The Legality of Drugs: FDD Peanut Gallery Thread

[Silent Dave]

Topic: Making illicit drugs illegal is a moral imperative.

The thread for this debate (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59583) between Albert Cipriani and xorbie has been opened in FDD. This companion thread has been opened for those who wish to comment on the debate.


Dave

[winstonjen]

I look forward to this debate. It should be interesting to see arguments against victimless 'crimes', the illegality of such crimes which lead to rape and murder.

[ComestibleVenom]

winstonjen,

Drugs can and do contribute sums in the hundreds of billions to crime. Moreover, recreational drug use is closely involved in violence and crime at all levels.

The fact is that if we legalized all drugs today, we'd still have major social problems unsolved on our hands. The crime, the abuse would not go away even if heroin overdose rates would drop overnight.

Law enforcement still has a role to play because the costs produced by our current policies will not go away overnight. We cannot simply be rid of them, we need a coherent view of how to regulate drug use in our society in a minimally disruptive way.

We live in a society with a totally unprecedented cornucopia of consciousness-altering drugs. There is no doubt that the commercial use of drugs that make us feel good will bloom in the next hundred years on both sides of the thin blue line. We cannot arrest ourselves out of the consequences of this inevitable fact.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
winstonjen,

Drugs can and do contribute sums in the hundreds of billions to crime. Moreover, recreational drug use is closely involved in violence and crime at all levels.

Only if the drugs are illegal. If it were controlled, like in the Netherlands and other European countries, the crime would be reduced.

The fact is that if we legalized all drugs today, we'd still have major social problems unsolved on our hands. The crime, the abuse would not go away even if heroin overdose rates would drop overnight.


Yes it would, because people would no longer need to steal to feed their habits.

[Farren]

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
winstonjen,

Drugs can and do contribute sums in the hundreds of billions to crime.


Yeah, like alcohol during the prohibition


Moreover, recreational drug use is closely involved in violence and crime at all levels.


Once again, a lot of the violence is caused by criminals running criminalised drugs


Law enforcement still has a role to play because the costs produced by our current policies will not go away overnight. We cannot simply be rid of them, we need a coherent view of how to regulate drug use in our society in a minimally disruptive way.

We live in a society with a totally unprecedented cornucopia of consciousness-altering drugs. There is no doubt that the commercial use of drugs that make us feel good will bloom in the next hundred years on both sides of the thin blue line. We cannot arrest ourselves out of the consequences of this inevitable fact.

Could you clarify which drugs you're speaking about? I had a drug lifestyle for about 8 years and during that time I never committed a single crime (other than taking drugs) and neither did any of the drug users I knew. My narcotics of choice were LSD, Marijuana and Ecstacy.

If you're talking about crimes committed by people who desperately need to support a habit, its difficult to pin such behaviour on the drugs mentioned above in addition to a couple of others like mescaline and peyote.

There's a clear difference between drugs that cause physical dependency and those that do not, since the latter group doesn't diminish your capacity to act ethically by "forcing" you to steal, murder, whatever.

Coke, crack and heroin clearly cause attendant dependencies, but this is precisely why many informed drug users avoid them. Among the people I grew up with recreational drug use was quite common and crack addicts were viewed with the same pity that non-drug users view them with. None of us saw ourselves as being in the same category.

Of the friends and family mentioned above:

2 (myself and my business partner) are self-employed analyst/developers
1 is now technical director for Western Europe of a medium-sized transnational internet security firm
1 is one of South Africa's foremost internet gurus and the MD of a high-tech Internet Company here
1 is the sales director of an industrial equipment company
1 is a successful artist. His wife co-owns a business consultancy with her father
1 is a highly valued network technician at a networking company in Johannesburg
1 is a contract developer and has been practicing Kung Fu since he was six. He was recently invited to train with an expert in Hong Kong/

All of these successful, happy people got together as recently as last year and buzzed our brains off on ecstacy in and around a jacuzzi, despite the fact that for most of us drugs aren't a really big feature anymore. No one had to make radical changes in their lives or go on a ten step program program six or seven times. We just got older, and decided we'd had enough/had more important things to do/found other passions.

Equally, every so often when a fair number of us are at a particular place in the world we might get together and buzz/trip/whatever our heads off like a bunch of kids, because no one has scars and no-one sees it as a "problem" they've "gotten over".

To be entirely honest, for some of us it did get to be a problem, but no worse than being obsessed with sport on TV to the detriment of ones marraige, say. I spent about a year doing way too much E to the point where I think I was starting to suffer serotonin depletion and it took me about six months of convincing myself that it wasn't fun anymore before I stopped. Or rather took a long break (I've had it 2 or 3 times in the last two odd years)

Recreational drugs make you waste a lot of time and there are a many more healthy and fruitful forms of entertainment, so I'm not going to stand up and say "this is the best goddamn idea on the planet". But the prevailing view among many non-drug users or people who have only encountered the ghettoised hard drug scene (like crack et al) that all drugs are a gigantic menace to society, in all contexts, is in denial of the facts.

Its easy to argue that a weekend dope habit is no worse than being an overweight couch potato who spends 42 hours a week in front of a TV eating TV dinners. Yet society doesn't have the same singular horror for the latter category.

Anyway, that's my perspective, for what its worth :)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by winstonjen
I look forward to this debate. It should be interesting to see arguments against victimless 'crimes', the illegality of such crimes which lead to rape and murder.

It should be noted that Albert and xorbie will debate this issue solely on a moral/philosophical level. They stipulated in the debate set up that they won't get into things like sociological, political, scientific, and statistical arguments.

Nevertheless, it should be an interesting debate. Since Albert is a traditional Catholic, he may be coming at it from a different angle as opposed to your secular debate with Tom Sawyer, winstonjen. :)

Jason

[xorbie]

Sadly... the key word their is "will"... I still await alberts opening :( .. glad you all looking forward to it

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Nightshade
It should be noted that Albert and xorbie will debate this issue solely on a moral/philosophical level. They stipulated in the debate set up that they won't get into things like sociological, political, scientific, and statistical arguments.

Nevertheless, it should be an interesting debate. Since Albert is a traditional Catholic, he may be coming at it from a different angle as opposed to your secular debate with Tom Sawyer, winstonjen. :)

Jason

Thanks for the clarification! It still sounds interesting, regardless!

[winstonjen]

Having read Albert's opening statement, I feel he's on quite loose ground, especially having used an appeal to nature.

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by Nightshade
[B]It should be noted that Albert and xorbie will debate this issue solely on a moral/philosophical level.

And that's just the level upon which misunderstandings of the relationships between the risks, benefits and reasons of and for drug use will manifest.

Moreover, if the discussion is confined to the abstract, the roots of these confusions and prejudgements will go unredressed.

As a methodological Naturalist, as a concerned citizen, I beg that awareness of the practical realties of psychoactive drug use be seen as a necessary grounding for moral philosophy, not a luxury for specialists.

Albert seems to be presupposing a default immorality in enjoyment. That is to say, if you aren't medically benifitting(tm) from a drug, you have no right to enjoy it.

What if we have a mild case of ADD in Rob and the drug is optional. The teen knows that they may get a cognitive benefit from the use of the drug, but it is the fact that it gives a cool buzz that impells him to give the drug a try.

It helps him think about and study math, he gets a buzz. Does the devil sit at his computer and raise the temperature of Rob's special little place in hell? (ie. is it a venial or mortal sin?)

Let's try another example. Saliva Divinorum is currently legal in the united states. In the case of Salvia, people don't take the drug to have 'fun'. It is a potent psychoactive who's smoked extract can induce total-sensory hallucinations. It can be a truly hellish experience, but people do it for the introspective constructions possible with it.

Is doing Salvia Divinorum ok because it's not taken to bring pleasure?

Here's another one. People take stomach pills because the luxury of not vomiting stimulates social activity. Others use alcohol.

Is social or introspective use of drugs moral or immoral in the same sense that pleasure-seeking activity is (by default, ie. there being no other compelling factors) wrong?

[Bill Snedden]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Having read Albert's opening statement, I feel he's on quite loose ground, especially having used an appeal to nature.

I quite agree. I would say that his entire position appears to fall to the naturalist fallacy.

On the other hand, it appeared to be well thought-out, well written, and well-argued. I was also pleased to see that even though his worldview undoubtedly forms the paradigm through which he forms moral judgements, Albert used a line of argument that does not necessarily rely on theism or theistic belief. IOW, it appears to me that he has made a deliberate attempt to frame the debate in terms that his opponent will be forced to address, rather than simply denying outright.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Nightshade
They stipulated in the debate set up that they won't get into things like sociological, political, scientific, and statistical arguments.
Well what the fuck's the point of that debate????

:D

scigirl

[Rusting Car Bumper]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Only if the drugs are illegal. If it were controlled, like in the Netherlands and other European countries, the crime would be reduced.


This presumes that small operations like exist in the Netherlands can be scaled up to societies the size of the United States.

Arguments are frequently made regarding various things in smaller countries with a belief they can be transported to larger ones. In most areas I find that far from certain.

Gun control is a good example. Some of the same people who suggest strong gun control also suggest legalization of drugs. If we can't control drugs then what makes us think we can control guns?

DC

[beastmaster]

Albert says
Only good laws foster the common good. Ergo, if drug laws are good laws, drug laws must be shown to foster the common good. Or conversely, drug use must be shown to be not good. I assume that Albert is trying to say that (1) if drug use can be shown to be not good, (2) then we can conclude that drug laws are good laws. But (1) is not sufficent to justify (2) without first considering whether or not the government has the authority to enact drug laws and whether or not the moral costs of the drug laws outweigh the moral benefits. In the case of the drug war, the moral costs are tremendous and have been catalogued elsewhere.

Albert says
Of course, this begs the question of what constitutes “the good.” For example, if what is good is what is pleasurable, then laws that deprive us of pleasurable drugs would seem to be bad laws. But if what is good is what is rational, then laws that deprive us of reason-impairing drugs would seem to be good laws.Four points:

(1) The purpose of government is not to enforce "The Good." We do not live under Philosopher-Kings. Rather, the purpose of laws is to preserve an acceptable level of order to society so that individuals have an environment in which they may pursue their various visions of the good on their own.

(2) Who is to say there is a monopoly of meaning on the word "Good"? Per Aristotle, virtue lies in the moderation between extremes. Perhaps The Good is neither pleasure nor rationality, but some of each and of other things as well, a healthy variety of selfless generosity and selfish industry, of hedonistic pleasure-seeking and philosophical contemplation. Why must good be one thing or the other? Why can't it be a little of each of these wonderful things? Why can't I smoke a little herb on the weekends and yet be thoroughly rational the workweek-through, and be "better" than good?

(3) Laws do not "deprive" us of drugs. Laws are not magic wands. To the extent that drug laws result in any reduction in the production and use of drugs (which they probably do only to a very slight degree, and at the horrible cost of making the drugs more dangerous), it is a secondary, downstream effect.

Rather, the immediate and direct effect of drug laws is to withhold the protective laws of contract and property from those possessing and transacting in drugs, thus requiring the individuals to engage in self-law (i.e., armed violence) to protect their property and expectation interests. Drug laws are proscribed anarchy (the absence of law) and the result is ... well ... anarchy. Drug laws do not deprive us of drugs, they deprive us of the protection of law.

(4) Albert talks about "reason-impairing" drugs. Yet the three examples of drugs he gives later -- sugar for a diabetic, Bob Dole's use of Viagra, and Schwarzanegger's use of muscle-enhancing drugs -- are not reason-impairing drugs. I am confused. Is he advocating the prohibition of only reason-impairing drugs (including alcohol)? Or is he advocating the prohibition of any use of drugs that makes us "unreal" (including cigarettes, Viagra, and steroids)?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

They stipulated in the debate set up that they won't get into things like sociological, political, scientific, and statistical arguments.

Originally posted by scigirl
Well what the fuck's the point of that debate????

:D

scigirl

Ouch! It's not wise to say that (the top quote) in a pick-up line if you ever want a date with scigirl. ;)

Jason

[scigirl]

Haha nightshade! That's right.

I have a question with Albert's statement here:
When food or medication serves to maintain physiology, the ends correspond to the ingested means, the natural law is upheld, and morality reigns.

I think he needs to elaborate on the words maintain physiology. Depending on how he explains these terms, nearly every prescription drug is immoral in some contexts. Some people naturally have elevated serum cholesterol levels, due to a genetic defect of the LDL receptor. If we simply maintained their levels they would die of heart attacks. If we altered them, however, by the use of statins, we prolong their quantity and quality of life. I could think of countless countless more examples (and I haven't even had pharmacology yet!)

To convince someone like me, a future drug-pusher, of his idea, then Albert needs to work much harder to explain why drugs advertised in JAMA are good, whereas the drugs advertised in High Times are bad. To do this, he absolutely has to enter scientific evidence into his discussion. He will find that there is often no scientific basis for the designation of some drugs as being legal, while others are illegal. Instead, the decisions are political and economic. How can that be a good thing?

In addition, his analysis of "good, bad and ugly" completely fall apart when you think about pharmacological interventions. Every drug we prescribe has a side effect. The trick is to balance the goods and the bads to get the desired outcome. Some people can handle nausea but can't handle pain. Others would rather feel pain than feel "out of it" from narcotics. So we work their meds around to get the maximum "good" (whose def'n varies according to the patient) and the minimum "bad." How do we decide whose desire is more "moral" than anothers? He provides no explanation whatsoever how we can do that.

scigirl

[xorbie]

This may seem like a silly question, but does everyone see my response? I ask because the night when I first posted it, I saw nothing and went to bed fuming. But the next day it was all there... so just wondering if it actually is there.

[scigirl]

Yeah it's there xorbie!

I recommend composing them in word - that minimizes the "oh shit I lost my entire post" factor (a statement I've said more times than I care to recall!)

scigirl

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by xorbie
This may seem like a silly question, but does everyone see my response? I ask because the night when I first posted it, I saw nothing and went to bed fuming. But the next day it was all there... so just wondering if it actually is there.

Hi xorbie,

Just so you know, FDD is a fully moderated forum. This means that when you post in FDD, your post won't be visible until a moderator validates it. :)

Jason

[xorbie]

Aha, that explains a lot. Next time I won't have a heart attack when my post disappears. Much thanks. :p

[asef]

I have a question. I do not understand a point of Albert Cipriani's argument. Could it be explained?

With regards to the appeal to nature thing; "Likewise, we may define “the good” as any process whereby the means to an end culminates in that end." With end given as getting whacked out of it then taking drugs is the process to get to that end and so is good.

"This definition of the good is also a definition of reality."
Drug taking exists therefore it is good.

I cannot see how these arguments oppose the use of drugs. Am I wrong? -could someone explain the point again? I don't get how these arguments are for prohibishionist drug laws

[Jamie_L]

It seems to me that the framing of the debate makes an assumption that is open for much debate:

That laws should flow from morality.

A better debate would have been: Is it moral to use drugs? or Is it moral to condone the use of drugs?

It seems quite odd to bring in the issue of legality, yet then isolate the debate from so many key issues affecting legality: the sociological, political, scientific, and statistical arguments.

<Jamie scratches his head and looks confused>

Jamie

[xorbie]

I dunno how much I should be posting here, but 2 weeks between posts is a while when it's summer and you have nothing to do (of course pretty soon I might be needing more, who knows).

I never stated that the laws should flow from morality, and my definition of a good law does not support this claim at all. Don't wanna say anymore for now, as I suspect this issue might come up in the debate.

[Dr. Retard]

Drug abuse is a vice. Therefore, abusable drugs should be criminalized? Albert seems to think that governments should make it their business to repress all vices.

But St. Thomas Aquinas (the Traditional Catholic) answers that...

"As stated above, law is framed as a rule or measure of human acts. Now a measure should be homogeneous with that which it measures, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 3,4, since different things are measured by different measures. Wherefore laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition, for, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be "possible both according to nature, and according to the customs of the country." Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like." (Summa Theologica, Question 96, Article 2 "Whether it belongs to the human law to repress all vices?")

[Albert Cipriani]

Beastmaster asks:
Albert talks about ‘reason-impairing’ drugs. Yet the three examples of drugs he gives later -- sugar for a diabetic, Bob Dole's use of Viagra, and Schwarzanegger's use of muscle-enhancing drugs -- are not reason-impairing drugs. I am confused. Is he advocating the prohibition of only reason-impairing drugs (including alcohol)? Or is he advocating the prohibition of any use of drugs that makes us "unreal" (including cigarettes, Viagra, and steroids)?

My examples illustrate that no drug, per se, is immoral. Rather, the immorality of drugs derives from the misuse of drugs – and of substances not normally even considered drugs (e.g., sugar).

For example, beer and wine and rum are tasty. Drinking them to enjoy their taste, then, is a valid use. Drinking them to enjoy their buzz, then, is not. Their buzz is nature’s way of saying you are imbibing quantities that render a tasty beverage into a poisonous drug.

Even reason impairing drugs have their rational usage. For example, the clinically depressed, schizophrenic, and epileptic can all profit from them. They are only reason-impairing for those of us whose brains are not impaired.

Ergo, I don’t advocate the prohibition of mind-altering drugs for those whose minds need to be altered (for example, Xorbie’s), only for those whose only motive for taking them is pleasure. Ditto, for alcoholic beverages. Someone who is drinking a beer with me may be acting immorally. Tho he and I be objectively doing the same thing, if his subjective motivation for drinking be for the buzz, then he’s acting immorally. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[xorbie]

Care to actually post in our debate so I can respond?

[Albert Cipriani]

Aw Xorbie,
Nuthins stopping you from gnawing on the few bones I throw to the peanut gallery. What do you think this is, a police state?!

Just cuz we got laws against drug abuse doesn’t mean your fingertips are tied. Type away! – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

P.S. I’ll have my formal response done before my deadline on Monday, probably by tonight or tomorrow.

[Albert Cipriani]

Winstonjen says:
Having read Albert's opening statement, I feel he's on quite loose ground, especially having used an appeal to nature.

You think an appeal to nature is loose ground only cuz of your own poor footing. Most folks haven’t got a clue as to the nature of nature. In fact, most who actually think about such things don’t think that there’s any such thing as nature.

Most people think that things just are, denuded of any innate proclivities. That’s why there’s a movement underfoot to redefine “marriage” as a union between any kind of people. For we no longer believe that each of us was created and “creepeth on the earth after its kind.” [Genesis 1:25] We can creepeth after any kind of creature we please, after little boys or goats, or change our sex to creep after what was our own sex.

This sexual bedlam arises -- as the tower of Babel -- out of our pride and delusions and unwillingness to submit to the dictates of our nature. So in appealing to nature, of course my argument sounds weak to the uninitiated. To the technocrats of this age my appeal to nature is a voice in the wilderness in a tongue they can no longer comprehend, what with all their cell phones and MP3’d rap-crap-filled heads. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Aw Xorbie,
Nuthins stopping you from gnawing on the few bones I throw to the peanut gallery. What do you think this is, a police state?!

Just cuz we got laws against drug abuse doesn’t mean your fingertips are tied. Type away!

I don't mind it if formal debate participants answer comments in the peanut gallery, but I'd strongly discourage formal debate participants from debating each other in here. It kind of spoils the purpose of having a formal debate in the first place. I'd humbly ask that the debaters keep the debating to the formal debate.

Of course, I don't have 'mod powers' here in MF&P, but I can make a request to the mods here to intervene. :)

Jason

[Albert Cipriani]

So we do live in a police state afterall! ;)

No problem, Jason. I'll save myself for Xorbie's rebuttal. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Albert Cipriani]

Dr. Retard wrote:

But St. Thomas Aquinas (the Traditional Catholic) answers that...

‘As stated above, law is framed as a rule or measure of human acts. Now a measure should be homogeneous with that which it measures, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 3,4, since different things are measured by different measures. Wherefore laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition, for, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be "possible both according to nature, and according to the customs of the country." Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.

‘Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.’ (Summa Theologica, Question 96, Article 2 ‘Whether it belongs to the human law to repress all vices?’)’


Thanks for the excellent quote from the Angelic Doctor of the Church. The operative sentence, which conforms to my position is: “Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained:”

Thus, I do not advocate the prohibition of liquor just because some people abuse it. Whereas, I do advocate the prohibition of illegal drugs whose use is tantamount to abuse. Such drugs constitute a “grievous vice from which it IS possible for the majority to abstain.” Given the addictive nature of these drugs, a case can be made that “without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained.”

I’m on the same page as St. Thomas. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Dr. Retard]

Thus, I do not advocate the prohibition of liquor just because some people abuse it. Whereas, I do advocate the prohibition of illegal drugs whose use is tantamount to abuse. Such drugs constitute a ?grievous vice from which it IS possible for the majority to abstain.? Given the addictive nature of these drugs, a case can be made that ?without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained.?

OK, so your only targets are "drugs whose use is tantamount to abuse". I assume you support the legalization of marijuana, then.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Dr. Retard
OK, so your only targets are "drugs whose use is tantamount to abuse". I assume you support the legalization of marijuana, then.

I TOTALLY agree. Marijuana can be a good painkiller.

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Retard,
No I do not support the legalization of marijuana.

Theoretically I do in that some components of that drug have rational uses. Pragmatically I do not because virtually anyone can claim recourse to the drug for its medicinal value.

Legalization of pot is but a recycled W.C. Fields joke in which he claimed that he drank for “medicinal purposes.” There are 20-odd known carcinogens in pot smoke. Even if smoked for “legitimate” medical reasons, that delivery system would never pass muster by the FDA for any other drug. Why it does for pot is for irrational purely political grass-root non-reasons mindlessly championed by the uninformed.

Perhaps our compromise position could be that all drugs should be legalized for the terminally ill. The long-term cancer and memory risks associated with pot can be rationally ignored when the long-term is not a factor. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[winstonjen]

This sexual bedlam arises

Nice pun.

-- as the tower of Babel -- out of our pride and delusions and unwillingness to submit to the dictates of our nature. So in appealing to nature, of course my argument sounds weak to the uninitiated. To the technocrats of this age my appeal to nature is a voice in the wilderness in a tongue they can no longer comprehend, what with all their cell phones and MP3’d rap-crap-filled heads. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Irrelevant non-sequitor mythology.

And as for the appeal to the 'social good', and 'no man is an island,' go tell that to a monk or a hermit.

[Dr. Retard]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Dear Retard,
No I do not support the legalization of marijuana.

Theoretically I do in that some components of that drug have rational uses. Pragmatically I do not because virtually anyone can claim recourse to the drug for its medicinal value.

Legalization of pot is but a recycled W.C. Fields joke in which he claimed that he drank for ?medicinal purposes.? There are 20-odd known carcinogens in pot smoke. Even if smoked for ?legitimate? medical reasons, that delivery system would never pass muster by the FDA for any other drug. Why it does for pot is for irrational purely political grass-root non-reasons mindlessly championed by the uninformed.

Perhaps our compromise position could be that all drugs should be legalized for the terminally ill. The long-term cancer and memory risks associated with pot can be rationally ignored when the long-term is not a factor. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

So perhaps "medicinal value legalization" would practically lead to a lot of people acquiring pot just to get stoned. But so what? Your principle is about use being tantamount to abuse. And, after all, getting stoned is not tantamount to drug abuse. Just as getting plastered is not tantamount to drug abuse. Abuse, I thought, is something like when drug use drastically interferes with people's lives, by making them less capable of pursuing their own personal goals -- it goes hand and hand with addiction (to quote you, "Given the addictive nature of these drugs..."). And, as a matter of plain, observable fact, you can smoke pot to get stoned every weekend with friends, without becoming addicted and without abusing the drug. To be consistent with your own principles, you have to conclude that marijuana should be legal.

So what gives?

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Winston,
Of course! Mythology is necessarily irrelevant to those, like you, to whom it is mythology. But my Catholic mythology is not mythology to me. But neither point is to the point.

If my assertion was predicated upon my Catholic mythology, you’d be correct to call my words irrelevant non- sequiturs. But I only referenced my mythology as a literary device. I did not appeal to the Bible as one would to a logical proof. I alluded to it as a means of illustration, not demonstration.

Ergo, it is you, sir, who have made an irrelevant non-sequitur in describing my allusion to the Bible as an irrelevant non-sequitur. Allusion, by definition, is irrelevant and a non-sequitur.

For example, “Should I compare thee to a summer day?” What could be more incomparable than an inanimate day and a living human being? Yet this non-sequitur is also a great sonnet. To call attention to the fact that a summer day does not breathe or eat or love or talk is the height of pedantry and the depth of churlishness. So deny my religion, but do not deny me my poetic use of it.

You wrote:
As for the appeal to the 'social good', and 'no man is an island,' go tell that to a monk or a hermit.

I have no clue as to your meaning. But I do find your choices of where I should go ironic. You see, I almost became a hermit monk. The kind that take vows of silence but that the modern world only knows about from cheap jokes or most lately from tv ads promoting Microsoft messenger services.

I thought I could do more spiritual good in this world by physically withdrawing from it. Instead, I decided to keep one foot in this world in order to verbally reach people such as yourself. Boy, was I mistaken. Which reminds me of another poem, “The Road Not Taken.” -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Bookwyrm]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

Legalization of pot is but a recycled W.C. Fields joke in which he claimed that he drank for “medicinal purposes.” There are 20-odd known carcinogens in pot smoke. Even if smoked for “legitimate” medical reasons, that delivery system would never pass muster by the FDA for any other drug. Why it does for pot is for irrational purely political grass-root non-reasons mindlessly championed by the uninformed.


From a Canadian site on medical marijuana (http://www.medicalmarihuana.ca/manual.html)
Vaporization is a technique in which cannabis bud, leaf, or resin is heated enough to release the active ingredients in the form of a kind of steam or vapor, but not enough to burn the material. Patients then inhale this steam instead of smoke. Onset of action and strength of therapeutic effect are roughly the same between smoking and vaporizing.

Vaporizing probably doubles the amount of therapeutically active ingredients that can be extracted from any given amount of cannabis, compared with smoking. This is the efficiency advantage.

There is also a health advantage, in that vaporizers do not produce the tars, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (both thought to cause cancer), carbon monoxide, and all the other toxic materials formed during the process of burning plant material. These are toxic to the lungs and can cause irritation and bronchitis.

Therefore, if medicinal uses of marijuana were legal, it wouldn't matter whether pot smoking would be approved by the FDA as a delivery method as there are safer and more efficient means by which the drug can be administered.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Ergo, I don’t advocate the prohibition of mind-altering drugs for those whose minds need to be altered (for example, Xorbie’s), only for those whose only motive for taking them is pleasure. Ditto, for alcoholic beverages. Someone who is drinking a beer with me may be acting immorally. Tho he and I be objectively doing the same thing, if his subjective motivation for drinking be for the buzz, then he’s acting immorally. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

I seem to have missed why doing something purely for pleasure is a 'bad thing'.

[Graeme]

I personally feel that the traditional debate between legalization/criminalization often completely misses the point.

My opinion is that the question should not be 'is it moral to use drugs', but rather 'is it moral to put people in jail because they use drugs'....

I would guess that a jail term is, on average, far more harmful to an individual than the usage of any drug.

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
This presumes that small operations like exist in the Netherlands can be scaled up to societies the size of the United States.

Perhaps more importantly, it presumes that the massive-scale organized crime problem birthed and fed by crimnal prohibition can be scaled down.

[xorbie]

Graeme,

Of course, I still have a few tricks up my sleeve. However, I cannot use statistics, such as avg jail time for drug users, to argue my point, it must be done on purely philosophical grounds.

But yeah, I totally agree. Moreoover, the War on Drugs sucks money out of the economy like a Hoover vaccuum cleaner and does far more harm than the few drug users out there.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by xorbie
Graeme,

Of course, I still have a few tricks up my sleeve. However, I cannot use statistics, such as avg jail time for drug users, to argue my point, it must be done on purely philosophical grounds.

But yeah, I totally agree. Moreoover, the War on Drugs sucks money out of the economy like a Hoover vaccuum cleaner and does far more harm than the few drug users out there.


Well, I would argue that comparing 'lesser evils' as far as harm to an individual (between drug use and jail time) is definitely in many respects still a philosophical issue, and statistics are not really neccesary in debating this. For example, the criteria we use in considering drug users 'criminals' does not in any way define a distinction between drug USE and drug ABUSE.

Also I'd like to remind you that a phrase such as 'the few drug users out there' is a bit misleading, considering the incredibly high percentage of the world's population (and human population over history) who fall into the category of 'drug users'.

[Albert Cipriani]

the War on Drugs... does far more harm than the few drug users out there.

Yeah, especially when the few are merely the Charles Manson family of drug crazed animals. Tell it to their dead victims' families. Tell it to the 8-month old fetus they butchered in the womb. -- Albert The Traditional Catholic

[Albert Cipriani]

Dr. Retard wrote:
So what gives?

What gives is your free will to be rational under the weight of being pleasured. The nature of intoxication is diminution of mental prowess. Our euphemism for this debasement is “altered state.” And if you believe that, then you must also believe that death is just an “altered state” of sleeping. How can you defend the practice with a mere “But so what?”

As a matter of plain, observable fact, you can smoke pot to get stoned every weekend with friends, abusing the drug.

Sure, as long as you hide behind the fiction that drug abuse only means that “drug use drastically interferes with people's lives.”

W.C. Fields was a functioning alcoholic. ergo, alcohol did not drastically interfere with his life; in fact, a case can be made that it helped his comedy as cocaine and heroine “helped” jazz innovators. But on his deathbed Fields wondered aloud if he had it to do all over again how far he could have gotten without the booze. He regretted his drug abuse tho, by your definition, it did not interfere with his life (just caused his death).

Fact is, when we act irrationally we violate our nature and turn in our birthright to function as dust devil, as a dirt clod. Well, it’s hard enough to live up to our high calling of being rational without intentionally taking drugs to render reasoning impossible.

Getting stoned is not tantamount to drug abuse.

Duh, then what is??? Do you actually mean to purport that people who abuse drugs do it by NOT getting stoned??? That’s simply the most irrational 8 words I’ve come upon in a long time. But then, as one who gets “stoned every weekend with friends” how can you be expected to appreciate that? – Disgusted, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
by your definition, it did not interfere with his life (just caused his death).


So? So does laziness, and eating unhealthily. Do you want to make these things illegal as well?

[Farren]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Yeah, especially when the few are merely the Charles Manson family of drug crazed animals. Tell it to their dead victims' families. Tell it to the 8-month old fetus they butchered in the womb. -- Albert The Traditional Catholic

Doncha just love argument by anecdote?

In other news, the South African government is considering banning money because an unnacceptably high number of people have been shot for it.

[asef]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani


Duh, then what is??? Do you actually mean to purport that people who abuse drugs do it by NOT getting stoned??? That’s simply the most irrational 8 words I’ve come upon in a long time. But then, as one who gets “stoned every weekend with friends” how can you be expected to appreciate that? – Disgusted, Albert the Traditional Catholic

"D'uh" you say? <raised eyebrows>

He obviously does not mean people who abuse drugs (specifically grass) do it by not getting stoned. You are saying using drugs means abusing. That is you abuse drugs is if and only if you use drugs. It can be shown that if and only if "something if and only if something else" then something = something else. If and only if (or iff) is really just the same as =. I.e. "A iff B then A=B but A if B not necessarily A=B"

He is pointing out that though you use drugs if you are an abuser that does not necessarily mean you are an abuser if you use drugs. He is pointing out that because he can find examples of use of drugs which are not tantamount to abuse then the statement "you use drugs iff you abuse drugs" is false.

The very fact that there are two words, "use" and "abuse", shows how this distinction is drawn in most people's minds. Iff you can reverse the if statement then the two things are really aspects of the same thing.

This lack of logic, unfortunately, demeans your arguments as the trust that the arguments will make sense on examination is undermined. I am not saying that you cannot prove "you are an abuser iff you use" just that it shows illogic in that you misunderstood what he meant and came to a conclusion about what he meant which you could not have come to if you were being logical.


Also by the by, you can be an abuser of drugs without getting stoned. You can be a crack abuser and never have been stoned. I realise you probably did not mean this but the actual literal meaning of what you said implied this mistake.

By the by the by, most people define abuse as a subset of use where it is damaging to the person. For the talked about iff statement to be true all possible occasions where use is not abuse must be shown to be non-existant. Defining drug use as abuse is a circular argument. "Drug use is abuse because abuse is defined as drug use". See? It doesn't wash. Such circular arguments can be used to show whatever you like. It is messing with what the question is so that your answer fits. It is a fallacy.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Yeah, especially when the few are merely the Charles Manson family of drug crazed animals. Tell it to their dead victims' families. Tell it to the 8-month old fetus they butchered in the womb. -- Albert The Traditional Catholic

I believe that would be a condemnation of homicidal personality cults, not drug use. The drug use would be ancillary.

As I have said, if you think drug users are a comparatively small percentage of society at large you are very uninformed.

[Albert Cipriani]

Winstonjen says:
So? So does laziness, and eating unhealthily (lead to death). Do you WANT TO make these things illegal as well?

Sure I do. The operative phrase is “WANT TO.” Just as I said I’ve always WANTED TO rob a bank. I wouldn’t, because the devil is in the details and the details would trip me up. But that doesn’t stop me from wanting to.

We ought to want to express every one of our moral imperatives in action and in law. It’s that simple. It’s only made more complex by the pragmatic imponderables of enforcing such laws.

But wanting our moral sentiments to be expressed in law is part and parcel of being a rational and compassionate (if not unpragmatic) human being. That you would quarantine your moral sensibilities from the jurisdiction of civil affairs is a kind of schizophrenia. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Albert Cipriani]

Farren, trying to be logical and funny at the same time, (while forgetting that he was still chewing gum) looses his balance and while falling on his face exclaims:

In other news, the South African government is considering banning money because an unacceptably high number of people have been shot for it.

He thinks that my argument against drugs is like that, a foolish confusion between effect and cause. But drugs taken for the purpose of diminishing rational capacity via increasing our capacity for pleasure are the cause of the effect they wreck. Whereas, the money that effects someone getting mugged is not the cause of his mugging. Rather, the evil mugger is the cause of the mugging.

The effects of money are available to anyone who has it regardless of whether they work for it or simply steal it from one who worked for it. Banning money would ban both our ability to work for it and mug for it. Since the vast majority of people in a democracy are working for their money, we ban mugging for money instead of banning money itself which is tantamount to banning working. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Farren]

Farren, trying to be logical and funny at the same time, (while forgetting that he was still chewing gum) looses his balance and while falling on his face exclaims:


:)

Sorry for loosing my balance on you. I realise its vicious behaviour.


He thinks that my argument against drugs is like that, a foolish confusion between effect and cause. But drugs taken for the purpose of diminishing rational capacity via increasing our capacity for pleasure are the cause of the effect they wreck. Whereas, the money that effects someone getting mugged is not the cause of his mugging. Rather, the evil mugger is the cause of the mugging.


And the greed for money isn't the mugger's drug?


The effects of money are available to anyone who has it regardless of whether they work for it or simply steal it from one who worked for it. Banning money would ban both our ability to work for it and mug for it. Since the vast majority of people in a democracy are working for their money, we ban mugging for money instead of banning money itself which is tantamount to banning working. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

...and since the vast majority of drug users aren't harming anyone, we should incarcerate vicious killers on drugs instead of drugs themselves which is tantamount to banning mostly harmless recreation.

Sincerely,

Farren the human being (arguably a more catholic ideology)

[Albert Cipriani]

And the greed for money isn't the mugger's drug?

No, it's Farren's equivocation of the word "drug." You find it hard to think logically, no? Maybe it's not the gum you're chewing but the residue of your recreational drug taking that isn't "harming anyone" that has gummed up your synapses.

Farren the human being (arguably a more catholic ideology)

Unfortunately you being a human being is your default condition. You get credit for it tho your folks did all the work. Being Catholic requires real choices and leads to fulfilling more of your human potentiality than you would otherwise. Ergo, Farren the human being is not more human than he could be were he Farren the Catholic human being. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Farren]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
No, it's Farren's equivocation of the word "drug." You find it hard to think logically, no? Maybe it's not the gum you're chewing but the residue of your recreational drug taking that isn't "harming anyone" that has gummed up your synapses.



The mugger's drug is my ambiguity? Perhaps Alberts pristine brain condition is interfering with his ability to seperate the aims of the subject of a gedanken experiment with the alluded meaning of the disputant presenting it?


Unfortunately you being a human being is your default condition. You get credit for it tho your folks did all the work. Being Catholic requires real choices and leads to fulfilling more of your human potentiality than you would otherwise. Ergo, Farren the human being is not more human than he could be were he Farren the Catholic human being. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Fortunately, being a human being is a default condition, one that doesn't require unnecessary embroidery with illusions and fairy tales to enable moral choices.

:p

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
He thinks that my argument against drugs is like that, a foolish confusion between effect and cause. But drugs taken for the purpose of diminishing rational capacity via increasing our capacity for pleasure are the cause of the effect they wreck.


And who, exactly, takes drugs for the purpose of diminishing rational capacity? And what, exactly, is this effect you speak of? I have a very large amount of both first and second-hand experience with many different drugs. The 'effects' as far as I can see, are just people getting high.

In my experience recreational drug users take drugs for pleasure only, and no other reasons.

[Albert Cipriani]

Grame says:
I have a very large amount of both first and second-hand experience with many different drugs.

Wow, is that like second-hand smoke? Or do you mean that you’ve accepted the testimony of others without personally experiencing the drugs? Kind of like how religious types accept the Bible as the word of God tho they didn’t actually hear Him speaking.

The 'effects' as far as I can see, are just people getting high.

Remind me not to hire you as a news reporter. Your powers of observation and articulation leave me aghast. So you’re claiming the tautology that the effect of people getting high are that of people getting high. This is just so informational I am pissing in my pants to read what’s next:

In my experience recreational drug users take drugs for pleasure only, and no other reasons.

And I always thought they did it to hurt themselves. Don’t they do it cuz they like the look of nicotine stained teeth and the fact that they can’t remember their grocery lists anymore (Hell, it’s more fun to buy groceries spontaneously.) and cuz liver and kidney failure gives them the opportunity to meet cute nurses?

The reasons drug users’ lives degrade are not their reasons for their taking drugs. Their reason is pleasure. But if you read my debate you’d know that pleasure, by definition, is not a reason. It’s a, er, well, pleasure. I don’t know how much clearer I can be. I know, how about this. A pleasure is not a reason kind of like how the day is not the night. Clearer?

Next time, be sure to have something to say if you’re going to say something. – Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Dr. Retard]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Dr. Retard wrote:

What gives is your free will to be rational under the weight of being pleasured. The nature of intoxication is diminution of mental prowess. Our euphemism for this debasement is “altered state.” And if you believe that, then you must also believe that death is just an “altered state” of sleeping. How can you defend the practice with a mere “But so what?”

What?? I was questioning your consistency in endorsing the prohibition of marijuana, given your principle that only drugs whose use is tantamount to abuse ought to be prohibited.

What this has to do with the fact that intoxication alters or diminishes (or whatever it does) mental prowess is far beyond me.

Sure, as long as you hide behind the fiction that drug abuse only means that “drug use drastically interferes with people's lives.”

W.C. Fields was a functioning alcoholic. ergo, alcohol did not drastically interfere with his life; in fact, a case can be made that it helped his comedy as cocaine and heroine “helped” jazz innovators. But on his deathbed Fields wondered aloud if he had it to do all over again how far he could have gotten without the booze. He regretted his drug abuse tho, by your definition, it did not interfere with his life (just caused his death).

"Fiction"? I thought that was the definition in common use. I thought that was the definition you were using when you articulated your principle. Sorry I misread you, but I wasn't trying to employ "fiction".

I mean, normally, just because drug use leads to regret doesn't mean it was 'abused'. If you want to use words that way, though, then fine. Fields' use of alcohol was the proper object of regret. I'm not downplaying the sadness of such cases, just saying that I don't think they amount to 'abuse' on everyday uses of the term.

Fact is, when we act irrationally we violate our nature and turn in our birthright to function as dust devil, as a dirt clod. Well, it’s hard enough to live up to our high calling of being rational without intentionally taking drugs to render reasoning impossible.

Violate our nature? It seems to me that irrational behavior is well within our nature. Are you claiming that all natural impulses are rational? I assume not. But I don't know how else to make sense of your claims.

Duh, then what is??? Do you actually mean to purport that people who abuse drugs do it by NOT getting stoned??? That’s simply the most irrational 8 words I’ve come upon in a long time. But then, as one who gets “stoned every weekend with friends” how can you be expected to appreciate that? – Disgusted, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Well, developing a psychological dependence on getting stoned, finding it difficult to control one's behavior as regards getting stoned, etc. That seems to me to be what abuse is.

Be serious. If one person gets stoned one night and never smokes pot again, you would call that drug abuse? Surely not. Surely you'd say "No, that's not drug abuse". But then you have to agree that getting stoned is not tantamount to drug abuse.

Perhaps the bottom line of all of this: if you want to define "abuse" such that almost any drug use qualifies as "abuse", then you can. However, then your principle "If using a drug is tantamount to abuse, then that drug ought to be prohibited" becomes implausible. You'll have to say that alcohol ought to be prohibited. That coffee ought to be prohibited. Aspirin, Prozac, Robitussin, etc. You need a consistent way to say "Yes, marijuana should be prohibited, but no, alcohol (for example) should not be prohibited". So far, I see no way you can say that consistently.

Also, I've never smoked pot in my entire life. I've never used any illegal drug in my life. I've never smoked a cigarette. I've never drunk alcohol, aside from a few beers in the Czech Republic so as to be friendly to the Czechs. So: <deleted by moderator>. Jesus.

[asef]

Just a point:
Drug abuse can be in your nature if you accept all the inheritability of the trait.

Also I do not know who is working on it but it has been shown, methinks, that repetitive, monotonous actions set off similar dopamine cascades to the common pathway for drug addiction and people prevented from doing such activities (after having done them a good while) can exhibit similar side effects to withholding an addictive drug.

Another thing I saw was a study showing that moderate alcohol consumption was related to better job performance (not only it's direct cardiovascular benefits) possibly due to increased socialising with colleagues.

But the debate is not to go to sciency stuff is it so I will ask you, Albert, this?

The 'natural' versus 'not natural' way of deciding good and bad still needs explanation. You said bringing up this argument was something about shouting in a desert or something. This shows you agree that people in general do not understand it. Just waving your arms and saying it is complicated solves nothing. I am trying hard to get a grips with it. Please could you help? How do you differentiate clearly between what is natural and not? It would seem arbitrary, that is that it would seem as if you imply that the way to tell is to try to figure out "what God wants". If this is so please show the method used for finding this out as I certainly cannot see it. I believe it would be as easy to agrue God wants anything and so the use of this way of telling is far to open to manipulation by those who may not want the best for human kind. That way of telling is not specific enough to be reliable and too convoluted to be useful. Unless there is something I am missing..

It would seem as if your argument just arbitrarily decides that those who wish to use artificial means (medecine) to live longer, purely for the joy/pleasure of living are good whereas the same argument applied to other things is not good.

It does not appear consistant.

It scares me that you would want to rob a bank. Do you mean you would want to before you think about it? Is that what you mean by the devil is in the details? If that is so then isn't it true that in fact you would not want to rob a bank?

[winstonjen]

I'm surprised that the effects of peer pressure have not been mentioned in the debate yet.

[Albert Cipriani]

Dr. Retard says: Just because drug use leads to regret doesn't mean it was 'abused.’

Likewise, just because the born-again rapist doing time for the women’s lives he ruined regrets his use of women doesn’t mean that he “abused” women. If you believe that rational regret of a substance or a person does not constitute proof of the abuse of that substance or person, you yourself are disconnected from yourself.

It seems to me that irrational behavior is well within our nature.

Irrational behavior is not a part of our nature. This does not mean we are incapable of acting irrationally, only that in so doing we sin against our nature and violate the natural law.

Are you claiming that all natural impulses are rational?

By definition, an impulse (natural or unnatural) is not a reason. Ergo, natural impulses are not rational. The impulse to drink when thirsty or screw when horny is just that, an impulse. It is beyond good or evil and neither rational nor irrational. It’s our rational or irrational response to impulses that make those impulses part of our glory or our debasement.

For example, checking your impulse to quench your thirst by allowing another who is more thirst than you to drink first is noble. Ditto for consummating your horniness only within the confines of a marriage commitment.

Be serious. If one person gets stoned one night and never smokes pot again, you would call that drug abuse? Surely not. Surely you'd say ‘No, that's not drug abuse.’

Wrong. It is drug abuse. Or do we get free passes on other forms of abuse as well? Do husbands get one free whack at spousal abuse? Would this be your argument before the judge: “Last weekend I only took one hit of pot and that wasn’t drug abuse. So this weekend I only hit my wife once, so that’s not spousal abuse.” You’re the one who needs to get serious.

You need a consistent way to say "Yes, marijuana should be prohibited, but no, alcohol (for example) should not be prohibited". So far, I see no way you can say that consistently.

That’s easy. If the drug use is rational, it is not drug abuse. For example, if I drink coffee or beer for their taste and not enough of either for either of them to drug me, I have not abused a drug. If it were possible to smoke pot for its aroma and not smoke it enough to get high, that too would constitute rational use and not drug abuse. – Albert the Traditional “Mean-Spirited Clueless Idiot” Catholic

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Wrong. It is drug abuse. Or do we get free passes on other forms of abuse as well? Do husbands get one free whack at spousal abuse? Would this be your argument before the judge: “Last weekend I only took one hit of pot and that wasn’t drug abuse. So this weekend I only hit my wife once, so that’s not spousal abuse.” You’re the one who needs to get serious.


Come on, Albert. I know you're not that dense.

A man hitting his wife is abuse whether he hits her once or twenty times. He has harmed someone else against her will as soon as the first blow lands.

You'd have a VERY hard time convincing me that a single toke of pot harms ANYONE.

[The Other Michael]

Ix-nay on the insults - everyone needs to address the arguments and not make personal comments.

Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

[Farren]

Apparently I'm not the only one who makes unwarranted comparisons ;)

Farren, the mostly Buddhist former Roman Catholic just making mischief (and slightly gasp drunk).

[Dr. Retard]

Albert,

Here's my attempt at understanding your principles:

There are two types of drug use: 'Rational Use' and 'Abuse'. 'Abuse' is whenever you successfully use a drug to experience intoxication. 'Rational Use' is whenever you use a drug from other motives, successfully avoiding intoxication. Some drugs simply cannot be used without 'Abusing' them. To use them is to 'Abuse' them. It's impossible to use them by the principles of 'Rational Use'. How is that? Presumably, it's because some drugs will always get you intoxicated, no matter how you use them. Sure, you can use any drug from any motives. But some drugs will intoxicate you, period. Those drugs should be prohibited. The decisive factor as to whether a drug should be prohibited is whether it is 'essentially intoxicating'.

So, for example: marijuana cannot be used without experiencing intoxication. To use marijuana is to 'Abuse' it. So marijuana should be prohibited. In contrast, alcohol can be used without experiencing intoxication. You can use alcohol 'Rationally' -- if you drink for the taste and avoid intoxication. So there's nothing in these principles to recommend prohibiting alcohol.

Now...

Counterexamples: Morphine, nitrous oxide, etc. It is impossible to use these drugs without experiencing intoxication. Therefore, they cannot be used 'Rationally'. Therefore, by your principles, they should be prohibited. But this is ridiculous. (Of course, morphine and the rest can be effectively used for medicinal purposes. But so can marijuana.) Or suppose there were a new candy that would instantly give you a mild sugar buzz. If you just ate a little bit, you got the sugar buzz. Then, by your principle, this new candy should be prohibited. But this is ridiculous. So you need new principles, if you want to be consistent.

Also, remember what your original principles are:

Thus, I do not advocate the prohibition of liquor just because some people abuse it. Whereas, I do advocate the prohibition of illegal drugs whose use is tantamount to abuse. Such drugs constitute a "grievous vice from which it IS possible for the majority to abstain." Given the addictive nature of these drugs, a case can be made that "without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained."

Addiction? Threatening society? I fail to see how this relates to every 'essentially intoxicating' drug. Do all such drugs inevitably threaten society? I especially fail to see how this relates to marijuana (which, of course, is simply non-addictive, as compared with morphine).

Objections:
First, I'm not sure your facts are straight. Does smoking marijuana always lead to intoxication? What about people who use it for pains of chemotherapy? Does this get them stoned? After all, chemicals affect different people differently. Is there seriously a big difference between marijuana and alcohol, when it comes to using them and getting intoxicated?

Second, what if you use marijuana from motives besides experiencing intoxication (e.g., to seem cool, or to enjoy the great tast of hashish brownies)? Does that constitute 'Abuse' in your book? It's unclear to me.

Third, your use of "abuse" constitutes abuse of the English language. You're saying, in effect, that if someone sips on a beer to get a pleasant buzz while socializing with friends, that person is abusing drugs. That's a reckless disregard for prevailing word use. You're trafficking in your own brand of English.

Now, idiosyncratic word use is bad enough, just because it's apt to cause mistakes and empty verbal disputes. But the word "abuse" is normatively charged. You seem to say that there's something morally wrong about sipping on a beer with friends to get a light buzz. But that's plainly ridiculous.

This abuse of "abuse" gets really bad when you say "If you believe that rational regret of a substance or a person does not constitute proof of the abuse of that substance or person, you yourself are disconnected from yourself." I guess you think that if you have used X so as to justify regretting your use of X, then you have abused X. That means if I eat too much lasagna and afterwards regret the fact, then I have committed "lasagna abuse". That way lies madness.

You take a lot of highly contentious evaluative claims for granted. Why think that it's always bad to get intoxicated (even just a little bit)? Why think that it's always irrational? Contrary to nature? Why think that this difference between 'essentially intoxicating' drugs and other drugs matters morally? Why think that it should matter legally?

Perhaps most alarmingly, you seem to think that if a behavior is immoral, then one should want it to be illegal. That the government has legitimate authority over every nook and cranny of the moral sphere, though practical difficulties can sometimes frustrate the matter. But this view is founded on a non sequitur and a pernicious one, at that. It's immoral to cheat on your girlfriend, it's immoral to betray a friend, it's immoral to manipulate a co-worker into doing your work -- but does the government have any business handling these matters? To have a moral opinion is not necessarily to think the government should get involved. On the contrary, a desire for state enforcement of one's every moral opinion seems to reflect the political impulses of a thug. Not every moral issue calls for an armed response.

[asef]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

Wrong. It is drug abuse. Or do we get free passes on other forms of abuse as well? Do husbands get one free whack at spousal abuse? Would this be your argument before the judge: “Last weekend I only took one hit of pot and that wasn’t drug abuse. So this weekend I only hit my wife once, so that’s not spousal abuse.” You’re the one who needs to get serious.



That’s easy. If the drug use is rational, it is not drug abuse. For example, if I drink coffee or beer for their taste and not enough of either for either of them to drug me, I have not abused a drug. If it were possible to smoke pot for its aroma and not smoke it enough to get high, that too would constitute rational use and not drug abuse. – Albert the Traditional “Mean-Spirited Clueless Idiot” Catholic

Your example of spousal abuse may be irrelevant. Pretty much all the parties accept the premise that hitting a wife is abuse. Therefore to hit your wife once is abuse is true. As such it was a bad enough analogy.

People do not accept the premise that any drug use to get intoxicated is abuse. You therefore should not use that as a premise to prove things if you wish to convince people. You need to prove that before you can use it as a premise, methinks.

[asef]

Originally posted by asef

People do not accept the premise that any drug use to get intoxicated is abuse. You therefore should not use that as a premise to prove things if you wish to convince people. You need to prove that before you can use it as a premise, methinks.

Hang on, no, the argument was:
1.)using things unnaturally is abuse.
2.)intoxication by use of drugs is unnatural.

Perhaps point one could be conceded. Point two is still unproven.

Is this a good summary?

It was further specified how drug abuse whas unnatural by saying "Drug use is drug abuse when used – not for maintenance – but for physiological enhancement or pleasure."

Does this apply solely to drug use or is training purely for physiological enhancement abuse or art appreciation abuse if it is just for pleasure?

[Graeme]

Judging things on whether or not they are 'natural' or 'unnatural' is pretty pointless for any real debate, IMO.

Driving a car is hardly 'natural'.

Raising crops for food (as opposed to hunting/gathering) could be argued as 'unnatural' too. But marijuana has been used by humans for, arguably, longer than humans have been raising crops.

So if you accept raising crops as a 'natural' human activity, you have to accept smoking marijuana as a 'natural' human activity too.

[Albert Cipriani]

Asef says: Pretty much all the parties accept the premise that hitting a wife is abuse. Therefore...

Wrong. There is no "therefore" to the fact that most people think something. With this kind of ill-logic we'd have to all still believe the sun rises rather than the earth turns.

I could care less what premise "all parties accept." What all parties accept is symbolized by a jackass and elephant, that is, by our two-party system of representative government. The majority has nothing to do with inferential thought. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[PEEDNAR]

Dear Albert,

Ironically, I was listening to Cocaine by Cream as I read your post. I hope a fossil like you can appreciate that.

You said:
For example, beer and wine and rum are tasty. Drinking them to enjoy their taste, then, is a valid use. Drinking them to enjoy their buzz, then, is not.

You also said:
But if you read my debate you’d know that pleasure, by definition, is not a reason.

But, to drink something because it's tasty is drinking to derive pleasure; is it not?

--Sincerely, PEEDNAR

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear PEEDNAR,
Words, words everywhere, but not a string of them to make me think! Until now. Congratulations for asking a logical question as opposed to proposing a whining complaint in the form of a question. And yes, even a fossil such as myself can still appreciate the “Cream.”

Pleasure is Nature’s way of telling us to do something. But the dictates of Nature do not reign supreme. Our rational mind also weighs in.

Ergo, to drink a purely tasty drink (Nature’s Siren song) that had absolutely no nutritional value (conclusion of our rational mind) would qualify as an immoral act by my definition. Why? Because taste (which is only a means, not an ends) should only function as an initial indicator, not the final arbitrator of our decision to drink. (Thus, to remedy my immoral consumption of diet Coke, I always add water and a twist of lime... and sometimes rum.)

Consideration of the ends for which we drink must be part of the rational act of drinking. Otherwise, that act is irrational and by definition, a violation of our rational nature and hence an immoral act.

You are correct to have called me on the following sentence: Drinking them (beer and wine) to enjoy their taste, then, is a valid use.

That sentence assumed our knowledge that beer and wine have nutritional value. Drinking them purely for their taste while believing they had no nutritional value, then, would constitute their abuse. So the sentence should have read:
Drinking what we believe to has some nutritional or physiological value for the sole purpose of its tastiness is a valid use of the drink.

Thank You for your careful reading, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Bookman]

So, in other words, if I add some marijuana to some whole grain muffins because I like the taste of pot in my healthy snack, that would be okay too?

Bookman

[Albert Cipriani]

Bookman: So, in other words, if I add some marijuana to some whole grain muffins because I like the taste of pot in my healthy snack, that would be okay too?

Sure it would be OK. So long as you didn't put so much in that your intended consequences, taste, was not superceeded by your unintended consequences, getting stoned. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Bookman]

Why would you not then argue that the law ought not prohibit the possession or use of such substances, but rather that the law ought prohibit intoxication (or abuse, as I believe you have been referring to it).

Bookman

[Dr. Retard]

I guess next time I'll know better than to try to make sense of what someone is saying and respond to it.

[Albert Cipriani]

Bookman asks:
Why would you not then argue that the law ought not prohibit the possession or use of such substances, but rather that the law ought prohibit intoxication.

I'd argue that the law ought to prohibit possession as tantamount to intoxication for the same reason I'd argue that the swat team out to be called in to take down the man with a knife to his hostage's throat. An imminent threat to do wrong is cause enough for the law to respond.

I'd argue for it for the reason that the law is a brute. It is barely capable of doing what brutish things we demand of it to do. Thus, we ought not saddle it with the impossible task of resolving fine nuances of justice at the same time we ask it be the brute that it is.

In principal, i.e., morally as opposed to realistically, you are right. Possessing porn or drugs or other people's credit card numbers, or even possessing Michael Jackson's baby as he did over the edge of a balcony is not necessarily immoral. But the potential for immorality is so great in those acts of poscession that they ought to all be prosecuted. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Dr. Retard,
My delay in responding reflects positively on you. It’s the easy posts I respond to immediately. Yours actually had me take the unusual step of printing it out so that I could reflect upon it on my train commute to work. If you knew me better, you’d be pleased by my tardiness rather than put off.

You wrote:
There are two types of drug use: Rational Use and Abuse. Abuse is whenever you successfully use a drug to experience intoxication. Rational Use is whenever you use a drug from other motives...

Stop right there! Everything you wrote is accurate except for the completion of that last sentence: “successfully avoiding intoxication.” As you point out, with some drugs such as morphine or nitrous oxide, their rational use is to intoxicate us so that medical procedures can be performed which could not otherwise be performed. So it’s not the drug itself that is immoral but whether or not its use is rational. That’s what determines its morality.

You ask: Do all such (addictive) drugs threaten society.

That depends upon your definition of society. If you mean will these drugs threaten the demise of western civilization, probably not. If you mean that by diminishing one of society’s number all of our society is diminished, then yes, addictive drugs threatens society.

Does smoking marijuana always lead to intoxication?

No. And when it doesn’t, or when it does for rational ends, such as to treat the ill-effects of chemotherapy, its use does not constitute abuse.

If you use marijuana... to seem cool, or to enjoy the great taste of hashish brownies, does that constitute abuse?

Yes, for the irrational motive of seeming cool. No for the rational desire to better enjoy the taste of a nutritional food. But if the by-product of improved brownies was getting stoned, then it would be immoral for the acquisition of a transitory sensory input is not worth the price of longer term rational impairment.

You seem to say that there's something morally wrong about sipping on a beer with friends to get a light buzz. But that's plainly ridiculous.

And I think getting a light buzz is plainly ridiculous. So where are we? See how pointless it is to make un-argued assertions? As ridiculous as you may imagine me or my views to be, that only puts more of an onus upon you to vanquish me intellectually and not be content to try to vanquish me with ridicule or peer pressure from the lofty heights of your politically correct comfy-chair.

If impairing one’s rationality is immoral. Slightly impairing one’s rationality is slightly immoral. To argue otherwise is tantamount to saying that a grain of sand is so small that we might as well consider it to be non-existent. If drunkenness is immoral, getting a light buzz is too, only less so.

I guess you think that if you have used X so as to justify regretting your use of X, then you have abused X. That means if I eat too much lasagna and afterwards regret the fact, then I have committed "lasagna abuse". That way lies madness.

Yes I do think that. How is it madness? Again, why not leave off with the bullying tactics of un-argued assertion? They don’t work on me and will only work towards the coarsening of you.

Any action performed in excess, is by definition of “excess,” irrational and therefore immoral. In the case of lasagna, it’s called gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins. What’s madness is you thinking it is not madness to eat lasagna like a gluttonous pig and fear not the moral implications.

It's immoral to cheat on your girlfriend, it's immoral to betray a friend, it's immoral to manipulate a co-worker into doing your work -- but does the government have any business handling these matters?

To the degree that the government can, it should. Don’t you believe that you are your brother’s keeper? If you knew the girlfriend who was being cheated on, wouldn’t you inform her of the deceit? Well, if the moral agents we hire to uphold such values could do as much, I’d want them to. Why wouldn’t you? At this stage of technology, it is not practical that they do. But my question is theoretical, not practical.

To have a moral opinion is not necessarily to think the government should get involved.

Why in the world not?

On the contrary, a desire for state enforcement of one's every moral opinion seems to reflect the political impulses of a thug.

On the contrary, a desire to imbue as many people as humanly possible with morality reflects my loving impulses. Only a selfish prig who pretends to be a moralist or an amoral jaded cynic would not want his vision of the good to be bequeathed upon all members of society. Which one are you? – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[winstonjen]

To the degree that the government can, it should. Don’t you believe that you are your brother’s keeper? If you knew the girlfriend who was being cheated on, wouldn’t you inform her of the deceit? Well, if the moral agents we hire to uphold such values could do as much, I’d want them to. Why wouldn’t you? At this stage of technology, it is not practical that they do. But my question is theoretical, not practical.

Personally I would not tell her, mainly because of the pain it would cause. That is, if she didn't ask me. If she did ask me I'd have to choose between being the cause of her pain or lying to her.

[Albert Cipriani]

Winstenjen says: I would not tell her, mainly because of the pain it would cause.

Then you, sir, are a compassionate coward. With your brand of misplaced compassion, you wouldn't stab a choking man in the throat to open an air passage because of "the pain it would cause."

Such scrupulosity to personally avoid being the cause of other people's pain ensures that you will be responsible for their ultimately feeling much more pain. Only you can claim from the confines of your comfy chair that you were not personally responsible. It's a claim that will not hold up. If you met them in the afterlife, and they could know the whole story, they'd have an axe to grind with you. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Winstenjen says:

Then you, sir, are a compassionate coward. With your brand of misplaced compassion, you wouldn't stab a choking man in the throat to open an air passage because of "the pain it would cause."


False analogy. There are ways to stop people choking without stabbing them. The Heimlich manouver is one.

Such scrupulosity to personally avoid being the cause of other people's pain ensures that you will be responsible for their ultimately feeling much more pain. Only you can claim from the confines of your comfy chair that you were not personally responsible. It's a claim that will not hold up. If you met them in the afterlife, and they could know the whole story, they'd have an axe to grind with you. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

I should have gone into more depth with my explanation. While I would not tell her myself, I would advise her boyfriend to be honest with her.

[xorbie]

So, Albert you once again take to arguing in here... and I get to wait 2 weeks. Well, no more!

Anyone who argues that "rational" = good, "irrational" = bad, needs to define the two terms (rational and irrational). Also, an understanding is necessary here. Rational and irrational are not necessary two polar opposites, they can be thought of as lying on a continuum. Love is inherently irrational in the sense you appear to be denying. You cannot always choose who you love. I personally think respect is more rational, but it too has irrational components to it. Most of what we do is mixture of nature and nurture, a mixture of what we choose and the choices our body gives us.

So what is this "rational" of which you speak? A simply definition of "cause and effect" is useless, because it means I can say "I want to get high, so I will smoke weed." This means I am good, doesn't it? Oh, but wait Albert says. There is second order of cause and effect - that getting high, even once, is "bad." Well this is of course not much of cause and effect. So let's say that getting high, even once, will lead to immediate destruction of your life and the lives of all those who care for you. This is of course totally false, but assuming arguendo that it is true, you are still left with a conundrum. How can you qualify this destruction of your life as "bad" or "immoral," when you already defined them as obeying rationality. So now, you are essentially limiting rationality not just to understanding cause and effect, but to this esoteric, perhaps unefinable natural law. Of course, to butress your argument, the assumtion that natural law is good is left unproven, as if it were an obvious axiom that is self-evident. So, we are left with the undefined term "natural law" and then we jump to good and evil (or immoral and moral, as the two seem to be used similiarly in this case, though I would argue they are different) being totally hingent on said natural law. This does not a good argument make, my young grasshopper.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hmm, methinks now there should be a rule forbidding formal debate participants from getting involved in the peanut galleries in any way until after the debate's over. I'm going to bring this under discussion with the other mods.

Jason

[Albert Cipriani]

Albert: "Xorbie! This is a fine mess you've got us into!"

Xorbie: "Golly Albee, I'm sorry."

I think I speak for both of us when I say "Please, master Nightshade, don't throw this matter into the mod brier patch."

We'll be good. I promise. I won't let their lack of logic sucker me into trying to 'splain myself to them again. I'll save all of myself for Xorbie. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Farren]

Is there any way of hiding particular threads from particular forumites?

If that could be done till the end of the debate it would probably have a positive effect.

Of course I realise its unlikely this is possible.

[xorbie]

In my defense, I only started posting in here because I was suckered in by Albert :D

[Albert Cipriani]

Your innocence in this matter will be counted against you, Xorbie, for as they say, being innocent of the law is no defense.

Actually, guilt is part and parcel of my Catholic baggage. It comes very naturally to me, so I don't mind sharing it with you. Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

P.S. I have, of course, started in on my rebuttal but it is slow going cuz of my 6 hour commute to work these days which gives me ziltch free time. I will do my level best to meet our deadline. The stuff I post here in the meantime really doesn't take away from our formal debate time as the arguements I make here are not the ones I'd be making with you.

[winstonjen]

With ad homs in his reply, I think the winner is clear.

This is my response to Albert's first paragraph:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/pot_kettle.jpg

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I would like to point out that we made a slight addition to the FD Rules and Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56978):

Fifth, a separate peanut gallery thread will be set up in a forum related to the topic of the formal debate. The peanut gallery is intended for the rest of us to discuss and comment on the debate in progress. Though the FD Moderators cannot enforce their will in the peanut gallery thread (this is left to the judgment of the moderators of the respective fora), formal debate participant involvement in the peanut gallery thread is strongly discouraged. Of course, when the debate is over, the participants are welcome to do as they please in the peanut gallery.

Thank you for your consideration,

- Nightshade, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The formal debate between Albert Cipriani and xorbie has ended. They are welcome to participate in the gallery as they please now that the debate is over.

Any comments about the debate? Who do you feel presented the strongest case? What arguments stand out the most?

Jason

[winstonjen]

Put my vote down for xorbie.

[xorbie]

My comment? I'm dissapointed, like I said in the "closing argument." I'm still not really sure what the hell Albert was doing there in the end....

:boohoo: :banghead:

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Xorbie,
Yeah, I’m disappointed too. I think our mutual disappointment in each other’s words is the only meeting of the minds we achieved.

As for what the hell I “was doing there in the end,” I was being honest. I know, most people don’t take too well to it and can’t take too much of it, but that’s all it was. Honest. Someone once said that the only thing this world inevitably finds shocking is the truth. My take on it is as follows:

Doing your worst and being dishonest gets you in trouble with this world, eventually. But doing your best and being honest gets you in trouble with this world immediately. Thus, you say that my genuine “blessing” of you

means nothing to me outside of its obviously condescending nature.

That you can turn my blessing into my condescending and yet accuse me of taking your words out of context only tells me how far you are removed from reality, i.e., how intimately you are melded with this world.

You must see yourself as part of the world, not apart from it. That is, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. As long as you are comfortable in your majority position you will continue to be sandbagged by honesty and hurt by what slivers of the truth that can get through your societal defenses.

The single best Catholic apologist of the past century, G. K. Chesterton, won the N. Y. Times’s award for best essay on the topic of what’s wrong with the world. His essay was as follows:
Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely, G.K. Chesteron

You see, he saw that he was in the world but not of the world; but to the degree he was of the world, he was the problem with the world. That is an imminently Catholic and supremely humble state of awareness. I hope you may achieve it. I hope I have worthily done my part in supplying you with some of the intellectual tools to get you there. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[xorbie]

Yes, that's a fascinating story. Still doesn't explain why you repeatedly misquote me. I think it is plainly obvious to anyone that actually read through the debate that you took my arguments out of context, blatantly misrepresented them, and then faulted me from reasserting my originial arguments.

For shame :boohoo: :boohoo: