I said it before...drug users...

[Makalakumu]

All I'm wondering is how broadly this applies. In philosophy, ideas are reasoned from first principle, so if it applies here, it applies everywhere. The idea that moral obligation follows the spent dollar is something that many people bring up, but they aren't willing to apply it broadly. I'm curious where you stand on this. In my experience, people who refuse to apply their principles broadly out themselves as hypocrites and invalidate their arguments.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Jenna]

Of course, it's the huge conscious moment when they decide to be a drug addict. @@ Not to say they need a hug fest, but I see zero value in demonizing them. And you called yourself out when you referred to yourself as "conceitedly proud" of clean living.

I think it is facetious to suggest that someone would in some way proactively decide to become a drug addict? Anyway, at least this is far from my experience. Regarding my conceit, no, it is not of clean living; my conceit is of having had the savvy to make commonsense decisions where the choices were presented to me concerning both addicting substances and also addicting prescription SSRIs.

My point, if you are concerned for pragmatism, is that it remains the choice of every pre-addicted, try-this-joint-for-size drug user to decide whether to imbibe the drug or not. Further, this choice is made with the knowledge of the potential for addiction.

If you decide to **** around with narcotic substances to escape an unbearable reality then that is your choice. I will lend my support to your right to that choice. Though by that token, must you not also support my right NOT to rescue you with tax revenue when you hit the bottom? Or should I have pity upon you at that stage? The point is moot for me unfortunately I guess due to my elected representatives' civil duties to never provide me with that opt out. Oh well, knock yourself out. I guess I will be for you here after all with my not-so-easily earned supporting tax revenues.

I think what is more pertinent however is that at the point at which you have that loved-up hedonistically charged night of epiphany (or conversely that hideous cortisol-imbalanced nightmare of pre-suicidal depression - and yes, this is me personally speaking if you care to know), where you decide, yes I am going to light up (or use whichever delivery vehicle you prefer) it is at that very point, ALSO your choice to seek solutions ELSEWHERE. Those solutions in their myriad forms will 1. have a far greater effect on actually helping you from your pit of despair or whatever pit it might be (though I fully appreciate that many recreational users are blissfully ignorant of where their train is heading) and 2. will cost me far less in tax revenue than would subsidising your potential police and court proceedings, protracted medical treatments and tiresome rehab cycles.

We live in nations that are governed by free market concepts which extend even beyond our current legalities. Where there is a demand for a product no matter the legitimacy of that product, there will be supply to fulfil it. As Bill Mattocks has stated, lacking demand renders supply uneconomic. Drug peddlars are not here to satisfy the desperate seeking urges of addicts and but rather to chase profit. Yet for all the money pumped into the education surrounding the hideous effects of drug abuse, still there are those that will take the choice to try it out. That choice is theirs. It is their life. However, I also have my life to live and seek as little part as possible in supporting those that have DELIBERATELY not accidentally made moronic and supremely ill-advised choices regarding substances.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

All I'm wondering is how broadly this applies. In philosophy, ideas are reasoned from first principle, so if it applies here, it applies everywhere. The idea that moral obligation follows the spent dollar is something that many people bring up, but they aren't willing to apply it broadly. I'm curious where you stand on this. In my experience, people who refuse to apply their principles broadly out themselves as hypocrites and invalidate their arguments.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

Ah, now I understand. In this issue, I'm not sure how broadly I can apply the logic.

The examples have been given by others in this thread of people who buy 'blood diamonds' and other goods and services which have, or may have, a bloody or criminal history. And I agree that moral responsibility does attach where one is aware of these things. I also agreed that those who bought alcohol during Prohibition were likewise morally responsible for the violence that organized criminal organizations engaged in. I could think of some others; so-called 'victimless crimes' like prostitution, particularly where it involves human trafficking and children.

So that's about as 'broad' as I'd feel comfortable going.

However, I pointed out that with the exception of Prohibition and my own example of prostitution, the products and services are both legal and 'uncertain' in origin in many cases. For example, one buys a diamond. Is it a 'blood diamond'? There are a variety of ways in which one might find out the likelihood that it is; but even with due diligence, it can be hard to know for certain. I would say that a person should do that kind of due diligence, but I would not necessarily say that a person who doesn't bears a moral responsibility for the carnage created by diamond smugglers; there is a difference between knowing and suspecting.

Imagine this; you go to the flea market and someone is selling counterfeit DVD movies. A couple of bucks each. Great, right? And who is hurt, some fat-cat motion picture studios? Who cares? But the counterfeiting organizations are run by a variety of organizations from rogue nations to terrorist organizations.

http://www.michiganjb.org/issues/1/article4.pdf

What's the moral responsibility there? Well, in my opinion, it's there, but more so if a person is aware of what their dollar is going to finance.

And this is where I turn to illegal drugs. With few exceptions, illicit drugs come from criminal organizations. There are some that may be created by lone individuals (the California professor who allegedly made amphetamines in his spare time) or legal drugs diverted by people who sell their prescriptions and so on, but most of what think of when we think of illicit drugs, like pot, coke, smack, and so on, come from organized crime syndicates.

And it's not like the person who buys coke on the street is not aware it's illegal. Does anyone reasonably think they're obeying the law when they buy drugs? Is there anyone left on the planet who is unaware of the horrific murders taking place in Mexico and other places, perpetrated by drug cartels protecting their turf, threatening local citizens and police, and so on? If a person buys cocaine on the street, can they be unaware of the fact that the cocaine is coming from organizations that are committing these acts? To me, that's a fairly direct and clear line that establishes a moral responsibility. These drug cartels simply would not exist if people did not buy their products, and therefore the murders would not occur. This is less abstract than it is a concrete reality.

It has likewise been argued that if the drugs were simply made legal, this would also end the drug cartels and the violence associated with them; this may well be true. However, it is not the case today, and I am speaking of the people who are buying these drugs today, with the full knowledge of who is supplying them. One does not avoid moral responsibility by imagining a possible scenario which does not actually exist.

Illicit drug users are part of the chain of violence, and what's more, they're the most important part of that chain, since without buyers, there would be no sellers, no producers, no victims of the crimes of violence. And they either know that, or they are (in my opinion) carefully avoiding that knowledge so that they can feel better about themselves.

Although all are bad, I think there are moral differences between a person who buys a counterfeit DVD which might be financing Hezbollah, or a person who buys a diamond which might be a 'blood diamond' or a person who pays for a prostitute who might be unwillingly involved in that profession, and a person who buys illicit drugs knowing full well where they come from and what the people selling them are doing. Unlike DVDs or diamonds or sex, there is a very high probability that a person buying cocaine is buying cocaine that comes directly from the channels where the violence is happening. And it is that moral responsibility to which I am referring.

 

[Makalakumu]

If moral responsibility does follow the spent dollar, what would be the ethical obligation of the individual that finds out that his dollars are being used immorally by the party that he has transacted with?

Also, the functional belief of our society is that moral responsibility does not follow the spent dollar. We are responsible for our actions, but not the actions of the people who make new decisions with the money that they made. Essentially, each dollar is a blank slate and it's up to the person holding it to exercise moral judgment.

Both of these positions have unpleasant side effects that are worth considering, IMO. I actually don't know which one I prefer.

 

[MA-Caver]

I learned from a millionaire friend of mine that "money is simply a tool, like any other screwdriver or hammer or even a kitchen device. It's how it's used that determines the value of it, and the person wielding it." From that I learned there are no morals (good or bad) involving money. It's how they spend it that says a lot about the person.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If moral responsibility does follow the spent dollar, what would be the ethical obligation of the individual that finds out that his dollars are being used immorally by the party that he has transacted with?

The same as any purchasing decision. I just found out recently that a company I do business with fired a fellow diabetic for having a 'snack attack' on the job. I won't do business with that company again, unless they reinstate the person they fired and change their policies. If I turned a blind eye to it, I'd be essentially endorsing that company's behavior.

However, if a company does something like that and I neither know about it, nor have any reasonable way to know about it, then I can't very well take action on it. I would not see a person as having a moral responsibility to take action on wrongdoing they do not know about and cannot know about under normal circumstances.

Also, the functional belief of our society is that moral responsibility does not follow the spent dollar. We are responsible for our actions, but not the actions of the people who make new decisions with the money that they made. Essentially, each dollar is a blank slate and it's up to the person holding it to exercise moral judgment.

I disagree; it is common in the USA for outraged individuals to organize boycotts, which sometimes have the intended effect and sometimes do not; but in any case, they're not unusual at all.

I cannot control the actions of a person who ends up with one of my dollars, nor am I responsible for what they might do, but if I know or suspect in advance what they intend to do and I do not want them to do that, then I can refuse to supply them with my dollar. There are exceptions; I might give a dollar to a homeless person even though I have a reasonable suspicion they are going to buy booze with it; in that case, it seems to me to be the lesser of two evils to show charity. On the other hand, I won't assist a certain family member of mine with anything whatsoever; I know precisely where her money goes, and I won't be a party to it.

Both of these positions have unpleasant side effects that are worth considering, IMO. I actually don't know which one I prefer.

Everyone has to make their own decisions as to how to spend their money and whether or not they care to look deeply into how the money they spend ends up being used. We literally don't have the time or ability to completely understand how every cent we spend ends up being used by the companies and governments that end up with it. We have to make our own best judgments and then live with those consequences.

However, in the case of purchasing illicit drugs, there is little difficulty in understanding what is going to happen with the money spent for the drugs. The fact that the drugs are illegal to begin with makes it somewhat easier to follow. The fact that the people disemboweling people and hanging them from bridges are drug sellers is pretty clear. We're not talking about philosophy or vague moral standards here; this is real, it's happening, and if a person is buying illicit drugs, they are paying their money into a channel that funds that violence. The link is real, evident, clear, easy-to-understand. I do not grant any leeway to philosophical concepts that would attempt to ameliorate or smudge away the responsibility by comparing this to buying detergent from a company that destroys wetlands or buying diamonds from a jeweler who might or might not have purchased from a chain of distributors which might or might not have obtained them from areas of civil strife, meaning that they might or might not be 'blood diamonds'. This is much more clear and direct than that. All attempts to side-step are just that, side-stepping. If one needs to do that to feel better about contributing directly to the murder and torture of human beings, so be it. I know what I know; nothing will change my mind about such persons.

 

[Makalakumu]

Perhaps the product could be produced by a moral provider and simply disagrees with the arbitrary rules of a society?

Also, consider the obligation incurred from supporting immoral second parties. If one is morally responsible for the actions of another, wouldn't some form of justice be appropriate?

I think we open up a box of unintended consequences by tracking the moral value of the spent dollar. American society would probably fall apart...

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Perhaps the product could be produced by a moral provider and simply disagrees with the arbitrary rules of a society?

Also, consider the obligation incurred from supporting immoral second parties. If one is morally responsible for the actions of another, wouldn't some form of justice be appropriate?

I think we open up a box of unintended consequences by tracking the moral value of the spent dollar. American society would probably fall apart...

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

I disagree. I see that as nothing more than moral relativism, an attempt to deflect and pretend that the horrific deaths experienced by the people hanging from that bridge cannot be tied to the purchase of illegal drugs. Their deaths can be tied directory to the sales of illicit drugs, and those who buy such drugs bear some responsibility. Period. Dance around it all you like with your 'well, then, and if's', it changes nothing. It's a way for the illegal drug user to pretend that they had nothing to do with the murders. They do; if they cannot face that, it's their problem, but I will continue to view them as directly responsible, reprehensible, and frankly evil sons-of-b#$* for it. If they don't like it, too bad.

 

[Makalakumu]

I disagree. I see that as nothing more than moral relativism, an attempt to deflect and pretend that the horrific deaths experienced by the people hanging from that bridge cannot be tied to the purchase of illegal drugs. Their deaths can be tied directory to the sales of illicit drugs, and those who buy such drugs bear some responsibility. Period. Dance around it all you like with your 'well, then, and if's', it changes nothing. It's a way for the illegal drug user to pretend that they had nothing to do with the murders. They do; if they cannot face that, it's their problem, but I will continue to view them as directly responsible, reprehensible, and frankly evil sons-of-b#$* for it. If they don't like it, too bad.

Ok, now we are getting down to the brass tacks.

My grandfather and his father made wine during prohibition. They sold to neighbors and made a nice profit. As far as I know, they were a good family engaged in a black market business at that time. Other then the crime of making booze, they were all good guys. Other people during prohibition were not so nice. Al Capone was a notorious gangster. I'm sure he had plenty of people murdered and it would be hard to make a distinction from what he did from what the other drug cartels do. Essentially, what you are saying is that Al Capone and my great grandfather were the same. You are saying that they are collectively responsible for the actions of the industry even though they have very different ways of doing business. That's like saying the corner mom and pop burger joint is exactly the same as McDonalds.

Here's where your argument falls apart. These two individuals are not the same. My great grandfather's business wasn't connected with Al Capone's business at all. The only thing they had in common is that they were selling a substance that people wanted. I think you are wrong when you generalize all drugs and all dealers. Generalizations are another form of moral relativism, btw.

That said, on a larger level, I tend to agree that people are responsible when they knowingly support immoral business practices by buying certain products. My issue comes when I try to apply this broadly because our society is so exploitive. It's very difficult to transact at all for certain items that aren't stained by moral reprehensibility.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ok, now we are getting down to the brass tacks.

My grandfather and his father made wine during prohibition. They sold to neighbors and made a nice profit. As far as I know, they were a good family engaged in a black market business at that time. Other then the crime of making booze, they were all good guys. Other people during prohibition were not so nice. Al Capone was a notorious gangster. I'm sure he had plenty of people murdered and it would be hard to make a distinction from what he did from what the other drug cartels do. Essentially, what you are saying is that Al Capone and my great grandfather were the same. You are saying that they are collectively responsible for the actions of the industry even though they have very different ways of doing business. That's like saying the corner mom and pop burger joint is exactly the same as McDonalds.

Here's where your argument falls apart. These two individuals are not the same. My great grandfather's business wasn't connected with Al Capone's business at all. The only thing they had in common is that they were selling a substance that people wanted. I think you are wrong when you generalize all drugs and all dealers. Generalizations are another form of moral relativism, btw.

That said, on a larger level, I tend to agree that people are responsible when they knowingly support immoral business practices by buying certain products. My issue comes when I try to apply this broadly because our society is so exploitive. It's very difficult to transact at all for certain items that aren't stained by moral reprehensibility.

People who bought from your grandfather knew he was not killing people to bring them his illegal product. If they bought Canadian whiskey, on the other hand, they knew it was coming from Canada; and apart from some friend of theirs driving it across the bridge during a visit, it came through some gang like the Purple Gang in Detroit or Al Capone, etc, etc. Those people *knew* they were getting their Canadian whiskey from the people who dealt in death to bring it to them.

By the same token, if a person grows their own pot under the various 'medical marijuana' laws, they know they're not importing it via the people who are disemboweling others and hanging them from bridges. If they're buying cocaine, they have a very good reason to believe that those people are exactly where their drugs are coming from.

This is not rocket science, and attempts to deflect and make excuses do not impress me. If you buy smack, you know where it's coming from, and if you buy cocaine, you know where it's coming from, and if you buy pot you have a very good idea where it's coming from. Pretending that you don't know is not an excuse.

What you appear to be saying is that if people who bought wine from your grandfather had no moral responsibility for the crimes of Al Capone, then neither did the people who bought from Al Capone. I say that if they bought from Al Capone, you bet your *** they had moral responsibility. This twisting and shifting around to deny responsibility is fine if that's what gets you through the night. It doesn't fool me nor does it change my opinion of drug users.

 

[Makalakumu]

What you appear to be saying is that if people who bought wine from your grandfather had no moral responsibility for the crimes of Al Capone, then neither did the people who bought from Al Capone. I say that if they bought from Al Capone, you bet your *** they had moral responsibility. This twisting and shifting around to deny responsibility is fine if that's what gets you through the night. It doesn't fool me nor does it change my opinion of drug users.

Please allow me to clarify. I am saying that people who bought wine from my grandfather ARE different then those who bought booze from the associates of Al Capone. Therefore, the users of the illegal substance, the people who buy from the businesses in question, are also very different. I am under the impression that you feel like these two groups have the same moral culpability because they are engaged in a black market business. Please note the boldfaced section and clarify.

If you buy smack, you know where it's coming from...

View attachment $050608_opium_marines_800.JPG

If many Americans knew where the smack was coming from, they would be quite shocked. Who are the good guys in this picture? The answer is morally relativistic. Our society begins to fray at the seams when real values are applied to it.

 

[elder999]

People who bought from your grandfather knew he was not killing people to bring them his illegal product. If they bought Canadian whiskey, on the other hand, they knew it was coming from Canada; and apart from some friend of theirs driving it across the bridge during a visit, it came through some gang like the Purple Gang in Detroit or Al Capone, etc, etc. Those people *knew* they were getting their Canadian whiskey from the people who dealt in death to bring it to them.

Pretty sure my grandfather and his uncle sailed down from Canada during Prohibition without killing anyone-made it look like they were fishermen. My great-grandfather would have, but he was blind by then.

Just a little addition to the relevant history-people like Joe Kennedy didn't kill anyone either, though he supplied people that did, no doubt. (Though, to be fair, there is more than a little doubt about Joe actually being involved in illegal liquor trade during Prohibition.)

What you appear to be saying is that if people who bought wine from your grandfather had no moral responsibility for the crimes of Al Capone, then neither did the people who bought from Al Capone. I say that if they bought from Al Capone, you bet your *** they had moral responsibility. This twisting and shifting around to deny responsibility is fine if that's what gets you through the night.

And on that we're in agreement, but....

It doesn't fool me nor does it change my opinion of drug users.

You've also made it clear in the past that legalization of drugs and relieving those users of responsiblity for the violence associated with their illicit nature wouldn't change your opinion of them either.

 

[frank raud]

Bill, I believe I am seeing a great opportunity here for free-trade drugs. drugs manufactured or grown to a strict code of non-violence. "Altered conciousness with a social concious." That way the only people who should be dying from the use of drugs would be the users themselves. You could charge a premium to those addicts with a similar moral code to yours. If legalizing is a sidestep, then perhaps the option of fair trade would appeal to you?

 

[Twin Fist]

how about this

drugs are ****, everyone knows it, if you are dumb enough to get started using when you KNOW what it leads to, I have no sympathy for your dumb ***. AND i come from a family where addiction is the norm.

I hate drugs, and i have no pity for the people STUPID enough to get hooked. Know why I feel sorry for ? the babies born addicted cuz the crack head mommy doesnt stop using.

i am all for the legalizing of pot. but anything else? i cant see how anyone would be for legalized coke or speed......thats too stupid for words

 

[Bill Mattocks]

All I see here is a bunch of parsing words to make it OK for illicit drug users to keep using their illicit drugs, and to make the demand side not the reason for the supply side, and the violence that comes with it. I think it's a sad indictment of our 'victim' philosophy in which no one is responsible for their own actions. I can't see how anything I would say would make it more clear; if a person cannot see their own culpability, I can't force them to. But I see it, and I'll continue to see it. Illicit drug users are not victims, and they are morally responsible for the violence committed by those who bring them their illegal drugs. I'm done.

 

[Steve]

All I see here is a bunch of parsing words to make it OK for illicit drug users to keep using their illicit drugs, and to make the demand side not the reason for the supply side, and the violence that comes with it. I think it's a sad indictment of our 'victim' philosophy in which no one is responsible for their own actions. I can't see how anything I would say would make it more clear; if a person cannot see their own culpability, I can't force them to. But I see it, and I'll continue to see it. Illicit drug users are not victims, and they are morally responsible for the violence committed by those who bring them their illegal drugs. I'm done.

Do you feel the same way about oil?

 

[MA-Caver]

Seems that Iran has no problem figuring out what to do with the drug traffickers in their country.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-hangs-co...BzdGNhdAN1cwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3
Iran on Sunday hanged a convicted drug trafficker at a prison in the northwestern city of Qazvin, the Mehr news agency reported.
It identified the convicted trafficker as 39-year-old Elias Babai Chegini.

 

[Sukerkin]

Even oppressive theocracies can get some things right it seems. I wont go into the whole background again as to why I think so but I'm with BillM when it comes to dealing with those most directly responsible for the problem of illegal drugs trafficing (not counting government apathy in this case).

 

[oftheherd1]

Well, I'm going to put another slant on this. Teach better morals to all our people, especially our kids. I am a Christian. You don't have to be a Christian, or even religious, to understand certain morals are worth upholding. Deciding that nobody can do any wrong is wrong itself. There have to be rules, and of course, there have to be sanctions. That is the problem in the USA. There are still lots of rules, but few sanctions that mean anything.

Possession of illegal drugs will often mean no more than a slap on the wrists. Even possession with intent to sell can be bargained down. If there aren't meaningful sanctions against drugs, there in effect, are no laws either.

As to legalizing drug use; who takes care of the users? I know on the one hand, it seems like a quick fix. However, as addicts spiral downwards, they need more and more drugs, and more and more medical attention. And it will be free to them, but not us people who work and pay taxes. I'm not sure I want to go there either.

War on Mexico might be one solution. But at what cost? All Latin America, as well as 2/3 of the rest of the world, would rail against us. The big bad USA imperialists at it again! And where do we stop? Do we go all the way down to the rest of Central America, then into South America?

What do we do after we conquer those countries? (anybody remember The Mouse That Roared?) We need a solution, I'm just not sure that legalizing drugs or attacking Mexico are viable solutions.

Let's go back to teaching and enforcing morals in our country and see if that works.

 

[elder999]

Well, I'm going to put another slant on this. Teach better morals to all our people, especially our kids. I am a Christian. You don't have to be a Christian, or even religious, to understand certain morals are worth upholding. Deciding that nobody can do any wrong is wrong itself. There have to be rules, and of course, there have to be sanctions. That is the problem in the USA. There are still lots of rules, but few sanctions that mean anything. .

Are you speaking of the morality (or lack thereof) of obeying the law, or the morality (or lack thereof) of "using drugs?"