decline reported in Afghan poppy crop

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Best answer I can give you is that it makes people feel like there is some sense to society. People want to have a moral govt. They don't like immoral things to be legal, unless they are petty. I see your point, but it doesn't change my mind.

You're still asserting selling and doing drugs are immoral without giving any sort of justification.

Drugs (some drugs) are physically addictive, tobacco is physically addictive, and alcohol is physically addictive to some. Drugs (at least some) cause health problems, tobacco causes health problems, alcohol causes health problems.

The modern society is complex with a broad range of people with moral codes all over the spectrum. Some think that premarital sex is immoral. So why doesn't the US (or most countries for that matter) has a law against it? The truth is the law should be found on the principle of justice instead of any single set of moral or ethical code.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You're still asserting selling and doing drugs are immoral without giving any sort of justification.

Do you believe that we should help drug addicts?

[Fake Boris]

Kid, the problem with your assertion regarding murder is analytical.

The term "murder" contains both the action, and its effect (an immoral one).

Selling drugs, however, is externally bad; it's a victimless crime, or, more precisely, the buyer, in the larger part, chooses whether or not he'll be a victim. Many people consume drugs like others take alcohol or smoke cigarettes; either they aren't even addicted, or they are to a point they can still control their lives. Being addicted to tobacco is not that bad if you can pay for it, just like is drinking a few beers when you come back from work.

What you need to realize is that most of drugs' "wrong" effects either won't proliferate or even diminish if prohibition ends. Addicts can be helped instead of being sent to jail (psychological studies have demonstrated that the bad living conditions in jail entice people to resort to drugs); prices can be controlled, and sale to minors can be more easily regulated; organized crime will take a hit, and, most importantly, drug concentration, doses and quality can be regulated (many overdoses result from the randomness and bad quality of the drugs bought on the street).

So the point is that in the case of an action that doesn't contain internally the potential wrongness, there is absolutely no reason not to legalize it if it is shown that it can help control and reduce unwishable, external effects.

[Kidlicious]

Bolony. Selling drugs is not a victimless crime. Even using drugs is not a victimless crime. The effect is not always bad, but often it is. If you use or sell drugs you contribute to these negative effects.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Bolony. Selling drugs is not a victimless crime. Even using drugs is not a victimless crime. The effect is not always bad, but often it is. If you use or sell drugs you contribute to these negative effects.

You don't understand the idea, Kid.

When someone kills, there's a murderer and a killed person. Period. That's immoral.

When someone sells drugs, there's a seller and a user - a potential wrong.

However, legalization REDUCES the likelyness that using drugs turns out to be a wrong.

There is no applying that reasoning to murder, because legalizing murder does not reduce the likelyness of the effect of the act being immoral.

When the bad resulting from an action is external, there are 2 possibilities.

1- If legality reduces or maintains the risk level, then it's the moral thing to do, if we assume there is no point in infringing on individual freedom without a valid reason.
2- If legality increases the risks, it becomes a question of tradeoff: is it worth sacrificing individual freedom for the sake of greater good?
In some cases, the answer is clearly yes, as in forbidding drugstores from selling poison.
In others, the answer is unclear, as demonstrated by the debate on firearms.
And then sometimes the answer is clearly no, as in prohibiting fastfood chains.

[Kidlicious]

I understand Uncle. I don't agree with you that that makes legalizing drugs, selling them, or using them a victimless crime. I think my analogy with murder stands, because the purpose of it was to show that most people have a distaste for legalizing immorality even if the result is more costs for society.

[Fake Boris]

Err... no, you have to prove that it's immorality first.

But never mind, you're overwhelmingly wrong and proud about it, so whatever.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Err... no, you have to prove that it's immorality first.

\


That's not that game. Not even killing is always immoral. Murder is just what you call it when you think it it immoral.

[Fake Boris]

OK, so let's put that one aside. Why don't you prove that the "majority" of drug users exhibit problematic use?

You'll have a hard time, because all statistics show otherwise.

[Kidlicious]

Do you even know people who use drugs?

[Fake Boris]

Of course, most of my friends do. I know people who have tried cocaine and heroine several times, and they certainly aren't addicted. The idea that you can't take heroine or cocaine recreatively just like you smoke marijuana or drink alcohol is a myth.

Personally I smoke marijuana, usually once a week, or more in vacation weeks. I know someone with a good job who smokes twice a day and is completely functional, is paying his mortgage, etc.

[Kidlicious]

If they are doing heroine and coke they have a problem. That's stupid.

[Fake Boris]

Maybe, but I fail to see how it should be illegal.

[Kidlicious]

Well I see now that I have a problem with pot. I didn't think I did before either, but things change. It's hard to say that I wish I had never smoked it, because I had a lot of fun, but some people never quit even when they should.