Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 52

Thread: Is taking drugs immoral?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omaar
    "Plan Colombia, due to expire this year, has made Colombia the third-largest recipient of US military assistance after Israel and Egypt, receiving US$3 million per day in military aid. Eighty per cent of Plan Colombia has come in the form of military funding."
    Yes. I believe the U.S. have often used the drugs-trade as a reasoning for their actions in Colombia. Whether real reaon or just an excuse, the war on drugs has been one of the ways they could convince politicians of the need of military aid, interventions etc in Colombia. So that's one of the unethical effects of buying coke. Also, the drugsmoney certainly fuels the fire, as shown here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Omaar
    " ...despite a 2001 Colombian government report estimating that the guerrillas received only 2.5% of total cocaine revenues — mostly as taxes levied on crop producers. In contrast, around 40% of the drug profits make their way into the hands of the right-wing paramilitaries and their allies."
    Dunno where I read my reverse numbers, but either way, the drugs money is used directly for killing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omaar
    Personally I'm into boycotting Coke (the stuff you might drink) for how they've been playing things in colombia:

    "Coca-Cola's main Latin American bottler, Panamco, is on trial in the US for hiring right wing paramilitaries to kill and intimidate union leaders in Colombia. Since 1989, eight trade union leaders from Coca-Cola bottling plants have been murdered by paramilitary forces, and the lawsuit, filed by the United Steel Workers of America, charges that the paramilitary worked with the blessing of, or in collaboration with, company management."
    Agreed. Both cokes should be boycotted.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King Ink
    True, but does it not strike you as unrealistic and impractical to try not to contribute money inadvertently to people who use it as means for bad ends? For example, how do I know that the guy who owns the convenient store down the street is not funding some kind of millitia or using it to buy child pornography?
    The change of that being the case is of course close to zero, while with drugs you are guaranteed to fund the violence. It's simple: at the beginning of the chain are the cartels. If you eventually get the coke, it's pretty much guaranteed that the cartel, paramilitaries/Farc, the smugglers etc got their (i.e. your) money. It's a chain of transactions. If the money is not being channeled all the way to the cartels etc, the transactional chain breaks. You won't get your coke, someone won't get their money, and someone will be killed. No money, no coke. I don't see how it could be a question whether those criminals will really get your money.
    Last edited by nonseq; 21-06-2005 at 05:21 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omaar
    "A central part of this “anti-drug” strategy has been the spraying of herbicides over the region, particularly a strengthened version of Roundup, or glyphosate, produced by US mega-corporation Monsanto. Over 600,000 hectares of Colombian jungle, the second-largest portion of the Amazon Rainforest after Brazil, has been sprayed in the past five years. The spraying has had a devastating impact on the region, poisoning animals, the water table, crops and the jungle, and causing illness, birth-defects and death amongst the local population."
    Yeah, this shows the environmental and human destruction that comes with buying coke. It also shows Monsanto's Janus face again. One side of the company is making people ill, the other sells them expensive medicines. This was also mentioned by Herbert, I believe in a The Wire interview. At least some artists are not that cynical to no longer talk about anything but their music. Like johneffay mentioned earlier, 'pharmaceutical multinationals are hardly models of ethical probity', but Monsanto seems much worse than your typical pharmaceutical company.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    leeds/sheffield
    Posts
    248

    Default

    what effect does the relative inexperience we have of drugs have on the argument? eg use of E and speed etc are relatively new, and theres little hard facts about the effects of such drugs on the body and mind. Doesnt there need to be some more scientific evidence before legalisation can be advocated?

    what the portuguese experience going like?

    i think henrymillers arg. is the most convincing:
    "drugs make you act like a twat, which is close to being immoral"



    is there any drug that doesnt make you act liek a twat in the eyes of non participants? save maybe tobacco/nicotine?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Sorry I've ignored this thread... I don't have much to add, except possibly that yes, Phillip Morris would have to be better (noting that better =/= good) than completely unregulated drug gangs.

    Quote Originally Posted by ambrose
    what effect does the relative inexperience we have of drugs have on the argument? eg use of E and speed etc are relatively new, and theres little hard facts about the effects of such drugs on the body and mind. Doesnt there need to be some more scientific evidence before legalisation can be advocated?
    No, because the point of legalisation isn't about health, it's about "liberty"

    what the portuguese experience going like?
    Which particular portuguese experience? Have they legalised something?

    i think henrymillers arg. is the most convincing:
    "drugs make you act like a twat, which is close to being immoral"



    is there any drug that doesnt make you act liek a twat in the eyes of non participants? save maybe tobacco/nicotine?

    If he said "drugs CAN make you act like a twat" I'd agree. As it is, drugs don't have a monopoly on making people twats. Should we ban love as well?

    If doing something with a minimum of inherent enjoyment, that does harm those around you directly and is enourmously addictive isn't somewhat twatish, then I don't know what is. Most of the time you don't always know if people are on drugs regardless. One beer doesn't make you look like a twat, and neither does one joint, or even a small toot of chang or speed. Or quarter of a pill. Or anything else.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15

    Default

    seems to me the reason why this debate has any legs at all - why we are talking drugs rather than coca-cola, petrol, clothes - is the hangover of that 60s idea that drug use is positively moral . revolution in the head, a moral rejection of an immoral world, that sort of thing. Nonseq effectively trashes that idea, but then more straightforwardly 'political' types were trashing it at the time.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Don't people take drugs to avoid morality, to be taken to a place without such division or polarity? The stoner watching 2001 , the raver on speed, the artist on smack. More often than not, these are people for whom drugs allow reprieve from questions of morality, the impact of one's indirect contribution to the world's problems, one's unwitting complicitness in such problems, the heavy weight of consequence and neurosis that clouds modern life for nearly everyone, etc... It lends this discussion a certain irony.

    And I think that if other drugs were legal, people (at least the ones I know) would take them as often as they drink.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Yes its very ironic indeed, and this irony is exemplary for the current state of the world.

    What I think is that people currently are so cynical, numb and depoliticized that they don't (want to) see how the political is precisely in the details of everyday live, and that opening your eyes to this reveals a horrific spectacle, a kind of underworld like in David Lynch movies, hidden under the everyday suburban reality glare, beyond the veneer of democracy and the glitzy propaganda of Kapital. The revealing of this tableaux is completely Lynchian, because there too the greatest horror of it all is the realization that you yourself are corrupted, implicated in the underworld, the hidden machinery* feeding your, our desires. See for example Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks (note the drug issues), Lost Highway. See also Assayas' brilliant Demonlover, and more tangential, the excellent Rammstein video Die Sonne: dwarfs digging gold for decadent Snowhite, who injects it as a drug.

    * note the steam engines and other machinery with an industrial-era feel in many Lynch films, for example in Blue Velvet it marks a passage to the darker sides of society

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    What I think is that people currently are so cynical, numb and depoliticized that they don't (want to) see how the political is precisely in the details of everyday live, and that opening your eyes to this reveals a horrific spectacle, a kind of underworld like in David Lynch movies, hidden under the everyday suburban reality glare, beyond the veneer of democracy and the glitzy propaganda of Kapital.
    But these are not the people or motives I refer to. The drug-users (and abusers) that I referenced through very general examples are precisely not those who are fooled by 'suburban reality glare' etc. You mention cynicism, but your language seems to imply ignorance. Most drug users that I know are not ignorant to their realities. Most drug users I know willingly submit to a feeling of morality-lessness, political-lessness, which speaks nothing of their concerns, actions, and guilt during the sober hours. It may sound cyberpunk of me, but drugs often seem to be an escape from too much information. Perhaps this temporary erasure of morals is necessary to balance the burdens of a socially/politically/emotionally over-aware mind? Just riffing here.
    Last edited by 10:02am; 06-07-2005 at 07:58 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    لندورا
    Posts
    3,171

    Default suburban reality glare

    that's interesting 10:02: drug users are currently excluded from legitimate society, which forces them into a perspective that questions validity of the whole 'system', (man!). perhaps this means they are also more likely to commit other types of immorality? yikes

    i think apathy is immoral anyway

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 10:02am
    But these are not the people or motives I refer to. The drug-users (and abusers) that I referenced through very general examples are precisely not those who are fooled by 'suburban reality glare' etc. You mention cynicism, but your language seems to imply ignorance. Most drug users that I know are not ignorant to their realities.
    Actually I wasn't just talking about drug users but people in general. I put the '(want to)' in 'they don't (want to) know' i.e. there are people who have a vague idea of their complicity but don't want to see the truth in all its horrific detail. Many drug users probably fall into this category. What they are exploring is their own head/bellybutton/arse, not the corruption and violence inherent to illegal drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by 10:02am
    Most drug users I know willingly submit to a feeling of morality-lessness, political-lessness, which speaks nothing of their concerns, actions, and guilt of the sober hours.
    Yes this is terrible. As if one could 'turn off' morality during the night. Otherwise a murderer on one day, would be a good man the next.
    Last edited by nonseq; 06-07-2005 at 08:01 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sufi
    i think apathy is immoral anyway
    I think strictly speaking 'immoral' means bad 'mores', bad manners, so that would exclude thought per se, without actions. On the other hand, doing nothing is also an action...

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    568

    Default

    See, reckon that people predominantly take drugs (at least in the beginning) because they are

    FUN

    They keep taking them for a whole range of reasons, but mostly people start taking drugs for fun. Lots of people don't find them fun, or regard the risks (or complicity with nastiness) and unacceptable trade off for fun. And there's nothin wrong with that.

    I think the point about an idea that drugs are inherently moral or good is both common and bullshit. The only reason I mention it is beacuse I would hate, because I personally find that arguement so annoying, for people to think that I was saying that drug use is inherently moral by starting this thread.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    لندورا
    Posts
    3,171

    Default

    FUN is immoral isn't it?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    Yes this is terrible. As if one could 'turn off' morality during the night. Otherwise a murderer on one day, would be a good man the next.

    Drugs 'turn off' many things. And by letting go of morality whilst on drugs, I of course don't mean that to be taken to the extreme. The goal and (hopefully) the result of recreational drug use (i.e. FUN!) is not to become amoral or to have the freedom to act harmfully without regret. But the thoughts that obsess and concern the conscious, aware, and intelligent person (especially in a world where it may seem that morality, in politics and elsewhere, is scarce) dissolve a little, not entirely, and allow for more immediate and weightless pleasures that can be healthy. Not terrible. And not involving murder.

    PS - I realize I run the risk of sounding like some sort of extreme escapist/hedonist that encourages everyone to take drugs at all opportunity. Quite not true. I certainly am aware of personal damage (and terrible behavior) that can come with heavy drug use of any kind. But I also find a value in the pleasures of letting go, and think that it can live comfortably with a moral life, even one that is concerned more than most with the problems that exist beyond it.
    Last edited by 10:02am; 06-07-2005 at 11:29 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •