We HAD this discussion before.
Maybe the semantics of the Thesis were a little different, but the essence of the question was the same.
SIDE A: Does not believe in an individual’s right to enlighten/ sodden himself in whatever way he or she sees fit.
SIDE B: Would very much like for members of the former party to FUCK OFF OUT OF OUR LIVES, BODIES, MINDS, AND HOMES.
The only difference between this discussion and the one in GD is that I used the word “fuck” here.
Nope, ya missed SIDE C: those of us who realize with a sigh that some people we like will go ahead and do foolish, self-destructive and/or just plain dumb things, whether they’re legal or not. Smoking, doing drugs, cycling without a helmet, watching Ally McBeal.
I’m not happy about my loved ones doing these things, but I try to restrain myself and just give 'em a sidelong look with one eyebrow raised.
[quote]
You still don’t get it, you still have no idea what I’m saying, do you?
[quote]
We “get it” just fine. We just don’t agree with you. Got it?
–
Teeming Millions: http://fathom.org/teemingmillions
“Meat flaps, yellow!” - DrainBead, naked co-ed Twister chat
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
Um… cite?
–
Teeming Millions: http://fathom.org/teemingmillions
“Meat flaps, yellow!” - DrainBead, naked co-ed Twister chat
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
Most of the incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable drug users I know (myself humbly included) find it acceptable to use the things we choose to use because we’re convinced that, on this particular issue, the law prohibiting us from doing so is wrong (i.e. has no moral or ethical basis).
Let’s not go off on tangents about whether other laws (e.g. those prohibiting rape or speeding, or those making it mandatory to report one’s parents for anti-State activities) are right or wrong; let’s stick to the question of whether the laws prohibiting the use of certain mind altering substances are right or wrong.
As you’ve no doubt noticed, it’s near impossible to have a rational debate on this issue because there’s simply too much FUD noise.
What I don’t get is how come you’re sickened by by a collection of incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable people committing well informed acts of civil disobedience in response to an unjust law.
Me, I’m sickened by all the lives I’ve seen getting fucked up through ignorance about safe use of drugs and their actual effects, said ignorance being largely the consequence of the prohibition-derived impossibility of rational discussion I mentioned earlier.
I’m also saddened by the general community’s apparent lack of many of those valuable insights so easily available by the use of psychedelic substances in good surroundings with good company.
I’ve long believed that experiential mushroom studies should be a part of the official senior high school curriculum.
Of course, this is the BBQ Pit, so here are the obligatory irrelevant facts included only to distract and annoy:
Dimethyl tryptamine is an illegal drug and also a naturally occuring brain chemical.
Lettuce contains trace amounts of morphine.
Cannabis use has a history at least equal in antiquity to alcohol use.
Stoned people are really painful when you’re straight.
Straight people are really funny when you’re stoned.
One of my former housemates has repeatedly suffered psychotic episoded within weeks of resuming cannabis use.
One of my former colleagues suffered a psychotic episode after ingesting a drug prescribed to prevent malaria.
Drunks are more annoying than stoners.
THANK YOU! Oh thank you thank you thank you, for at last getting the point and arguing the very thing I’m saying in exactly the way I hoped for people to do, instead of latching onto other unrelated shit.
To answer your points: I don’t believe it’s an unjust law. The whole thought of drug use makes me shiver in disgust. And I sure don’t believe people who think that way like me are fucked up in any way. We just believe differently, and it’s not harmful to anyone for that.
I’m not the one that imposed the law, and maybe if I was in that position of responsibility, and truly was in possession of all the actual true facts, I wouldn’t have imposed the law. But somebody DID, and I, personally (and only personally) go along with that. I feel no reason to think otherwise.
Okay, so maybe I’m being close-minded about the issue. Fine. Who really cares about that, though? Why are you guys so riled up at me about what I think? Like who gives a shit what I, as a single person, believe?
Still illegal. Still wrong. Sorry. If it was a private road, then do what the hell you want. If it was an aeroplane, go as fast as you like. But on a public road, obey the laws.
That’s not what I’m saying! I’m saying breaking the law is immoral, not because you’re doing that bad thing they say not to, but because to knowingly go against the publicly defined rules is unethical and therefore immoral.
Do you get it yet? You see, the reason I refuse to acknowledge your point, is because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I’M SAYING!!!
Will you PLEASE stop bringing up totally unrelated laws and shit to compare with my personal opinion of drug users? What the fuck is wrong with you morons?
There’s a good reason why I didn’t answer that question. I’ve never seen anything so far strayed from my point in this thread than that crap.
I’m not talking about a law that has suddenly changed from legal to illegal, I’m not talking about arse-kissing the government that knows all and sees all. Why can’t you SEE that???
If Pornography was always illegal, and the only way for me to get access to it was through less than public means, more than likely I’d have a very similar view about it as I do for drugs. But that’s just ME, okay?
I’M JUST TALKING ABOUT ME!!!
If you don’t agree with my own thoughts, stop getting so annoyed! Just say “Well, I think you’re talking shit” and explain why. Instead too many of you seem intent on discrediting me, or just wandering around in a bizarre haze, not seeming to grasp such a simple point.
By the way, if there are any things in your statements I have yet to cover in your stupid arguments, it’s because they continue to have no relevance whatsoever to my OP, okay???
sigh
I still don’t think you do get it, but sure. I’m so okay with you not agreeing with me. I already knew that, I just wanted better arguments than what has come up.
Eve: Thanks for being of exactly the same mind as I on this issue. It’s nice to know that at least I’m not alone.
-PIGEONMAN-
Hero For A New Millennium!
The Legend Of PigeonMan - Back in the new year! Honest. I promise. No, really.
Publicly defined rules have required pretty terrible things in the past, Guano. Your seat is getting hot.
We’re using them to show you WHY your sycophantic it’s-illegal-so-it-must-be-immoral stance is based nowhere in history and is quite absurd. This is because our minds retain the capacity to make connections.
What do you think we’ve been doing? We think you’re talking shit, and here’s why: you’re equating law with morality. Witness the examples and arguments above. Geez.
Jesus Fucking Christ!
How many times do I have to say this?
I am NOT saying a Law is the be-all and end-all of morality. I am not even saying that the Law pays much attention to any given morality, though I hope most of them do.
I am saying THIS: BREAKING the Law is IMMORAL. RECOMMENDING the breaking of the Law is also IMMORAL!
GET IT??? IT’S NOT A DIFFICULT CONCEPT TO GRASP, I CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHAT MAKES IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND!!!
And in fact, that wasn’t my OP in the first fucking place! Now if you STILL haven’t got it yet, then FUCK YOU ALL!
-PIGEONMAN-
Hero For A New Millennium!
The Legend Of PigeonMan - Back in the new year! Honest. I promise. No, really.
I’d just like to say that while I was saddened by GuanoLad’s original post…
I am delighted by the enormous (and, for the most part, intelligent) response that ensued.
Drug-addled though it may be, this crew is articulate, endearing, and always fascinating. Yes, we rock.
You don’t trust the World Health Organization? I’d be hard pressed to find any kind of vested interest in the study I linked to. It’s the most respected medical group in the whole fucking world.
The studies that present a conflict of interest are those sponsered by anti-drug groups and zero-tolerance governments. The studies sponsered by these organizations invariably cast marijuana in a bad light. Don’t tell me that’s a coincidence.
Also I’m not getting this “no matter what the law is, it’s immoral to break it” attitude. If the law required you to sacrifice 3 virgins a week and you didn’t do it, would that be immoral?
Paul made a good point about the Underground Railroad which you chose to ignore. If everyone had your attitude, Guano, slavery would still be legal.
Man, you need a joint…
Guano said:
I am saying THIS: BREAKING the Law is IMMORAL. RECOMMENDING the breaking of the Law is also IMMORAL!
It is to you, apparently, and I do repsect that.
But to the defense of other posters (myself included), people were not dragging in irrelevant shit that did not relate to the OP. They were making valid analogies in order to find out just how soundly your reasoning would seem in practise. Now, if you ignore that or label it irrelevant, that says a lot about the width of your scope.
Great historical steps forward have been possible because (small) groups of people chose to break the law. You think it was legal in 1789 in France to storm prisons and free everyone inside ?
And a lot of bad has been done by people hiding behind dangerous, racist laws. In South Africa, it was legal 20 years ago to kill a black man if he stole, e.g., one of your cows. Legal. Moral ? I think not.
Coldfire
“You know how complex women are”
But that wasn’t even my original point! This whole legality thing was dragged into the topic when that wasn’t even what I was saying! My view on this law is not relevant anyway.
Okay, I’m going to start again, and show you where I’m coming from, just so you don’t think I’m some kind of idiot, because obviously you do think that now.
My OP was this:
I see a lot of members of this board, people I respect for their intelligent views on many subjects, and their careful consideration of facts, talking about how much they enjoy drug use.
This is something that, well, I’m sad about, but if you want to do that to yourself, then I can’t stop you. Unfortunately.
But what they were also often saying was how lots of people should be doing it. And in fact, they are now saying that people who don’t do it can’t even speak of the issue until they HAVE tried them.
Well, crikey dicks, I don’t like that at all! I find that to be a very wrong bad thing to be saying. And so I’m sickened by such an attitude.
There. That was my OP. I wanted people to defend their reasoning behind it. But instead it got all bogged down in irrelevant crap.
First somebody brought up the fact that I have Pornography listed as one of my ‘interests’. Well, without stopping to consider the possibility that it may have even been a joke (though it’s not), this was the first tangent that was completely irrelevant. I wasn’t talking about me, I wasn’t talking about legality or morality, I was talking about why you drug users have that attitude you have. If I even read it right.
Then we got into comparing the legal aspect of it, bringing in Laws that really have nothing in common with the dope issue at all.
The Freeing of Slaves mentioned: Breaking a Law is still wrong, they did it knowingly, it may have been, in retrospect, a stupid law, but it was still the Law and they deliberately broke it! That in itself was Wrong! But you cannot compare the freeing of oppressed peoples (which is a very good thing indeed) with some dude who wants to smoke dope if he wants to. It’s so NOT THE SAME that I can’t believe that’s how you guys view the issue! That you can break this law because some laws oppress and don’t protect? Well where do you stop with that? Don’t all laws oppress SOMEBODY?
The point of laws is to prevent us from chaos, they are guidelines that help shape our society into a happy place. I think of drug use as a BAD THING, and so did the people who brought in that law. And it has not been repealed yet. You guys clearly don’t. You see them as acceptable things. That’s the real crux of the issue that I’m trying to make here, and yet still you go on about other shit.
And Coldfire - I just thought I’d tell you (though I bet you guessed) I NEVER want to visit Amsterdam. The thought of it revolts me to my core.
-PIGEONMAN-
Hero For A New Millennium!
The Legend Of PigeonMan - Back in the new year! Honest. I promise. No, really.
Good post, Guano (no sarcasm, no nothing. it was a good post). Untill you came up with this:
And Coldfire - I just thought I’d tell you (though I bet you guessed) I NEVER want to visit Amsterdam. The thought of it revolts me to my core.
No, I didn’t guess that. Of course it’s all up to you, but don’t you think you’re restricting yourself a bit by reasoning like this ? For example, you’ll never see Rembrandt’s Nightwatch if the thought of a few people smoking a joint (legally, I might add !) revolts you. Again, I’m not attacking you on your views. I’m just trying to follow the reasoning. If Amsterdam is not your thing, fine, but for THIS reason ? You would skip an entire city (or country for that matter, it is legal to smoke marihuana in The Netherlands as a whole) because of a law that doesn’t appeal to you ? I’m not taking this as a personal insult in any way, if you might have thought so. You can now also skip Canada, India, and no doubt a few other beautiful places to visit.
Wow. I’m sorry Guano, but that really IS uptight. There are so many countries in the world that have weird laws, yet are beautiful places to visit. Beating your wife is legal in Turkey. I certainly do not agree with that, but it would never keep me from seeing the ancient ruins of old Greek cities.
In some Muslim countries, women are not allowed to walk around without a veil. A practise I strongly disagree with. Yet these countries could be amongst the most beatiful places on the planet !
Coldfire
“You know how complex women are”
Hello? Guanolad? It’s me, the guy who’s interested in sticking to your point. Put those hackles back down, you’re making me nervous. Let me see if I can help you avoid these feelings of sadness and nausea by the application of reasoned argument.
How come you see the use of illegal drugs as a bad thing instead of just a thing?
Have you ever entertained the possibility of a distinction between drug use and drug abuse?
Drug use is what happens when a well-informed person uses a chemical substance to gain a specific, beneficial effect. This specific, beneficial effect may end up being accompanied by one or more side effects, some of which may not be beneficial. This is true whether use of the drug is legal or not. Drug use is characterized by moderate consumption and (if the drug is any good) an enhanced quality of life. Drug use is not a replacement for any other kind of experience; in fact, drug use can act as an adjunct to other kinds of experience, and half the fun is finding out what goes best with which.
Drug abuse is what happens when a (usually not so well informed) person continues to use inappropriate amounts of a substance even if the beneficial effect is no longer obtainable, thereby forcing the user to cope with the side effects. In the case of physically addicting drugs such as opiates and nicotine, the beneficial effect disappears naturally as the body builds up a tolerance (insensitivity) to the substance in question. Tolerance effects also occur with other drugs (I know heavy dope smokers who regularly consume more hash in an hour than I could use in a month) but this is best viewed as a consequence of abuse rather than its primary cause, as in the case of physically addicting drugs.
In the case of medically prescribed pharmaceuticals (aspirin, sleeping pills, antibiotics, anaesthetics, what have you) the beneficial effect sought is usually the relief of some kind of suffering (pain management, insomnia management, infection management, physical trauma management, and so on). Many medically prescribed drugs are physically addicting and care is therefore required in their use. This care is, for the most part, taken; although fair numbers of people do end up addicted to prescribed drugs (for example, benzodiazapene tranquilizers: Valium, Librium…) the social damage done pales into insignificance compared to the damage caused by abuse of non-prescribed, addicting drugs (alcohol, nicotine, opiates, crack etc).
The beneficial effects of non-prescribed, “recreational” drugs (caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, DMT, shrooms, opiates, inhalants, ecstasy - the list is endless) are as varied as the drugs themselves. Because only SOME of these effects involve relief of suffering, and because relief of suffering is about the only effect that is pretty much universally regarded as a Good Thing, people who don’t choose to use these substances are often at a loss to understand their benefits - perceiving, as they do, only some of the side effects (see previous posting regarding the annoyingness of stoned people). I suspect this is what’s happened to you.
The obvious, natural reaction of a society taking damage from drug abuse is to try to prevent it, and this is the germ of the various prohibition laws. Unfortunately, what with drug ingestion being so easy to hide, the only effective way to legislate directly against drug abuse is to legislate against the substances themselves; and as the US experience with alcohol prohibition showed all too clearly, the negative side effects of this process (restriction of legitimate freedoms, the creation and maintenance of a huge black market economy, organized crime, corruption of public officials etc) vastly outweigh the beneficial effects obtained thereby. Prohibition laws are unjust for this reason: they do society more harm than good.
Prohibition serves, by its ability to prevent open debate, to reinforce negative perceptions about the substances themselves (as opposed to perceptions about the abuse of those substances, which are justifiably negative), often to the extent that any use of the prohibited substance is seen as inherently and unambiguously bad.
It also serves to limit the amount of expertise applied and care taken with the use of more potentially dangerous, addictive drugs (heroin, crack, speed, etc) thereby increasing the likelihood of abuse and worsening its social side effects.
Prohibition is wrong. The laws that support it are unjust. I have no moral qualms about ignoring them.
A better way, as the Dutch experience shows, is to treat the various substances on their own merits instead of lumping them all together as some kind of Evil Drug Boogey Man, and attempt to replace as much abuse as possible with informed and moderate use.
Incidentally, my personal preferences in recreational drugs are the psychedelics: LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, 2CB, DMT - substances that provide experiences and insights normally only available to those who choose to spend years engaged in various meditative practices. And before I get flamed for making this comparison, I should add that the use of these drugs has caused me to be greatly interested in learning those selfsame meditative practices; I find that the beneficial effects are unquestionably of the same kind as those available via psychedelic ingestion, but can be more long lasting, and the side effects are also beneficial (which is not so true of psychedelic ingestion: meditating doesn’t make me break out in acid zits or give me shroom farts).
A word to the religious: Don’t ingest psychedelics if your religious beliefs are based more on what you’ve been taught than on inner experience. If you do, and you survive without psychosis, it will take you years to rebuild your religion.
I also use cannabis. My partner doesn’t (it doesn’t agree with her) and it’s taken me quite some years to learn to communicate effectively across the stoned/straight barrier when I’ve been smoking. I’m getting better at it, though, and I’m pretty sure I could even get stoned and have a conversation with you, without making you sick or sad!
Cheers
ST
p.s. leading horses to water is good fun!
Ok guanolad, I see that you are trying to make a point, only that it offends me that you have taken such a high moral ground on this one. You are saddened that people take drugs? Well dear, I do not want your pity. The simple case is that you see drug taking as being something very wrong or as not a very intelligent choice. In my opinion it is simply a choice like any other. It is not going to send you to hell, and under “intelligent use”, is not DANGEROUS as I have seen you put it. I am not out of my mind 24 hours a day, but occasionally I will indulge, this is not something that needs your pity or any reaction at all from you. So you think it is wrong. I don’t want to change your mind at all - just don’t want you thinking that just because some of us make the choice to partake of an illegal substance now and then does not diminish our intelligence or worth.
That’s it then.
By the way - you really don’t even have caffiene?? I admire your fortitude, I have given up smoking for new Years and am finding it hard without munching on a chocolate or two at least or a cup of coffee.
What DO you eat?
I can’t see how you avoid the big honking contradiction here… if you are saying that breaking the law is immoral, then you are investing the law with a moral value. It’s that simple. And law has no necessary moral value, as we’ve demonstrated.
And now you’ve come right out and said it. If it was illegal for Gandhi to march to the sea for salt, if it was illegal for the mobs to storm the Bastille, if it was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, then according to you it was immoral for them to do so.
I went to great lengths to tell you that I was not equating drug users and activists. I was using the activist situation as an example of a case where the law was not the same as ethics.
No, we can ethically break laws which do not prohibit unethical things.
It’s unethical to murder, and so it’s unethical to break the law against murder (which, of course, you can only do by murdering.) It’s unethical to rape, so it’s unethical to break the law against rape.
Conversely, it’s ethical to oppose a fascist regime, and therefore it’s ethical to break that regime’s law against sedition.
And consequently, since it’s ethically neutral to smoke pot, it’s ethically neutral to break the law prohibiting pot-smoking.
Laws have no moral value. They are a gauze of definition over the world of real things. Only real things and events can be invested with moral value.
Otherwise, you’d have to say that if I stand half a metre inside the borders of the Netherlands and smoke a joint, it’s ethical, but if I step a metre to the left, it would suddenly become unethical. I’m sorry, but it simply non sequitur.
I am the eggman. . .
I am the walrus. . .
Coo coo ca choo. . .
Tom-AY-to. . .
Tom-AH-to. . .
How many friggin pages did we waste on this in GD? 5? 6?
Guanolad, you know you’re not going to get a response that will change your mind, no matter how well-reasoned. There are a million different ways to argue “pro,” and a few different ways to argue “kontra,” and they are all just going to be repeated again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and againand again and again and again and again.
The only difference between the inherent monotony and ultimate failure of the KONTRA argument and the PRO argument is that stoners have a legitimate excuse for forgetting what’s already been said.
matt_mcl:
I don’t think I object, but I’m unsure whether I haven’t misunderstood what you didn’t say.
Do you disagree that we can’t unethically fail to break laws that don’t prohibit unethical things?
(-:
L~
Yes. (I think.)