Is Using Intoxicants Immoral?

[minty_green]

MEBuckner: Good answer, and I partially agree with your assessment. To the extent that the use of the intoxicant harms only the user, I can’t see any argument that it is immoral.

On the other hand, I think you are taking an unduly narrow view of what constitutes harm to other people–wife beating, drunk driving, etc. Clearly, we have moral duties to those around us that extend beyond causing or risking physical harm. To the extent that a person’s use of intoxicants negatively affects personal duties to our families, friends, and associates, I would assert that the use is clearly immoral.

[Q: Why is it that so many potheads think they drive just fine when they’re high? Trust me fellas, you aren’t anywhere near as fine as you think.]

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by erislover *
MEBuckner, I think morality stretches further than just the consequences to other people. It at least needs to be able to choose among several choices which do not affect others when such situations arise.

Why? I agree, we need to be able to choose among choices when our decisions won’t affect others, I just don’t call that “morality”. There are other things we can use to make choices, like “wisdom” or “prudence” or “enlightened self-interest”. (And, when appropriate, “appetite”, “desire”, or “whim”.)

*Originally posted by minty green *
On the other hand, I think you are taking an unduly narrow view of what constitutes harm to other people–wife beating, drunk driving, etc. Clearly, we have moral duties to those around us that extend beyond causing or risking physical harm. To the extent that a person’s use of intoxicants negatively affects personal duties to our families, friends, and associates, I would assert that the use is clearly immoral.

That’s fair enough. I don’t think it could be used to justify either outlawing or making a blanket moral condemnation of many, perhaps most, currently illegal drugs. Drinking alcohol–even, under some circumstances, getting pretty smashed–doesn’t necessarily have any negative affect on our duty to family, friends, or employers. Conversely, even light consumption of drugs–a drink or two or a joint or two or whatever–will affect one’s judgement, perceptions, and reflexes enough, or present an unacceptable risk of such effects, as to be immoral if done just before embarking on, say, brain surgery or flying a jumbo jet to Paris.

[erislover]

Fair enough, MEBuckner.

[ranwashingt]

Minty Green…On the other hand, I think you are taking an unduly narrow view of what constitutes harm to other people–wife beating, drunk driving, etc. Clearly, we have moral duties to those around us that extend beyond causing or risking physical harm. To the extent that a person’s use of intoxicants negatively affects personal duties to our families, friends, and associates, I would assert that the use is clearly immoral.

---

I generaly believe that an asshole is an asshole drunk or otherwise…If some jerk slaps the wife and kids around with greater relish after a few drinks, of course he should never get a load on, but then he should have never married and fathered in the first place neither. Booze and its ilk only loosens the beast that was lurking there to begin with, and presents a ready excuse for unacceptable behavior…I would rather walk across hot coals than spend an evening with a whiny drunk…and in my expierences, the guy was damned well insecure long before an evening out with the boys…I don’t know much, but I know that alcohol dosen’t perform well as an antidepressent…it just compounds the problem…Its sad that all users of intoxicants are painted with a broad brush. The wife beaters, drunk drivers, and thieving junkies are abusing, irresponsible and felonious individuals to begin with.

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by TWDuke *
But, irishgirl, if that’s the incident you’re referring too, the gospels don’t say anything about anyone actually getting drunk. Jesus could have wanted everyone to just, you know, loosen up a little.

I think it is sort of implied that Jesus’ miracle allowed for more than just “loosening up a little”:

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”[sup]1[/sup] “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons[sup]2[/sup]. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”[sup]3[/sup] This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him. – John 2:1-11 (emphasis added)

[sup]1[/sup]It’s not like they hadn’t already had an opportunity to “loosen up”. They had wine, and they’d already drank it all.
[sup]2[/sup]Granted, we don’t know how many guests there are; still, that’s a lot of wine. This isn’t just some little symbolic “turn a glass of water into a glass of wine” thing.
[sup]3[/sup]This comment is the most telling. It sure sounds like the guests have already had enough that they’ve gotten to the point where it would normally be time to bring out the cheap rotgut. (Jesus being God Incarnate, of course, will miraculously transmute no wine before its time, and produces what is evidently a very nice vintage: “Ah, yes, from the fifth cask, five minutes ago…”)

The overall picture definitely seems to be of a party which is already pretty well lubricated.

[TWDuke]

You’re right, it does seem like it was more than a drink or two a person, but it still doesn’t give us any clear idea of their level of intoxication. I guess it depends on your definitions of “drunk” and “loosening up.” To me, “drunk” implies a noticeable lack of control. Did the party turn into a first-century Animal House, or did the guests just get a mellow buzz going? I don’t think we can tell from the text.

[norinew]

Originally posted by Mr2001
On the other hand, you can get non-alcoholic beer if you just like the taste. And alcohol makes it harder to judge your own intoxication than other drugs… often, the guy who has a few beers and says “I’m sober, I can drive home” really shouldn’t be driving.

Well, that’s true, but I don’t like the kind of beer that the non-alcoholic kinds mimic (watery, American beers). I prefer stouts and such. Also, there is my hubby who likes the taste of good, single malt scotch, no non-alcoholic version available. But you may be overestimating the amount of this stuff we drink. A six pack of good beer typically lasts me about two weeks, and a fifth of good scotch, lasts him about two years!
As for people underestimating how drunk they are, I know this does happen, but I don’t think it’s particular to drinkers. I think many social drug users underestimate how impaired they are after partying.

[Jojo]

From the Christian perspective, there’s also 1 Timothy 5:23:

No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

From the Jewish perspective, there’s Deuteronomy 14:26 where Moses says:

and spend the money for whatever you desire, oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves

From a muslim perspective, the koran is actually a bit vague about it. Koran 2:219:

They ask you concerning alcohol and gambling.
Say: “In them is a great sin, and some benefits for men,
but the sin is far greater than the benefit”.

but most muslims think alcohol is a bad idea because you cannot pray properly when you have a hangover and, since muslims have to pray 5 times a day, this doesn’t allow much time for drinking and the recovery period.

Personally, I think that anything that exists on the planet is available to use. Why would God (if He exists) give us alcohol if we were not meant to use it? Even such things as heroin have a medical use. Heroin (or diamorphine) is the best painkiller there is.

If somebody uses alcohol (or any other drug) to excess and becomes addicted then that’s their problem. It doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with alcohol, it means there’s something wrong with that person.

This is why I strongly oppose blanket bans such as Prohibition era America (and I understand there are still some dry counties in America) and all the muslim countries. If people don’t want to drink then they shouldn’t drink but they shouldn’t impose this rule on everyone. I think moderate intoxication is a good thing, I do my most intensive thinking when mildly intoxicated.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by norinew *
As for people underestimating how drunk they are, I know this does happen, but I don’t think it’s particular to drinkers. I think many social drug users underestimate how impaired they are after partying.

I’m sure it happens occasionally. But my personal experience with marijuana, and the experiences of others I’ve spoken to, have been the opposite–when you’re high, you know it. I don’t have enough experience to speak for other drugs.

[Malthus]

“Hey Jesus … Judas asks, if you can turn water into wine, can you turn flour into cocaine?”

But seriously - it is an interesting and little-known fact that the reason why alchohol is legal and other drugs are not (at least in Canada) has at least something to do with outmoded 1920s - era notions of racial hygene.

The source of drug criminalization in Canada is a book called “The Black Candle”, by Canada’s first female judge (whose name escapes me). Her thesis, basically, was that alchohol is okay because white people traditionally drink it - it is “their” drug. Pot is bad, because Blacks and Mexicans smoke it. As well as lots of ‘reefer madness’ statements about how it drives them insanely violent, the main negative effect, according to her, would that it would “degrade” Whites who got into smoking it - they would associate with members of the “inferior races”. Particularly women.

Similarly, Opiates were bad because oriental people used them.
The book came complete with great pics of debauched white chicks, being sold into the white slave trade by sinister orientals.

I don’t know if the situation in the US is similar, though.