pretty sneaky! I knew where u was going with that do u drink question ? and Im sure U wasn't trying to make him feel bad?...... But in my opinion since in calif. its a prescribed medication let my suggest " gods green gift"!!! Stay as far away from booze as u can!!!!! It will Hurt U, Demean U, Make U loose everything good in UR Life make U Broke! Puke in gross toilets out ur friends car windows in fine hook-ups houses PISS uR pANTS! see double triple. drewel., scream cry wish U were Dead ! Make out with Trolls ! Maybe even have sex with undisirables or relatives!
\
\
ve Sex with them get Herpers AIDS or eewn children No Haters Please REality!\
In itself drug use is not immoral - but it can be implicated in acts which might be considered so. By no means necessarily so, of course. Can be relaxing, enriching, stimulating. There are issues associated with animal testing, though, as even the illicit drugs get tried out up to the LD50 test in many cases.
I would argue that many prescribed drugs are particularly susceptible to "immoral" application, especially those used for psychotropic purposes, often applied without the meaningful, or any, consent of the recipient.
If drug use leads to addiction, it puts a terrible burden on the individual and society that ends up paying the price tag through lost productivity, destroyed relationships, etc. So yea it CAN be immoral.
That barely has anything to do with drugs. You would have to say that all those other acts are the immoral ones, not the drug use. There is no way the simple act of making yourself feel a certain way can ever be immoral.
I totally agree that how a person makes themselves feel is their business only, but substance abusers almost always take other people down with them. There are always consequences to the individual and society.
I mean like committing crimes or just generally being a bad member of society. Those are the immoral acts, not the drug use. If a person does not do those things, but does drugs, then there is no immorality involved, as I'm sure you agree.
Sure, that other stuff is bad, but you have to consider drug use in terms of how it affects society. Is it moral for the junkie to spend his paycheck on crack when his kids are starving? Up here in the Northwest, the MAJORITY of criminals moving thru the court system are meth junkies who resort to stealing and other crimes to support their addiction. They set up meth labs with no regard to the people (kids) who may be exposed to all the dangerous chemicals. They don't just fu(k up their own lives, we all have to pay the price: Taxes, broken lives, crime, etc.
Even if you don't think you are harming someone else when you (and I'm not pointing at you, haha!) score something, do you know where your money is going? Is it going to support gangs or a drug cartel in Mexico? The violence in some parts of Mex has been at clusterfu(k levels for a long time now.
So yea, I don't think there is any way around the morality issue with drug use.
You're right. There is no way around the morality issue with drug use. Doing drugs is not immoral. If a person is careful in not allowing it to negatively affect anyone else's life, then there's nothing wrong with it. Is that often the case? No. Is that more often the case than we give it credit for? Yes. There are lots of times when drug use does not (at least perceptibly) negatively affect anyone else's life at all.
Now, you and I obviously are thinking different things when we hear the term "drug use". You obviously think "addiction" when you hear the term "drug use". I don't. I think "recreation" when I hear the term "drug use", because that's the only thing I've ever really been acquainted with, and I recognize that as the only sustainable way to use drugs (and remain moral). Is putting one drug into your system one time (assuming it didn't come from somewhere totally volatile and shady) immoral? I don't possibly see how it could be. That's like saying taking one pill too many when the doctor prescribes you some medicine is immoral. It just doesn't make any sense.
Strong amphetamines and opiates are bad news. Anyone with any sense about them will know to stay away from those. Those cannot be used casually. Addiction is the inevitable outcome when those are used.
"Now, you and I obviously are thinking different things when we hear the term "drug use". You obviously think "addiction" when you hear the term "drug use". I don't. I think "recreation" when I hear the term "drug use", because that's the only thing I've ever really been acquainted with, and I recognize that as the only sustainable way to use drugs (and remain moral)."
No I don't think recreational drug use is always addictive. The question to ask is at what point does substance use become unmanageable? If a person's gets in trouble due to drug use and keeps getting in trouble even when the voice in their head tells them they should know better, that might be a red flag. Crime statistics seem to bear out that a great many substance users have unmanageable problems with drugs.
"Is putting one drug into your system one time (assuming it didn't come from somewhere totally volatile and shady) immoral?"
I think that would be up to the individual to decide.
"That's like saying taking one pill too many when the doctor prescribes you some medicine is immoral. It just doesn't make any sense."
But why would you do this? The label says take one with water after every meal.
"Strong amphetamines and opiates are bad news. Anyone with any sense about them will know to stay away from those. Those cannot be used casually. Addiction is the inevitable outcome when those are used."
People can become addicted to anything, from aspirin to prescription drugs to internet porn ($2.84 billion in revenue was generated from U.S. porn sites in 2006 - and 70% of porn traffic occurs during the 9-5 workday, that says something about unmanageably!) It's not the substance itself, but the user. Some start smoking grass and never use anything else. Others quickly fall down that slippery slope and "graduate" to harder drugs. Everyone is different, but ALL substances have the potential to be abused.
I guess a lot of the problem is the whole lumping together of it all into one category ("drugs") when really you kind of have to evaluate each one on its own. A lot of the trouble people get into as substance users (be they recreational or otherwise) is illegal possession of said substance. Other than that, they may not get into any trouble. So, that's hardly a good barometer to judge things on. If it wasn't illegal in the first place, then they might be upstanding citizens.
You would do it to get messed up. It happens quite a lot. People get (illegally?) messed up on legal medication that was prescribed to them.
Like abortion, I suppose. No right answer, no wrong answer? I guess that's all right. Keep in mind, though... abortion is legal.
Indeed. It's all about the person and their propensity for being addicted to that certain something. I'm addicted to wis.dm and I have other vices. As much is true. But there is no chemically addictive component to any of the things I'm addicted to. It's almost a statistic impossibility to not get addicted to herion or meth. Lesser potency versions of each come with chemically addictive properties as well, but for some people they are manageable, and can be used somewhat recreationally, as long as you're careful.
A lot of the trouble people get into as substance users (be they recreational or otherwise) is illegal possession of said substance.
If possession of drugs was the only issue, no one would give a hoot if people had them or not. If possession leads to use, you can have all the immoral consequences. No one buys drugs just for the bragging rights.
If it wasn't illegal in the first place, then they might be upstanding citizens.
I realize I'm sounding like a broken record, but they might become addicts too.
You would do it to get messed up. It happens quite a lot. People get (illegally?) messed up on legal medication that was prescribed to them.
Very true. They might just be looking for a high off of it. Some doctors prescribe themselves drugs to support their habit. If I was doing it, my conscience would probably tell me it was immoral because I would be opening the door to a dependency.
Medical science is only beginning to scratch the surface of addiction. No one really understands it well enough to find a cure. There is only treatment in the form of support groups.
Society has made drugs unnecessarily dangerous and expensive by making them illegal and stigmatizing their users, seriously exacerbating problems caused by drugs.
First of all the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure, it has done nothing to stem use or availability.
Drugs are illegal to sell to anyone, so there is no incentive to not sell them to minors.
Possession and sales of drugs has created a whole new and incredibly large, "criminal class".
Prohibition makes a cheap commodity incredible expensive, requiring addicts to resort to crime to raise the incredible amounts of money needed to support an addiction.
The stigma created by the "war on drugs" makes it more difficult to seek and receive treatment.
Tremendous resources go into fighting the "war on drugs" that could be used for much better purposes. If we legalized and taxed drugs and used the proceeds for those that want treatment and stopped wasting money fighting it, the savings would be tremendous.
Prohibition creates violent battles over turf, as did alcohol prohibition.
Prohibition means there is no standard for potency or purity, leading to avoidable deaths.
Prohibition makes a cheap commodity incredible expensive, requiring addicts to resort to crime to raise the incredible amounts of money needed to support an addiction.
So if we legalize drugs then we will have addicts with more money in their pockets to support their habit.
The stigma created by the "war on drugs" makes it more difficult to seek and receive treatment.
I have to disagree. The stigma is the guilt and fear of being associated with out of control drug use.
Tremendous resources go into fighting the "war on drugs" that could be used for much better purposes. If we legalized and taxed drugs and used the proceeds for those that want treatment and stopped wasting money fighting it, the savings would be tremendous.
More access to drugs means more users who may or may not get treatment when their drug use gets out of hand. I don't think you would be saving money cuz you are just going to need it to deal with the influx of problems that widespread addiction would cause. Substance abusers would not need to steal to support their habit, but there is a host of other problems associated with addiction; lost productivity, broken homes, etc.
Who decides what would get legalized? Would you honestly support the legalization of crack, meth or heroin?
First off, apparently you agree with much of what I said as you do not dispute it. Those reasons alone are enough to de-illegalize drugs.
Prohibition makes a cheap commodity incredible expensive, requiring addicts to resort to crime to raise the incredible amounts of money needed to support an addiction.
So if we legalize drugs then we will have addicts with more money in their pockets to support their habit.
Yes, rather than having to resort to crime to pay artificially inflated prices.
The stigma created by the "war on drugs" makes it more difficult to seek and receive treatment.
I have to disagree. The stigma is the guilt and fear of being associated with out of control drug use.
Disagree all you want. It is historical fact. Our founding fathers would be put in prison today for the drugs they used. Do you drink alcohol? If so, you are a user of a drug that was once stigmatized.
Tremendous resources go into fighting the "war on drugs" that could be used for much better purposes. If we legalized and taxed drugs and used the proceeds for those that want treatment and stopped wasting money fighting it, the savings would be tremendous.
More access to drugs means more users who may or may not get treatment when their drug use gets out of hand. I don't think you would be saving money cuz you are just going to need it to deal with the influx of problems that widespread addiction would cause. Substance abusers would not need to steal to support their habit, but there is a host of other problems associated with addiction; lost productivity, broken homes, etc.
Your argument assumes and is based on, the fallacy that the illegality has limited availability. It has not.
Who decides what would get legalized? Would you honestly support the legalization of crack, meth or heroin?
Why do you feel you have the right to tell others what they can put in their bodies?
Joe_Pfaff... 2 months ago
Opinions_By_Linda... 2 months ago
Dr_Tavor... 2 months ago
I would argue that many prescribed drugs are particularly susceptible to "immoral" application, especially those used for psychotropic purposes, often applied without the meaningful, or any, consent of the recipient.
clodhopper... 2 months ago
throsso... 2 months ago
Trajin... 2 months ago
throsso... 2 months ago