Legalize heroin

[_________]

I almost always respond to every point everyone makes. I'm reading and responding to your rambling now aren't I? If you ever had a conversation with me face to face you would find that I always let the other person finish, which is quite rare, as most people are incapable of engaging in civilized debate and will always interrupt me before I've finished my first sentence even though I've sat and carefully listened to them rambling on for 10 minutes.

Well I can't talk to you in person so I'll just have to take your word for that, but as far as your behavior on this website, I beg to differ. What you in fact seem to do is take the most easily interpreted sentence, or sometimes even just a few words, and reply to that. However, what I write requires greater attention to the gestalt, if you will, of the text. Allow me to elaborate ramble:

1)

I think it's just a tiny bit hypocritical of you to complain about 'hate and rage levels' and the absence of 'constructive debate'.

A very simple sentence, difficult to misinterpret, to which you respond characteristically with, "I'm the most constructive debater that has ever lived." Indeed. Here I am setting the stage for a sub-point - "your 'debate' is destructive" - while breaking the ice, since I haven't posted in the thread recently.

2)

You seem to not be grasping this very simple concept which I will attempt to explain to you:

An individual at the point in time 'p' has a state of mind (or disposition, outlook, temperament, etc., if you prefer) which is governed, generally speaking, by inherent physiological characteristics (do a google search for 'personality neuroscience' to get the gist of what I mean here) and his/her experiences prior to 'p'. If one's state of mind is other than precisely what it was prior to an experience, then one would not be too absurd to assume experience affects state of mind. This being the case, though you may certainly understand the general idea of what an experience is like, you do not know from experience – and this is a serious handicap when dealing with mind-altering substances. To give an extreme analogy, you may understand the concept of close quarters combat, you may even excel in its simulation in videogames or paintball, but this doesn’t mean you’ll excel in the real-life scenario and unlike combat, you can’t train to handle a drug prior to taking the real deal.

This one's a bit longer, but still not all that complex. No matter. Your reply: "I haven't taken it so I don't know what it's like. It's fucking heroin dude. You don't need to take it to know what it's fucking like." I believe what you have responded to is the pink, and I'm not entirely sure you've even contradicted the sentence in which it is found.

3)

Now personality certainly plays a role. However, I don't know that one has to be an 'ass' to get hooked on drugs, just as I don't know that physical dependence is the only issue at stake with drug use. Likewise, though I know my personality would be different had I never tried any drugs, I don't know whether my experience was for the better or worse. I do know that I've had friends and acquaintances who've thought themselves enlightened by their drug use (in fact just a few days ago, I had a 'discussion' with an acquaintance who was on probation, pretty high on righteous indignation, returning to the same argument of 'that legislator is no different than me and therefore has no right to restrict what substances I take into my body', and despite endlessly telling me how much he wanted to hear what I had to say, in his drunken enlightenment interrupted or otherwise disregarded the bulk of the points I attempted to make so much so that I actually thought he and you may be one and the same)

This was a pretty long sentence and your missing the greater point here is my fault for having noted a similarity between you and an acquaintance of mine. My apologies. However, true to form, you replied only to the parenthetical, and then only to the issues of interruptions and missing points. It's difficult to interrupt someone on a forum, so I'll make no judgment there, but you have certainly missed a number of points... just sayin'.

4)

but are really just angst ridden malcontents frustrated with the society they haven't bothered to analyze any deeper than their own niche, and like so many ironists - those happy birds who've come to love their cage - are too rapt execrating the television to turn it off.

Here we have the conclusion of the sentence which began in '3'. I got a bit symbolic here. My apologies. Your reply: "I can turn off my TV or I can change the channel. I can't turn off society. And I can't press a button and change to a different society like I can change the channel on my TV." Indeed you are correct. You can turn off your TV and you cannot turn off society, unless of course you have access to a doomsday device. However the point here is not about these birdies who haven't realized they thrive on bitching and whether or not they are capable of turning off the TV they love to hate, but whether or not they've really analyzed the TV (i.e. society) outside the effect it has on them and them alone - whether or not they're extrapolating their experience onto that of everyone else despite proclamations of the contrary.

5a)

Tell me: how great is the rift between the state of new love and heart break? Can you admit there is a difference?

This is where you start to really mimic the process of interruption and illustrate precisely why it is destructive to the interpretive process. This is a component of the the point formed by the next four quotes. Your reply, "I don't know what you're talking about" is thus easy to understand: you don't know because you haven't read it yet.

5b)

If you find your wife is cheating on you, are you not more predisposed to aggression or apathy (depending on your preferred line of flight)?

Your reply: "I don't believe in marriage or the concept of 'cheating'. If I have a sexual relationship with a woman and she has sex with someone else that's up to her, it's her body, I've no reason to be aggressive." I used a poor example for your case. Say you're doing heroin happily in your own home when suddenly a swat team busts in and arrests your ass with unnecessary force; are you then not predisposed to aggression or apathy (depending on your preferred line of flight)? In other words, is your state of mind not affected by this powerful experience and because of this, would you not react differently to unrelated stimuli than you would were your mental state not affected as such?

5c)

Likewise, if you enjoy something more than anything else in the world, would you not try to maximize your time experiencing it.

Your reply here - "Sure." - is important for '5d':

5d)

For the same reason people eat in excess, fast in excess, exercise in excess, collect in excess, sleep, read, watch TV, play video games and fuck in excess, people do drugs in excess; it is an escape, and everyone wants to escape from time to time.

Your reply: "You don't have to do any of these things in excess to enjoy them." Indeed. However, if one of these things fits into the category described in '5c', then you've already agreed that you would try to maximize your time experiencing it. Believe it or not, striving to a maximum goes hand in hand with excess. So the point here is that because a) experience affects state of mind, b) an affected state of mind reacts to stimuli other than its "normal" reaction, c) individuals generally attempt to revisit pleasurable experiences, and d) the desire to maximize these pleasurable experiences can lead to excess, the more affected your mental state is, the more predisposed you are to excess. Moving on.

6)

You don't have to be a moron or an asshole to go on vacation, nor do you need to be one to get caught up and forego a return - and I think you should indeed be free to take a vacation. However, I also think, from my perspective as a US citizen, that in countries such as mine where roughly 70% of the population is overweight, 13% smoke cigarettes, 50% drink alcohol, 76% believe in the Christian God, the average citizen watches 6 hours of TV daily, etc. there is a serious, deep-seeded social clusterfuck which I daresay could be exacerbated by selling everyone high-grade pharmakons at retail price.

Your reply: "So Americans must all be treated like children or they'll harm themselves because of their clusterfucked nature. Maybe it's the fact that they're all treated like children when they're adults that clusterfucks them in the first place?" I actually laughed here, because you even quoted the portion - where your question is answered and the point explained - so let's go there.

7)

I don't mean this as 'the US will be destroyed if you legalize drugs' but that it might not be the wisest decision at this point in time.

Your reply: "It's always a wise decision to not violate peoples' human rights." Indeed, though I'm not sure you've proved that the prohibition of certain drugs is an explicit violation of human rights. Care to cite a precedent? Still, this bit (6-9) is understood better should you continue to the final points (10 and 11).

8)

But maybe it is. I don't know. I don't think anyone does, at least not right now.

Your reply: "I do know now because I know adults have a human right to decide which substances they wish to take into their own bodies." Again, please cite a precedent and prove that it applies. Otherwise, allow yourself to understand 8 in the context of 6-9.

9)

There was a tropical storm that poured over 15" of cumulative rain over an entire county in Florida (far north of where I am; we just got a tornado, 45 mph straight line winds gusting to 60, rain, and relatively severe erosion for just a TS), whose course and effects the NHC was completely at a loss to determine, even with the aid of numerous intricate computer models. I think the social dynamics of an entire country's collective psyche are just a bit more difficult to predict.

Your reply: "If the government violates the people the people will violate each other and eventually the society will self destruct. If the government respects the people the people will respect each other and the society will function to make its citizens happy. Biological organisms are reciprocal. You abuse a child all through his life he'll become an abusive adult. You abuse an entire society the society will be abusive. Drug laws designed to entirely prevent the use of certain drugs including heroin are abusive." By Jove, you must've mastered every relationship in your life! You must understand society perfectly and we should put you in charge! I would elaborate on the point here, only you seem to have understood it and merely contradicted it, apparently on the grounds of your omniscience and majesty.

10)

So what's this simple point I promised? That the mind prior to a drug cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a drug.

Your reply: "The mind prior to eating pizza cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a pizza. You can substitute 'pizza' for 'sex', 'playing tennis', 'reading a book', 'playing XBOX' or.... actually any activity." That is called a reductio ad absurdum and it is a logical fallacy. [edit: it is not a logical fallacy.]

11)

These two states are separated by an event horizon, as are the social dynamics of a nation prior to and after the legalization of all drugs, and this transition is a river you only cross once. The other side is a singularity. Do you think you know the best interests of 300 million people? 6.5 billion? I know I don't.

Your reply: "There's 7 billion these days, and I know abusing every single one of them (apart from the tiny minority living in uncontacted tribes where there may be no drug laws) is a bad fucking idea." Indeed, but lest I erroneously assume by this you mean that you believe yourself apt to determine the best interests of 7 billion people, could you clarify?

[equal2u]

Here's an old justification for legalising drugs from earlier in the thread.

Yes it is. You and Brevel just fail to understand the words. 'I've got a right to take drugs into my body because it is my body'. The word neither of you seem to be recognising the implications of is the word 'my'. This entails the concept of ownership which you and Brevel are not considering. If someone legally owns something that means they have the right to do what they want with it providing their actions do not directly harm anyone else's body or property. When the government decides that no one is allowed to take certain drugs they are taking ownership of a certain aspect of people's lives, namely their decision whether or not to incorporate certain drugs into their lifestlyes. Once this happens they are placing restrictions on what a person can put into his own body, and so they take part ownership of that person's body and his life. Do you know what it's called when a person is owned by another person or people? It's called slavery. Criminalising of drugs is partial slavery. The government are denying people the opportunity to make their own decisions about which drugs they take and potentially denying them the opportunity to improve their lives through these substances. Still 'circular'? Maybe you like being a slave, but I do not.

We've been here before ________. You stated that there was nothing objectively wrong with the Holocaust. I insulted you for this and got banned.

You appear to believe that governments define morality. So if the government decides killing millions of people including over 1 million children, as the Nazis did, is a good thing then it is a good thing.

I don't believe governments define morality any more than they define the laws of physics. We have to discover the nature of morality using reason and experiment just like physics and biology. Human society is a giant laboratory for moral experiments. Each experiment has disasterous consequences as all governments have various different bad ideologies and fail to accurately perceive reality.

[equal2u]

10)

So what's this simple point I promised? That the mind prior to a drug cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a drug.

Your reply: "The mind prior to eating pizza cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a pizza. You can substitute 'pizza' for 'sex', 'playing tennis', 'reading a book', 'playing XBOX' or.... actually any activity." That is called a reductio ad absurdum and it is a logical fallacy.

It's a logical fallacy that activity changes the mind?

Religious people come up with some daft argument that 'proves' the existence of God, then someone points out that the word 'God' in their argument can be replaced with 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' and makes just as much sense. That's not a 'reductio ad absurdum' or a 'logical fallacy' it's just simple logic. You've written something meaningless and then start throwing around Latin and terminology to try and cover up that you've written something meaningless. Doesn't work on me.

[_________]

We've been here before ________. You stated that there was nothing objectively wrong with the Holocaust. I insulted you for this and got banned.

Indeed we have 'been here' before. However, what hasn't changed is that a) I believe morality is determined on the personal and suprapersonal level, in the former pertaining to the interpretation of the individual and the latter to the group, neither of which are objectively - i.e. outside the human concept of morality - right or wrong, and b) that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to my knowledge does not have a clause guaranteeing your freedom to take heroin (without punishment for violating a law). Let me know when you find that precedent.

You appear to believe that governments define morality. So if the government decides killing millions of people including over 1 million children, as the Nazis did, is a good thing then it is a good thing.

Close; if the government decides killing millions of people is a good thing, then it is a good thing in the purview of their moral code - this is a tautology. What you're mixing up, perhaps, is the distinction between subjective, intersubjective, and objective. This is why you wind up with your confusion in the next bit:

I don't believe governments define morality any more than they define the laws of physics. We have to discover the nature of morality using reason and experiment just like physics and biology. Human society is a giant laboratory for moral experiments. Each experiment has disasterous consequences as all governments have various different bad ideologies and fail to accurately perceive reality.

I don't want to get into theology here, but as I see it morality is a concept born from a confusion regarding the survival strategy of cooperation as interpreted by emotional response and further dictated and disseminated by the Church - and, unlike physics, this concept is something we created - unless of course you believe God created morality, in which case I politely inform you we are parallel. Next, if society is indeed as you say 'a giant laboratory for moral experiments', then if we are to, as science typically dictates, strive for objectivity, the only rational stance to take is that of amorality - otherwise you've a conflict of interest and void the integrity of the results. Further, if we've yet to identify the nature of morality, if we are still uncertain about what or why it is, wouldn't that be a rather diaphanous thing to predicate your argument on?

[finishedman]

Human society is a giant laboratory for moral experiments. Each experiment has disasterous consequences as all governments have various different bad ideologies and fail to accurately perceive reality.

There has to be some element of sanity and intelligence incorporated in the formulation of society for the purposes of living together with one another in an agreed reality. Reality is not something we are innately in possession of at birth such as those traits instinctually present in animals. It is an invention, a designed, devised sphere of knowledge modified, added to and passed down.

I’m more than sure that in an open society, such as in the US, there have been plenty of chances for the replication of many experiences to be highly considered as desirable and acceptable as an addition to society and put into play. And, inasmuch as all people seem to desire permanent states of pleasure while avoiding the opposite, surely the accepted use of pleasure inducing drugs has come many times into consideration. Apparently drugs have failed to deliver in deliberation on its contribution to the ‘reality’ that is presently happening. So, in consideration of the way things are now, I’d have to ask myself, is everyone that is complying now with present societal norms out of their minds, insane or irrational? Or should I put some credence in what have been the ongoing opinion, views and policies of the present majority of the judging populace regarding the legality of drug use? The answer to that would probably be bracketed by one’s propensities.

It’s difficult to separate yourself from what you listen to or look at because your preconceptions and expectations are all built into what you think you are listening to or looking at. We normally hear only those things which interest us, give us hope and give us something which we can turn into a recipe for living, something which will give us happiness or enlightenment. The mere fact that the possibility of legalizing drug use is given our attention and high regard reveals that we are after some kind of transformation which we hope to receive by the use of them. It is precisely our thought of a better state that prevents us from coming to terms with our life as it is. I would say we move more towards ‘reality’ when we are what we are naturally. As far as what is out there around in the world, well …. it can’t be anything other than what it is, so there’s no being concerned with that.

[_________]

It's a logical fallacy that activity changes the mind?

Religious people come up with some daft argument that 'proves' the existence of God, then someone points out that the word 'God' in their argument can be replaced with 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' and makes just as much sense. That's not a 'reductio ad absurdum' or a 'logical fallacy' it's just simple logic. You've written something meaningless and then start throwing around Latin and terminology to try and cover up that you've written something meaningless. Doesn't work on me.

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument in which a proposition is purported to be disproved by reduction to absurdity in reasoning or consequence.

You have access to the same internet I do, and I write with that in mind. I wouldn't have used 'diaphanous' in the preceding post if I thought you to be incapable of looking it up. I was, however, mistaken: a reductio is not a logical fallacy. Still, the statement "[...]the mind prior to a drug cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a drug[,]" is by no means meaningless.

[finishedman]

Those that get all fucked up and ruin their lives is another thing. But even after saying that, there are those whose only desire in life is to live in drug induced hedonism. Hedonism to you could be a normal state or an abnormal one depending on your make up.

Well I think my point here is that the healthy, happy, well-rounded extrovert is typically not the type to consume copious amounts of narcotics or what have you. While I don't want to make them out as victims, the individuals predisposed to such abuse tend to be of a damaged nature, dealt a bad hand, if you will.

Wouldn’t this have something to do with what is expected of humans, or the answer to what kind of human you want on this planet? I mean one could be enslaved to seeking self pleasures in various ways, including the ultimate pleasure experienced in a hoped for heavenly abode (thus altering one’s mindset and conduct), or the pleasure experienced by a millionaire seeking his next million, or the seeking of lust fulfillment, drugs, and so on. So the fact is we want. We can’t just be still with what is. And since we use the same instrument to get what we want (thought), then we have to take a look into thought as a detrimental instrument. Otherwise these natural tendencies should not be conflicted against with what society or any outside agency has decided what is good for that particular society’s or agency’s purposes.

[_________]

I don't think my point assumes a particular morality or social contract, if that's what you mean.

[equal2u]

We've been here before ________. You stated that there was nothing objectively wrong with the Holocaust. I insulted you for this and got banned.

Indeed we have 'been here' before. However, what hasn't changed is that a) I believe morality is determined on the personal and suprapersonal level, in the former pertaining to the interpretation of the individual and the latter to the group, neither of which are objectively - i.e. outside the human concept of morality - right or wrong, and b) that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to my knowledge does not have a clause guaranteeing your freedom to take heroin (without punishment for violating a law). Let me know when you find that precedent.

I'm not arguing that the universal declaration of human rights has a clause in it saying people can get high on smack. I'm not making a legal argument I'm making a moral argument. I'm saying the UDHR is wrong. And that it should allow adults to take heroin. How hard is that to understand?

You appear to believe that governments define morality. So if the government decides killing millions of people including over 1 million children, as the Nazis did, is a good thing then it is a good thing.

Close; if the government decides killing millions of people is a good thing, then it is a good thing in the purview of their moral code - this is a tautology. What you're mixing up, perhaps, is the distinction between subjective, intersubjective, and objective. This is why you wind up with your confusion in the next bit:

I'm not confusing anything. You're the one who is utterly confused. And it's really incredibly simple. Your confusion is characterised by your insistence on taking something simple and making it complicated. The Holocaust was evil. The Nazis believed it was good, but they were wrong.

I don't believe governments define morality any more than they define the laws of physics. We have to discover the nature of morality using reason and experiment just like physics and biology. Human society is a giant laboratory for moral experiments. Each experiment has disasterous consequences as all governments have various different bad ideologies and fail to accurately perceive reality.

I don't want to get into theology here, but as I see it morality is a concept born from a confusion regarding the survival strategy of cooperation as interpreted by emotional response and further dictated and disseminated by the Church - and, unlike physics, this concept is something we created - unless of course you believe God created morality, in which case I politely inform you we are parallel. Next, if society is indeed as you say 'a giant laboratory for moral experiments', then if we are to, as science typically dictates, strive for objectivity, the only rational stance to take is that of amorality - otherwise you've a conflict of interest and void the integrity of the results. Further, if we've yet to identify the nature of morality, if we are still uncertain about what or why it is, wouldn't that be a rather diaphanous thing to predicate your argument on?

Morality is not a concept. Morality is right and wrong. We all have different concepts of what that is just like we have different concepts of biology. A Nazi's concept of morality is similar to a Creationist's concept of biology. They are both utterly wrong. The Creationists end up teaching a load of ridiculous bullshit to kids while the Nazis end up murdering 12 million people.

[equal2u]

There has to be some element of sanity and intelligence incorporated in the formulation of society for the purposes of living together with one another in an agreed reality. Reality is not something we are innately in possession of at birth such as those traits instinctually present in animals. It is an invention, a designed, devised sphere of knowledge modified, added to and passed down.

I’m more than sure that in an open society, such as in the US, there have been plenty of chances for the replication of many experiences to be highly considered as desirable and acceptable as an addition to society and put into play. And, inasmuch as all people seem to desire permanent states of pleasure while avoiding the opposite, surely the accepted use of pleasure inducing drugs has come many times into consideration. Apparently drugs have failed to deliver in deliberation on its contribution to the ‘reality’ that is presently happening. So, in consideration of the way things are now, I’d have to ask myself, is everyone that is complying now with present societal norms out of their minds, insane or irrational? Or should I put some credence in what have been the ongoing opinion, views and policies of the present majority of the judging populace regarding the legality of drug use? The answer to that would probably be bracketed by one’s propensities.

It’s difficult to separate yourself from what you listen to or look at because your preconceptions and expectations are all built into what you think you are listening to or looking at. We normally hear only those things which interest us, give us hope and give us something which we can turn into a recipe for living, something which will give us happiness or enlightenment. The mere fact that the possibility of legalizing drug use is given our attention and high regard reveals that we are after some kind of transformation which we hope to receive by the use of them. It is precisely our thought of a better state that prevents us from coming to terms with our life as it is. I would say we move more towards ‘reality’ when we are what we are naturally. As far as what is out there around in the world, well …. it can’t be anything other than what it is, so there’s no being concerned with that.

All I'm saying is live and let live, if you want to live your natural lifestyle and not take drugs then do that. I want to get high on smack. You live your life I'll live mine. What's wrong with that? Do think it should be legalised or not? That's what this thread is about not trying to win the gold medal for droning on.

[equal2u]

You have access to the same internet I do, and I write with that in mind. I wouldn't have used 'diaphanous' in the preceding post if I thought you to be incapable of looking it up. I was, however, mistaken: a reductio is not a logical fallacy. Still, the statement "[...]the mind prior to a drug cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a drug[,]" is by no means meaningless.

It's meaningless because it's stating the obvious. 'the mind prior to a drug cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a drug'. Yes. And in Antarctica there is lots of snow. And in the Sahara there is lots of sand. And Usain Bolt is a fast sprinter. And so on.

[finishedman]

I don't think my point assumes a particular morality or social contract, if that's what you mean.

Then perhaps a person with a genetic inclination towards wanting to do heavy drug use has no freedom to consider doing otherwise. His genes will dictate the direction. Would that be nature pulling the strings and determining the direction? Or are we to superimpose over the natural tendency a ‘person’ who is pulling the strings in accordance with what the person and collective of persons dictates is the right way to live?

[equal2u]

I don't think my point assumes a particular morality or social contract, if that's what you mean.

Then perhaps a person with a genetic inclination towards wanting to do heavy drug use has no freedom to consider doing otherwise. His genes will dictate the direction. Would that be nature pulling the strings and determining the direction? Or are we to superimpose over the natural tendency a ‘person’ who is pulling the strings in accordance with what the person and collective of persons dictates is the right way to live?

You're being pretentious. Are you in favour of legalisation or not?

You get high from sweeping around in your imaginary magnificent philosopher clothes. But I can see you're not actually wearing anything. And it's not a nice sight.

[finishedman]

Maybe I’m inclined to question what I might see as false assumptions that are not a nice thing for me to see.

Anyway, there’s nothing to get or nothing to understand if what has been proposed does not solve the problem or answer the question. If there was an answer we would be now resting in that answer. But the question persists. So just maybe there is no correct, proper or right way to assert that there is a problem in the first place. If we are slaves to our genes then that’s the end of it.

[equal2u]

Maybe I’m inclined to question what I might see as false assumptions that are not a nice thing for me to see.

?

Anyway, there’s nothing to get or nothing to understand if what has been proposed does not solve the problem or answer the question.

The problem is I want to take legal high grade heroin. The solution is legalise and regulate it.

If there was an answer we would be now resting in that answer. But the question persists.

So do you think legalise it or not?

So just maybe there is no correct, proper or right way to assert that there is a problem in the first place.

There is, I've just done it.

If we are slaves to our genes then that’s the end of it.

The end of what? If there's a gene for pretentiousness you must have it.

[finishedman]

All I'm saying is live and let live, if you want to live your natural lifestyle and not take drugs then do that. I want to get high on smack. You live your life I'll live mine. What's wrong with that?

Okay, okay … you’ve pinned me down. I guess the most honest way to look at it is from the perspective that in the muddle of ourselves, and opinions, we get all mixed up and we haven't the faintest idea of where this is all leading.
It actually doesn’t have to lead anywhere. It’s the urge to know and to create a state of permanence that makes us ask all these questions about accepting drugs, and when we quit them, everything will be all right, as it should be. You take what comes, and no questions asked. No one is there to keep a tally. No accounts kept. And what's wrong with that? Where is a problem there? What happens, then, would be none of my concern.

[finishedman]

The end of what? If there's a gene for pretentiousness you must have it.

If my genes make me want to do heroin, then I’ll fight for that. If my genes dictate otherwise I won’t. I don’t think our actions are perfectly free and hence what we defend.

I don’t at this time have the desire to want to be involved in getting high on any drug. So I’d be acting pretentious when saying anything that goes against you, relatively.

[equal2u]

I'm slightly drunk from whisky tonight. Which is nice. But I've been there a thousand times before. I've never taken heroin. But I feel sure if I did take it then I would know how right I am and how fucking stupid the world really is. Fuck you and goodnight (that was directed at no one in particular I promise.)

[captaincrunk]

Do whatever you wish. Put drugs in your veins enjoying eupjhoric sensations to numb your existential angst followed by overdosing into death and oblivion.

If that it is what you will so be it.

Just because a person has an alcoholic drink that doesn't mean they're going to die of alcohol poisoning. It's the same with heroin. If it's used responsibly the risks are minimal.

I'm not sure minimal is the right word, but you're right in principle. Not all people who might want to do heroin wish to overdose into oblivion.

[_________]

I'm not arguing that the universal declaration of human rights has a clause in it saying people can get high on smack. I'm not making a legal argument I'm making a moral argument. I'm saying the UDHR is wrong. And that it should allow adults to take heroin. How hard is that to understand?

I do know now because I know adults have a human right to decide which substances they wish to take into their own bodies.

I'm not confusing anything. You're the one who is utterly confused. And it's really incredibly simple. Your confusion is characterised by your insistence on taking something simple and making it complicated. The Holocaust was evil. The Nazis believed it was good, but they were wrong.

Why? Because you say so? Because a million people say so? A billion? The majority of the civilized populace once supported the earth being flat. "And a million people...can't be wrong."

Morality is not a concept. Morality is right and wrong. We all have different concepts of what that is just like we have different concepts of biology. A Nazi's concept of morality is similar to a Creationist's concept of biology. They are both utterly wrong. The Creationists end up teaching a load of ridiculous bullshit to kids while the Nazis end up murdering 12 million people.

Let's play a game. I'll give you the pieces and you put them together. Here we go.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.

An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing.

con·cept [kon-sept]
noun
1. a general notion or idea; conception.
2. an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3. a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

It's meaningless because it's stating the obvious. 'the mind prior to a drug cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a drug'. Yes. And in Antarctica there is lots of snow. And in the Sahara there is lots of sand. And Usain Bolt is a fast sprinter. And so on.

Point being, heroin is a mind altering substance. Pizza is not. The idea here is that, if you would be so kind as to entertain more than one sentence at a time, the affected state of mind is subject to abnormal behavior, behavior which can contradict what you predict your reaction to be - and in potentially dangerous ways.

Do think it should be legalised or not? That's what this thread is about not trying to win the gold medal for droning on.

This is, as the title implies, a forum for philosophy. If what you're looking for are simple unsupported yes or no answers, you've come to the wrong place.

Then perhaps a person with a genetic inclination towards wanting to do heavy drug use has no freedom to consider doing otherwise. His genes will dictate the direction. Would that be nature pulling the strings and determining the direction? Or are we to superimpose over the natural tendency a ‘person’ who is pulling the strings in accordance with what the person and collective of persons dictates is the right way to live?

....? What does this have to do with the point 'drug use isn't necessarily hedonistic'?

[_________]

I'm slightly drunk from whisky tonight. Which is nice. But I've been there a thousand times before. I've never taken heroin. But I feel sure if I did take it then I would know how right I am and how fucking stupid the world really is. Fuck you and goodnight (that was directed at no one in particular I promise.)

Charming.

[equal2u]

I'm not arguing that the universal declaration of human rights has a clause in it saying people can get high on smack. I'm not making a legal argument I'm making a moral argument. I'm saying the UDHR is wrong. And that it should allow adults to take heroin. How hard is that to understand?

I do know now because I know adults have a human right to decide which substances they wish to take into their own bodies.

Yes. Adults have a human right to take drugs. That's why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not what it describes itself to be. Just because it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't mean it is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just like the guy in the mental hospital who says he is the King of England. Just because he says he's the King of England doesn't mean he is the King of England. You seem to live in a mindset of extreme gullibility like a small child. People and things aren't always what they say they are. I hate to break this to you, but Santa Clause doesn't really exist.

I'm not confusing anything. You're the one who is utterly confused. And it's really incredibly simple. Your confusion is characterised by your insistence on taking something simple and making it complicated. The Holocaust was evil. The Nazis believed it was good, but they were wrong.

Why? Because you say so?

No. Because it caused unjustifiable harm and death to millions of people.

Because a million people say so?

No.

A billion?

No. Morality is not affected by what anyone says.

The majority of the civilized populace once supported the earth being flat.

Yes. And they were wrong. Lots of people think the world is 6000 years old. And they are wrong. The man in the mental hospital thinks he's the King of England. And he is wrong. Lots of people in Nazi Germany thought killing millions of Jews was a good thing to do. And they were wrong.

"And a million people...can't be wrong."

Who are you quoting? Whoever it is, they are wrong. A million people can be wrong.

It's meaningless because it's stating the obvious. 'the mind prior to a drug cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a drug'. Yes. And in Antarctica there is lots of snow. And in the Sahara there is lots of sand. And Usain Bolt is a fast sprinter. And so on.

Point being, heroin is a mind altering substance. Pizza is not. The idea here is that, if you would be so kind as to entertain more than one sentence at a time, the affected state of mind is subject to abnormal behavior, behavior which can contradict what you predict your reaction to be - and in potentially dangerous ways.

That's why I'm in favour of regulations such as locked down areas to keep users of hallucinogens from being a danger to themselves or others.

Drug use can influence behaviour. Yes. That's stating the obvious. That's an issue for debate not the ultimate be all and end all to a discussion on drug laws.

Do think it should be legalised or not? That's what this thread is about not trying to win the gold medal for droning on.

This is, as the title implies, a forum for philosophy. If what you're looking for are simple unsupported yes or no answers, you've come to the wrong place.

I was looking for intelligent philosophers. The search goes on.

[Only_Humean]

Yes. Adults have a human right to take drugs. That's why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not what it describes itself to be. Just because it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't mean it is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just like the guy in the mental hospital who says he is the King of England. Just because he says he's the King of England doesn't mean he is the King of England. You seem to live in a mindset of extreme gullibility like a small child. People and things aren't always what they say they are.

So why should anyone just believe you when you say that adults have a human right to drugs?

[equal2u]

So why should anyone just believe you when you say that adults have a human right to drugs?

They shouldn't. People should think for themselves and make up their own minds.

[_________]

Yes. Adults have a human right to take drugs. That's why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not what it describes itself to be. Just because it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't mean it is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just like the guy in the mental hospital who says he is the King of England. Just because he says he's the King of England doesn't mean he is the King of England. You seem to live in a mindset of extreme gullibility like a small child. People and things aren't always what they say they are. I hate to break this to you, but Santa Clause doesn't really exist.

Perhaps it is not made apparent by my previous posts, but to my mind, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essentially the institution of a quasi-global social contract - and so long as this right isn't bestowed upon you by someone/thing else, I believe your argument is then predicated on the proof to end all proofs of moral realism's incontestability; if you indeed have such a proof, you need to write a paper on it and get it published ASAP, as no philosopher has yet done so.

No. Because it caused unjustifiable harm and death to millions of people.

But why, precisely, is that objectively wrong? In other words, how - without appealing to a moral code - is this action not correct?

No. Morality is not affected by what anyone says.

Ah, but then in what way do you meet morality; how do you encounter the concepts of right and wrong (and by this I mean just the concept; though I disagree, we will for now entertain the possibility that these are more than just concepts) and identify them as such? Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that morality is any less a learned behavior than the English language we employ or the social convention of wearing clothes?

Yes. And they were wrong. Lots of people think the world is 6000 years old. And they are wrong. The man in the mental hospital thinks he's the King of England. And he is wrong. Lots of people in Nazi Germany thought killing millions of Jews was a good thing to do. And they were wrong.

The first-third propositions can be confirmed objectively by the observation of reality, while your only proof for the wrongness of the fourth appeals to a moral code whose existence as more than a concept you've yet to prove.

Who are you quoting? Whoever it is, they are wrong. A million people can be wrong.

Flaming Lips, "Evil Will Prevail." If I'm not mistaken, that ad populum is used in an ironic sense, ergo my use of it.

That's why I'm in favour of regulations such as locked down areas to keep users of hallucinogens from being a danger to themselves or others.

Drug use can influence behaviour. Yes. That's stating the obvious. That's an issue for debate not the ultimate be all and end all to a discussion on drug laws.

I'm honestly a hell of a lot less worried about [someone on LSD, peyote, etc.]'s potential personal and supra personal damage than that of a cocaine, alcohol, meth, PCP, barbiturate, benzodiazepine, or even opiate user. Whether users would be content to visit government sanctioned lock-down facilities to use is another matter. By the by, I didn't suggest it was "the ultimate be all and end all to a discussion on drug laws." On the contrary, it was merely to contest your suggestion that one has to be an 'asshole', 'dickhead', or fool to experience the repercussions of drug use.

I was looking for intelligent philosophers. The search goes on.

Not to feed a digression, how will you know when you find them?

They shouldn't. People should think for themselves and make up their own minds.

But if they don't agree with you, they're wrong - and if you offer no legitimate proof or do not otherwise convince them, their only course of action should they wish to be correct is to take your word for it.