Recreational use of drugs (legal and illegal)

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Okay, except all of those other examples you gave are not analogous to the explicit statement that was the problem in this thread. There is no one telling anyone in other threads to go commit illegal acts.

I'm all for children being knowledgeable about things before they consider them; that's why I tried to raise some questions for them to think about in my first response to this thread.

Recommending illegal activities though, does not further anyone's knowledge or serve any purpose. Actually, if some kid did come on here and read that recommendation and then went out and hurt himself, the owner(s) of this forum could potentially be liable for it.

Hallucinogens are a schedule 1 controlled substance in the US, and are highly controlled in most other "civilized" countries as well. If someone is arrested for possession, they could do prison time, and depending on the amount, have a felony on their record. At the very least, they would have a hard time finding suitable employment after that point, if the charge sticks, not to mention, a teenager would automatically become ineligible for any federal financial assistance when seeking higher education. So those are some things to think about.

Beyond that, I don't have any problem with having a discussion on the ethics of drug use, or drug legalization, and it certainly is a legitimate topic. But we can discuss it as an issue, without making it some personal engagement, where we are listing all of the drugs we personally have done, or telling people what drugs are best to do. That doesn't contribute to a meaningful discussion.

I agree with the majority you've written, and as noted, I understand why what was removed was removed. I simply wanted to note exposure isn't the culprit - not implying I'm 'correcting' you in any sense, or that I even disagree with what you wrote earlier (in fact, I noted I did see how it could be taken out of context).

My interpretation, again, was not a solicitation of any sort; it was not a "go commit illegal acts" remark unless taken out of context (from the sentences which preceded). I interpreted the statement as correlating to the analogies I provided, otherwise I wouldn't have supplied those analogies.

As for the owner(s) of the site being liable: That would be one tough case. I know a plethora of websites which solicit illegal activities, many of which very gruesome, and none of the sites (I know) are liable for what is spoken. I'd have to take a look at the exact legalities regarding this matter, but my gut tells me the owner(s) would not be liable, and if they could be, it would be a tough case.

@The Dude phil phil,

Exposer is not the culprit, (I don't have much time to respond).

What it boils down to is there are many lurkers that come here and read this forum. As a child or even a parent for that matter, if the forum or people on the forum, or the energy of the forum has provided somewhat of a safe an secure place where people aren't going to get beat up, insulted, trolled or flamed, the forum sort of builds a level of trust within realm of the Internet. Teenagers come here and their parents may actually let them because maybe they've investigated whether or not this is not another 'My Space' type site with all it's noise, chatter, barracks language etc etc.

So as a child, I could very well see that if it's recommended by a 'smart' and 'witty' philosopher on the Philosophy forum, it can't be that bad. It's not the fact that they will go right out and do it because someone says so, it's the fact that the seed will be planted and maybe in 10 years they are confronted with an opportunity and they recall something about it in this forum. You just don't know.

It's not the recommendations that make the changes they are only effects of effect of effect of effect.... it's the seed of that thought. Besides, if they want to recommend illegal activity, they take it somewhere elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong for thinking this way but oh well. In this case I don't mind at all.

Thanks for understanding. I did not get a chance to read everything due to work but I wanted to respond anyway.

I'd like to add that in the near future, there will be forums that are not available to the public where we can discuss, like adults, sex drugs and rock and rock and roll but it will be in a section of the forum that is not found in search engines and not available to the general public.

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

I'd like to add that in the near future, there will be forums that are not available to the public where we can discuss, like adults, sex drugs and rock and rock and roll but it will be in a section of the forum that is not found in search engines and not available to the general public.

Good idea, I was hoping there would be a feature like this at some point. Regarding these issues, I hope people here will be intelligent enough to keep their personal stories offline, where they belong. :a-ok:

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Good idea, I was hoping there would be a feature like this at some point. Regarding these issues, I hope people here will be intelligent enough to keep their personal stories offline, where they belong. :a-ok:

My personal stories should be kept offline? Surely if there was an adult forum dedicated to all things involving drugs, it only follows I should be able to share my experience. Many subsections of this forum allow users to share their experience (a good example being: the religion forum), why would this forum be excluded? Because it deals with topics associated with the aforementioned stigma?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

My personal stories should be kept offline? Surely if there was an adult forum dedicated to all things involving drugs, it only follows I should be able to share my experience. Many subsections of this forum allow users to share their experience (a good example being: the religion forum), why would this forum be excluded? Because it deals with topics associated with the aforementioned stigma?

Fine, that's your decision. If you want to have stories of yourself committing illegal acts permanently stored online, for anyone to read, be my guest. :sarcastic:

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

My personal stories should be kept offline? Surely if there was an adult forum dedicated to all things involving drugs, it only follows I should be able to share my experience. Many subsections of this forum allow users to share their experience (a good example being: the religion forum), why would this forum be excluded? Because it deals with topics associated with the aforementioned stigma?

It is the stigma which we must be aware of and careful around.

I am an anarchist to the core but I follow a mild form of social contract. This keeps me out of jail. As a member of this forum, we try to provide a forum for people to share ideas and experiences but we also want to avoid any conflict with the protective nature of those who do not share our views. This is where the politics meet the philosophies.

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

It is the stigma which we must be aware of and careful around.

I am an anarchist to the core but I follow a mild form of social contract. This keeps me out of jail. As a member of this forum, we try to provide a forum for people to share ideas and experiences but we also want to avoid any conflict with the protective nature of those who do not share our views. This is where the politics meet the philosophies.

Exactly my point. We can discuss the issue impersonally, avoiding any potential negative legal or social consequences in our own lives, and still contribute to a good discussion. Using your own drug experiences to argue for the benefits of recreational drugs is first of all not a good argument, and can only serve to damage your credibility from that point forward.

@Pangloss,

Icon wrote:

It is the stigma which we must be aware of and careful around.

I am an anarchist to the core but I follow a mild form of social contract. This keeps me out of jail. As a member of this forum, we try to provide a forum for people to share ideas and experiences but we also want to avoid any conflict with the protective nature of those who do not share our views. This is where the politics meet the philosophies.

And this is also where, I'd assume, the forum Justin proposed would come into play. It would be a forum specifically for the sharing of ideas and experiences pertaining to those topics that carry the stigma. By "protective nature", I'm assuming you mean strictly in a legal sense, as there are many topics on this forum which could conflict with one's "protective nature" (and these topics do not concern anything illegal at all). It's only when we begin to cross the legal threshold do we consider.

Pangloss wrote:

Exactly my point. We can discuss the issue impersonally, avoiding any potential negative legal or social consequences in our own lives, and still contribute to a good discussion. Using your own drug experiences to argue for the benefits of recreational drugs is first of all not a good argument, and can only serve to damage your credibility from that point forward.

I feel you've missed the point. I'm wholly aware if we are to construct a logical argument for anything, experience has no say. A premise for X having Y qualities couldn't be, "Because I feel it does". We, however, wouldn't be abiding by formal logic in sharing our experiences. No one is arguing anything; "Better" or "Worse" drugs wouldn't follow a formal logical progression, as would accept from the beginning it's a preferential belief. One can share preferential beliefs, even concerning those issues which society has deemed illegal, without being incriminating.

I'm also fully aware that the sharing of our preferential beliefs does not necessitate a good discussion, and I never said it did. Though, I would expect the reasoning for Justin taking the proposed forum off search radar and out of sight from the public, would be because of the sharing of stories which could be incriminating.

Quote:

Fine, that's your decision. If you want to have stories of yourself committing illegal acts permanently stored online, for anyone to read, be my guest. :sarcastic:

Yes, it would be my decision and anyone else that chose to participate. Those that participated I'd recommend research the legalities concerning this matter. In fact, I'd suggest posting the legalities concerning this matter on the disclaimer of that forum subsection. As noted, there are many forums with which personal stories of committing illegal acts are found, and the majority of people aren't tried. I've only heard of a few cases thus far where people were tried, and they involved murder, more specifically the premeditation of murder.

@Zetherin,

Hmm...on a lighter note...I did have a desire to try hallucinogenic mushrooms after watching Altered States.

@Labyrinth,

Labyrinth wrote:

Hmm...on a lighter note...I did have a desire to try hallucinogenic mushrooms after watching Altered States.

Yea, me too actually. That was an awesome movie for its time

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

As noted, there are many forums with which personal stories of committing illegal acts are found, and the majority of people aren't tried. I've only heard of a few cases thus far where people were tried, and they involved murder, more specifically the premeditation of murder.

That is because most of the illegal things people talk about are only illegal when caught in the act. For example it is not illegal to consume marijuana LSD, or psychedelic mushrooms rather they are illegal to possess, but you would have to be caught in the act of possessing. Thus, admitting to partaking in these things on the Internet cannot be used as evidence against you. This goes with speeding as well. Lets say that you were bragging to a group of people about driving 120 mph through a school zone. If a police office was not there to catch you in the act, there is nothing that can be done, because there is no proof that the event actually happened.

@Theaetetus,

To be honest, I've always been a bit baffled how it is that someone can come to the conclusion that radically short-circuiting, muddling, confusing or otherwise screwing with their mental processes - through chemicals - is a good idea.

What's even more perplexing is the number of people who - while in the midst of such mental alteration - extol their 'broken brain' experiences as religious, ethereal or otherwise enlightening.

But hey.. I'm old so Smile

@The Dude phil phil,

I am not saying that I have not/do not alter my mental state through the use of certain chemicals but I CAN tell you that certain people are actually better off socially, morally and mentally.

@The Dude phil phil,

I am much better off socially and mentally due to my prescription for my anxiety medication. My experiences with chemicals in my younger years left my brain chemistry all out of whack, and I suffered needlessly in typically everyday interactions.

@The Dude phil phil,

Hi folks, this is my first non-intro post too. I have actually hesitated to post before now as philosophy is such a vast subject, I've felt I couldn't represent myself too well in a post without dedicating several hours to it! However, with that attitude, I'll never post anything, and although this isn't really an area of philosophy I'm especially interested in, it's something I have a LOT of experience of, so here goes.

I am a reformed heavy drug user, more than a decade clean, having extensively used cannabis, amphetamines, ecstasy, LSD and cocaine. Never heroin, specifically. I think common sense dictates the need to legalise, quality control and monitor the usage of all drugs. They exist, period. Fighting their production and distribution is a losing battle which costs the taxpayer needless billions, not only in law enforcement funding, but also in crime and its aftermath. Legalisation would, at a stroke, wipe out all sorts of criminal enterprises.

Perhaps the illegality of drugs is a red herring though... prehaps the question which should be being asked is not, "Why are drugs illegal?", but, "What kind of society do we live in where so many people feel the need to do this to themselves and so radically alter their perception of it?" No government or ruling class wants the masses thinking about how dreadful life actually is, and how much better and fairer it could be. That's how revolution comes about.....

As far as my position on drug use goes, well, I am similar to Bill Hicks; I quit drugs a long time ago, after having eventually a seriously bad time on them, but I'm still not necessarily anti-drugs. They can be stupendous fun, and they really can open your mind. I even once had an out-of-body experience on LSD, which was the most awesome and most tranquil experience I've ever had. ...but I would NEVER go there again! My sanity is not worth it. Again though, with the mind-opening... THAT is the real reason drugs are illegal. The ruling class do not want your mind to be opened, they do not want you thinking outside the box. They want you to think that the best plan of action is to work your **** off every day of the week, to get marginally more pennies (for that is really what you earn) to commit yourself to marginally bigger purchases and bind yourself into the web of consumerism which holds all the little people in place for the big people to skim money off and live in luxury at leisure. This, assuredly, is NOT the best plan of action! Don't get me wrong, I want a Ferrari and a mansion, but I will NOT sacrifice my soul to obtain it. I work as little as possible to get by, leaving as much time as possible for me to do things I actually WANT to do, as opposed to buying into the crap that you NEED to work 40+ hours per week, you NEED this new phone, your shoes NEED to be made by this company, etc., etc. It's all BS. Drugs can help you realise that.

With all that said, I wouldn't necessarily recommend taking drugs. It's something which requires careful thought, but it can be something which can really change the way you think for the better, as opposed to the one-sided, brainwashing drivel which the mass media would have you believe, i.e. if you take drugs, you will lose everything and everyone. In the vast majority of cases, that simply is not true.

@The Dude phil phil,

The real issue of drugs is the PLACEBO effect.
99% of the effect on the mind is placebo effect.
Not, merely so, but profoundly so.

To suggest that the works of the Beatles, Bob Marley, Carl Sagan, Descartes, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, etc are evidence of minds not working 'properly' is to simply ignore evidence that opposes preconcieved notions. A sign of intrinsically faulty logic.

Those 'against' just make one sentence contradictory arguments without depth.

Once one realises that substances like cannabis are actually harmless at least, one has to question 'why the legal issues?' And thats where the placebo effect combines with the criminal mind. Many people do have bad experiences - because they believed they would do so before they took the substances.

It suits the mafia to keep them illegal because if you reduce the quantity, you increase the price - supply and demand.

There are 2 types of people that make 'anti-drug' arguments :

1) The mafia who wish to keep their hold on the drugs trade profits
2) People who are the unwitting pawns of the mafia

I am of course talking about their effects on the mind, not the body - but any substance taken to excess can kill you - even too much water can kill you - but cannabis has not killed anyone yet.

I think this debate actually cuts straight to the core of the mind-body problem.

i) You will find that people who have had bad drug experiences - and also believe 'drugs are bad', also believe that the brain is the mind.
ii) People who have had bad drug experiences, but are not against drugs have abstracted brain and mind as distinct entities
iii) People who have had good drug experiences, but are still hesitant aboout them equate brain and mind
iv) People who have had good drug experiences, and are liberal about their use see mind and brain as distinct.

I am of course talking mostly about 'hallucinogenic' drugs here.

@Poseidon,

Poseidon wrote:

To suggest that the works of the Beatles, Bob Marley, Carl Sagan, Descartes, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, etc are evidence of minds not working 'properly' is to simply ignore evidence that opposes preconcieved notions. A sign of intrinsically faulty logic.

Descartes did drugs? :whoa-dude: I didn't know that. What was he into?

Poseidon wrote:

i) You will find that people who have had bad drug experiences - and also believe 'drugs are bad', also believe that the brain is the mind.
ii) People who have had bad drug experiences, but are not against drugs have abstracted brain and mind as distinct entities
iii) People who have had good drug experiences, but are still hesitant about them equate brain and mind
iv) People who have had good drug experiences, and are liberal about their use see mind and brain as distinct.

I am of course talking mostly about 'hallucinogenic' drugs here.

Interesting claims... what are they based on?

@The Dude phil phil,

"a little poison now and then makes for agreeable dreams
much poison now and then makes for an agreeable death"

but really... self destructive behavior as hobby...
should mountain climbing without safety gear be illegal?
should diving in the ocean be illegal cause of sharks and jellyfish and all
should racing be illegal cause it causes deaths

because YOU disagree with drug use should everybody disagree with drug use

we all just draw a personal line for ourselves... some people refuse aspirin... some people smoke marijuana but hate alcohol... billions drink themselves to deaths and kill thousands in crashes and mentally traumatize wives and children and all... but how many people couldnt be social without its assistance... make your own line.. but dont force it on everyone else...

@gojo1978,

gojo1978 wrote:

Descartes did drugs? :whoa-dude: I didn't know that. What was he into?

My guess is either cocaine or heroin...:rolleyes:

@Theaetetus,

Poseidon wrote:

The real issue of drugs is the PLACEBO effect.
99% of the effect on the mind is placebo effect.
Not, merely so, but profoundly so.

Is there some evidence for this claim? Any study that shows, for example, that 99% of the perceived influences of LSD on the mind are really the result of placebo?

Poseidon wrote:

i) You will find that people who have had bad drug experiences - and also believe 'drugs are bad', also believe that the brain is the mind.
ii) People who have had bad drug experiences, but are not against drugs have abstracted brain and mind as distinct entities
iii) People who have had good drug experiences, but are still hesitant aboout them equate brain and mind
iv) People who have had good drug experiences, and are liberal about their use see mind and brain as distinct.

I am of course talking mostly about 'hallucinogenic' drugs here.

What do you do when confronted with people who believe otherwise?

Why do you think people will find these things to be true? These claims seem strange to me from my experiences with drug people and the drug culture.

Philosophy Forum

Recreational use of drugs (legal and illegal)

Quick Links

My Account

able2know