Is drugs a legal issue or a moral issue?

[Schweddy]

NT

When you think of the "War on drugs" what comes to your mind first?

I personally think moral first, because when I was younger it was hammered into my skull as though participating in drug use is a sin.
I think that is a major reason why they are still illegal today - the success of the anti-drug morality campaigns.

I want so deeply to think of drugs as is a legal issue only. A person should be able to to whatever they wish to their own person as long as it does not affect another person.

 

[Diogenes]

Drugs were generally legal in the late nineteenth century, when cocaine and heroin were advertised as cures for almost everything by the snake oil sales types. The open use was damaging so many people - and their families - that they were finally banned ca. 1910 as kind of a first wave ahead of prohibition.

Prohibition turned out to be a bridge too far and the people rebelled, but the drug ban remains. The main argument seems to be that it is too expensive for society to care for the expected large number of folks who will need help coping with their weaknesses if we legalize drugs, sort of like Nanny Bloomberg's ban on large sugary drinks or the food police who ban the tasty stuff from school lunchrooms.

However, I confidently predict we will never lack for people who have so little to do that they feel compelled to dictate how the rest of us must live. And I see this busybody attitude as the main obstacle to drug legalization, rather than moral or legal considerations.

 

[digsbe]

I would say it's both a legal and moral issue with the belief that people don't have the right to get high or have access to such substances.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Chose legal and moral. Then again laws try to generally follow what a society considers moral, so when a matter of law seems difficult to decide, it kind of touches on both the legal and moral.

People "should" be free to make their own mistakes, including use drugs, without penalty. People "should not," however, be able to apply the cost of those consequences to others, who did not make that mistake. No health insurance money should be reimbursing the health consequences of self-sabotaging behavior.

 

[MaggieD]

NT

When you think of the "War on drugs" what comes to your mind first?

I personally think moral first, because when I was younger it was hammered into my skull as though participating in drug use is a sin.
I think that is a major reason why they are still illegal today - the success of the anti-drug morality campaigns.

I want so deeply to think of drugs as is a legal issue only. A person should be able to to whatever they wish to their own person as long as it does not affect another person.

I don't think illegal drug use is a moral issue at all. Never enters my mind. I haven't used them...maybe that accounts for it.

I disagree that people should be able to use them if they want to -- truly harmful, addictive drugs will always effect other people; and it's wise to have laws against them. Marijuana, on the other hand, should be legal.

 

[Geoist]

I would say it's both a legal and moral issue with the belief that people don't have the right to get high or have access to such substances.

So individuals have no natural right to put whatever they want in their own bodies?

Who then has the right to decide what you put in your body?

 

[digsbe]

So individuals have no natural right to put whatever they want in their own bodies?

Who then has the right to decide what you put in your body?

Not when you live in a society. You don't have a right to certain compounds and drugs especially in an unrestricted setting.

 

[samsmart]

NT

When you think of the "War on drugs" what comes to your mind first?

I personally think moral first, because when I was younger it was hammered into my skull as though participating in drug use is a sin.
I think that is a major reason why they are still illegal today - the success of the anti-drug morality campaigns.

I want so deeply to think of drugs as is a legal issue only. A person should be able to to whatever they wish to their own person as long as it does not affect another person.

For me, it's a moral issue.

The War on Drugs is quite immoral in the harm it does to people, much worse than recreational drugs themselves, and it should be stopped.

 

[samsmart]

I would say it's both a legal and moral issue with the belief that people don't have the right to get high or have access to such substances.

Yes, they do have a natural right to get high.

The only restrictions on drugs is that the manufacturers and vendors should be truthful as to the effects of a drug, which is a legal issue.

However, what a person chooses to use is his own choice.

 

[Medusa]

if it is considered in terms of harming the others ,it is moral issue..if it is allowed to be used freely ,it spreads among the society and it is not an ethic case.........

not every illegal thing is immoral but every immoral must be illegal......

 

[digsbe]

Yes, they do have a natural right to get high.

The only restrictions on drugs is that the manufacturers and vendors should be truthful as to the effects of a drug, which is a legal issue.

However, what a person chooses to use is his own choice.

I disagree, you have no natural right to get high nor do you have a natural right to use substances when living in a society. Would you abolish the entire medical model and make every drug an OTC? You don't have a right to many medications and substances, someone else has to deem that you need it and even then gives you restricted access.

 

[samsmart]

I disagree, you have no natural right to get high nor do you have a natural right to use substances when living in a society. Would you abolish the entire medical model and make every drug an OTC? You don't have a right to many medications and substances, someone else has to deem that you need it and even then gives you restricted access.

I think people have a natural right to recreational drugs. And especially those drugs used for spiritual purposes.

 

[Goshin]

NT

When you think of the "War on drugs" what comes to your mind first?

I personally think moral first, because when I was younger it was hammered into my skull as though participating in drug use is a sin.
I think that is a major reason why they are still illegal today - the success of the anti-drug morality campaigns.

I want so deeply to think of drugs as is a legal issue only. A person should be able to to whatever they wish to their own person as long as it does not affect another person.

I was raised the same way. I still tend to view drug ABUSE as immoral, just as I view alcohol abuse as immoral.

But really.... why is MJ immoral but Prozac is fine?

The biggest answer is malum prohibitum... wrong because it is prohibited... rather than malum-in-se (evil in itself).

Drug abuse and alcohol abuse destroy lives. Problem is the lives they destroy are not only that of the user, but often extends to people around them as well.

Even so, I favor legalization of most drugs and their supply chain. Why? Back to Prozac vs MJ, or ritalin vs cocaine. One is legal and one isn't... but there isn't really a good reason for the distinction.

I figure, let people decide for themselves what they will put into their body... but prosecute them for any harm they do to others, to the fullest extent of the law.

That, and the WoD is a failure and its only real result is movement towards a police state... and we'd remove most of the power of the cartels and gangs, just like Prohibition.


Now there's another question... some say "doesn't legalization equal societal approval?"

Well yes and no... it is LEGAL to be an alcoholic, but society frowns on it and pretty strongly disapproves, and habitual drunks tend to lose friends like a shedding dog loses hair.


There may be no GOOD answers to our society's drug problems... just a choice between unsavory compromises or even worse consequences (legalization vs Prohibition).

 

[digsbe]

I think people have a natural right to recreational drugs. And especially those drugs used for spiritual purposes.

What defines recreational? Why would it not be ok for someone to take their blood pressure and then buy some OTC Lisinopril? I think that the government has the right to regulate society and deem certain substances as illegal.

I was raised the same way. I still tend to view drug ABUSE as immoral, just as I view alcohol abuse as immoral.

But really.... why is MJ immoral but Prozac is fine?

The biggest answer is malum prohibitum... wrong because it is prohibited... rather than malum-in-se (evil in itself).

Drug abuse and alcohol abuse destroy lives. Problem is the lives they destroy are not only that of the user, but often extends to people around them as well.

Even so, I favor legalization of most drugs and their supply chain. Why? Back to Prozac vs MJ, or ritalin vs cocaine. One is legal and one isn't... but there isn't really a good reason for the distinction.

I figure, let people decide for themselves what they will put into their body... but prosecute them for any harm they do to others, to the fullest extent of the law.

That, and the WoD is a failure and its only real result is movement towards a police state... and we'd remove most of the power of the cartels and gangs, just like Prohibition.


Now there's another question... some say "doesn't legalization equal societal approval?"

Well yes and no... it is LEGAL to be an alcoholic, but society frowns on it and pretty strongly disapproves, and habitual drunks tend to lose friends like a shedding dog loses hair.


There may be no GOOD answers to our society's drug problems... just a choice between unsavory compromises or even worse consequences (legalization vs Prohibition).

Prozac cannot be compared with marijuana nor can Ritalin be compared with cocaine. The FDA schedules these substances as illegal due to high abuse potential and no medically necessary reason to have them. Prozac and Ritalin have medical uses (and Ritalin is strongly controlled). It all boils down to the Federal Controlled Substances Act and state laws that further restrict substances. Many illegal drugs like meth and heroine are extremely unsafe for use and unhealthy. I don't think the answer to our drug problem is to legalize them.

 

[tessaesque]

It's moral in the sense that we are causing significant harm to many people through our current drug policy...harm which real-life examples tell us could be prevented if we'd abandon unsupported stigmas and approach the issue more rationally. Countries that have decriminalized the use of all/most drugs have shown significant declines in overall drug use and crimes related to illegal drug use (prostitution, gang violence, theft, etc). We spend billions on this "war" and all we do is make cartels richer, make addicts into criminals, and wreak havoc here and across the border.

It is also moral in the sense that making many drugs illegal had nothing to do with their supposed "harm" to society and everything to do with major industries lobbying the legislature in order to better their own business outlook. Marijuana was criminalized because the Nylon industry lobbied like hell to beat out the hemp market and essentially achieve a monopoly at the time. Cocaine and Heroin were beat out by pharmaceuticals. The rest were kind of lumped in to legislation....including drugs manufactured by the government for use in experimental treatments of returning soldiers with PTSD. Seems pretty immoral to me to give one industry a leg up over another because of nefarious intentions.

Drug use in and of itself isn't a moral issue to me. Addiction is possible without ingesting any substance. We don't see laws banning the internet, video games, coffee, cola, assorted food items, twitter, facebook, etc....and yet study after study tells us that addiction behaviors are prevalent in significant population numbers relating to those items/activities. And the reason drug addiction is so destructive in today's society is because we fail to properly address the issue of addiction, instead focusing all of our energy on punishment.

My mother has been arrested 6 times due to illegal activities related to persistent drug use. The state is willing to pay for her to sit in jail for months or years at a time, but unwilling or incapable of paying for her to sit in rehab for the same period. Why? The root of all of her criminal activity is her addiction. Setting her down in jail doesn't solve the root problem, it just gives her access to other people in her situation who can share their own methods and means of acquiring their next fix.

We can get up on our high horses all day and say that we must keep drugs illegal because they're dangerous and using drugs causes harm. But we're the worst kind of hypocrites when we turn around and abandon those who become addicted because they're "criminals". They're only criminals because we've chosen to make them such. We don't throw overweight people in jail for becoming diabetic. Why do we penalize people for one bad life choice but not another?

Propaganda is a bitch...that's why.

 

[samsmart]

What defines recreational? Why would it not be ok for someone to take their blood pressure and then buy some OTC Lisinopril? I think that the government has the right to regulate society and deem certain substances as illegal.

1) The right for the government to regulate society is only by the consent of the governed.

2) The purpose of the government to regulate society is to protect one person from infringing on the natural rights of another person - not to inhibit or limit the natural rights of a person as an individual.

3) When the government exceeds these limitations on how to regulate society they are, by natural law, no longer legitimate.

 

[grip]

Any drug that can cause euphoria will always have the social stigma of morality and addiction attached to it, legal or not.

I worked with a guy that took Adderall for ADD and he had to drink 6 beers every night just to come down so he could sleep. He was a hyper, sniveling weasel by noon to 6pm and made me nervous just watching him. Eyes bulging, spinning around, tongue darting in and out, twitching like a spastic marmot, which I pitied and did not believe the meds were productive.

 

[tessaesque]

Any drug that can cause euphoria will always have the social stigma of morality and addiction attached to it, legal or not.

I worked with a guy that took Adderall for ADD and he had to drink 6 beers every night just to come down so he could sleep. He was a hyper, sniveling weasel by noon to 6pm and made me nervous just watching him. Eyes bulging, spinning around, tongue darting in and out, twitching like a spastic marmot, which I pitied and did not believe the meds were productive.

Sounds like he was misdiagnosed with ADD if Adderall had that effect on him. Essentially, Adderall is speed. If you don't have ADD it'll make you spastic as hell.

My own little drug use anecdote: My friend has extreme anxiety and his doctor prescribed Xanax. Friend didn't have insurance and couldn't afford the medication, but he found that smoking a joint helped him quell the anxiety significantly. He could spend $10 on shwag and have a week's worth of anti-anxiety effects, or he could spent the equivalent of $60 for a week's worth of Xanax.

 

[the_recruit]

I disagree, you have no natural right to get high nor do you have a natural right to use substances when living in a society. Would you abolish the entire medical model and make every drug an OTC? You don't have a right to many medications and substances, someone else has to deem that you need it and even then gives you restricted access.

Right is a strong word that i avoid using often. But I think people should be allowed to put whatever substance they want in their body. I'm in favor of the FDA informing the public of risks and harmful effects, etc. Banning certain drugs outright, though? Absolutely not.

 

[grip]

Sounds like he was misdiagnosed with ADD if Adderall had that effect on him. Essentially, Adderall is speed. If you don't have ADD it'll make you spastic as hell.

My own little drug use anecdote: My friend has extreme anxiety and his doctor prescribed Xanax. Friend didn't have insurance and couldn't afford the medication, but he found that smoking a joint helped him quell the anxiety significantly. He could spend $10 on shwag and have a week's worth of anti-anxiety effects, or he could spent the equivalent of $60 for a week's worth of Xanax.

The guy had ADD but not to the severity where that particular medication benefited him much. He could focus better but still had all those gnarly side effects. There are either less potent alternatives or more multi pronged solutions than always turning to Dr Feel-Good.

Pot in the short term can have a positive effect for many people but the more potent strains used over long term can have some fairly negative results. Some border line schizo's may never manifest severe or disruptive symptoms, until they burn a dutch. Everything is relative to the persons chemistry, tolerances, psychological make-up etc.

 

[What if...?]

I disagree, you have no natural right to get high nor do you have a natural right to use substances when living in a society. Would you abolish the entire medical model and make every drug an OTC? You don't have a right to many medications and substances, someone else has to deem that you need it and even then gives you restricted access.

Ive always thought our current medical system is just another "priest class".

Doctors should be partners with their patients. Not gods who intercede between ojrselves and our health.

Its like forbidding me to work on my own car, because I might not do it right.

 

[Geoist]

Not when you live in a society. You don't have a right to certain compounds and drugs especially in an unrestricted setting.

Why not? And I'll ask again, who has the right to decide what you put in your body?

 

[Indeed]

NT

When you think of the "War on drugs" what comes to your mind first?

I personally think moral first, because when I was younger it was hammered into my skull as though participating in drug use is a sin.
I think that is a major reason why they are still illegal today - the success of the anti-drug morality campaigns.

I want so deeply to think of drugs as is a legal issue only. A person should be able to to whatever they wish to their own person as long as it does not affect another person.

Laws are based loosly on morals, which means that if it is a matter of law, it is also a matter of morals. However, it should not be a legal issue in the first place. Saying someone on acid may harm themselves and others due to the acid is like saying someone who drives a car may run someone over when they fall asleep behind the wheel. As long as it doesn't directly harm someone else I don't care at all.

 

[Diogenes]

Everything is relative to the persons chemistry, tolerances, psychological make-up etc.

Exactly right, and that point is what invalidates all the generalizations.

 

[Thorgasm]

It's a legal issue.

The moral question is moot for me. As long as you harm no one else, your personal liberty should be honored.