Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Thread: Is taking drugs immoral?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    568

    Default Is taking drugs immoral?

    Over here nonseq said, in response to my characterising drug use as 'criminal but not immoral' with the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    Using drugs is not immoral?

    Buying drugs means sponsoring a whole system of exploitation, hate, violence, murder, rape. It means destroying individuals, families, economies, countries. It means funding violence and stimulating repressive laws and police actions. Funding dictatorial regimes, Birma for example. It means destroying the environment, for example, xtc labs often dump their chemical waste in nature. It means funding the weapons industry..

    I could go on with my rant..
    Now it strikes me that this is primarilly a problem with drug laws, or with capitalist modes of production, not with drugs themselves, and that it treats a neutral thing as being responsible for they way it is produced and marketed. Not to mention that it tars all drug use with the brush of cocaine and heroin.

    You could argue that my arguement is similar to arguing that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. And to a point you'd be right, but the difference is that guns are designed specifically to kill or wound. Drugs are designed (to the point that you can call them so) to get you high.

    So I still regard drug use as a perfectly moral thing to do.

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Flatlands
    Posts
    131

    Default

    The concept of 'using drugs' is so abstract as to be morally neutral. Of course what, I assume, you mean by using drugs (getting twisted) is categorised by some people as misusing them which does carry negative moral connotations.

    However, I think that in order to morally assess drug taking, it has to be contextualised, e.g. taking heroin is not necessarily immoral, but if your addiction leads you into a lifestyle which is detrimental to those around you, then it probably is immoral (although some people would say that addiction is a sickness, which would remove it from the realm of moral actions).

    The argument you quote about bouying up the horrors of the drug trade is not a very good argument against taking drugs, but it is a strong one in favour of taking drug production out of the hands of criminals. After all, I could come up with a similar list of problems with the petrochemical industry, but nobody would seriously suggest that was an argument for total abstention from the use of petrol.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    The argument you quote about bouying up the horrors of the drug trade is not a very good argument against taking drugs, but it is a strong one in favour of taking drug production out of the hands of criminals. After all, I could come up with a similar list of problems with the petrochemical industry, but nobody would seriously suggest that was an argument for total abstention from the use of petrol.
    wouldn't they? it's a *pretty good* argument agin taking drugs, i would have thought. certainly the way otherwise scrupulously fair-trade coffee and organic meat types have no problem with using cocaine has its grimly funny side.
    i'm not very interested in drugs, so i suppose for me the choice between i) not using drugs and ii) 'taking drug production' and distribution out of the criminals' hands is an easy one.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Flatlands
    Posts
    131

    Default Reply to henrymiller

    The petrochemical example was the the first thing that came to mind. Perhaps a better analogy would be that because some clothing is produced in apalling conditions is not a reason for not wearing clothes, although it could be an argument not to buy clothes produced under said conditions. It is certainly a strong reason for protesting about the conditions under which some clothing is made.

    My basic point was that it is absurd to say that something so general as 'using drugs' is immoral. That doesn't mean that buying smack from the mafia does not have consequences which could lead it to be characterized as an immoral act, but what about buying cannabis from someone you know who grows it?

    I don't know any fair trade coffee drinking cocaine users, but would probably abuse them if I did. I have heard people justify buying smack by claiming that, whilst the distribution, etc. is obviously appalling, at the very basic level, they are supporting the poor farmers whose only potential source of income is opium poppies. I'm not saying that I support this argument, but I don't think that opium production need nescessarily be immoral.

    Finally, it should be remembered that pharmaceutical multinationals are hardly models of ethical probity. Does that mean that I should not take analgesics for pain relief because, in so doing, I am 'sponsoring a whole system of exploitation'?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    yeah, it's the easiestthing in the world to hate on drug-users when you use legal drugs, i freely admit. obviously there *is* some kind of argument from necessity, but not a strong one. drugs make you act like a twat, which is close to being immoral

  6. #6

    Default

    just for the sake of argument, would it really be that hypocritical to buy fair trade products (which incidentally, i've heard can cause more harm than good) and use cocaine? i mean it's not as though they have (and reject) the option of buying fair trade chang...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    80

    Default

    They would have to recognise that their demand-led attempts to shift the market did not apply to this product. Given their (presumed) overarching intention is to stop the exploitation of producers in less developed nations then their only option at present is to abstain.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    how does fair trade stuff do more harm than good? genuine question.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    leigh on sea
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    how does fair trade stuff do more harm than good? genuine question.
    ditto

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brooklyn
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    rather than move this conversation over here last night, i instead pursued the point over on the original thread . . . . so now i've just "copied" nonseq's remarks and my response to them over here -- hopefully all that follows won't be too hard to read . . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    But most drugs are illegal in most places therefore produced and distributed by criminal organizations. Buying from them sustains them and thier devastating effects.
    so we should legalize drugs and let phillip morris take over the business?

    i.e., people of course realize that if you legalize drugs then hustlers will be made redundant???

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    I meant destroying families for example in Colombia in the case of coke. The families of kidnapped, murdered people etc, families in destroyed countries with no future for the kids but working in coca fields, constant risk of getting murdered or raped by terror squads. Parents in jail, kids living on the streets. Drug traffickers shot down or cokeballs opening in their stomach killing them, peasants bombed by the U.S. etc etc
    isn't this more a function of poverty and imperialism?

    why do you see drugs as the root of all evil? -- i.e., why not eliminate money instead

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    What about crack babies
    that's govt propaganda recently debunked

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    and structural chaos and misery in ghetto's
    poor people weren't miserable before the 20th century???

    i.e., let's say that drugs first get widely disseminated in western societies circa 1950

    (i.e., i don't think heroin and marijuana were all that common in 19th c., barring a few poets and the like (errr, and cowboys smoking green down in texas) -- but correct me if i'm wrong)

    and what's so bad about taking drugs to relieve the misery of one's days?

    (or assuming that your material condition is not miserable, then to relieve the sheer boredom of your existence?)


    ALSO: isn't "structural chaos" more the result of capitalism either setting up shop OR abandoning shop in such areas?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    Check out the documentary on the dvd of Cidade de Deus.
    i think the "city of god" a wonderful, first-rate film -- but i still don't agree w/ your arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    The rich are living safely in Europe, snorting coke, and have never even given it a thought what they are paying for. Not the coke, it's cheap. They're funding guns, death squads, corruption, kidnapping, dictators and so on. Western decadence is fuel to the destruction of third world countries.
    this is entirely too simplistic an account

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    Is the destruction caused by cartels really the same level of misery as the life of a girl in a free trade zone making Nike shoes? That should also be changed of course, but do you really think it's comparable?
    cartels exist b/c men lust for money and power -- if they weren't fighting for control of the drug trade, they'd be fighting for control of some other trade

    and why do cartels have such power in some countries?

    (1) absence of the rule of law (and culture of law)

    (2) weak states -- which is closely related to point 1

    errr, i suppose i've just set myself up for a badiou-style rejoinder against the rule of the law and the normality imposed by strong states?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    Of course it's all infinitely more nuanced and complex
    indeed

    Quote Originally Posted by nonseq
    but the general point will remain: buy drugs and you're destroying a lot more than your own health.
    drug use is destructive of one's health only if done in excess

    therefore, the point is so general as to be very nearly trite = buy anything and you participate in the destruction of a lot of things

    (none of which is to suggest that i'd advocate smoking a couple joints a day -- though i guess it's fine if works for you and doesn't hinder your projects -- nor would i deny that drugs are part and parcel of a hedonistic and mindless mass culture)

    MOREOVER, the taboo and criminal significance of drug use allows for social exchange w/ people you o/w might not come into contact with or get to know -- i.e., not everyone who uses illegal drugs takes advantage of such opportunity -- and yet enough users do that it's safe to say they lead more interesting lives than straight people who keep to their "own kind"

    drugs, music, religion = the great levellers, the mediums of mano a mano understanding = everyone's the same when they're high on cocaine = breaking down everyday identities

    you call it immoral, i call it good

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brooklyn
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johneffay
    although some people would say that addiction is a sickness, which would remove it from the realm of moral actions
    errrr, i think k-punk could make some compelling points here against the tendency to "medicalize" everything

    i.e., even if it's the case that drug abusers have some kind of dopamine or serotine imbalance, such an explanation only defers the question, i.e., why do so many people in modern society seem to have such imbalances???

    also, i've always found burroughs compelling on the subject of how people become heroin addicts -- i.e., it takes quite a bit of work and determination to become an addict in the first place -- an almost willful surrender whereby you go to the trouble of shooting up everyday for a month, such that you can then achieve addict status

    if you only do heroin once or twice and then walk away, then you really haven't tried hard enough and so you won't become an addict

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brooklyn
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johneffay
    The argument you quote about bouying up the horrors of the drug trade is not a very good argument against taking drugs, but it is a strong one in favour of taking drug production out of the hands of criminals. After all, I could come up with a similar list of problems with the petrochemical industry, but nobody would seriously suggest that was an argument for total abstention from the use of petrol.
    yes, but you do seem to making an argument in favor of putting the drug trade in the hands of exxon or phillip morris

    i.e., if you legalize drugs, just whom, precisely, do you think's gonna make all the money = multinational corporations

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3

    Default Distinction between morality and taking drugs

    Whether an individual choses to use drugs and/or abuse drugs bears no relation to morality, insofar that he does not encroach on the freedom of anyone around him. I think drugs are great when taken in moderation (i.e. not abused.) I find that they can produce great feelings of euphoria and happiness and all of those great things, again, so long as they are not taken in excessive amounts. Taking drugs and morality are completely separate realms. I would say that our bodies are ours to do with what we wish. I might add that this is based on somewhat of an aetheistic take on morality and that I believe morality requires of us to only do the things that we promise to do or 'sign up for' (usually called contractarianism.) That is to say that I believe that there is no superior, law-giving diety whom we must obey.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Melchior
    this is primarily a problem with drug laws, or with capitalist modes of production, not with drugs themselves
    Maybe, but Iím talking about buying drugs here and now, not in a hypothetical situation of legalized fair-trade harddrugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melchior
    and that it treats a neutral thing as being responsible for the way it is produced and marketed.
    People are responsible for what they knowingly pay for. Everybody knows that if you buy drugs, you are funding criminal activity, which more often than not means violence, corruption, inequality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melchior
    Not to mention that it tars all drug use with the brush of cocaine and heroin.
    I specified this in my second post in the other thread: drugs supplied by criminal organizations.

    Of course there are degrees of negative effects depending on which kind of drugs, where from etc. The price of Amphetamines from the Netherlands pays for smugglers, dealers, corrupt cops. The price of Amphetamines from Burma in addition pays the violent dictatorial system. It is an incontestable fact that buying amphetamines originating from Burma means funding the dictatorship. Your little pill will pay for a small part of this violence and oppression. Now add to this the fact that drugs trade worldwide amounts to astronomical sums of money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melchior
    You could argue that my argument is similar to arguing that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. And to a point you'd be right, but the difference is that guns are designed specifically to kill or wound. Drugs are designed (to the point that you can call them so) to get you high.
    Iím not talking about the effects of drugs on users, but the violence and inequality funded with drug money.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King Ink
    Whether an individual choses to use drugs and/or abuse drugs bears no relation to morality, insofar that he does not encroach on the freedom of anyone around him.
    I agree. But, for example, buying Colombian coke does encroach on the freedom of the people ruthlessly killed by Colombian militias funded with your drug money. Same with Birmese amphetamines etc.

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
  •