4 ms·

You're forgetting alcohol. You can't argue that society considers drug use immoral when the drug alcohol is legal and widely used. Sure, it's a legal drug, but

You're forgetting alcohol. You can't argue that society considers drug use immoral when the drug alcohol is legal and widely used. Sure, it's a legal drug, but it's certainly a drug. If it's the illegality of the other drugs that makes society consider it immoral then that's a completely irrational circular argument. "Illegal drugs are bad because they are illegal, therefore they are immoral and that's why they should be illegal" is basically what they think, without realizing it. It's not "reasonably sensible within their framework" at all, it's insane.

rrhyne 12y ago
Many states try to heavily regulate alcohol. Where and when you can buy it is often frustration and varies from state to state.
Natsu 12y ago
> You're forgetting alcohol. You can't argue that society considers drug use immoral when the drug alcohol is legal and widely used. And you're forgetting that they did, in fact, try to ban it for those very reasons...
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Good ole' 18th amendment.
- beedogs 12y ago
  ...and that they learned absolutely nothing from that stupid little adventure.
  - greeneggs 12y ago
    People aren't stupid. They learned from Prohibition that it is hard to ban a drug once it is legal and established. Hence the reluctance now to legalize marijuana. If it turns out to be a mistake, it will be hard to roll it back. That seems like an honest and fair argument to me, even if one might disagree.
    - biehl 12y ago
      But it is not the argument one usually hears from probihitionists...
      - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
        Let's not forget that jails and security are a business, and the War on Drugs has been extremely good for that business. The possibility exists that the moral posturing around drugs has sometimes been a cover for less noble aims. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
        Natsu 12y ago
        That came after, not before. Given that I've heard no one defend those heinous crimes, I find that as lacking an explanation as the silly notions that scientists are advocating climate change because they expect to get grant money.
ubiquit 12y ago
When you subscribe to the framework that the laws should reflect moral values, inevitably your law reflects your religion. The law's stance that alcohol is okay is silly to an empiricist, but not surprising.
thomasfl 12y ago
...and coffee! Coffee is the elephant in the room. Caffeine is the worlds the world's most widely consumed psychoactive drug. It doesn't cause much harm because it's normally used in low doses. I admit I am addicted to the stuff, and find it hard to quit.
Steuard 12y ago
Again, you're basing this on a rational assessment of the different drugs in question. That's just not the mindset that we're talking about here. When you grow up hearing your parents and your preachers and your teachers all telling you that alcohol is okay in moderation (for adults) but that using other drugs is wrong (and thus illegal), that can have a real impact in establishing your moral compass for those issues. Those influences are pretty much the defining source of your community's norms and traditions. So if you're the sort of person whose inclination or upbringing leads you to strongly honor your elders and their ideals, it's not a matter of "irrational circular argument". It's not even a matter of "argument" at all: proper morals and laws aren't based on reason, but on received wisdom. In this view, Moses wasn't supposed to ask, "Why not covet my neighbor's house?" It's enough to simply be told what is wrong and what's not. Once again, I personally do not think that way, and I'm sure that I'm misrepresenting the perspective of folks who do in multiple ways. But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive.
- kristofferR 12y ago
  I agree with you that many people think that way. Or more accurately = don't think. > But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive. What else can the proponents of change do? How can you change the thinking of people with a framework based on not thinking? Are you suggesting that irrational arguments would be more effective?

rrhyne 12y ago

Many states try to heavily regulate alcohol. Where and when you can buy it is often frustration and varies from state to state.

Natsu 12y ago

> You're forgetting alcohol. You can't argue that society considers drug use immoral when the drug alcohol is legal and widely used. And you're forgetting that they did, in fact, try to ban it for those very reasons...

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Good ole' 18th amendment.
beedogs 12y ago
...and that they learned absolutely nothing from that stupid little adventure.
- greeneggs 12y ago
  People aren't stupid. They learned from Prohibition that it is hard to ban a drug once it is legal and established. Hence the reluctance now to legalize marijuana. If it turns out to be a mistake, it will be hard to roll it back. That seems like an honest and fair argument to me, even if one might disagree.
  - biehl 12y ago
    But it is not the argument one usually hears from probihitionists...
    - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
      Let's not forget that jails and security are a business, and the War on Drugs has been extremely good for that business. The possibility exists that the moral posturing around drugs has sometimes been a cover for less noble aims. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
      - Natsu 12y ago
        That came after, not before. Given that I've heard no one defend those heinous crimes, I find that as lacking an explanation as the silly notions that scientists are advocating climate change because they expect to get grant money.

ubiquit 12y ago

When you subscribe to the framework that the laws should reflect moral values, inevitably your law reflects your religion. The law's stance that alcohol is okay is silly to an empiricist, but not surprising.

thomasfl 12y ago

...and coffee! Coffee is the elephant in the room. Caffeine is the worlds the world's most widely consumed psychoactive drug. It doesn't cause much harm because it's normally used in low doses. I admit I am addicted to the stuff, and find it hard to quit.

Steuard 12y ago

Again, you're basing this on a rational assessment of the different drugs in question. That's just not the mindset that we're talking about here. When you grow up hearing your parents and your preachers and your teachers all telling you that alcohol is okay in moderation (for adults) but that using other drugs is wrong (and thus illegal), that can have a real impact in establishing your moral compass for those issues. Those influences are pretty much the defining source of your community's norms and traditions. So if you're the sort of person whose inclination or upbringing leads you to strongly honor your elders and their ideals, it's not a matter of "irrational circular argument". It's not even a matter of "argument" at all: proper morals and laws aren't based on reason, but on received wisdom. In this view, Moses wasn't supposed to ask, "Why not covet my neighbor's house?" It's enough to simply be told what is wrong and what's not. Once again, I personally do not think that way, and I'm sure that I'm misrepresenting the perspective of folks who do in multiple ways. But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive.

kristofferR 12y ago
I agree with you that many people think that way. Or more accurately = don't think. > But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive. What else can the proponents of change do? How can you change the thinking of people with a framework based on not thinking? Are you suggesting that irrational arguments would be more effective?