately seeking out altered mind-states through various alkaloids and other plant substances seems to be ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom so it also seems likely that this might confer some survival value. Perhaps a swarm of pissed bees can out-compete a swarm of sober ones.