Recreational use of drugs (legal and illegal)

@The Dude phil phil,

The_Dude wrote:

Describe your position and rationale behind drug use. Philosophically and politically if you wish.

To you, what is a drug?

Do you use drugs?

What kinds of drugs?

How often?

What is your experience with drugs (both use and general exposure to an environment where they play a significant role)?

If you use drugs for recreational purposes, do you believe your use of drugs is justified logically or morally?

What is your reasoning?

[/LIST]
Forgive me for responding to the OP without reading much of the thread. I like to just throw out my position.
In short, I am hypothetically opposed to all illegal and legal drugs. This topic reminds me of the quote "Addiction starts whenever your happiness is depending on an outside source". In that sense a drug is every substance, that influences your happiness.
Morally, I believe that this is always wrong. And consequences can never justify a bad action. So drug use is inherently wrong.
Politically, I believe there is good reason to keep drugs - as marijuana - illegal. The individual right to self harm is in my opinion the only argument against that, but I calculate the negative effects on society, such as danger and lost productivity, as too extensive.

As for me, I have little experience with drugs, and actually no experience with illegal drugs. But I drink alcohol and I realize that is somewhat hypocritical, but I think being all-or-nothing is not discipline.

A person has little to gain from taking drugs, except for feeling good, so there is no good reason to do so. And it will only shift your happiness to another time, you never gain an overall increase in happiness. All the other positive effects, such as increased creativity, are in my estimation excuses.

@EmperorNero,

NoEmperorNero wrote:

[/list]
Forgive me for responding to the OP without reading much of the thread. I like to just throw out my position.
In short, I am hypothetically opposed to all illegal and legal drugs. This topic reminds me of the quote "Addiction starts whenever your happiness is depending on an outside source". In that sense a drug is every substance, that influences your happiness.
Morally, I believe that this is always wrong. And consequences can never justify a bad action. So drug use is inherently wrong.
Politically, I believe there is good reason to keep drugs - as marijuana - illegal. The individual right to self harm is in my opinion the only argument against that, but I calculate the negative effects on society, such as danger and lost productivity, as too extensive.

As for me, I have little experience with drugs, and actually no experience with illegal drugs. But I drink alcohol and I realize that is somewhat hypocritical, but I think being all-or-nothing is not discipline.

A person has little to gain from taking drugs, except for feeling good, so there is no good reason to do so. And it will only shift your happiness to another time, you never gain an overall increase in happiness. All the other positive effects, such as increased creativity, are in my estimation excuses.

And what do you suppose said increased creativity is an excuse for?

@Vorapsak,

Vorapsak;59448 wrote:

And what do you suppose said increased creativity is an excuse for?

Taking drugs because it's fun...

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Taking drugs because it's fun...

Explain why drug use is morally wrong.

@Vorapsak,

Vorapsak;59472 wrote:

Explain why drug use is morally wrong.

Ok, I try. :Glasses:
Taking drugs is the same as not not taking drugs. So it's a choice between two actions, each with their own inherent moral value.
Both only judged by themselves, not by their consequences.
And the action of not taking drugs is morally more right than the action of taking drugs.
Why? I don't know. It just is. We just know if actions are moral when not considering consequences.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Ok, I try. :Glasses:
Taking drugs is the same as not not taking drugs. So it's a choice between two actions, each with their own inherent moral value.
Both only judged by themselves, not by their consequences.
And the action of not taking drugs is morally more right than the action of taking drugs.
Why? I don't know. It just is. We just know if actions are moral when not considering consequences.

Well, that's some great circular logic you spewed out. *clap clap, inspired*

@The Dude phil phil,

Please elaborate.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

And the action of not taking drugs is morally more right than the action of taking drugs.
Why? I don't know. It just is.

Your reasoning behind abstaining from drugs is because drug use is morally wrong. And why is it morally wrong? Because it just is!

That's circular logic.

@Vorapsak,

Vorapsak;59489 wrote:

Your reasoning behind abstaining from drugs is because drug use is morally wrong. And why is it morally wrong? Because it just is!

That's circular logic.

You're right. But I offered an incomplete explanation, not a circular argument. I can't explain it. It's hard to understand deontology, and I don't.
I offered a explanation with a missing link, I didn't offer any argument. There can't be circular logic with no argument.
Morality is not that it creates Good, or happiness, or that it educates the character. My best guess is that it is the harder thing to do, but that also doesn't cut it. We just know the right thing. Don't you just "know", and after that contemplate consequences?

@Pangloss,

EDIT: I would also like to apologize to the administrator for initially posting this in the young philosophers forum. My reason for doing so is because alot of drug experimentation begins around adolescence, I myself am an adolescent, and because I didn't think there would be many older members that interested in the thread.

Boy was I wrong.

Pangloss wrote:

So, in other words, "Life's a b-tch and then you die, that's why we get high...". Maybe you could take it a bit further and advocate suicide, because if life is meaningless, what's the point in working and suffering? Death is a cheaper, long-lasting version of heroin...or do you really believe this?

First off, before I address some inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and things I just plain disagree with, I wanna say...
Pretty good arguments.

I was hoping for a reply like this. Having to second guess myself and the rationale behind my thoughts is the reason I'm interested in philosophy in the first place.

Now, I think you're painting me as a very bleak and baseless individual with that paragraph, though I may be guilty of coming off that way to you, I still think you misinterpreted where I was coming from. I do not advocate suicide. If anything I advocate someone's right to commit it. But I neither condone nor condemn that act itself. I might given a certain situations with variables that sway my opinion, but suicide as a whole is something I do not advocate, because advocating implies arguing in favor of. I do not think people should inherently commit suicide, therefore, I do not advocate it.

Two, I did not get high because "Life's a bitch and then I die". You're kinda putting words in my mouth there. Life is a very enjoyable sensation, and part of the sensation of life is your ability to enhance that sensation with the various substances available to you. I got high because

A) I was curious as to how enjoyable the sensation of being high on marijuana really was, and whether the effects were enjoyable enough to justify, for my own standards, frequent use of it (with moderation in order to avoid gaining a tolerance for the high and psychological addiction to the substance).

B) I was in a situation where I could not drive yet, and I had the choice between hanging out with my friends who would all be high for a few hours while I would be stuck sober in the cold woods with them, or, taking a few hits too and enjoying the experience. I decided to go for the experience, seeing as, no matter what negative effects marijuana has on development/health, sharing one joint with three other guys was most certainly NOT going to destroy my brain and end my puberty prematurely. Besides, would've been pretty lame to have to stand around sober in a group of intoxicated people, I had been in that situation before.

Also, I never said death was a cheaper and longer lasting version of heroin, nor did I say there was no point to work or suffering. I said that the point to life is what YOU, the individual, choses to impose. I impose my own meanings on my life, and change them around as my thoughts and perceptions change. I choose to experience life in the way that seems most enjoyable or most rational at the moment, depending on the situation.
Besides, I believe that death is just a permanent termination of consciousness and self-awareness as far as the individual you lived as goes. While on heroin, you are very much still alive, and possibly self-aware and conscious, depending on just how stoned you are.

Life on a cosmic scale is meaningless, but as an individual, you have your right to believe whatever the hell you want about your temporary existence on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

Pangloss wrote:

Certainly you can find meaning through ideas and activities that are far more stimulating and enriching than a short drug-induced high.

Certainly I can. But that's a silly reason to avoid something, because there are "more fulfilling" things to do out there. Perhaps I should just find the things in the universe with the most meaning in them and do only those things because if I did anything else, I would just be wasting my time with unstimulating and non-enriching activities?

No.

Something need not be physically beneficial for my health for it to be enjoyable, and who said it should be? Maybe I should stop scratching myself when I itch because it kills skin cells?

Pangloss wrote:

And if you think everything is a drug-induced experience going on in the brain (this might partly be right, in your individual experience of life), then stick to the natural highs, as they are good for your body and mind (proven by nature), and free!

You sound alot like me before I actually tried marijuana. I went off on my "dumb stoner" friends about how they should try "getting high on life" every once in a while. And while life can be very enjoyable without the aid of mind-altering substances, people who talk about "getting high on life" are comparing apples and oranges. I don't know whether you've actually ever used drugs recreationally or not, but if you have, then surely you know that there are key differences here. If you haven't, thene I suggest trying it, just once, so you can speak from experience before bashing something. I'm not saying do crack cocaine and heroin, I'm just saying, get high once, not enough to permanently and seriously damage your brain, but just get yourself giddy and hungry for a few hours and you might understand why people do it.

Pangloss wrote:

Sure, I guess if you value individual liberties over everything else, you can say this. The problem is that we all live in a society that is built on a certain amount of trust and responsibility. If you were born into poverty, would it be fair to live in a neighborhood run by drug gangs?

No, it wouldn't be fair to live in a neighboorhood run by drug gangs. But how is this relevant to actually USING the drugs? Given legal restrictions, gangs can take advantage of anything as a way of making capital. And besides, alot of things in life aren't fair.

Pangloss wrote:

If you have children, do you think you would not care so much for the rights of the drug dealer when he is trying to sell crack to your thirteen year old? Do you not mind the many recent reports about chaos and violence along the Mexican border, which is in large part due to drug smuggling gangs?

Ooh, chaos and violence. The chaos and violence is not caused by the drugs themselves, as violence will continue to exist as long as there is something to be violent about. People have fought and killed over golden stools before, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing to sit on one. Just like it's not a bad thing to use drugs just because people have fought over them before. And I do mind those reports by the way, I think war is ridiculous in the first place, unnecessary bloodshed over things that can usually be settled without a single punch being thrown, but never are. But that's getting off topic.

And for the drug dealer trying to sell crack to my thirteen year old, yes I would naturally be concerned because, for better or for worse, I have the overprotective instincts of a parent. Plus, crack is far worse than marijuana in that it is more addicting and more harmful, short term and long term. But, if my kid wants to grow up and habitually use it as an adult, I can't stop him/her. It's their life. I'll try to convince them otherwise, but it's their right nonetheless.

Pangloss wrote:

Yes, you can argue that these problems might lessen if the drugs were legalized and controlled by the government. And I would agree with you, they would lessen, but they would not dissapear.

And? Every nation signing a peace treaty wouldn't end violence, but it would be progress nonetheless, so why not try it? If legalizing drugs could reduce violence, why not do it? I think we'll both agree on this point.

Pangloss wrote:

You have to consider the neighborhood effects; How many thousands of people a year are killed by drunk drivers? How many thousand more would be killed by drunk and/or drugged drivers when all drugs are freely available at the pharmacy? Protecting people from damaging their own health has never been a real issue with illegal drugs. There are all sorts of legal ways people destroy their healthy minds and bodies. Drug use has societal consequences that have to be considered.

This goes back to human nature and weaknesses. In this case it is the person's fault for not controlling themselves while on the drugs. You have to maintain a level of control to avoid injuring other people. Common sense.

The drugs will be readily available whether they're legal or not. As long as you use drugs responsibly, you won't have to worry so much about killing someone while driving high/drunk. Accidents happen while sober too.

Pangloss wrote:

Geez, you aren't even out of high school yet, and already you are convinced that life is about nothing more than sensual pleasures and suffering. Want to make life more worth it? Get out and see the world, try things, and meet people. When you do this, you will see how much suffering there really is, and your own small problems will seem insignificant.

Lol, I never said that life was nothing more than sensual pleasures and suffering. Again you're painting me as this brooding and detached figure.

"Get out and see the world, try things, meet people"

Try things? Hmm, I think experimenting with mind altering substances falls under that category. The kind of exploration you're advocating is exactly what I had in mind when trying marijuana. As for seeing how much suffering there really is, and my own problems being insignificant. I'm aware that my problems are insignificant. That's what I've been trying to argue all along. That life is short and insignificant, so enjoy it, and don't let social taboos and small health risks get in the way of allowing you to enjoy a mind-altering experience. Oh, and the night I tried marijuana, I had met two new people who are now fairly decent friends, and visited two neighborhoods I had never gone to before. So um, I think I got out in the world, tried things, and met people all in the same night. Yes, there are dangers to smoking marijuana, but it's still worth a try, like a new food you've never tasted.

Pangloss wrote:

In this case of drug use, yes. You can consult the medical literature if you wish; your brain, as a teenager, is not yet fully developed. It will not be fully developed until something like your early to mid-20s. So, your drug use at this age is different from your potential drug use at an older age, perhaps with longer lasting, more severe consequences. Go ahead and consult the medical studies for statistics that link early habitual marijuana use with cognitive disorders later on in life. There are quite a few of them...

This is the best argument you've made, but even so, I doubt an occasional joint is going to turn me into a half-retarded manbaby with hormonal deficiencies. The major negative effects it has on my health are most likely the result of excessive use. Excessive use is something I don't justify, and I've said why at least twice before; tolerance and addiction. I'm arguing for moderate use.

@The Dude phil phil,

The_Dude wrote:

Beforehand I would like to say that I am sixteen (soon to be seventeen) and fairly new to the world of philosophy, so please, correct any factual errors I may have made in my arguments as well as arguing against or for my arguments in their essence.This is also my first thread that isn't a self-introduction thread. Just thought you'd like to know.

Before I delve into my reply I must take a moment to praise the author of this thread for the level of maturity and deep consideration shown in this text, given he is only sixteen, and encourage him to maintain the zest and zeal exhibited so freely herein throughout his physical and metaphysical development.

- - -

I have spent the majority of my last six years using drugs recreationally and have for some time searched for answers to many of these troubling questions. My approach to this discussion is to both offer my experiences to those who may benefit from them and also to absorb those of previous contributors so that I may form a more solid stance on the issue.

Prior to experimenting with alcohol and tobacco -- substances which I consider in retrospect to have been a gateway to the world of narcotics and pharmaceuticals -- I was a well-rounded teenager approaching various avenues of opportunity. My parents before me had abused many street drugs in excess before, during, and after my conception. In fact, it continued well into my teens, where I witnessed their separation and subsequent divorce, during which time my custody was shifted to my grandparents.

Like so many others I failed to heed the example set forth by my mother and father. To me, I had unbridled control over the forces within myself which later consumed my every fiber and controlled my every function. It was after addiction had set in that I learned the truth behind substance abuse - that for individuals like myself, with genetic predisposition to addiction, the struggle to maintain balance (and indeed life itself) is wholly dependent upon total abstinence.

For more than half a decade I have fought to overcome addiction only to fail. For the remainder of my life I must remember that the war against must be won day-by-day, step-by-step. It is an unfortunate, yet seemingly inevitable, fact of life for myself and those like me. I am by no means recovered, having been clean for just over two weeks, yet I finally maintain the understanding and peace of mind that I had longed for during my time in and out of the penal system, on and off the streets.

This may seem like my contribution to the testimonial portion of the latest revision of Narcotics Anonymous, but it isn't.

My drug use began with marijuana, which was introduced to me by a close friend at the age of 18. The early months were exhilirating and without much influence on my life. I maintained decent grades through my high school graduation and into myfirst semester of college. However, it was in college that I became aware of the inner workings of the drug and it's long-term effects. My focus became imbalanced and I was beginning to seriously consider getting high to escape the impregnable weight of responsibility and decisions college students encounter. On top of it all marijuana's once innocent and jubilant effects were becoming less powerful and more sinister as my tolerance grew. It was at some exit off this freeway that I began turning to other, more powerful substances, such as cocaine, ecstasy, and barbiturates, just to find that feeling again.

I found myself in a viscious cycle which eventually left me with nothing, not even a roof over my head. I had been arrested and booked twice for marijuana possession (I continued smoking weed throughout the transition), serving a total of 90 days in county jail, two years on probation, and 30 days on house arrest for having violated that probation by testing positive for drugs. I had dropped out of two different colleges, forfeiting scholarships and grants. I had fallen in and out of relationships, even with my family. I had loaned two of my vehicles out for drugs only to watch them sabotaged and left for scrap. I had become my own worst enemy.

Two weeks ago I boarded a bus to Louisiana, where I now sleep on the couch at my father's and work to finally break the shackles I have willingly put on daily for so long. I attend church services and work alongside my father in his construction business. And now I wish to influence others in hopes of preventing a similar surmise.

My stance on the recreational use of drugs is forged by experiencing the lifestyle first-hand. I realize that there are individuals who have the potential to function on drugs and lead a normal and balanced lifestyle. However, I feel those individuals will never see the true extent of their potential if that road is taken. Drugs inhibit one's abilities to both realize and meet so many grand possibilities.

I hope my testimony reaches someone who may stand to benefit from my experiences.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

[/list]

Morally, I believe that this is always wrong. And consequences can never justify a bad action. So drug use is inherently wrong.
Politically, I believe there is good reason to keep drugs - as marijuana - illegal. The individual right to self harm is in my opinion the only argument against that, but I calculate the negative effects on society, such as danger and lost productivity, as too extensive.

What about the fact that marijuana grows naturally on the earth? Making nature illegal? What's that all about? That's like making water or sand illegal. :perplexed: It makes no sense. And don't counter with poppies or coca plants - both of those require heavy processing to be made into their respective drugs. Marijuana can be pulled off a plant and smoked as is.

Making nature itself against the law is insane, that's all there is to it. And it should raise serious questions, especially among people on a Philosophy forum!

EmperorNero wrote:

As for me, I have little experience with drugs, and actually no experience with illegal drugs.

Of course you are entitled to an opinion, but the above fact does undermine it somewhat, especially the part about having nothing to gain apart from feeling good. How can you know that if you've never done it yourself?

In any case, isn't feeling good all the reason a person needs?

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;59656 wrote:

What about the fact that marijuana grows naturally on the earth? Making nature illegal? What's that all about? That's like making water or sand illegal. :perplexed: It makes no sense. And don't counter with poppies or coca plants - both of those require heavy processing to be made into their respective drugs. Marijuana can be pulled off a plant and smoked as is.

I don't want to get started on marijuana legalization, we could go on for 200 pages with no end in sight.
Let me just say that I'm fine with legalization for the reason I mentioned - non government restriction of self harm.
Intuitively I want to call the other arguments, like this one, childish and silly.
But I can sense that arguments wont help here. Either of us just can't comprehend the other ones rationale.
Instead, let me ask you this:
1. What does natural mean?
2. Is natural automatically good?
3. Can't there be a law against possession of anything natural? Why?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

I don't want to get started on marijuana legalization, we could go on for 200 pages with no end in sight.
Let me just say that I'm fine with legalization for the reason I mentioned - non government restriction of self harm.
Intuitively I want to call the other arguments, like this one, childish and silly.
But I can sense that arguments wont help here. Either of us just can't comprehend the other ones rationale.
Instead, let me ask you this:
1. What does natural mean?
2. Is natural automatically good?
3. Can't there be a law against possession of anything natural? Why?

1. Natural

2. Not necessarily, per se, but in general, more so than man-made things, probably, yes. I suppose that depends on how you are interpreting the word 'good'.

3. There can be a law against anything. That doesn't mean it makes any sense. :perplexed:

@The Dude phil phil,

What does "it makes sense" mean?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

What does "it makes sense" mean?

Are you having a laugh or what?

Are you honestly telling us you know neither what 'natural' or 'makes sense' means?

I mean, seriously?

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;59668 wrote:

Are you having a laugh or what?

Are you honestly telling us you know neither what 'natural' or 'makes sense' means?

I mean, seriously?

I'm quite serious, I ask because your reasoning makes no sense to me - there, I used the very term I want explained.

Restricting marijuana makes - with the reasoning you offered - as much "sense" as restricting drunk driving, murder, child pornography, indecent exposure, tax fraud, kidnapping or rape.
I don't get the whole natural premise.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

I'm quite serious, I ask because your reasoning makes no sense to me - there, I used the very term I want explained.

Restricting marijuana makes - with the reasoning you offered - as much "sense" as restricting drunk driving, murder, child pornography, indecent exposure, tax fraud, kidnapping or rape.
I don't get the whole natural premise.

All the things you just listed are man-made things. I fail to see the link you are making between them and a marijuana plant. None of them happen without the input of a human being.

Marijuana plants happen without the input of a human being.

Yet it is illegal to be in possession of a plant which is a naturally occurring thing, without altering it in any way whatsoever. It's crazy. Why aren't tomato plants illegal by that rationale?

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;59709 wrote:

Yet it is illegal to be in possession of a plant which is a naturally occurring thing, without altering it in any way whatsoever. It's crazy. Why aren't tomato plants illegal by that rationale?

I'm not trying to be rude, but this is just really weird to me, because I just can't figure out what people are thinking with this whole natural argument.
It's like the pro prop 8 and against prop 8 people in California, they just cant ever figure out where the other side is coming from. Its like their brain is wired differently.

Okay, here we go, there is nothing that speaks against criminalizing something that is natural. First off, marijuana has been bred and cultivated by humans to have the desired attributes, it has today. So maybe there was a plant with the same name in nature once, but what we have today is as man-made as cocaine or ecstasy. So your argument is that we cant outlaw something because it wasn't altered by humans in a production process. Which is just a non-argument.
Then, the term makes no sense could mean anything, it has no weight legally. It's just words.
At last, nothing speaks against outlawing possession of something, because it is natural. We outlaw slavery, what's more natural than owning another human? We outlaw possession of certain endangered animals as pets. They are more natural than the human-bread marijuana we have these days. We outlaw certain natural poisons from plants, dangerous animals like snakes and tiger.
I feel like I'm wasting my words, and you probably don't read this. But the whole natural premise is just a joke that some comedian cane up with. The individual right to non government restriction of self harm is in the only argument for marijuana restriction. All the other stuff is made up fallacies.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

It's like the pro prop 8 and against prop 8 people in California, they just cant ever figure out where the other side is coming from. Its like their brain is wired differently.

Prop 8? Newsflash: There is a BIG world outside America; I have no idea what "prop 8" is and no intention of finding out.

EmperorNero wrote:

Okay, here we go, there is nothing that speaks against criminalizing something that is natural. First off, marijuana has been bred and cultivated by humans to have the desired attributes, it has today. So maybe there was a plant with the same name in nature once, but what we have today is as man-made as cocaine or ecstasy.

No it isn't. That's just wrong. On a number of levels. Firstly, I speak against it. As do many other people and groups. Secondly, you're now saying EVERY marijuana plant on the planet has been altered by humans? Somehow, I doubt it. Thirdly, even setting aside the gross misconception of yours which my last point illustrated, and taking plants which have been "cultivated and selectively bred", they are hardly the same as cocaine or ecstasy; that is just unadulterated rubbish. Ecstasy does not have any base in nature, it is a chemical, plain and simple. Cocaine, the less ludicrous notion of the two, as it actually originates in plants, goes through lengthy refining processes before it hits the street. As I explained in a previous post, whether or not a marijuana plant is specially cultivated or not, you can still pull bits off it and smoke it, as it is.

So, NO, it is not the same as ecstasy or cocaine. It simply isn't.

EmperorNero wrote:

We outlaw possession of certain endangered animals as pets. They are more natural than the human-bread marijuana we have these days. We outlaw certain natural poisons from plants, dangerous animals like snakes and tiger.

Perhaps with this fervency you have that "human-bread" (interesting hybrid idea, that!) marijuana is unnatural should extend to pedigree dogs and cats? Exactly the same applies to them. Naturally occurring, but have had their genetics shaped slightly differently by human interference. Shall I make a call and tell them to cancel Crufts this year? Or maybe just not call, and instead call in an airstrike, take out a whole load of the critters in one swoop?

Furthermore, endangered species are outlawed as pets for their own good, in the hope that the species will survive. I'm pretty sure that's not the reason behind marijuana being illegal.

EmperorNero wrote:

We outlaw slavery, what's more natural than owning another human?

That's a shocking thing to say! I'm not sure if you mean that the way it comes across, or if you're just not particularly good at expressing yourself, but it's bad news.

You think owning a person is natural?

EmperorNero wrote:

The individual right to non government restriction of self harm is in the only argument for marijuana restriction. All the other stuff is made up fallacies.

Can I assume then, that you are opposed to all legislation outlawing suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia?

Philosophy Forum

Recreational use of drugs (legal and illegal)

Quick Links

My Account

able2know