Legalization of ALL drugs

[JMJSHJ]

JM,

I agree. We have to acknowledge that it exists and saves lives.

and to repeat again, completely irrelevant to the morality of legalizing all drugs.

 

[CopticChristian]

and to repeat again, completely irrelevant to the morality of legalizing all drugs.

JM,

It is your thread and if you want yes sir, no sir…and just agreement with your position then there will be no discussion.

Legalization of drugs is morally wrong based on the OP and any discussion is irrelevant.

 

[lerapt78]

Drugs are bad for you, but if cleaned up and used smartly (like medical physician assisted) Then people can survive on them.

It’s difficult to address this sentence without sounding callous, but I think these are pertinent questions: what benefit does this provide to society? And, is it moral or ethical to ask people to financially support said lifestyle?

I’m not implying that we shouldn’t provide assistance to those trying desperately to *overcome *their addictions, but I have a very big problem with the idea of assisting people who want to remain habitual drug abusers. *Especially *if the funding is coming from my pocket.

People are much more likely to get over their addictions if we had such a program in place. It has had progress in Canada: theawl.com/2012/04/vancouver-supervised-drug-injection-center.

Do you have any other links that show programs like these have a large success rate? I ask, because the link you provided specifically stated they do not teach abstinence, and gave no mention to their own success rate. The article only claimed that

All of the evidence supports these facilities, in that they save lives, reduce harm to the users, increase public order and help people get off of drugs by increasing their access to services.

but it did not provide a reference for this statement. Also, the phrase “increasing their access to services” is a bit vague - what exactly does that mean?

My knowledge on these centers is very limited, and I’m a bit confused as to how providing people with a safe environment to get high, while not attempting to correct their behavior, is going to motivate them to get clean. We have methadone clinics all over the U.S.A., but the purpose of those is to wean people *off *of heroin, not allow them to enjoy a pleasant and safe high.

EDIT: Sorry for getting off-topic, OP: I started typing before I saw your reply to CopticChristian.
I’ll add that my fear of legalization is that it will cause an increase in drug abuse, and therefore it is immoral. But I am on the fence on it and am interested in hearing supporting statements from the “in favor” crowd.

 

[Lawrence178]

JM,

I agree. We have to acknowledge that it exists and saves lives.

Coming in late, but I’ve read the whole thread.

CopticChristian, Christians cannot support the methods you cite. We judge the morality of an action based on its direct results, and in your case, that would mean giving greater access to substances which harm people.

You cannot try and justify harming people like that by bringing up the indirect result that fewer people might die from it. That is consequentialism, judging the morality of an action by it’s indirect and possible outcome instead of what the action actually does. That is the reasoning that dropped the A-Bomb and can justify many other horrible things, the “necessary evil” mentality. There is not, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be a “necessary evil.”

 

[CopticChristian]

Coming in late, but I’ve read the whole thread.

CopticChristian, Christians cannot support the methods you cite. We judge the morality of an action based on its direct results, and in your case, that would mean giving greater access to substances which harm people.

You cannot try and justify harming people like that by bringing up the indirect result that fewer people might die from it. That is consequentialism, judging the morality of an action by it’s indirect and possible outcome instead of what the action actually does. That is the reasoning that dropped the A-Bomb and can justify many other horrible things, the “necessary evil” mentality. There is not, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be a “necessary evil.”

Lawrence,

coming in late explain how acknowledging the existence of something is justification that you are explaining.

Prostitutes exist
Crack Houses exist
Satan worship exists

how is it you believe that acknowledging something justifies it?

 

[Lawrence178]

Lawrence,

coming in late explain how acknowledging the existence of something is justification that you are explaining.

Prostitutes exist
Crack Houses exist
Satan worship exists

how is it you believe that acknowledging something justifies it?

Well then perhaps I misunderstood. To be clear, do you support legalization of drugs because of government programs like “safe injection sites” might help people?

If so, that is faulty moral reasoning.

If not, I am sorry, I just misread.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well then perhaps I misunderstood. To be clear, do you support legalization of drugs because of government programs like “safe injection sites” might help people?

If so, that is faulty moral reasoning.

If not, I am sorry, I just misread.

Lawrence,

You may want to ask a question and then get an answer rather than asking a question and reasoning what you believe that answer means.

What is it you want me to answer?

 

[Lawrence178]

Lawrence,

You may want to ask a question and then get an answer rather than asking a question and reasoning what you believe that answer means.

What is it you want me to answer?

Well now you are just being difficult…

I went back and read, and I really don’t think I was unjustified in my interpretation. The “two hats” was especially worrying. We should have one hat, one head, one face, “not two heads like a monster” (+Boniface VIII)

And I asked you the question already.

Would you be in favor of a law that loosened drug laws and set up “safe injection sites?” That this is the moral thing to do because more lives might be saved?

 

[CopticChristian]

Well now you are just being difficult…

I went back and read, and I really don’t think I was unjustified in my interpretation. The “two hats” was especially worrying. We should have one hat, one head, one face, “not two heads like a monster” (+Boniface VIII)

And I asked you the question already.
**
Would you be in favor of a law that loosened drug laws and set up “safe injection sites?” That this is the moral thing to do because more lives might be saved?/**QUOTE]

Lawrence,

This is two questions.

I am not in favor of any drugs being legal on moral grounds.

Your next sentence is not making any sense in light of the question?

I acknowledge that Harm Reduction as opposed to abstinence saves lives.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Lawrence178;10239560:

Well now you are just being difficult…

I went back and read, and I really don’t think I was unjustified in my interpretation. The “two hats” was especially worrying. We should have one hat, one head, one face, “not two heads like a monster” (+Boniface VIII)

And I asked you the question already.
**
Would you be in favor of a law that loosened drug laws and set up “safe injection sites?” That this is the moral thing to do because more lives might be saved?/**

QUOTE]

Lawrence,

This is two questions.

I am not in favor of any drugs being legal on moral grounds.

Your next sentence is not making any sense in light of the question?

I acknowledge that Harm Reduction as opposed to abstinence saves lives.

Coptic,

How is safe ijection sites more morally acceptable than say condoms? The argument for safe injection sites are very similar to the argument for using condoms to prevent STD’s. However the Pope a few years ago said that condoms make the matter worse. How do you address that?

 

[GEddie]

My primary issue with drug legalization is the message that it will send, that recreational drugs are now “societally OK”.

Once that message gets out, why would anybody ever quit them?

Consider the difficulty the Church is having preaching against abortion and contraception, two generations after US society proclaimed both to be permissible.

I like the “freedom” arguments, I really do. Human beings are supposed to like freedom, it’s supposed to come with the human mind.

But is it a “loving” thing to do, to encourage today’s drug-using youth rebels to become tomorrow’s lifelong drug abusers?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter Kreeft argues that you judge how corrupt a society has become by how easy it has become to be corrupt. Legalizing all drugs sounds like an increasingly corrupt society.

For all the hoopla against Prohibition, the era of Prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s substantially reduced alcoholism nationwide and substantially reduced the number of deaths from cirrhosis of the liver. This has been fully documented.

nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

 

[lerapt78]

My primary issue with drug legalization is the message that it will send, that recreational drugs are now “societally OK”.

Once that message gets out, why would anybody ever quit them?

Consider the difficulty the Church is having preaching against abortion and contraception, two generations after US society proclaimed both to be permissible.

**I like the “freedom” arguments, I really do. Human beings are supposed to like freedom, it’s supposed to come with the human mind.

But is it a “loving” thing to do, to encourage today’s drug-using youth rebels to become tomorrow’s lifelong drug abusers?**

ICXC NIKA

Good points, GEddie. I’d like to add that “freedom”, as we know it does not mean *absolute *freedom. This is a child’s way of thinking, with no thought to action and consequence. Unless of course the person who believes in unlimited freedom is living on a deserted island - in that case, I suppose this rationale is acceptable. But it’s curious that some people who advocate unlimited freedom for themselves, while at the same time reaping all of the benefits of living in a civlized society, often don’t make the seemingly obvious connection that a civilized society simply cannot exist without certain restraints and a universally applicable morality.

I might surmise that in many ways we actually had a lot more individual freedom when our country had a very strong Christian identity as opposed to our very modern (and very secular) government which has enshrouded us in so many regulations, fines, lawsuits, penalties, taxes, permits and quotas that one almost doesn’t even dare to sneeze someone’s way unless he’s got an attorney on retainer to assure him that his actions are acceptable in the eyes of the law. That was kind of the point of religion - it not only taught, but actually *expected *people to act in a way that pleased God and benefitted the surrounding society. The government didn’t *need *to impose so many rules because most people already had a good sense of right from wrong. Now, so many people believe in no authority higher than their own, no one can agree on anything, tension is rife in all walks of life, and the all-knowing secular government has to swoop in to teach us how to tie our shoelaces. That’s how dumbed-down we’ve become, despite the increase in college degrees awarded. Why *not *legalize drug usage? It seems to be the popular consensus these days to trade in more valuable freedoms in exchange for the promise of illicit pleasures.

For all the hoopla against Prohibition, the era of Prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s substantially reduced alcoholism nationwide and substantially reduced the number of deaths from cirrhosis of the liver. This has been fully documented.

nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

Thanks for the info - I didn’t know that! I’m going to save the article and send it to my brother-in-law who was using the Prohibition example as a counter-attack to my absurd opinion that current laws keep drug usage somewhat contained. (and I only stuck my tongue out because he was being snotty about it when we were having this discussion)

 

[johnnyjones]

Yes, legalize crack. :takeoff:

 

[lerapt78]

Yes, legalize crack. :takeoff:

Crack only??? Why the discrimination? Just think of how mellow everybody would be if they were in a heroin trance 24/7 - now *that’s *what we want!

 

[katholikos12]

Just because something is legal does not mean that we cannot educate the population so that it does not consume such substances.

Cigarettes: so bad for you, people who don’t even smoke can get cancer second hand! But it is totally legal. Does the the majority of the world know its bad for you and will likely kill you in a slow and miserable way? Yes. Do people still smoke? Yes. But the majority of people do not! This is attributed to education on smoking.

I propose the same idea for all illegal substances. Will people still use them? Yes. Will people know that crack and meth will kill you? Yes. They know this now, but by making them legal you take away the allure of them being illegal. Saying to someone “don’t do that” (or in this case don’t take that drug) one inherently makes that activity more attractive.

Legalization, therefore, I propose will, along with proper education and negative advertisement, not only decrease the usage of such drugs, but as with the ending of Prohibition decreased bootlegging, will substantially decrease its associated criminal activity.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Just because something is legal does not mean that we cannot educate the population so that it does not consume such substances.

Cigarettes: so bad for you, people who don’t even smoke can get cancer second hand! But it is totally legal. Does the the majority of the world know its bad for you and will likely kill you in a slow and miserable way? Yes. Do people still smoke? Yes. But the majority of people do not! This is attributed to education on smoking.

I propose the same idea for all illegal substances. Will people still use them? Yes. Will people know that crack and meth will kill you? Yes. They know this now, but by making them legal you take away the allure of them being illegal. Saying to someone “don’t do that” (or in this case don’t take that drug) one inherently makes that activity more attractive.

Legalization, therefore, I propose will, along with proper education and negative advertisement, not only decrease the usage of such drugs, but as with the ending of Prohibition decreased bootlegging, will substantially decrease its associated criminal activity.

Your argument is faulty. First off cigarettes are a bad comparison because currently they are legal. Heroine and cocaine aren’t.

Second legalization will not remove the “don’t do this” mentality that does exist.

Thirdly prohibition is a faulty comparison because one can drink in moderation however you can’t snort heroine in moderation. One is one too many.

You make something legal, it will increase it. Look at abortion. Has abortion rates gone down since it was legal 40 years ago?

 

[katholikos12]

Your argument is faulty. First off cigarettes are a bad comparison because currently they are legal. Heroine and cocaine aren’t.

Second legalization will not remove the “don’t do this” mentality that does exist.

Thirdly prohibition is a faulty comparison because one can drink in moderation however you can’t snort heroine in moderation. One is one too many.

You make something legal, it will increase it. Look at abortion. Has abortion rates gone down since it was legal 40 years ago?

I know they are not legal. Hence this argument for legalization.

It is basic psychology. If you tell someone they cannot do something, the appeal of that which they cannot do increases. That is why the Law could never suffice. By telling us what not to do, we as humans by nature, want to do what we are not allowed.

You didn’t address my bit on educating the public.

You inject heroin fyi.

Yes, at first use will likely increase, but thats why I said use negative advertisement (its very powerful btw) and educate the masses on how dangerous it is.

You can take heroin in amounts that does not incapacitate you. Same with many other drugs. People should still be accountable for their actions after taking them, just like alcohol. Look up Canada’s legalization of Heroin in Vancouver. People are given moderate doses without being incapacitated. Crack is also quite popular in the UK and many use it recreationally in moderate doses. I don’t have time right now to show you sources, but will gladly do so if you’d like me to later.

 

[Joe_5859]

So drug use should be safe, legal, and rare? Sorry, I’m a little skeptical about the success of such an approach.

 

[katholikos12]

So drug use should be safe, legal, and rare? Sorry, I’m a little skeptical about the success of such an approach.

Just because it sounds simple doesn’t mean it’s easy.

Nor will it be perfect.

But yes I do think that this approach would work.