Drugs, Addiction and Morality

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by ScaryMonster, Sep 27, 2009.

  1. ScaryMonster I’m the whispered word. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    If a chemist went into the lab and genetically altered tobacco so that it was harmless, but still gave the same sort of nicotine hit would we still frown on its use?
    Also just say a drug was invented that had all the pleasant effects of illicit drugs and none of it’s harmful effects except maybe intoxication whist under it, would society and government still ban its use?
    These substances might remain physiologically addictive but the chemical addiction would be cut out of them, this is quite possible given the advances in modern science but would it be wrong for a scientist to make such a substance?
    Also what if someone invented a cap you could wear that stimulated the pleasure centers of your brain and had no detrimental side effects, would we be lining up at Wal-Mart to buy these things? Would they let us?

    The issue is that drugs have been banned under the excuse that they harm people and yet alcohol and tobacco are legal, if that wasn’t an issue would drug taking just become another recreational past time or would it always hold a sigma of moral turpitude?
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    Yea we'd still frown on it. Mainly because it ruins lives.

    The reason the government finds it illegal is because it is smuggled into the country and not regulated by the U.S. government. Beer and cigarrettes are legal because they make a profit.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ScaryMonster I’m the whispered word. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    If is not physically harmful how could it ruin lives? Or do you think everyone would be too stoned all the time and civilization would collapse?

    Way to state the obvious Omega dude! High Five! :worship:
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dredd Dredd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    238
    Addiction in our society is a description of results commented upon by the powers that be.

    That can be demonstrated to some degree by comparing the notion "heroin addiction" to the notion "oil addiction".

    The notion that nations can become addicts to oil is of late vintage. Once it was fashionable to use oil, once it was fashionable to use cocaine ("coke -> coca-cola").

    When the majority sees the result of the use of oil, the result of the use of coke, and the like, there tends to be a reaction.

    It can change the criminal prosecution system, or the energy distribution system.

    In general our western world is reactionary instead of visionary in our approach to the use of commodities.
     
  8. takethewarhome midnatt klarhet Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    625

    Isn't that really kind of true for all cultures.
     
  9. ScaryMonster I’m the whispered word. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    But are drugs commodities, I think half the appeal of drug taking has to do with its forbidden nature, sure once addiction takes hold the reasons for taking drugs might change but there is still this element of saying ‘screw you I’ll do what I want’ to the conventions of society.

    Addiction to the use of oil? Well modern society might use a lot of it as fuel; lubrication, plastics and such but most people wouldn’t care if a substitute came along.
    And why does society need to be anything but reactionary about the use of oil? To be honest when I eat the cow most people and I don’t really care about its family tree beyond the fact that its healthy and nutritious and available.
    If it’s not available we’d eat a different tasty animal.
    Drugs could be commodities, alcohol and tobacco are, why not cocaine and the opium poppy?
    :m:
     
  10. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    I just think that drugs ruin lives from the addiction. I mean wasting $50 on dope instead of gas to go to work is not a good thing.

    Somebody has to.
     
  11. ScaryMonster I’m the whispered word. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    You misunderstand my question, I'm asking: “what if the drugs didn’t have any bad side effects?” Would it then be okay to take them then?
     
  12. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    Okay to take, yes. Legal, maybe/no.
     
  13. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    The only reason it costs $50 is because it's illegal, so the only people who sell it are gangsters. Because selling drugs is illegal, it's a high-risk occupation, and people who work in high-risk occupations charge more for their services than we do. Furthermore, gangsters have their own way of eliminating competition, and reduced competition results in higher prices.

    This is Economics 101A and everyone knows this except the shit-for-brains government.

    The second-order effects of drug prohibition cause far more harm than the drugs themselves. My parents were hardly what you would call liberals, but they saw with their own eyes what Prohibition did to this country (gunfights in the street, children recruited as runners, corrupted cops and officials, declining respect for the law, sound familiar?) and they cheered when it was repealed.

    Marijuana is a frelling weed that is so hardy that if left undisturbed it will grow wild in vacant lots in urban Moscow and in the hostile environment of Alaska. Why should anyone have to pay $600 for an ounce of it? And how stupid does a government have to be to think they can eradicate something like that?
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    And it all goes back to the ideals and principles of the Constitution of the USA .... "...of the people, by the people, for the people..."

    It's all so simple to blame "the government" as if it's some kind of stand-alone entity without public support. The reason MJ and other drugs are illegal is because the people, the voters, don't want them to be legal. Every single time it's come to a vote, almost anywhere, but in particularly in California, the druggie capital of the freakin' world, it was still voted illegal.

    The people don't want drugs to be legalized. Why is that so hard to grasp for y'all? Right, wrong, harmless, harmful, or otherwise, ain't got nothin' to do with it. The people, the voters, don't want the drugs to be legal.

    Y'all can continue to blame "government', but understand that it's the people, the voters, .....and not just YOUR friends, but ALL of the voters.

    Baron Max
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,596
    You don't care, anyway

    Um ... er ... never mind.
     
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    One of your better posts, Tiassa. In fact, I put it right up there damned close to the top of the list of great Tiassa posts! It might still be a little wordy, however, so if you could work on that a little it would be nice.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please, please, try to keep up this same level of posting - it is so freakin' refreshing not to have to labor through tons of useless words to get at your main point or topic ....which often doesn't even exist!

    Baron Max
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    "The people" have been misinformed and manipulated by the government many times. Need I remind you that the Backward Baby Bush actually convinced the American people that Saddam Hussein bore some responsibility for 9/11 while his oil-baron buddies, the Saudis, bore none? The problem with representative democracy, especially an ungainly huge one like ours, is that it's not too difficult for special-interest groups with a lot of money and organization to mount a successful propaganda campaign. In 2000 it was the petroleum industry who wanted to overthrow the government of Iraq rather than Saudi Arabia. In the early decades of the 20th century it was the Temperance movement, a well-organized religiously-motivated group who subscribed to the classic Protestant ethic that if someone, somewhere is having a good time, they must be stopped. First they used slick propaganda to convince people that booze was bad--something counterintuitive to a near-majority of the population. Then it was a piece of cake to convince them that other recreational drugs, which most people had no exprience with, were even worse.
    You haven't been to D.C.
    Apparently you're about five years behind in reading the news. Under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge guise of "medical marijuana" (which is nonetheless a valid campaign in its own right because the shit really works) it has been decriminalized in something like eight states, the feds have agreed to not enforce federal law in those states, and it's even scheduled for the District of Columbia, the shit-for-brains government's own backyard.

    The kids who spent their youth discovering that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol are finally taking their turn as the elders. So much for Reefer Madness.
    Right. These are the same people who want us to keep pushing the Islamic terrorists so far to the northeast that they're almost within marching distance of the capital of a country with nuclear weapons.

    Apparently they can be convinced to do any damn fool thing if you lie to them earnestly enough.

    I still think our system is the best, but only in the context, "It's the worst system there is, except for all the others."
    Yes, I blame them for being so easily duped. Nonetheless, having wasted most of my career contracting for or working inside several layers of government, I'm convinced that the system is almost too badly broken to fix. Lobbyists have disproportionate power and there doesn't seem to be anything we can legally do about it. The citizens are so enamored of their entitlements that they're unwilling to make any substantive changes that might endanger them. Demagogues can sweet-talk the people into supporting their agenda, and corporations can control the demagogues.

    The only hope I see is that the power of the corporation is waning in the Post-Industrial Era, as massive concentrations of capital are no longer necessary to fund big projects. Instead of being producers, corporations have turned into scavengers, buying up each other's carcasses and ripping the last few morsels of profit out of them before they topple over. Eventually they will run out of power by attrition.

    But by then it may be too late, and besides, what clever new form of control will the government invent to take their place, once the "artificial persons" they created are obsolete?
     
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Isn't that always the response when the vote doesn't go just the way people want it to go? Yep, the gov misinformed the.... Yeah, the gov manipulated..... Yep, the CIA.... Yeah, sure, the FBI.... ...LOL!!

    Sorry, Fraggle, you're excuses are just the same as have been used as "reasons" for such things since the cave men held their first elections! ...LOL!!

    I was banned for calling our new president a different "name" than his real one. Do you suppose some moderator will ban you for calling President Bush such a nasty name???

    And all the rest of your post was just more of the same basic stuff ...blaming someone or something else when you didn't get what you want in life. If your candidate didn't win, it's due to the stupid, ignorant voters. If some bill you like doesn't pass, it's due to the gov/CIA/FBI/etc manipulation of facts and data. ..LOL!

    C'mon, Fraggle, you and I are too old to be making such silly, childish excuses, aren't we? You and I have heard exactly that for over 60 years ...surely you haven't been brainwashed at this late date, have you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  19. ScaryMonster I’m the whispered word. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    I don’t recall ever hearing about a referendum in the United States to legalese MJ? Maybe there was but I don’t remember hearing about it.


    Same as above, but my view on this is that governments should have no right to dictate to people what they do with their own bodies, if idiots want to take dangerous drugs let them! It’s no ones business except theirs.



    I think Bush earned that nasty name, “America's dumbest President.”


    Sounds good to me!

    From my perspective age does not necessarily impart wisdom, that reefer madness thing was stupid in the 50s and its hypercritical now given that tobacco and alcohol are known to be more harmful the MJ and yet are legal.
    I've heard neo-coms going on about socialized medicine being like the government nannying people, if that's the case then what's this nonsense about banning MJ because its bad for us? Under that logic they should ban KFC.



    Baron Max[/QUOTE]
     
  20. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    And that matters .....how?

    Your one, single, solitary vote is hereby counted and added to the tally.

    I will suggest to you, however, that there are many, many people in our society that feel that protecting others from harm is, in fact, part of their role and duty as members of the society. Back in the old days, didn't clan members protect others of their clan? Family members protect family members, right? So as a "natural" extension, shouldn't society members protect other society members?

    Baron Max
     
  21. ScaryMonster I’m the whispered word. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    Well it matters if no such vote ever took place and you're basing your argument on the premise that it was voted down. That's being disingenuous.
    It might get voted down, but the people have never really been asked have they.




    Is this in that non-existent ballet you keep talking about?

    By that logic then they should ban dangerous sports, unhealthy food, alcohol, cigarettes, pointy objects, driving in cars, violent films - television, and walking around without a crash helmet on uncase you fall over and hit your head.


    I don’t object to that, I only think that in the case of drugs it’s a lie, why ban MJ and not tobacco, why allow alcohol?
    Dealing with addiction is awful thing, but the criminality behind the drug trade costs a lot more the rehabilitation a few drug addicts.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2010
  22. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    If anyone tries to sell me hard drugs and I tell them no, but if they persist I will destroy them so they can never harm anyone ever again. Those that"push" heavy drugs are just manipulators wanting only to control and use you until your no longer needed which means you can't pay then they either let you go or use you to their advantage. I think those types of people are the lowest forms of scum that ever existed. There's a difference between hard drugs and soft ones like pot, but it to can be "cut" with chemicals so you never really know what your taking today.

    Many drugs are habbit forming which can and does lead to addiction. Another problem is that wherever the soft core drugs are located the hard core drugs are very close by.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2010
  23. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    This is a good question. I think the easiest answer is that there is clear historical proof that this won't work with alcohol.

    Whenever there are costs, there are profits. You do know that the US has the largest prison population in the world (higher than Russia if I'm not mistaken), right?



    Prison is business, plain and simple. This hit me pretty hard when I was watching the show DEA on Spike TV. Its clear as day that some of these agents smoke, like when one grins and turns "Smell that? I can smell that outside the house." But hey, this is about justice, right?

    Perhaps there is an unspoken agreement between the cartels and the agencies. Everyone makes more money this way. The dealers can sell their stuff for 50$ per gram, and the prisons get to put them behind the bars and make money off government contracts. So maybe its in everyones interest to keep it illegal. Who knows, it might eeven be good for the economy. I know for sure there are books about this.
     

Share This Page