Is drug use immoral?

Is drug use immoral? If you think it is, can/should the government pass laws against it? Can you legislate morality?

 

No................

 

Morals are subjective. So to say that it is "moral" or "immoral" requires applying your own subjective view upon others. Not that there is an issue with that, we do it all the time with things like murder and rape. I personally have no issue with forceing my moral belief that murder and rape are immoral upon others.

However, for the sake of drugs, I think a better route is to avoid the moral arguments and stick with the health effects.

 

You could make the argument that drug abuse is immoral, but I certainly wouldn't support the notion that your should criminalize it on that basis. I believe that as long as an activity does not infringe on the equal rights of others, then the government has no business outlawing it.

 

Look how many ways humans have sought altered consciousness over the ages.

Children do it by spinning... Religious people so it .. (look at the Sufi twirlers)

 

I hope note. I've indulged in caffeine, sugar and chocolate just today!

 

Well since we all can agree that everyone uses drugs to some extent, what if the question was about using drugs in the pursuit of pleasure?

 

I could live with this if it meant that when the drug abuser harms himself, he is fully responsible for his own problems.

IMO, we(society) are not responsible for the health issues of drug and alcohol abusers. I personally, have no conscience for bums in the street who do not ask for genuine help.

 

Why else would you take any drugs if not for some feeling of enhanced well being?

 

Exactly, it would be hard to argue that drug use is immoral, and then carve out exceptions for doctor's prescriptions or any other use so long as it is sanctioned by government. Your question might be better rephrased as "does breaking the statutes created by legislatures regarding the use of drugs equate to an immoral act?" People do drugs for various reasons, and sometimes they get those drugs from places other than what is authorized by government. It's a question of whether those reasons are immoral, not the drug use itself.

And no, morality cannot be legislated (regardless of whether we have rsolved the issue of whether illicit drug use is immoral). The legislator's pen is not a magic wand that transforms what is written by that pen into a new way of thinking in the minds of others.

 

holy crap, I had a coffee too this morning........whew, well at least I did not have the chocolate ...you junkie

 

I wonder what percentage of drug users are ambitious?

I wonder what percentage of drug users are on public assistance?

I wonder how much public welfare money is buying drugs, indirectly.

I wonder if welfare is funding the ghetto drug wars.

 

that laws against drug usage are not passed because of biblical passages (i.e. morality). One would hope that the goal is public safety (i.e. the hypothetical elimination of a PCP-induced shooting spree). Whether the laws were passed for public safety or if they are effective is debatable.

 

What other use is there for chocolate?

Anyway, in answer to your OP: No. The government should not regulate drug use by people. The government should regulate food labels and similar things so that people know what drugs they're taking, but that's about it.

 

At least I didn't have a mocha -- that would have been all three at the same time!

 

Maybe we should outlaw sugar too...

No, the government should not outlaw drugs. What somebody puts in their body is their own business. As for the "legalize morality" thing, well, we legalize morality when we make it against the law to murder someone, don't we?

 

I respectfuly disagree, Ethereal.

Illegal drugs drive up our health care costs and cause misery and sorrow for many parents who have children who are addicted to these drugs. Then you have the crimes these people commit to acquire the money to purchase these drugs. A serious interdiction effort along the Mexican border would actually save us a tremendous amount of money when you factor in all of these added costs to the U.S. taxpayers.

It is as simple as that.

 

So your argument is that the government should cause misery and sorrow among those it catches using that which it prohibits because there is some misery and sorrow caused by other people? Either you are arguing that it is right to harm innocent people because of what other people might do, or you are arguing that two wrongs make a right.

 

Don't legal drugs drive up our health care costs, too? Also fatty foods, cars, electronic devices, etc.?

 

People who take drugs are neither immoral or moral.

They are usually just out of a meaningful job.

 

We have a societal responsiblity to maintain social order. Any freedom that is inimical to the good order and discipline of society, any freedom that is destructive or costs society money through neglected children, elevated health costs, and the inability to find work, must be discouraged by law for the good of all of us because we don't live in a "live and let die" society. We have to PAY for these people to be unproductive useless wastes of flesh!

If we didn't have a social safety net, I'm all for legalizing drugs. But as long as I have to pay for someone elses kids to eat, or someone else to get health care at the emergency room, or anything that an otherwise able bodied person has to do, I demand that it be outlawed so that I don't have to pay.

You want drug legalization? Fine.. destroy the social safety net FIRST so I don't have to subsidize the drug use.

 

IMHO..

No, drug use of any kind is not immoral. However, the following two things are immoral:

1. using drugs that you know might cause you to act in ways that will put others in danger. It's reckless endangerment in that case. And,

2. selling very harmful addictive drugs to random people who may have families that care about them.

 

If you all feel this way,Liberals and Conservatives,then why dont we lift smoking bans in bars and restaurants,and public parks?
If a drug user is free to sit on a public street and inject heroin in his/her veins,then why can I not light up a smoke after a meal in a restaurant?There was a time before all the PC B.S. (the good ol days)that you could walk around Kmart with a smoke in your mouth and no one really gave a (*)(*)(*)(*).Or when you got a juicy Big Mac in a styrofoam container.

 

I'm not one to lay aside principle and accept your premise that two wrongs make a right. The government imposed "safety net" should be eliminated, as should the wars on human behavior.

 

I agree. With liberty comes responsibility.