As for my responsibilities, what makes you think that that's even any of your business? — S

Every single time I have heard that said, it was in a circumstance where the speaker had gone to the trouble of making his business the business of other people. One example will suffice, and will illustrate all: the man beating the woman. Know what he said? You'll never guess. I'll simplify it and clean it up. "Mind your own business." Is that your none of your business?

And you keep attributing to me an extremity of view I am not representing here. The question of the OP goes to in a sense the existence of the immorality in question. Is it? Or isn't it? You appear completely deaf to this question. Try the question I just asked Wallow just above - I'm betting you're clever enough to find it. Of course experience tells me you won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Yeah, yeah. I'm an ignorant troll blah blah, because you can't take my criticism.

But why, exactly, did Portugal decriminalize drugs? — tim wood

Good question. I don't know. It seems that decriminalization was an alternative to the conservative agenda over here in the US.

I'm also from California where the black market will never be beat despite legalization of marijuana, which is the drug the OP had in mind.

decriminalization is not the same as legalization, yes? — tim wood

Yes. Though Canada is right now the leader in making marijuana legal on a national level.

Second question: Do you think drugs are good for people? — tim wood

Assessment of their utility isn't my background. But, again talking about marijuana it seems that the leaders in placing a value on its utility are Israeli medical professionals. Even places like Israel are changing their minds about the medicinal value of pot. Other drugs like heroin or crystal meth have little known utility apart from temporary pain management to treating ADHD. And methamphetamine can actually be obtained as a prescription here in the US.

Go figure...

Every single time I have heard that said, it was in a circumstance where the speaker had gone to the trouble of making his business the business of other people. One example will suffice, and will illustrate all: the man beating the woman. Know what he said? You'll never guess. I'll simplify it and clean it up. "Mind your own business." Is that your none of your business? — tim wood

No, it will certainly not suffice. Bad arguments never suffice. And inappropriate comparisons make for bad arguments, whether you like hearing that or not. I think this is a guilt by association fallacy, actually.

And you keep attributing to me an extremity of view I am not representing here. The question of the OP goes to in a sense the existence of the immorality in question. Is it? Or isn't it? You appear completely deaf to this question. Try the question I just asked Wallow just above - I'm betting you're clever enough to find it. Of course experience tells me you won't touch it with a ten foot pole. — tim wood

But you're one of those annoying people who asks a simpleminded black-and-white question, which is itself a problem, and then complains when I don't give a simpleminded black-and-white answer, but instead highlight the problem in the question. You set me up for failure. Why don't you ask a more intelligent question? A question that conveys an understanding of the complexity of the subject?

There are serious health risks with any drug — S

Yep. Almost a Bingo! And so consumption ought to be well-informed. And of course you're well-informed about the illegal drugs you take, right? But more than that is the question of who your decisions affect. Obviously a whole raft of decisions involve risk, but are unavoidable parts of life, and so individuals and their respective communities just suck it up.

Answer me this, though:

My mum would have been distraught. — S

Only a mum! But if you harmed her, would that be a bad thing, even arising, depending on the why you harmed her, to the immoral?

Yeah, yeah. I'm an ignorant troll blah blah, because you can't take my criticism. — S

Sorry, it never arises to the level of criticism. If it did, that might be a good thing.

I have read and memorised a lot of information about drugs. — S

Well, my second living deals with synthesizing and distributing novel research chemicals from China to the world, so I'm not sure why this would give me any authority on the matter of assessing the merits of taking XYZ drug as does your non-facetious claim that you have memorized a great deal of info on the effects drugs have.

Anyway, since you know what's best for you, then I might as well just say, whatever floats your boat.

Only a mum! But if you harmed her, would that be a bad thing, even arising, depending on the why you harmed her, to the immoral? — tim wood

Can you ask a better question? One that isn't so simplistic and unspecific? This isn't a simple matter. When is that going to sink in?

Anyway, S, I hope you test your drugs or MDMA and don't get a bad batch of 2-DPMP or 6-APB or 5-MAPB. Well, 5-MAPB is pretty hard to get; but, was indistinguishable from regular MDMA according to psychonauts.

Also, 2-DPMP or Ivory Wave was a direct causal link in the laws that got passed in the UK banning all designer drugs, bath salts, and research chemicals.

Well, my second living deals with synthesizing and distributing novel research chemicals from China to the world, so I'm not sure why this would give me any authority on the matter of assessing the merits of taking XYZ drug as does your non-facetious claim that you have memorized a great deal of info on the effects drugs have. — Wallows

You misunderstood my point. I mentioned that because being well-informed clearly relates to responsibility. That's not unique to drug taking, that's true in general.

This isn't a simple matter. When is that going to sink in? — S

I agree that many, many questions about drug use legal or illegal are not simple. I am also mostly incompetent to comment on most of those questions. Those I leave to you. But the question of the OP is not such a question. And we're not going anywhere until you can see that - that it, at least, is a simple question.

I agree that many, many questions about drug use legal or illegal are not simple. I am also mostly incompetent to comment on most of those questions. Those I leave to you. But the question of the OP is not such a question. And we're not going anywhere until you can see that - that it, at least, is a simple question. — tim wood

Of course I recognise that it's a simple question. That's the problem!

I mentioned that because being well-informed clearly relates to responsibility. That's not unique to drug taking, that's true in general. — S

Well, trying to reduce the whole issue to a matter of taste or preference really isn't going to fly in @tim wood's mind. As to why this hasn't been pointed out already baffles me.

Good question. I don't know. It seems that decriminalization was an alternative to the conservative agenda over here in the US. — Wallows

Let's see, the Portuguese legislature - if it's a legislature that makes laws in Portugal - could not decide for themselves on the basis of any evidence they could gather or understand what the legal status of illegal drugs should be, or if it should change. So they did what smart people the world over do, they informed themselves as best they could on what "the conservative agenda" in the US is, and did the opposite. Is that your argument, your understanding?

Well, trying to reduce the whole issue to a matter of taste or preference really isn't going to fly in tim wood's mind. As to why this hasn't been pointed out already baffles me. — Wallows

Yes, you're most likely right, because he doesn't think outside of the box. I know he doesn't like me saying things like that, but it's true. He's a very conventional thinker.

I never said that and I don't know why Portugal opted for decriminalization. Perhaps they wanted to become the next best narcotourist hub or destination after The Netherlands... Not being serious here.

Yes, you're most likely right, because he doesn't think outside of the box. I know he doesn't like me saying things like that, but it's true. He's a very conventional thinker. — S

You're correct; it's true; I am. As to boxes, not so much outside, but closely along the edges, where the joinery is. I'm generally not clever enough for the outside.

Of course I recognise that it's a simple question. That's the problem! — S

You have a problem answering simple questions? I personally believe you know perfectly well there is an immoral component to taking illegal drugs, but acknowledging that would present you a problem you do not care to deal with. It's called denial, and that you'd go to the trouble in this forum is itself interesting. Why do we not suspend this, so you can work on that.

Maybe you should be. I find this online (Wiki):

"In July 2001, a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than a ten-day supply of that substance.[1] This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[11] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.[12][13] Despite this, the law was still associated with a nearly 50% decrease in convictions and imprisonments of drug traffickers from 2001 to 2015.[14]"

You're welcome. Hope this keeps you out of a Portuguese prison!

Hope this keeps you out of a Portuguese prison! — tim wood

Haha!

Yes, you're most likely right, because he doesn't think outside of the box. — S

Yes, a box is enough entertainment for Oksa. How is she?

I think for the sake of clarity and transparency there are some questions should answer:

(1) If it is illegal is doing it necessarily immoral? If so, why?
(2). If something is illegal does doing it necessarily cause harm or suffering to someone?
Re (2) If so, can something be immoral for any other reason than that it is illegal and therefore causes harm or suffering to someone? If so, what other reason(s)?
Re (2) If not, can something be immoral just because it is illegal?
(3) If something causes harm but is not illegal is it necessarily immoral?

If Tim answers these question unambiguously, then I think some progress should be made towards furthering this discussion which seems to have stalled and be sinking into a quagmire of distortion and misunderstanding.

-If it is illegal is doing it necessarily immoral? If so, why?
-Can something be immoral for any other reason than that it is illegal?
-If something is illegal does doing it necessarily cause harm or suffering to someone?
-If so, can something be immoral for any other reason than that it is illegal and therefore causes harm or suffering to someone? If so, what other reason(s)? — Janus

1, Yes, because it's illegal. Note this says zero about degree or anything else. As such, this should be obvious. The negation would be that not all illegal doings are immoral. No doubt there are some things worth doing because the virtue is greater than the immorality. Civil disobedience can achieve that. But the thing to mind is that the immorality itself is not negated, it's only overcome. Gandhi, for example, was clear on this when he invited a maximum sentence early in his career of civil disobedience. He knew it was wrong, but that there was a greater right.

2, Yes. Do you really need an argument on this one?

3, I cannot think at the moment of anything illegal that is harmless. Keep in mind that harmful is not the same as causing a specific or particular harm.

4, See #2. But your sentence is ambiguous. Let's try it this way. Given something not illegal and that causes no harm, can that thing be immoral? I wrote this earlier:

What is immorality? In shortest terms it is doing what should not, ought not, be done (not doing what should be done, etc.). Shoulds and oughts are the bane of a reasonable man's life because they are often misused. In proper use, they usually refer to collective and community wisdom, that wisdom going to the heart, in turn, of what is right and wrong, better or worse, good or bad. That is, morality is always based in some reason as cause, even if the reason is not immediately apparent. — tim wood

I invite you to refine or correct this. It seems to me though that the wrong, the bad, the worse always involves an aspect of harm, either to self or others. Again, not a statement of kind or degree or even of realization. And we can add that the harm can lie in the violation of the rights of others, even if neither illegal, or harmful. But this involves the potential of harm, as does any violation of rights.

But no harm whatsoever by any standard? On this I'll have to yield, at least until I think of something.

Just to get the other meaning of not illegal but causes harm, any betrayal can do that.

Pretty good questions. Push 'em further if you like. It's late here and I might have missed something.

So, I think you can play devil's advocate for so long, so here's my take.

Given that we prescribe in the great States, amphetamine or Ritalin to kids for ADHD, I find it highly dubious to say that pot should be illegal. Marijuana only became illegal because of the cotton and paper industry in the US. More people die yearly from aspirin than from marijuana. It's incredibly hard to overdose on marijuana if not impossible.

LSD-25 was created by the CIA through their MK-ULTRA program on assessing the possibility of creating Manchurian candidates or some really far out ideas like mind control. If you go deep enough into YouTube you can find testimonies by ordinary citizens about being test subjects for the MK-ULTRA program. Sounds wacky; but, it's true. After a psychedelic trip, there are irreversible changes that are elicited through epigenetic mechanisms. Core facets of personality are altered to some degree, such as openness, oneness, and appreciation of what one has. Microdosing LSD-25 is a hot fad nowadays. People from Silicon Valley are taking it under the assumption that it encourages creativity, productivity, and awareness.

Personally, I've tried many drugs and became addicted to some hard stuff like meth and 4F-MPH (analog of Ritalin; but, super potent and strong stuff). The military even assessed the possibility of amphetamine increasing the morale of soldiers during WWII. The results did not warrant further research on the topic, and the Nazis were quick to stop giving their soldiers Pervitin after seeing the emergence of psychosis after some nights of not having any sleep for the poor soldier. They even thought that sleep could be done away with entirely, which nowadays would seem absurd. Yet, we have created ergogenics like Modafinil for airline pilots or for those suffering from narcolepsy.

MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) is perhaps the only association investigating how psychedelics can be used to treat anxiety, phobias, OCD, alcoholism, addictions, depression, and some long list of other ailments of the mind. Ayahuasca is probably going to make a comeback to treat stuff like addictions and phobias. Ketamine is already being sold as a nasal spray in the States as of recent.

There's a lot to learn from these compound that scientists are researching and hoping with anticipation get government funding for.

I have always resented the "drugs are bad" mantra that goes around in schools. Deterrence just doesn't work against these drugs. It hasn't worked for alcohol during the prohibition period, and won't nowadays. I've heard that if you remove the "Whoo" factor or the taboo from such drugs, people would go on just fine with them.

Anyway, my two pennies.

You have a problem answering simple questions? I personally believe you know perfectly well there is an immoral component to taking illegal drugs, but acknowledging that would present you a problem you do not care to deal with. It's called denial, and that you'd go to the trouble in this forum is itself interesting. Why do we not suspend this, so you can work on that. — tim wood

Obviously by "simple question", I don't mean easily answerable without a problem, which is what you seem to be deliberately suggesting, in spite of my prior clarification. I mean a question with a simplistic structure which suggests ignorance of the complexity of the issue.

You want a simple answer to the simple question? Okay. The answer is: it depends.

There's a lot to learn from these compound that scientists are researching and hoping with anticipation get government funding for.

I have always resented the "drugs are bad" mantra that goes around in schools. Deterrence just doesn't work against these drugs. It hasn't worked for alcohol during the prohibition period, and won't nowadays. I've heard that if you remove the "Whoo" factor or the taboo from such drugs, people would go on just fine with them.

Anyway, my two pennies. — Wallows

You seem to have a lot of knowledge, but never until reading your post has it occurred to me that someone can have knowledge yet not know. You write about the possible benefits of drugs and investigations into their powers, some appalling. And as well propaganda about drugs, and the allure and power of some of them that makes control very difficult.

But as S. points out with his usual asperity, the question isn't one of the hard ones, rather it's simple. It's in the OP: it is the OP!

To say that something can be a benefit is not the same as saying it is good. Nor is good and bad automatically the same as moral/immoral. Let's make the reasonable assumption that with respect to drugs of any kind, the benefits of those that are beneficial outweigh any negatives, assessed on a case-by-case basis. And let's set that aside. That leaves drugs taken for reasons not understood as beneficial (by the people who decide such things). With your experience of drugs, can you look us in the eye and tell us that taking them has no aspect of immorality? (immorality as I have defined it - or if you don't like mine, then you offer one.)

You seem to have a lot of knowledge, but never until reading your post has it occurred to me that someone can have knowledge yet not know. — tim wood

Well, I tend to treat this place as a theater where instead of suspending disbelief I suspend judgment. The only way to maintain one's views while integrating new positions and thoughts on a topic. You should try it sometime. :sweat:

You write about the possible benefits of drugs and investigations into their powers, some appalling. And as well propaganda about drugs, and the allure and power of some of them that makes control very difficult. — tim wood

Yeah, I am cognizant of their deleterious effects along with potential benefits. Please keep in mind, that most of what I said in regards to drugs are meant to be taken in controlled settings and not haphazardly willy nilly on a whim.

But as S. points out with his usual asperity, the question isn't one of the hard ones, rather it's simple. It's in the OP: it is the OP! — tim wood

I'd like to point out that if you want to profess the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, then I can't stop you from doing so.

With your experience of drugs, can you look us in the eye and tell us that taking them has no aspect of immorality? (immorality as I have defined it - or if you don't like mine, then you offer one.) — tim wood

The only instances where this question has popped up in my mind is where was my money going and who was it supporting. I've taken many drugs produced by labs in China. I've been careful to never indulge in stuff like heroin (most likely originating from Afghanistan or Southern American cartels) or cocaine (South American cartels). I have no interest in heroin or cocaine. Now, I would redefine the morality of taking drugs as a more nuanced understanding as a clinical approach and understanding this in terms of not "good or bad" but rather to what end are these drugs being consumed(?) My understanding from my own experience is that self-medication was the primary motive for taking (predominantly) stimulants. I have pretty bad depression and ADD-PI (Attention Deficit Disorder- Primarily Inattentive). Stimulants would temporarily alleviate the ADD and depression and allow me to focus on schoolwork and some intellectually stimulating tasks, like reading a book.

Anyway, the issue really is about addiction in my opinion. If meth wasn't so addictive (I still crave it), then I'd be all for it. Pot isn't addictive; but, if my memory of statistics is correct it doesn't bode well for academic achievement, rather retards it.

Back when I was in college, some large percentage of the class I was taking an econometrics class dropped out, while the ones who remained were on Adderall. So, I might as well ask you the question, which isn't so loaded as the one in this thread, is it immoral to take performance-enhancing drugs?

Now, I would redefine the morality of taking drugs as a more nuanced understanding as a clinical approach and understanding this in terms of not "good or bad" but rather to what end are these drugs being consumed(?) — Wallows

Fair enough. Presupposed is that the drugs in question may be beneficial, and that the benefit outweighs any downside. Left is the matter of the community. Does your community - your personal one - sign off on your usage? ("sign-off" meaning, mainly, understand and accept - or however else you might define it). We have already seen that your larger community, Portugal, absolutely does not, unless Wiki is wrong in its reporting; and that your understanding of your circumstance of law, as you have represented it here, is very wrong.

By none of this do I mean getting permission from anyone. I do mean a process of getting right where indeed you may be wrong.

For clarity's sake, I hold that all actions have a place on a continuous continuum (no gaps) that runs at one end from immoral to the other at moral - that all actions are moral or immoral in some degree. In many cases the degree is minimal and outweighed by other considerations. This likely differs from how others may think of moral/immoral, especially if many actions are dismissed as not having a moral component.

And to extend this, I hold that morality has a component of duty, as understood in Kantian terms. That is, that there are actions a person should undertake, and naturally would were they free. But that most people are not free, and thus have to work at duty, a fortiori, being moral.

the issue really is about addiction in my opinion. — Wallows

Hmm. I had occasions where I expressed my opinion to addicts I had met that I felt - had learned as a hard lesson - it was a fundamental error to regard an addict as a person while they were in the grip of their addiction. They all agreed without demur, even with some enthusiasm as if I had achieved some level of understanding. That is, the addict lies outside of considerations of morality or immorality, his or her actions as an addict on the level of the actions of animals, the morality being reduced to an abstract consideration. The addict as addict, then, is a personification of immorality.

So, I might as well as you the question, which isn't so loaded as the one in this thread, is it immoral to take performance-enhancing drugs? — Wallows

Are you distinguishing between enabling (in a good sense) and enhancing? If a person who cannot is enabled to do by some drug, then that seems a medical question where the particulars matter and the risks weighed, assessed on a case-by-case basis, as I mentioned above.

For enhancement, especially in competition, highly immoral. If the endeavor is personal excellence of any kind, then drugs enhancement instantly destroys even the possibility of personal excellence, substituting for it drug-enhanced performance - that is, just no excellence at all.

You want a simple answer to the simple question? Okay. The answer is: it depends. — S

Which means yes, except for exceptions. QED. (That is, if S. says it's so, then it's so, QED.)

Fair enough. Presupposed is that the drugs in question may be beneficial, and that the benefit outweighs any downside. Left is the matter of the community. — tim wood

Your concept of what constitutes a community is somewhat ambiguous. How do you explain the fact that certain states have opted for legalizing marijuana and yet, we still have on national level illegality towards the drug?

And to extend this, I hold that morality has a component of duty, as understood in Kantian terms. That is, that there are actions a person should undertake, and naturally would were they free. But that most people are not free, and thus have to work at duty, a fortiori, being moral. — tim wood

Yeah, and this explains why we can't have nice things. It's a gross ad hoc generalization to assume that duty supersedes any chance of making a humanistic mistake such as taking drugs. And, again, you seem to be advocating a Kantian ethical concern deriving from what a community deems as acceptable. So, I refer you back to my first paragraph of this post.

Hmm. I had occasions where I expressed my opinion to addicts I had met that I felt - had learned as a hard lesson - it was a fundamental error to regard an addict as a person while they were in the grip of their addiction. They all agreed without demur, even with some enthusiasm as if I had achieved some level of understanding. That is, the addict lies outside of considerations of morality or immorality, his or her actions as an addict on the level of the actions of animals, the morality being reduced to an abstract consideration. — tim wood

I can empathize with this view. Yet...

The addict as addict, then, is a personification of immorality. — tim wood

That's daft and doesn't really make sense. If the level of insight into their own condition is impaired by their addiction, then how does that make them culpable for the alleged immorality they are going about doing with their lives?

Yeah, and this explains why we can't have nice things. It's a gross ad hoc generalization to assume that duty supersedes any chance of making a humanistic mistake such as taking drugs. — Wallows

In my understanding the obligations of duty do not rule against having nice things. Your second sentence I do not quite understand.

Your concept of what constitutes a community is somewhat ambiguous. How do you explain the fact that certain states have opted for legalizing marijuana and yet, we still have on national level illegality towards the drug? — Wallows

By community I mean anything that could stand as a community, large or small, even as small as one. There is no explaining some laws. As account, I suppose state sovereignty is an artifact of the ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution.

And, again, you seem to be advocating a Kantian ethical concern deriving from what a community deems as acceptable. — Wallows

Nope, not me. Certainly not Kant. His community was governed by humanistic reason. Not at all by community opinion. He was willing to look at and consider community wisdom, however, but not to be governed by it even slightly, if it conflict with reason.

The addict as addict, then, is a personification of immorality.
— tim wood
That's daft and doesn't really make sense. If the level of insight into their own condition is impaired by their addiction, then how does that make them culpable for the alleged immorality they are going about doing with their lives? — Wallows

As addicts, not culpable. As people, culpable. As addicts, not people. As actions, immoral. As actions by an addict, immorality without a culpable agent. Please consider substituting "responsible" for "culpable." Culpability implies blameworthy, which implies an other who assigns blame or fault. Responsibility implies an inner obligation, which I think comports better with morality.