On Moral Arguments Against Recreational Drug Use

[Philosophy Now]

Rob Lovering considers some of the arguments, and what they amount to.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/113/On ... l_Drug_Use

[Hobbes' Choice]

Is anyone here going to post to defend the continued prohibition of so-called illegal drugs?
If so, on what grounds?

[Impenitent]

Is anyone here going to post to defend the continued prohibition of so-called illegal drugs?
If so, on what grounds?

DUI, taxing, universal health care

-Imp

[Obvious Leo]

Is anyone here going to post to defend the continued prohibition of so-called illegal drugs?
If so, on what grounds?

DUI, taxing, universal health care

-Imp

Your parsimony of language is admirable but unfortunately rather opaque. It's rather difficult to determine whether you're for or against prohibition but certainly on health care grounds prohibition is plainly bloody absurd.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





...........................................................







.

[Impenitent]

Is anyone here going to post to defend the continued prohibition of so-called illegal drugs?
If so, on what grounds?

DUI, taxing, universal health care

-Imp

Your parsimony of language is admirable but unfortunately rather opaque. It's rather difficult to determine whether you're for or against prohibition but certainly on health care grounds prohibition is plainly bloody absurd.

string yourself out on smack and the government will keep you healthy...

-Imp

[Philosophy Explorer]

I'm for controlling the use of drugs as drug usage can lead to crime or harming yourself. There are many examples, one of which is where someone ODs on heroin which I often hear about on my evening news and somebody applies another drug to snap that person out of the heroin OD. Also people rob/kill someone else to get money to support their drug addiction is another example (I include alcohol on this list although driverless driving may reduce the number of deaths or injuries looking ahead).

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

string yourself out on smack and the government will keep you healthy...

This is a response laden heavily with self-righteousness but poorly laced with logic. When it comes to the social "good" it is necessary to compare the merits of various solutions to whatever problem is under discussion. Are you suggesting that the prohibition of drugs leads to less social harm when the use of drugs is treated as a criminal justice question than it does if such use is instead regarded as a public health issue? If you are then there is no empirical evidence whatsoever which validates such a position and a veritable encyclopedia of empirical evidence which contradicts it. Furthermore such a stance must also then be compared like for like with other public health issues which are a far greater burden on the public purse, for example the abuse of even more harmful substances which are perfectly legal.

If a response more detailed than one which could be expressed in a single line is beyond your attention span then it may be more helpful to the discussion if you were to keep it to yourself.

[Impenitent]

string yourself out on smack and the government will keep you healthy...

This is a response laden heavily with self-righteousness but poorly laced with logic. When it comes to the social "good" it is necessary to compare the merits of various solutions to whatever problem is under discussion. Are you suggesting that the prohibition of drugs leads to less social harm when the use of drugs is treated as a criminal justice question than it does if such use is instead regarded as a public health issue? If you are then there is no empirical evidence whatsoever which validates such a position and a veritable encyclopedia of empirical evidence which contradicts it. Furthermore such a stance must also then be compared like for like with other public health issues which are a far greater burden on the public purse, for example the abuse of even more harmful substances which are perfectly legal.

If a response more detailed than one which could be expressed in a single line is beyond your attention span then it may be more helpful to the discussion if you were to keep it to yourself.

thank you

-Imp

[henry quirk]

Joe is a crackhead.

I got no problem with Joe smokin' crack.

I'm not gonna hang with Joe, not gonna have him over for dinner, will never employ him, and will not pay for his groceries or his doctor visits.

If Joe gets this (that he's on his own) then his crack smokin' is not my concern.

If, however, Joe thinks I'm gonna subsidize his appetite or living, well, Joe's in for a surprise.

Now lots of bleeding hearts, with good intentions, and less than sharp thinking, are all about subsidizing Joe. Well and fine, I say. How any person discharges his or her resources in the world is also not my concern.

Just stay the hell away from my wallet.

To sum it up...

Joe can smoke himself into perdition for all I care. I, myself, won't be lending him a hand up or out.

And: as any one likes, they can put themselves in the poor house helpin' Joe. I, myself, won't be sleepin' in the cot next to them.

[Arising_uk]

I'm for controlling the use of drugs as drug usage can lead to crime or harming yourself. There are many examples, one of which is where someone ODs on heroin which I often hear about on my evening news and somebody applies another drug to snap that person out of the heroin OD. Also people rob/kill someone else to get money to support their drug addiction is another example (I include alcohol on this list although driverless driving may reduce the number of deaths or injuries looking ahead).

PhilX

Most of this is due to their illegality as OD's are due to poor quality control and the dose the addict gets is too strong compared to the last time and robbing to support one's habit is, in the main, because they are too expensive. Although you could argue that legalization won't solve all the problems associated with addiction I think it would ease them, raise revenue and lower crime, hence pretty much no-one thinks alcohol prohibition should be re-instated.

[henry quirk]

Almost forgot...

There are no moral arguments to offer (for or against anything).

All that really matters is how cleanly one aligns with the way the world works.

Smoking crack is just dumb. It makes one into a substandard mook, incapable of self-directing and -relying.

No appeal to morality need be made. Just observe the practical consequences of the action, assess, conclude.

Forests have gone into countless books about drugs, drug use, and solutions to the 'drug problem' and it's just not that complicated. Joe wants to eat Drano...let him...protect yourself from Joe...simple.

And: no...don't legalize...just decriminalize...it's ghoulish to raise revenue on the backs of the addicted...just leave them to their chosen hells and don't become their prey.

'nuff said.

[Arising_uk]

...
And: no...don't legalize...just decriminalize...it's ghoulish to raise revenue on the backs of the addicted...just leave them to their chosen hells and don't become their prey.

'nuff said.

Except that over here we have a National Health Service and addicts can be an extra drain so paying tax on their product usage seems a reasonable position to take. Plus taxing the producers seems reasonable as why should ghouls be tax-exempt?

[henry quirk]

"over here we have a National Health Service and addicts can be an extra drain"

Seems to me to be the natural consequence of making health a communal matter rather than an individual one (sumthin' the U.S. is well on it's way to implementing). In the (brutal) real world Joe would be responsible for Joe. He'd have no NHS to bail his ass out...meaning poor, crack smokin' Joe is gonna die.

But then, we all do that eventually.

#

"so paying tax on their product usage seems a reasonable position to take. Plus taxing the producers seems reasonable as why should ghouls be tax-exempt?"

It should come as no surprise that I have a significant problem with taxation (the various methods and what tax monies fund), but that's fodder for another thread.

If, as I say, Joe understood that he's gotta take care of himself (cuz no one else will), and - knowing this - he insisted on smokin' the crack, then Joe will damn well know that he's gonna die. And he will. No need to tax or regulate crack cuz the folks who partake take themselves out of the game early.

But, more and more, none of us live in the (brutal) real world. A buffering fantasy has been built, one where even Joe Crackhead can survive AND indulge his appetite.

So: mebbe criminalizing them debbil chemicals is the way to go. But then folks have to pay for the upkeep of Joe and his supplier in the hooshgow.

Mebbe we just need a good apocalypse to sort things out...start fresh the day after.

[Arising_uk]

Seems to me to be the natural consequence of making health a communal matter rather than an individual one (sumthin' the U.S. is well on it's way to implementing). In the (brutal) real world Joe would be responsible for Joe. He'd have no NHS to bail his ass out...meaning poor, crack smokin' Joe is gonna die.

Maybe because he's poor that's true but the positives outweigh the negatives as the average earner gets high-class treatment and overall it costs less than doing it your way with pretty much the same outcomes and there's always the unfortunate who get something the insurance doesn't cover which beggars them. Still, I can understand your thought and given the aging population we're probably gonna go your way as it also makes a lot of money for a few. The main reason it appeared over here was due to two world wars where the upper-classes realised that the poor were in no condition to fight their wars and if they didn't do something they may lose the next one and even worse may become bloody bolsheviks.

But then, we all do that eventually.

So true.

It should come as no surprise that I have a significant problem with taxation (the various methods and what tax monies fund), but that's fodder for another thread.

Fair enough.

If, as I say, Joe understood that he's gotta take care of himself (cuz no one else will), and - knowing this - he insisted on smokin' the crack, then Joe will damn well know that he's gonna die. And he will. No need to tax or regulate crack cuz the folks who partake take themselves out of the game early.

Except that it's generally poverty and what its cut with that's the cause not the drugs.

But, more and more, none of us live in the (brutal) real world. A buffering fantasy has been built, one where even Joe Crackhead can survive AND indulge his appetite.

I thought you said he can't?

So: mebbe criminalizing them debbil chemicals is the way to go. But then folks have to pay for the upkeep of Joe and his supplier in the hooshgow.

And don't forget all the policing. No, legalise and tax seems the best route as your prohibition example showed.

Mebbe we just need a good apocalypse to sort things out...start fresh the day after.

No fresh after an apocalypse.