Is using drugs ethical?

[TheBear]

We know that recreational drugs can be harmful to the body and brain, and can lead to death. Same with alcohol. There's also the law.

For the purpose of this discussion, we'll suspend the law, and look at the moral and ethical aspect of someone getting high as a kite, or drunk off their rear-ends.

If someone gets drunk or high in the confines of their home with no incidents - people having a good time - is the person being drunk or high breaking ethical codes of conduct?

Keep in mind - we have suspended the law, (we're in Amsterdam ), and everyone's having a good time.

Is it unethical to poison your own body, or is it okay, as long as you don't hurt anyone else in the process.

Are there any specific moral or ethical princples, which are associated with getting a buzz on?



(I'll hold off posting for now.)



To All: This is a serious discussion. Try to keep the banter to a minimum.

 

[michabo]

If it harms no one, then I vote it's moral.

I'm socialist enough to count "network externalities" as immoral, such as harming yourself if this harm will result in medical treatment on the public's dime. So it's somewhat immoral to smoke. Ha, now there's a stance that may not attract many supporters!

 

[TheReasoner]

It is unethical to poison your body.

 

[TheReasoner]

If it harms no one, then I vote it's moral.

I'm socialist enough to count "network externalities" as immoral, such as harming yourself if this harm will result in medical treatment on the public's dime. So it's somewhat immoral to smoke. Ha, now there's a stance that may not attract many supporters!

I agree with your stance on smoking. It harms the collective as well as you - and the people around you.

 

[michabo]

It is unethical to poison your body.

Can you please elaborate on why you believe this?

 

[TheBear]

Can you please elaborate on why you believe this?

Thank you.

The OP goes to greater depth than merely whether it's moral/ethical, or not.

State why you believe, what you believe.

 

[Cat59]

I think there is a general principle involved and that is that substance use is relevent to society as a whole and the ethical issue cannot be discussed in isolation from the views of society.

One of the things to note is that the substances permitted/demonised by most cultures and societies are more often the ones most familiar or alien to those cultures rather than the ones that cause the least/most harm. So for centuries Europeans tolerated alcohol, Peruvians chewed coca leaves, Mexicans used mescaline in peyote cactus, and opium and cannabis was tolerated in the Indian subcontinent. Use of the substance in the cultural context was surrounded by rules and rituals which enabled defining things such as place of use, quantity of use, age of use and thus harm that the substance had the potential to cause was limited. Alien substances were demonised- for example in Russia Czar Federovitch executed anyone on whom tobacco was found while in Mexico before the Hispanic days drunkeness was treated very harshly- by being beaten or garroted to death (Source- Drugs, Dilemmas and Choices, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.)

When discussing the ethics of drug taking, therefore, it is hard to do it outside of our "cultural context" which is one where alcohol and tobacco are sanctioned within certain cultural settings and other drugs regarded as unacceptable, not because of the relative harm each substance brings but because of views that our society holds on these substances. This is made more difficult by the fact that prohibition of substances drives them into the illegal field, adding a further dimension to the ethical equation, that of law breaking (which I know you said to ignore, but it is there in reality and an important part of why some people find drug use unethical.)

So it is hard to see this ethical dilemma as being a person in their room smoking a splif quietly. Drug use and sanctioning or prohibiting certain drugs does impact on society as a whole and to discuss the ethics of it one has to go beyond discussing the harm/benefit ratio for an individual user, it cannot be isolated from it.

As to my view, I think the history of mankind shows that any attempt to prevent humans using psychoactive substances of some sort is doomed to failure and substance use has to be accepted as a part of life. The dilemma of which substances are accepted by each society is a matter for societies to discuss, but in my view, there is no substance that exists whose intrinsic properties would make it more or less ethical to use than another, especially in its "natural" unrefined form, which usually carries less risk of causing harm. The dilemma is, do we really want to sanction more drugs in our society, with the possible increased rate of use this may bring or is this a price worth paying if it enables people to move away from the illegality associated with certain substances and takes them away from the criminal activities they engage in now to fund their use.

So, in a long winded answer to your question, Bear, I don't think it can be reduced to an ethical dilemma of harm/benefit for an individual, as anyone using a substance is doing so in a cultural context, whether they do so in a crowded rave or in the privacy of their own home, their actions impact on more than just themselves.
That should help you sleep...
Cat

 

[TheBear]

I think there is a general principle involved and that is that substance use is relevent to society as a whole and the ethical issue cannot be discussed in isolation from the views of society.

One of the things to note is that the substances permitted/demonised by most cultures and societies are more often the ones most familiar or alien to those cultures rather than the ones that cause the least/most harm. So for centuries Europeans tolerated alcohol, Peruvians chewed coca leaves, Mexicans used mescaline in peyote cactus, and opium and cannabis was tolerated in the Indian subcontinent. Use of the substance in the cultural context was surrounded by rules and rituals which enabled defining things such as place of use, quantity of use, age of use and thus harm that the substance had the potential to cause was limited. Alien substances were demonised- for example in Russia Czar Federovitch executed anyone on whom tobacco was found while in Mexico before the Hispanic days drunkeness was treated very harshly- by being beaten or garroted to death (Source- Drugs, Dilemmas and Choices, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.)

When discussing the ethics of drug taking, therefore, it is hard to do it outside of our "cultural context" which is one where alcohol and tobacco are sanctioned within certain cultural settings and other drugs regarded as unacceptable, not because of the relative harm each substance brings but because of views that our society holds on these substances. This is made more difficult by the fact that prohibition of substances drives them into the illegal field, adding a further dimension to the ethical equation, that of law breaking (which I know you said to ignore, but it is there in reality and an important part of why some people find drug use unethical.)

So it is hard to see this ethical dilemma as being a person in their room smoking a splif quietly. Drug use and sanctioning or prohibiting certain drugs does impact on society as a whole and to discuss the ethics of it one has to go beyond discussing the harm/benefit ratio for an individual user, it cannot be isolated from it.

As to my view, I think the history of mankind shows that any attempt to prevent humans using psychoactive substances of some sort is doomed to failure and substance use has to be accepted as a part of life. The dilemma of which substances are accepted by each society is a matter for societies to discuss, but in my view, there is no substance that exists whose intrinsic properties would make it more or less ethical to use than another, especially in its "natural" unrefined form, which usually carries less risk of causing harm. The dilemma is, do we really want to sanction more drugs in our society, with the possible increased rate of use this may bring or is this a price worth paying if it enables people to move away from the illegality associated with certain substances and takes them away from the criminal activities they engage in now to fund their use.

So, in a long winded answer to your question, Bear, I don't think it can be reduced to an ethical dilemma of harm/benefit for an individual, as anyone using a substance is doing so in a cultural context, whether they do so in a crowded rave or in the privacy of their own home, their actions impact on more than just themselves.
That should help you sleep...
Cat

Turn on your reps!

That was the type of in-depth reply I was going for.

(I'm still not sleepy though. )

 

[TheBear]

To all:

You don't have to agree with all the points, but Cat's post is a good model to work from.

 

[CSmrw]

Ethics is a realationship between people, and liberty is the standard we have set in my country for how people interact, what their boundaries are. I believe that if you choose to "poison your body" you also have to face the consequnces, that being paying for your own treatment if something goes wrong. You can't get drunk and ram your car into some minivan driving family. You can't take up space in an emergency ward for ODing.

But the OP doesn't really allow for that discussion. The parameters were in your own home having a good time. Implying only moderate use and confining itself. I say this is not unethical at all. You are free to poison yourself with drugs, Big Macs or Family Films. Yes, at some point society will be footing the bill in one way or another, but there is a price to be paid for allowing each other to live as free people.

 

[maniaco]

i think it's your own body, and you can therefore do whatever you want to it so long as it doesnt affect or hurt other people...if want you want is to pump it full of drugs, fine.

i just object to the fact that we are always being told what we can and can't do with our body...when frankly its none of those peoples business...

 

[kopilo]

If I was able to I'd supply people with all the drugs they wanted, but I wouldn't clean up their mess if they were going against medical advice.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

Thread will have to be hijacked on someone elses post.

 

[CSmrw]

A lot of what you asked about alcohol use can be asked about religion.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

I am sorry people have to ignore the op to support their hate of Christians. Good luck with the thread. I hope it gets back on track.

 

[CSmrw]

That was not an insult. That was a fact. The point being there are many things we do on a daily basis, that we consider to be socially acceptable that are, to some degree, harmful to those around us, and there are also some of us who see the things you found troubling in alcohol and drug consumption as also aspects of religious thought and practice. Ethically, I see little difference in many of your pbjections to drinking and many of my objections to belief in the superntural. Or, in romantic comedies and fairty tales and action adventure movies and fast food. That was the point.

 

[michabo]

Elaboration, huh?

Okay, in short I'm with Congressman Wexler: I do cocaine because it's a fun thing to do.


A longer answer... I tend to take a pragmatic approach to morality. I value social health first, and individual health second. Without going into a lot of examples of what this means, I'll say that I recognize that people will take drugs, so the question is what should be done about it. Drugs like marijuana do not harm others because people high or pot are not likely to fight, to crash cars, or to shoot themselves or others. The addiciton isn't strong enough to turn people with marginal incomes to crime to pay for more. So I think marijuana is moral and should not be discouraged.

Drugs like cocaine or even alchohol are very addictive, result in violence and injury to others, and can drive people to crime to feed their addiction (especially when the prices are artificially inflated due to making them illegal). So I think that cocaine and alchohol use are immoral if their use may result in harm.

I don't think there's anything inheriently immoral in these drugs, and think that they should be legally available to anyone that wants them in controlled conditions. That would prevent abusive amounts, would take them out of the control of crime rings, would reduce the prices so as to not force people to resort to theft or prostitution to fund their addiction. Driving drunk or abusive behavior while drunk is immoral as it harms others.