Is the buying/selling/using of drugs immoral?

gangster-231472_1280

Have you noticed that drugs are always portrayed as “evil” or “bad”? Since I have been old enough to understand language, society “as a whole” speaks about drugs with a morality factor attached to them. They, or “we” claim that the using, selling, and doing of drugs is somehow immoral. Philosophically speaking, this is just not true.

I should mention first the religious aspect to this right up front. As you may already know, I accept atheism as a valid methodology so my morality, or rather my ethics have to come from a universal standpoint. Ethics that are not universal are merely preferences or opinions. Some religious edicts state that our body is a temple and therefore to do harm to it is immoral. In that case, it is immoral to put sugar in your body. Rationally, that circle can’t be squared. Also, ethics that are brought forth by a power that is exempt from the same ethics put in place by that power is just rank hypocrisy. Thou shalt not murder! Great idea! I think we can all agree on that so lets not then turn around and create a global genocide.

As noted by early philosophers, ethics were invented by evil people to control and oppress good people. What that means is ethics are like a diet book for skinny people. Bad or evil people don’t care about ethics except as a means to lower their competition and for human control of the good.

It may seem like I am cheering on drug consumption and sales but as a former heroin addict, that is not the case. I am looking at drugs from a purely moral perspective; I’m trying to analyze drug use using philosophical first principles.

Initiating force or violence against another person when not in self-defense and  violating the property rights of another person are the fundamental core ideas of first principles.  Violating either of these principles is immoral. (If you are questioning “what makes first principles valid?” I can make that case but to do that here would take this post too far off topic and it would also make it far too long. If you want more info on first principles please comment below.)

So the next question is- Does using, selling, or buying drugs violate either of these principles?

Without the state sanctioned “illegalities”  of drugs, it would be easy to argue the crimes woven into the black market of todays drug world would disappear. When the government creates a prohibition law, what inevitably happens to the value of the now illegal good? It sky rockets. Every time, without failure. Not only does the value of the illegal good go up exponentially, crime rates rise too. One instance of this is the alcohol prohibition in the early 1900s. The rise in crime that followed was a major driver in the state’s decision to reverse the prohibition.

Back when heroin was legal, it cost 10 cents a hit. As soon as it went into the black market, it shot up

Prohibitions are also the main ingredient for mafias and gangs. How could mafias’ or gangs’ function without a black market? When you push things into the black and gray markets of the economy you are causing harm to the natural economic flow of the market. Drug lords now have a lucrative and prosperous foundation to build their violent mini empires. All this because we believe that using violence (using the state to create a law) to solve social problems is a legitimate way to fix complicated social issues. Same holds true for prostitution and illegal gambling. 

Prohibition is a real gun pointed at real people. We need to stop thinking we can solve problems by pointing guns at people.

Prohibition is a real gun pointed at real people. We need to stop thinking we can solve problems by pointing guns at people.

The amount of harm caused by prohibition is far worse than the harm caused by a drug itself.

1- With prohibition, there is no dispute resolution for buyers and dealers so weapons and other violence must be used.

2- With prohibition, there is no way to know the potency of the drug you are buying therefore you raise the risk of overdose and poisoning.

3- With prohibition, you may lose professional licensing or become un-hirable to companies for decades.

4- With prohibition, families are torn apart by incarcerations, financial fines, court and lawyer fees and the negative social stigma.

5- With prohibition, as mentioned above, the cost of product increases hundreds of percent causing more illegal activity. (I eventually had to break other laws to continue using heroin. It was too expensive.)

6- With prohibition, people who are addicted to drugs can’t come forward for help because it is treated as a criminal problem instead of a health care issue.

7- With prohibition, illnesses like Hepatitis and AIDS are spread around the drug circles because access to clean needles and other paraphernalia is made difficult.

8- With prohibition, many women turn to prostitution to supply their addiction.

This list could go on and on…

As we know, drugs are handled by the government as a criminal problem. The budget for the War on Drugs in 2013 was 26 billion dollars. Less than 2% of that was used in a treatment or preventative means. The vast majority of the budget every year is used on incarceration costs, police force, and other violent and aggressive tactics like multi-operation sting-ops that cost massive amounts of tax payer resources.

Confucius said “The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper name.”

What an amazing quote. Lets put this into practice. Lets call the “War on Drugs” by its proper name. The war on drugs insinuates that the state is at war AGAINST drugs. Is this the case? Have you ever seen a sack of weed in handcuffs? I know I have been in handcuffs but the heroin I had on me got off without a single charge.

With just a couple of seconds of thought, its easy to see that the clever wording of “the war on drugs” was used because it is hard to argue against. Most people don’t want drugs in their family structure so a war against drugs sounds great to the average person. “You are against the war on drugs? You must want babies to die too, right?”

It’s not a war on drugs. It is a war on families. Particularly minority families. Making drugs illegal will NEVER cause the problem to get better. When you use force and violence to attack a complex social problem you will see a short-term advantage and the long-term will be much worse. This is why the drug problem in the US has continually gotten worse since the WOD was initiated.

So how can we accept that legalizing drugs is the right thing to do? I know when I first heard about these arguments, I had a recoiling emotional response and I thought that legalizing drugs would be a terrible idea. Of course that was not based on any facts or evidence. It was an emotional response that was threatening my incorrect belief. Based on facts and evidence, I have now changed my stance.

Are drugs dangerous? Well, of course they can be but so can a paperclip.

Are drugs bad for your body? Overall, they can be very harmful to us. But so can cheesecake.

If I was selling you a $20 hit of heroin and I hand you the heroin and you hand me the $20, is either one of us using violence to get want we want? Is it not peaceful trade? Isn’t it a praxeological axiom that we both consider ourselves to be better off because of the trade? If it wasn’t, why did we trade? Is it fundamentally no different than if I was selling you a cheesecake or a box of paperclips? Trading, buying, selling drugs peacefully is not an immoral action. It may not be honorable or preferable, but it is not immoral.

People who need drugs are going to acquire them by any means necessary. Even if they are illegal. Even if they know they will go to jail. Even if they know they will lose their home. Even if they know they may die. We can see this very clearly now. The war on drugs; the criminalization of drugs is making this much worse. If drugs were legalized, we could rid society of the stigma associated with addicts who suffer under the life crushing violence of the state. Funds could then be used to help people who suffer from addiction problems. Open up more recovery options and widen the grasp of addiction treatment facilities. The possibilities would be opened up enormously and some real change could begin.

I believe this is moving humanity forward and extending the value of personhood. If you look back through history you can see the major leaps forward in mankind. Those moral shifts have allowed freedom and growth to take place in the human species. We used to eat each others flesh. Then we realized “hey this is kind of gross and wrong…and used up too much salt and pepper.” Then we enslaved other humans. Women had little to no rights. Then we realized “we are all human beings.” We kept universalizing and extending our ethical guidelines. I hope soon we will do this for the little people. Our children. Once we start treating them as full individual human beings we will see a growth in the world like no other. If we could evaluate the last few decades of the war on drugs, we would see the disaster for what it is. Making more laws around the same system will not help fix the disaster the state created. We must legalize all drugs, gambling, and prostitution if we truly want to make the problem better for our society.

I don’t want children or future children to believe that drugs are okay to use and that there are no problems with drugs. But you don’t solve that problem by creating laws against drugs. You do it through the peaceful raising of children and maintaining a nuclear family. There is no more of a non-answer in solving the drug problem than believing that creating more laws is helping the situation.

I understand I am making some pretty wild claims. If you disagree with me, please tell me where I am mistaken. I will correct my mistakes if better and more truthful arguments are brought forward. I believe it is important to accept reason and evidence, especially when talking about the zeitgeist of societies. 

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Is the buying/selling/using of drugs immoral?

  1. I agree with you absolutely. I was listening this morning to Tommy Rosen’s interview with Johann Hari, who mentioned something that I’d never really thought about and that is that when drugs become illegal, the most innocuous forms disappear and what’s available are the most concentrated and more lethal forms. So coca, when it was legal (it was an actual ingredient in the original coca cola) was consumed mostly as a tea. After it became illegal it was no longer obtainable as leaves (the form, ironically, in which most people would have wanted it) only as powder and or in even more potent form, crack. Opium when it was legal was consumed largely in form of laudanum, or smoked a la Sherlock Holmes. And during prohibition, it was hard to find beer and wine – the forms of alcohol most desired – but whiskey and moonshine were widely available. Obviously, the potential for addiction exists in every case, but some drugs, and some forms of drugs, are vastly more lethal than others. And the war on drugs – in reality a war on addicts – has, in a strange perverse way, created its own victims.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Absolutely. Great points too. The Rx heroin in Scandinavia (not sure where exactly) is pure while the street heroin has been cut and stomped on multiple times with garbage and poisons because of high risk and profits. Thanks for commenting!

      Like

  2. This post is wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to name them all, or even simply list them.

    Drugs, and alcohol for that matter, call it addiction in general, has one goal. To get the addicted to give away everything that is good in their life… Usually you give that last good thing up just before you die. Legalization will only accelerate that. The lack of a hard bottom would virtually cement the destruction.

    The best way to describe your post, simply, is irrational. Sorry man, generally I like your stuff. Not this one.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for being honest with your thoughts on this. I think its fantastic that you will disagree on this. Hell, if people didn’t disagree with each other, we would still believe slavery was okay. Innovation and growth of human living would stagnate…
      I know your not big on debating back and forth and this is not the best place for it anyway but if we can be open to new ideas, we are better off. I will make this brief as I can as I have thought on your comment for 24 hours. If you take a far more destructive substance than heroin; a substance that causes far higher death rates, illnesses, hospitalizations, and fatal diseases and then you legalize it, what is the outcome of that? That is the current laws on tobacco products. People who are addicted to cigarettes and chewing tobacco will never hit their hard bottom until cancer consumes their body. Tobacco/nicotine products are far more harmful to humans than heroin. The reason heroin is such a magnified problem compared to cigarettes is the legal system has created a paradigm in society where the addicted can’t receive the empathy and love they so desperately need. I understand your argument. I had to hit bottom before I could change so I get what you are saying but you are missing something there that is very important. First, it ignores a moral argument for an argument from effect. That would be like me saying “we can’t abolish slavery because- who would pick the cotton?” We only need rock bottom because of the system we are currently in. The initiation of force against another human being is immoral. That’s not just my opinion, its a universal moral principle. No substance in the world is inherently addictive. What makes it addictive is a damaged brain without the capacity to produce dopamine and/or endorphins. I will admit I am not a professional anything, I am an amateur but I love to learn new things. These Ideas are not mine and they are not new. They have been ran through Socratic dialogs by some of the smartest philosophers’ alive today so to state it is irrational is kind of irrational. lol I hope you take this all in fun and I challenge you to go through it one more time.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, but Dustin, you have to stop looking at this entire topic through the lens of the criminal. Your statistics on cigarettes, compelling as they may seem to the prison choir, are ridiculous. People can’t live for forty years with a heroin habit, it’s a poison, they simply die too fast from its use. Legalizing it won’t ease that, it’ll make it WORSE and thank God, anyone with half a brain and a position to actually make laws, knows this. Now, you want to see death rates, hospitalization and fatalities due to heroin use, cocaine use, ecstasy use, meth use, acid use or acid use skyrocket, legalize any one of them! To believe otherwise is simply naive and silly.

        The empathy and love they need? Brother please. You’re talking to an addict here, you’re going to have to sell that to the ignorant. I didn’t give a shit about anyone’s love or empathy while I was in the madness, no addict does. I just wanted to get high or drunk again. Your entire thought-line is simply gobbledygook on that piece of the topic.

        Finally, you are entirely wrong about rock bottom. We need rock bottom to quit taking that drug because it absolutely destroys a person’s life. It’s not the law that created the addict, it’s the drug! – and let’s use cocaine or heroin or crack for this one: Unlike alcohol, drugs CHANGE people, TURN them into addicts. Those drugs change the way the brain works so even those who start out as recreational users, more often than not, become addicted. This is far worse than alcohol.

        Finally, you are wrong about dopamine and endorphin processing in addicts. The study you read or heard about is wrong or discredited (or will be shortly). Straight up, flat-out. Simple as that.

        Let’s perform a study on this, a human study. We’ll give ten random people, all non-addicts, access to cheap heroin or crack… Let’s take away all of the legal consequences for doing drugs, but leave all of the social consequences (I am a business owner and I would literally quit and sell my company before allowing a high-on to work of me – talk about a recipe for death!). How long do those people last before their new habit kills their lives? A few months? Maybe a year? Legalization accelerates the trouble.

        Socratic philosophers? Give me a break, who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes. That line has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read. Let’s do an ad for heroin and crack: “Hey, Socratic Philosophers can’t be wrong, so let’s legalize crack cocaine!” My God man… The smartest people on the planet often say the stupidest things, Socratic Philosophers included.

        I can go through this five dozen times and I will not possibly turn to the Dark Side. Sorry brother, ain’t no way. The most destructive decisions in history were made with the best of intentions. Legalizing drugs would, were less civilized heads to prevail, would be among those.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Philosophy is a counterfeit machine. A bullshit detector. If a person wants to make a valid truth claim about the world their methodology for truth has to be valid. A marxist quote is hardly valid.
        Can scientific studies with reproducibility and double-blind experiments be wrong? Sure, its possible, but to state it as an absolute without any research into it is just silly.
        The decriminalization of all drugs in Portugal 10 years ago has proven to be a total success. The amount of hard drug users has fallen by 50%. Thats an equivalent to 11 million Americans. There is endless studies online about this as well as direct reporting in Portugal from the Institute of Drugs and Drug Addiction.
        The pain and pleasure centers in the brain that you claim I am wrong about has been studied widely by different scientific and medical professionals for over 20 years. Could it be disproven? Of course it could but has it, no.
        Why did only 10% of the WW2 vets (who used heroin daily while deployed) continue using heroin when they came back from war?
        I get it… you have a non-changeable belief and thats fine. The best of intentions has zero place in these propositions. Intentions is a word people in power use to cover up their evil.
        Of course philosophers can be wrong but your straw-manning me. That wasn’t what I said. If you run an argument through socratic reasoning, you can see if it is a valid argument. To make fun of socratic reasoning is again, silly and not an argument. I would keep going but I will save some energy for my day. Its just beginning.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Look brother, Socrates aside, it’s been commonplace over the last 80 years to complain that society is doomed and/or declining… And then to propose one more thing that will accelerate the decline. This is one of those things. Plug the notion that drug use will drop if it becomes easier to get and cheaper to use through Socratic reasoning and get back with me. I won’t need to hold my breath. Have a great day brother. I mean you no ill will, I just disagree with where you’re going with your beliefs – and in the end, whether Socrates agrees or not, legalizing drugs is nuts.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. This was an interesting post and I appreciate your honesty with it. I disagree with you on where morals come from but seeing as how that wasn’t the gist of your argument, I’ll leave that aside. I lean pretty Libertarian on a lot of stuff and so legalizing drugs to some extent always made sense to me. Add to it that our politicians just love any excuse to increase their power by exploiting the never ending war on drugs to their advantage, and it almost seems like a no brainer to make them legal, especially pot.

    It’s the more addictive ones though that concern me like cocaine and heroin. As a former user yourself, how would it have affected you while you were in the thick of it if you could go to the corner store and pick up your next fix? I’m not trying to be a jerk, I really am interested in your perspective on that. I’m thinking teenagers too would have to easy access. Not that they don’t now though I guess.

    And more treatment focused methods I’m totally on board with. We need to stop clogging up our prisons with people who otherwise just need help with their addictions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks Tricia, The majority of the world disagrees with me on where morality comes from. 🙂 But, I would argue thats why we have war, hunger, famine, national debts, millions of prisoners, hierarchies, torture, racism, governments, etc. blah blah blah I just couldn’t leave it aside. lol
      All jokes aside, it sounds like you still aren’t sure about all drugs being legal and that’s okay but it is a very important part of why the universality of ethics is a must. Humor me for a minute here… Do you believe that ethics must be universal to be valid? If they are not and I had power over you, I could say that it is wrong for you to steal, but not for me. And then I would steal your icecream or whatever. I would tell you it is wrong for you to hit people, but I am allowed to hit you and so on. This is the entire ethics problem in the world. We all claim to be moral, yet we don’t have universal morality. We say, it is immoral to initiate force against others…..unless you have a different colored suit on. We want our property protected so what do we do? We create a small group of individuals who have the right and the obligation to violate our property. How absurd is this? People generally say “Well thats just the way it is.” or their brain just shuts down. I will try to get to the point. Without universal ethics, all we have is opinion + initiation of force. This is our current system. Cigarettes- highly addictive and far more deadly than heroin- legal. Heroin- highly addictive- illegal. Rx drugs- highly addictive, many not thoroughly tested, horrendous side effects, possible suicidality, kills millions- legal. Ibogaine root- has been shown to suppress addiction in 70% of addicts, has helped countless people stop using heroin cocaine alcohol in 1 day, causes hallucinations- illegal.
      How arbitrary are these? There is no rational way to explain why something in the US is legal or illegal. Because we have lived under this system for so long, we have learned curtain things that just aren’t true. Portugal decriminalized all drugs 14 years ago. The results of the decriminalization have been astounding. Crime rates have plummeted, HIV has steadily decreased, drug use did spike innitially but has dropped by 50%. IV users have dropped, sex crimes have lowered, I could go on and on. Of course, its not all because of the decriminalization directly but once that took place, society put in many other addiction avenues to aid addicts in their recovery- like what you and I mentioned in the first comments. There are a few articles that still try to make portugal sound like a failure but those circles have a direct narrative to protect the US system. Portugal is an experiment that shows it works….and that is Portugal. A place that was previously squeezed off brutally by decades of tyrannical dictators. The US is ahead educationally, economically, medically…..in every aspect the US has the capacity to far surpass Portugal’s success.
      To answer your question: Honestly, I don’t know. I mean I can’t know for sure how things would be here if our country went that route. I know that to think that everything would be the same except for the criminal aspect is delusional. I know that millions of people in the free market solving problems with negotiation and the creative destruction of the free market can solve all the problems that the governing body does not. Pointing guns at people is not even in the top 100 ways of how you solve complex social problems yet thats what they are currently doing. It would definitely be easy to get heroin if it was legal, but it would also not be mixed with rat poison or mixed too strong that I overdose unknowingly. Heroin, even now, is easy to get. I could have it in 30 minutes if I wanted to but I think accessibility is not the problem. People who are going to use it, are going to use it. They also prescribe IV heroin somewhere in the Netherlands and those people who go shoot up at the doctor office, other than having to still use everyday, lead normal everyday lives. Thats not the perfect answer but I think the outlets in our society would be so radically different at that point, it’s really hard to say I would have been worse off had it been legal. Society looks at drugs as “the problem”. Drugs are simply a symptom. Cutting off drugs does not fix the problem. I believe, with alot of science and evidence to back it up, that we raise our children in stress free, peaceful environments and stop letting the lowest common denominator in daycare be the major influence in the raising of our children. That is the shortened version, there is a lot more involved but right now, it is still considered okay to hit a child. This goes back to universal ethics. Imagine a man saying he had to hit his wife because she “just wouldn’t listen.” As appalling as the man sounds we switch our ethics when it comes to the most innocent and helpless in the world, the children. I have to live by universals. If hitting a woman is immoral, so is hitting a child. If the initiation of force is immoral for me to do to another, it’s immoral for a concept called “the government” to do it. The government is just people. Gravity doesn’t reverse for them, all physics stay constant for people in the government. Morals must include all human beings for me. Sorry this was so long. I enjoy talking about this kind of stuff. Thanks for commenting and I hope I answered your question. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Dustin, I appreciate your detailed response. 🙂 And a lot of people don’t agree with me on many things either so I can relate! How boring would the world be if we all held the same opinions, eh? 😉

        I agree with you that there is universal morality but my belief is that this comes directly from God and the sense of what’s right vs wrong is imprinted on all our hearts. Although we may be, in my opinion, created in God’s image, we are also imperfect men and women which means we fall short of that law all the time.

        Because there is universal law but not everybody lives up to it though, doesn’t make the law wrong, only the people that fail it. Also, there is a difference between morals, ethics and rule of law which I haven’t thought through enough to give a proper response here but perhaps I will create a new blog post on this, as it’s fascinating to think about all three and the way they govern each of us.

        For the purpose of your subject of decriminalizing drugs, I think we are mostly on the same page. My only concern really is if easy access to the very addictive types would only make things worse. You seem more educated on this than me as far as how other countries who have tried this have fare,d as well as your own experience with it. Just to make clear, I’m not opposed but think we should tread carefully in to it.

        It is so tragic the extreme loss of human potential and life when it comes to drugs and, I’d say alcohol. Just read an article today about the growing trend of shooting up melted down pain killers (who knew!) and how its devastating areas of Kentucky and TX; with HIV and Hepatitis rates trending upward for the first time in years.

        Something has to be done and yes, this war on drugs really has been a disaster as has the war on poverty and everything else the government tries to tackle and make better. Some structure is needed though which can only come from government, otherwise you have anarchy. The security of its people and the protection of private property rights are the two main things a government in a free Republic as ours should be doing but we’ve strayed so far from this, that it’s questionable whether we can even count on that any more.

        Good for you Dustin for tackling a difficult topic that really needs your voice of experience and knowledge!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Tricia, I agree with you that sharing all the same conclusions with everyone else would be pretty cookie cutter lame. What I find strange about morals is all the historical powers that have been the paragons of virtue have always been exempt from their proposals. Some examples of this are; God’s commandments state that murder is wrong yet God murders on a global scale. Government law states that stealing is immoral, then the government steals in the form of taxes and other slimy ways. They say counterfeiting is immoral and illegal and then they counterfeit by printing more and more currency enslaving our unborn children with national debt. Our parents tell us “don’t hit others” then they hit us as punishment. It has been this way for thousands of years and it is quite sad.
        The melting painkillers issue is terrible. I have done it myself and it is a serious problem. This issue is great evidence of the incompetence of government policies. They started putting crap into the pills so that when you crushed them up they turned to a gel substance. It only redirects the problem to another outlet.
        I agree that some structure is needed but I have to ask why you think only a government could provide that? Anarchy simply means no rulers. So many believe that anarchy is a scary crazy motorcycle gang with a Mohawk and a machete. All it is, is solving problems without violence. Love making is always preferable to rape. That’s all anarchy is but the mainstream will never tell that out loud. I think youre right about getting back to the constitutional republic. I believe its long gone. The smallest governments have always grown into the largest. The free market allows the government to borrow against the wealth and it blows up every time. Thanks again for taking the time to comment. I know these can be some touchy topics for a lot of people. I am happy that you are Lib in many things. that is refreshing compared to the majority of people.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I agree Elizabeth and thanks for the interesting link. I have looked into the Portugal decriminalization but I always welcome more info about it. Even if there was zero proof that decriminalization was beneficial, I would still argue this topic from a moral standpoint. We got rid of slavery because it was immoral. The vast majority of people back then realized it was wrong and inhumane and they were not saying it was a bad idea to end slavery because “the cotton would go unpicked”. Moral arguments, in my opinion are what the world needs more of. Who is the government to tell people what they can put into their body? Especially when they do it freely by choice. Our current system may not be willing to give up the revenue and power they have generated with the war on drugs but I think in enough time it will crash down from unsustainability. Thanks for your thoughts on this topic.

      Like

  4. Love this post, and am reading Johann Hari right now. Am about to become active in efforts to decriminalize drugs and bring humane treatments to addicts. I was so fortunate… my drug was the perfectly legal alcohol and I was treated with loving kindness and sent to a great rehab. Few are so lucky.

    Liked by 1 person

    • That’s great to hear. And thank you. It’s not yet the majority of societies view on the subject but in time I think it will move in this direction. Especially from the strides from people like yourself. Keep it up and thanks for commenting. 🙂

      Like

  5. GREAT POST! THANK YOU!!! And reality shows that your theory is correct. Portugal has decriminilised drugs and everything is changing for the better. More here:
    http://www.maps.org/bulletin-items/387-bulletin-spring-2015/5671-decriminalization-and-harm-reduction-in-portugal-an-interview-with-dr-jo%C3%A3o-goul%C3%A3o

    By the way: In the Netherlands being addicted to drugs has never been criminalised and we have the lowest figures for addictions and deaths due to addiction to drugs worldwide. Not sure on alcohol. That seems to be getting out of hand in line with the worldwide trend. :-/

    Ooh, by the way for all you unbelievers: sex-education starts at age 4 here at school and we have one of the lowest teenpregnancies and abortion rats for Western countries. The teen pregnancies that do happen are mostly in religious groups of girls who’s parents did not want them to have sex-education….. That is how it works. In some states in the USA sex education is forbidden. Figures show that 40% Of the USA girls age 20 are or have been pregnant. That is what making things illegal does, that is what hiding does, what shaming does: it makes things worse.

    Hurray for the free minds of this world! 🙂

    xx, Feeling

    Liked by 1 person

    • I will definitely read up on your links. Very interesting stuff. Thank you for the added information. Another big problem in America with teen pregnancies and fatherless homes is the bad choices by women are no longer ostracized by society. The government pays people to have children they can’t afford. Men are considered unnessasary in the raising of children and it is destroying the country on many levels. There is a lot of science behind all this. Not merely a crazy bloggers opinion. Lol many people have a disconnect when they try to see that when government makes a law, they are pointing guns at people. That is no way to solve any complex social problem. Thanks for you thoughts, facts, stats and passion on the topic. I appreciate the words of a fellow free thinker. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  6. This is what I told my grandson. If it is illegal don’t do it, cause if you get caught you will go to jail. He didn’t listen. He’s 26 now and no longer does drugs…..he did not like jail. If certain drugs become legal, a lot of people are going to suffer. I don’t see society getting better. Some people cannot use drugs and lead a safe life. Of course, some people cannot drink without killing someone in a black out. Informing people at a young age could possibly stem the use of and addiction to drugs or alcohol. But then, some people can have just one drink. So far, science has not been able to sort this out. Are there people who can have just one hit of crack? Morals. Drinking is not evil. Addiction is not evil, it is an illness. Alcoholics have morals, drunk or sober. The problem for me is that if I drink some alcohol, I cease to care about morals. I cease to care, period. I cease to care about you, I cease to care about the news, and if my brain blacks out I don’t even know I exist. At least if I stay sober I can try to be part of the solution. And don’t believe that all women believe that men are not necessary in the raising of children, because I absolutely believe in having a mother and father, as long as they are both responsible. It’s September 10, Justin, where you at?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Hey – as an amateur student of philosophy and rhetoric myself, I couldn’t help but notice that you took a logos-heavy stance, while BigDaddyJim pulled out all the pathos. Lots of bluster and unfounded assertions, but not much substance. If it came to whipping up an audience, I think he would win. If it came to persuading society’s changemakers, I think you would win. If I could make one suggestion, it would be to ‘chunk’ your replies into reader-friendly blocks of text, the same way you do for your posts.

    Regarding your stance, I’ve read “Chasing the Scream” and “High Price”; I accept the authors’ evidence-based arguments that users of illegal drugs are generally rational actors seeking socially unacceptable pleasure, much in the same way that users of legal drugs are rational actors seeking socially-acceptable pleasure through alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine; and that the war on drugs has done more harm than good.

    The place where I diverge is in the ‘rational transaction’ part of your argument. While it works for recreational and even heavy users, it does not apply as well to those who are physically dependent on a substance, and who will get very sick or die without it. So it’s not a purely rational transaction between two trading partners on equal footing. If I were an insulin-dependent diabetic, and you had the last insulin in town, you would be in a far more powerful bargaining position than I would be.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s