Heroin - benign and useful

[Multiplum]

http://www.flatearthnews.net/footnotes-book/page-28-heroin/whats-wrong-war-against-drugs

Based on an article posted in The Guardian.
I strongly recommend reading this.

I don't know if there's much else to say, really.

Through zero-tolerance and red tape, not only do we destroy the lives and health of those who are addicted - we also rule out the use of this drug in medicine. Granted, it is used some places (dying patients in England is an example, if I remember correctly), but by criminalizing, we are effectively insuring that a rather benign substance is sold containing numerous adulterants who are genuinely harmful.

A recent proposal by the minister of health in Norway caused uproar, when he proposed to give addicts heroin under medical supervision - thus eliminating all harmful effects of the drug. Years of propaganda has created a monster out of this particular opiate, perhaps making a progressive shift in policies impossible for many years to come.

No hope for humanity.

Link. (http://www.flatearthnews.net/footnotes-book/page-28-heroin/whats-wrong-war-against-drugs)

Thoughts?

[SMadsen]

I honestly can't think of single substance that isn't benign in at least one way. Heck, even plutonium has benign uses.

Doesn't mean I want my kid to buy it in the supermarket, though.

[Michael]

http://www.flatearthnews.net/footnotes-book/page-28-heroin/whats-wrong-war-against-drugs

Based on an article posted in The Guardian.
I strongly recommend reading this.

I don't know if there's much else to say, really.

Through zero-tolerance and red tape, not only do we destroy the lives and health of those who are addicted - we also rule out the use of this drug in medicine. Granted, it is used some places (dying patients in England is an example, if I remember correctly), but by criminalizing, we are effectively insuring that a rather benign substance is sold containing numerous adulterants who are genuinely harmful.

A recent proposal by the minister of health in Norway caused uproar, when he proposed to give addicts heroin under medical supervision - thus eliminating all harmful effects of the drug. Years of propaganda has created a monster out of this particular opiate, perhaps making a progressive shift in policies impossible for many years to come.

No hope for humanity.

Link. (http://www.flatearthnews.net/footnotes-book/page-28-heroin/whats-wrong-war-against-drugs)

Thoughts?
Pot and prostitution are way higher priorities. They suffer the same bullshit science and moral crusading that heroin does.

Personally I think the world could be improved substantially just by reversing the existing laws on pot and booze.

What ought to be interesting is to find 'why' human governments are so aggressive in making things like pot or heroin illegal in the first place. I do find this interesting in that there is no 'evidence' of harm available in the period preceding making it illegal.

Clearly, all efforts to ban such substances are always being driven by morality, not science.

And if that's true, then all the science in the world won't change things. Science didn't make heroin illegal therefore science can't make heroin legal. It is moral crusading that made heroin illegal. Therefore, the only remedy is moral crusading in favor of heroin - and that's not going to happen.

Pot is strong enough to empower a 'moral crusade' against the moral crusade that makes it illegal, thus, there is some progress on the issue. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with morality.

[SMadsen]

Pot and prostitution are way higher priorities. They suffer the same bullshit science and moral crusading that heroin does.

Personally I think the world could be improved substantially just by reversing the existing laws on pot and booze.

What ought to be interesting is to find 'why' human governments are so aggressive in making things like pot or heroin illegal in the first place. I do find this interesting in that there is no 'evidence' of harm available in the period preceding making it illegal.

Clearly, all efforts to ban such substances are always being driven by morality, not science.

And if that's true, then all the science in the world won't change things. Science didn't make heroin illegal therefore science can't make heroin legal. It is moral crusading that made heroin illegal. Therefore, the only remedy is moral crusading in favor of heroin - and that's not going to happen.

Pot is strong enough to empower a 'moral crusade' against the moral crusade that makes it illegal, thus, there is some progress on the issue. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with morality.
Two questions:
1. Why does prohibition of a drug have to be argued by the direct properties of the drug?
Lots of substances are quite safe, and even benign probably, if handled properly. Even plutonium. Does that makes all substances eligible for a free market?

2. Why do you need science as the only mediator of the effects of heroin use? Or of prostitution for that matter?
I can also say that there's a lack of scientific evidence that guns kill people. Either literally in form of the traditional guns-don't-kill-people-people-do argument or by the adulteration argument, - that guns don't kill unless they're adulterated with, say, bullets. Does that make guns eligible for a free market?

[Michael]

Two questions:
1. Why does prohibition of a drug have to be argued by the direct properties of the drug?
Lots of substances are quite safe, and even benign probably, if handled properly. Even plutonium. Does that makes all substances eligible for a free market?
I've argued the contrary. The physical properties of any given drug are irrelevant to the legal status of any given drug. The political properties are everything.

The physical properties of the drugs in question were irrelevant (and mostly unknown) at the time they were made illegal.

2. Why do you need science as the only mediator of the effects of heroin use? Or of prostitution for that matter?
I can also say that there's a lack of scientific evidence that guns kill people. Either literally in form of the traditional guns-don't-kill-people-people-do argument or by the adulteration argument, - that guns don't kill unless they're adulterated with, say, bullets. Does that make guns eligible for a free market?
I've asserted that science is irrelevant to the issue of drug prohibition.

The prohibition against certain categories of recreational drugs are entirely motivated and enacted as moral imperatives - independent of, or regardless of, the physcial properties of the drugs in question.

Ergo, touting 'new science' that better explains the physical properties of various drugs are essentially irrelevant to the prohibition argument. The prohibition people ignored the science to make these drugs illegal in the first place.

[Zedrow]

I think there are a few 'moral' arguments in favor of legalizing drugs.

For one, if drugs were legal and controlled by the powers that be, the only people being killed over such drugs are those using them as opposed to the many people killed, both innocent bystanders and those involved in the trade, through gang fighting, retribution etc...

Also, I personally find it morally wrong to spend so much money and time trying to enforce something that clearly is just not possible to enforce. I'm thinking of the time spent investigating these people; the amount spent keeping just the buyers, let alone the dealers and traffickers, in jail or on trial after trial.

There are more moral arguments in legalizing it as well, but these are just a couple of examples.

[SMadsen]

I've argued the contrary. The physical properties of any given drug are irrelevant to the legal status of any given drug. The political properties are everything.

The physical properties of the drugs in question were irrelevant (and mostly unknown) at the time they were made illegal.


I've asserted that science is irrelevant to the issue of drug prohibition.

The prohibition against certain categories of recreational drugs are entirely motivated and enacted as moral imperatives - independent of, or regardless of, the physcial properties of the drugs in question.

Ergo, touting 'new science' that better explains the physical properties of various drugs are essentially irrelevant to the prohibition argument. The prohibition people ignored the science to make these drugs illegal in the first place.
Yes, you said that bans are driven by moral crusades but you sound as if you want science to be the only arbitor. Like that if there is no supporting science then moral crusades takes over. Especially in this you said before:
I do find this interesting in that there is no 'evidence' of harm available in the period preceding making it illegal.
Clearly, all efforts to ban such substances are always being driven by morality, not science.
Isn't that incorrecty understood?

If so, couldn't there be anything else than science and morality to drive a need for prohibition? For instance, rather than merely scientific support for physiological effects or morally driven ick-factors, there could perhaps be quite harmful social effects surrounding the use of a drug?

For example, in advocating that bans be lifted on heroin, would this mean no restrictions whatsover or would you still have restrictions for, say, 3 year old kids? If science shows that heroin has no harmful effects and that restrictions are only driven by morality (with which I agree restrictions should never comply), wouldn't it be eligible for use, regardless of things like age? If not, why?

[Michael]

I don't think the "its a waste of money" argument carries much weight either.

Money spent for "abstinance education" is a perfect example. Every study done proves that every penny spent here is a total useless waste (actually, worse than wasteful in producing an increase in that which it seeks to prevent). But public funding for these programs just continues on, year after year.

Or how many tens of billions does the Pentagon routinely waste on useless research on useless and impractical weapon systems or platforms? Per year?

My point here is that the efficiency, functionality or practical utility of any given government spending program has NEVER been found to be sufficient grounds for cancelling any given government spending program.

The US 'war on drugs' (officially going on twenty years now) already supplies countless studies of its inefficiency, disfunction and practical uselessness (and even counter-productiveness from the British studies) and yet the program still draws increasing and continued tax-funding.

Ergo, the only argument that can work is to attack the idea that the government has any right to directly control/regulate your own lifestyle choices. That's the principle they are using to justify the illegality of various recreational drugs and that's the only ground they have to stand on when you show them that a) the science says the drugs don't actually do harm, or b) the 'war on drugs' is a colossal waste of tax money. Nothing there but the moral imperative of governmental authority invoked to say what you can or can't do, just because they can. That's the real evil here.

[SMadsen]

Ergo, the only argument that can work is to attack the idea that the government has any right to directly control/regulate your own lifestyle choices. That's the principle they are using to justify the illegality of various recreational drugs and that's the only ground they have to stand on when you show them that a) the science says the drugs don't actually do harm, or b) the 'war on drugs' is a colossal waste of tax money. Nothing there but the moral imperative of governmental authority invoked to say what you can or can't do, just because they can. That's the real evil here.
Again, so instead of the obligatory choice between a chunk of carrot or cucumber at lunch time, why not give the kindergarden kids the choice of heroin, carrot, cucumber and a beer?

Surely, if the illegimacy of things like heroin is built on morality only, removing the moral imperative would make heroin use in kindergarten perfectly legit.

[The Drunk Guy]

For example, in advocating that bans be lifted on heroin, would this mean no restrictions whatsover or would you still have restrictions for, say, 3 year old kids? If science shows that heroin has no harmful effects and that restrictions are only driven by morality (with which I agree restrictions should never comply), wouldn't it be eligible for use, regardless of things like age? If not, why?
I'll take this one....

For me, the responsibility to safeguard minors lies with the parents. It is not the role of government to supervise the daily actions of people, but to provide a stable environment for people to live as they please. It also the responsibility of the seller to think of the market and it's morality. Surely the seller caught selling to a minor could expect boycotts and protests.

Of course, this is all theoretical in that such freedom will never be allowed in our lifetimes.

[The Drunk Guy]

Again, so instead of the obligatory choice between a chunk of carrot or cucumber at lunch time, why not give the kindergarden kids the choice of heroin, carrot, cucumber and a beer?

Surely, if the illegimacy of things like heroin is built on morality only, removing the moral imperative would make heroin use in kindergarten perfectly legit.
I don't know about heroin, but I know a fuckton of 6 year-olds that need to get baked and just chill the fuck out.:D

I'm sorry, but the conversation is obviously talking about adult use. How many 3 year-olds you see buying Tylenol and a six-pack of O'Doul's? How many kids you see buying cough syrup or Tums or condoms or weight-loss pills?

[SMadsen]

I'll take this one....

For me, the responsibility to safeguard minors lies with the parents. It is not the role of government to supervise the daily actions of people, but to provide a stable environment for people to live as they please. It also the responsibility of the seller to think of the market and it's morality. Surely the seller caught selling to a minor could expect boycotts and protests.

Of course, this is all theoretical in that such freedom will never be allowed in our lifetimes.
Why the specific designation of a "minor"? If heroin does no harm, surely the designation (which is actually a legal designation) should not be in effect? What I hear Michael pointing out is that in a market free of moral yokes, heroin would be as legal as tap water.

Or are you saying that since a seller selling heroin to a minor should expect boycotts and protests, that heroin actually has some harmful effects after all? Or is that solely the moral yoke speaking?

[Michael]

Again, so instead of the obligatory choice between a chunk of carrot or cucumber at lunch time, why not give the kindergarden kids the choice of heroin, carrot, cucumber and a beer?

Surely, if the illegimacy of things like heroin is built on morality only, removing the moral imperative would make heroin use in kindergarten perfectly legit.
Not at all. Removal of the moral imperative to the law might open up a radical opportunity to use science or rationality instead. As it stands, the moral imperative that drives the law is an 800 pound gorilla.

Alternatively, one could perhaps construct a religious morality of scientific rationality... :lol:

[SMadsen]

I don't know about heroin, but I know a fuckton of 6 year-olds that need to get baked and just chill the fuck out.:D

I'm sorry, but the conversation is obviously talking about adult use. How many 3 year-olds you see buying Tylenol and a six-pack of O'Doul's? How many kids you see buying cough syrup or Tums or condoms or weight-loss pills?
To me the conversation is solely about morality and law. If morality is the only thing controlling prohibition laws, then prohibition laws must completely and in their entirety be repealed once the moral imperative is gone.

If there is just one shred of restriction left then the moral imperative was not all that the original restrictions were based upon.

[SMadsen]

Not at all. Removal of the moral imperative to the law might open up a radical opportunity to use science or rationality instead. As it stands, the moral imperative that drives the law is an 800 pound gorilla.

Alternatively, one could perhaps construct a religious morality of scientific rationality... :lol:
But there is no science, you say. It's all morality. Thus, you say, there is no other basis for prohibition whatsoever.

[Michael]

But there is no science, you say. It's all morality. Thus, you say, there is no other basis for prohibition whatsoever.
The existing prohibition is entirely driven by morality. It is the same morality that prohibits pot smoking and prostitution (and gambling) and drinking on Sundays, tobacco smoking laws or whatever. These laws are all driven by moral imperative to begin with. To defeat or change these laws, one has to defeat the moral argument that empowers them.

Once one does that, then law may be freed of morality and one may substitute a scientifically rational (and or ethical) policy or pure libertarian freedom instead. That's a whole other topic discussion.

[The Drunk Guy]

Why the specific designation of a "minor"? If heroin does no harm, surely the designation (which is actually a legal designation) should not be in effect? What I hear Michael pointing out is that in a market free of moral yokes, heroin would be as legal as tap water.

Or are you saying that since a seller selling heroin to a minor should expect boycotts and protests, that heroin actually has some harmful effects after all? Or is that solely the moral yoke speaking?
You're being quite literal. The article (and our subsequent arguments) does not deny that this is still a powerful and addictive pain killer. The argument continues that addicts of pure heroin were no more dangerous to society than any other legal and addictive drug.

Personally, I feel that any addictive drug has a negative effect. I'm addicted to caffeine and nicotine and perilously close to an addiction to alcohol. I feel the toll all these chemicals take out of my body every morning, but I am too weak to overcome my body's demands for more of these chemicals.

Do I want this to happen to a 3 year-old? Fuck no, but I'm not going to tell another person how to raise their kid. As for my kids, I plan on being aware of their activities until I feel that they have reached a level of critical decision making that will be safe to themselves. When my kid reaches that stage and makes a decision to start smoking, then that will be their choice as an educated adult.

This is my morality on the subject.

[SMadsen]

The existing prohibition is entirely driven by morality. It is the same morality that prohibits pot smoking and prostitution (and gambling) and drinking on Sundays, tobacco smoking laws or whatever. These laws are all driven by moral imperative to begin with. To defeat or change these laws, one has to defeat the moral argument that empowers them.

Once one does that, then law may be freed of morality and one may substitute a scientifically rational (and or ethical) policy or pure libertarian freedom instead. That's a whole other topic discussion.
Michael, if you put 4 apples in an empty bag and subsequently remove 4 apples from the bag you're left with an empty bag. At least where I come from, that's a pretty reasonable and valid conclusion.

If the existing prohibition has nothing but moral sentiment in the bag then, if you remove all moral sentiment, you will be left with an empty bag. Is that not a reasonable conclusion?

At the same time, however, you're saying that the bag will not be completely empty after removing all moral sentiment. That's the same as saying that the existing prohibition is not entirely driven by morality after all.

You can't have it both ways. Are there or are there not issues with heroine use that do not entirely rest on moral sentiment? If so, is it totally out of the question to assume that part of the existing ban on heroine has to do with something else than morality and emotional prejudice?

[SMadsen]

You're being quite literal. The article (and our subsequent arguments) does not deny that this is still a powerful and addictive pain killer. The argument continues that addicts of pure heroin were no more dangerous to society than any other legal and addictive drug.

Personally, I feel that any addictive drug has a negative effect. I'm addicted to caffeine and nicotine and perilously close to an addiction to alcohol. I feel the toll all these chemicals take out of my body every morning, but I am too weak to overcome my body's demands for more of these chemicals.

Do I want this to happen to a 3 year-old? Fuck no, but I'm not going to tell another person how to raise their kid. As for my kids, I plan on being aware of their activities until I feel that they have reached a level of critical decision making that will be safe to themselves. When my kid reaches that stage and makes a decision to start smoking, then that will be their choice as an educated adult.

This is my morality on the subject.
This, I think, describes one of the few downsides of individual rights and liberalism (in the traditional meaning, not the distorted version that's become colloquial standard in places like, say, USA): Everyone focuses on the absence of actions and forgets the ripples that constantly eminate from and bounce off ALL people within a society, including the self.

It has nothing to do with telling someone how to raise their kids. It has to do with taking a stand on the framework of society within which most, if not all, fellow people are raised, - including most, if not all, of the people who, however randomly, inadvertently will affect your kids according to the setup of that framework.

Civil rights don't exist in order to protect the individual from acting, they exist to protect the individual from the actions of others.

You may not want to tell someone not to raise kids to be drug dealers, legal or not legal, but I bet you don't want drug dealers around your kids from they leave the house till they get back (of course, pertaining to what I see as the issue here, Michael seems to say that all apprehension against contact with drugs is based on moral prejudice since the drugs are actually harmless - or at least harmless once they become legal - while I say, like you seem to say, that there are actually rational reasons for regarding certain drugs as being harmful).

[dilettante]

The existing prohibition is entirely driven by morality. It is the same morality that prohibits pot smoking and prostitution (and gambling) and drinking on Sundays, tobacco smoking laws or whatever. These laws are all driven by moral imperative to begin with. To defeat or change these laws, one has to defeat the moral argument that empowers them.

I'm a bit confused as to what moral precept you see behind these laws that's divorced from the physical properties and effects of the things banned. As best I can tell, arguments for these laws are invariably based on the (perceived) properties and effects of the thing to be banned.

For example, you include "tobacco smoking laws," but I don't know anyone who argues for bans on smoking just for the sake of a ban on smoking. They argue for a bans on smoking because of the (perceived) deleterious effects of tobacco smoke on the individual who comes it and on all those around him/her.

Similarly, arguments against drug use these days almost always focus on the (perceived) effects such things will have on individuals and society. I really don't see how one could have a moral objection to a drug which wasn't based entirely on the (perceived) properties of the drug. No one tries to keep pot illegal just for the sake of keeping it illegal; they try to keep it illegal because they believe that it harms individuals and that legalization would harm society.

Now they may well be wrong in their understanding of the physical properties of the drug, but that's another matter altogether.

On the broader issue (and this relates to another thread) almost ALL laws have moral components to them. There is no "scientifically rational" way to ban anything that doesn't on some level appeal to a moral precept.

[SMadsen]

On the broader issue (and this relates to another thread) almost ALL laws have moral components to them. There is no "scientifically rational" way to ban anything that doesn't on some level appeal to a moral precept.
If I may, ALL laws have ethical components to them. I don't mind if it's kept mostly in the other thread, but now that you mention it :)

[The Drunk Guy]

This, I think, describes one of the few downsides of individual rights and liberalism (in the traditional meaning, not the distorted version that's become colloquial standard in places like, say, USA): Everyone focuses on the absence of actions and forgets the ripples that constantly eminate from and bounce off ALL people within a society, including the self.

It has nothing to do with telling someone how to raise their kids. It has to do with taking a stand on the framework of society within which most, if not all, fellow people are raised, - including most, if not all, of the people who, however randomly, inadvertently will affect your kids according to the setup of that framework.

Civil rights don't exist in order to protect the individual from acting, they exist to protect the individual from the actions of others.

You may not want to tell someone not to raise kids to be drug dealers, legal or not legal, but I bet you don't want drug dealers around your kids from they leave the house till they get back (of course, pertaining to what I see as the issue here, Michael seems to say that all apprehension against contact with drugs is based on moral prejudice since the drugs are actually harmless - or at least harmless once they become legal - while I say, like you seem to say, that there are actually rational reasons for regarding certain drugs as being harmful).
What you don't see is what the reality of legal heroin, pot, and other drugs would be like. It's not going to be the current low-life dealers selling this stuff. It would be in a store. It's not going to be in little baggies. It's going to be in a sealed container from the manufacturer. People are going to notice that the product isn't something a child would spend his lunch money on to try out.

Why do you think I've been mentioning the Tylenol and tussin and all these other drugs that are available in any convenience store? Because that is the reality of a legalized drug. The illegal drugs are the ones sold by the local ex-con to school children in back alleys on the way home from school.

America has the strictest drug laws in the world. It also has the worst drug problem in the world. Coincidence? I don't think so. It's all about having another point of control.

[Michael]

America has the strictest drug laws in the world. It also has the worst drug problem in the world. Coincidence? I don't think so. It's all about having another point of control.
Actually, USA doesn't have the most strict drug laws - Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia (for example) all have much tougher anti-drug laws (on paper).

However, you are correct that the US has by far the most strict drug laws in the western world and the US has by far the most drug problems. I agree, that there is a strong conection here. As research has already shown, the drugs themselves do not cause problems. The problems come from the black-market prohibition status - and the USA has the largest black-market prohibition status out there - thus the USA has the worst problems.

[Michael]

Michael, if you put 4 apples in an empty bag and subsequently remove 4 apples from the bag you're left with an empty bag. At least where I come from, that's a pretty reasonable and valid conclusion.

If the existing prohibition has nothing but moral sentiment in the bag then, if you remove all moral sentiment, you will be left with an empty bag. Is that not a reasonable conclusion?

The bag in this case is a law. If you remove the justification for the law, you still have a law (an unsupported law). Removal of justification for a law is a political act that doesn't actually impinge upon the law itself. Removal of the law itself is a separate act - that can only follow after the removal of the political justification of the law.

Merely removing the political justifcation of the law doesn't change the law or eliminate it. It only makes it possible for the law to be changed (or nullified).

At the same time, however, you're saying that the bag will not be completely empty after removing all moral sentiment. That's the same as saying that the existing prohibition is not entirely driven by morality after all.

I'm saying no such thing. In this example, the bag is the law. The apples that are put in the bag are the political justification for the law. Remove that and the bag is still there.

You can't have it both ways. Are there or are there not issues with heroine use that do not entirely rest on moral sentiment? If so, is it totally out of the question to assume that part of the existing ban on heroine has to do with something else than morality and emotional prejudice?
I disagree with the inference of your reasoning. My argument is consistent.

Heroin (and most drug laws) were created ENTIRELY based on morality/emotion. Remove the morality/emotion, one has removed the political power of the law, and thus have the power to overturn it. But the law itself is still a tool that can be used by anyone.

I recognize that there is strong support for the moral law of prohibition. Even if one defeats that, there is a whole different constituency of people who support the law for practical or ethical reasons. Removal/defeat of the former doesn't impinge upon the latter. I expect they'd move to regulate heroin with different justifications.

My argument given here has NOT been predicated upon pure libertarian theory. My argument is pragmatic. Thus, you cannot assert that I'm required to be consistent to pure libertarian theory.

[SMadsen]

The bag in this case is a law. If you remove the justification for the law, you still have a law (an unsupported law). Removal of justification for a law is a political act that doesn't actually impinge upon the law itself. Removal of the law itself is a separate act - that can only follow after the removal of the political justification of the law.

Merely removing the political justifcation of the law doesn't change the law or eliminate it. It only makes it possible for the law to be changed (or nullified).
Explaining the practical application doesn't change the argument :)

Yes, the bag in this case is law and the apples represent justification. If morality is all that is in the bag then the bag will become utterly empty after you remove morality. And yes, the bag will still exist but that's irrelevant. What is not irrelevant, however, is that you somehow state that the bag isn't empty after elimination of the moral imperative. Since you will not give heroine free in all cases once legislation is free of moral sentiment, you apparantly find in the bag that there are certain damaging effects of heroine that can be more rationally assessed than morality allows?

Or is it merely your own moral yoke that prevents you from lifting all bans on heroine? If so then your argument is of course merely part of an irrelevant exchange of different morals.


I'm saying no such thing. In this example, the bag is the law. The apples that are put in the bag are the political justification for the law. Remove that and the bag is still there.
Before repeating it in your post above, you stated that (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2805&postcount=16), "the existing prohibition is entirely driven by morality."

Again, the practical legislative procedures are of no matter to the inconsistency at stake here, namely that of stating that a substance made illegal entirely due to moral sentiment would still be illegal without moral sentiment.

I would agree if you stated that a society must impose duties on state and populace regarding the actually damaging effects of certain substances and other goods and services, - everything from strictly scientifically justifiable substances such as antibiotics to commonly rationally or plainly and simply statistically justifiable substances such as alcohol when consumed in certain situations or even gambling or prostitution in this or that situation - but from there to say that all such impositions are "entirely driven by morality" yet there is perhaps something about it without morality after all is a leap that I can't see much sense in.

[SMadsen]

What you don't see is what the reality of legal heroin, pot, and other drugs would be like. It's not going to be the current low-life dealers selling this stuff. It would be in a store. It's not going to be in little baggies. It's going to be in a sealed container from the manufacturer. People are going to notice that the product isn't something a child would spend his lunch money on to try out.

Why do you think I've been mentioning the Tylenol and tussin and all these other drugs that are available in any convenience store? Because that is the reality of a legalized drug. The illegal drugs are the ones sold by the local ex-con to school children in back alleys on the way home from school.

America has the strictest drug laws in the world. It also has the worst drug problem in the world. Coincidence? I don't think so. It's all about having another point of control.
Yes, I see your point about not seeing the reality of legal heroin. All I can compare with is the reality of illegal yet almost non-enforced drugs like pot, cocaine and exstacy (ask Multiplum who probably gets alot of stuff from this gateway country of mine) and I can tell you that the vast majority of kids here buy these things for their lunch, pocket or paper route money. All day, all year.

Then there's of course the totally legal substances (from one of which my own kid almost died a few years ago) but that's just to say that if there is a substance to get high on then that substance will be used. And it will be used by kids for their lunch, pocket or paper route money. All day, all year.

When I say "almost non-enforced" it's because that, every so often, the drug problems get so tangible that the police can't hold up to scrutiny without making an effort of enforcement. So, there's a period of raids and then all is good because the chief can once again say, "We do what we can".

In short, you're right that I can't predict a free market of heroine but, on the other hand, I have no reason to believe that it will have a less damaging effect on society than the current prohibitions do. No matter how bad those may also be in their current state.

[The Drunk Guy]

Yes, I see your point about not seeing the reality of legal heroin. All I can compare with is the reality of illegal yet almost non-enforced drugs like pot, cocaine and exstacy (ask Multiplum who probably gets alot of stuff from this gateway country of mine) and I can tell you that the vast majority of kids here buy these things for their lunch, pocket or paper route money. All day, all year.

Then there's of course the totally legal substances (from one of which my own kid almost died a few years ago) but that's just to say that if there is a substance to get high on then that substance will be used. And it will be used by kids for their lunch, pocket or paper route money. All day, all year.

When I say "almost non-enforced" it's because that, every so often, the drug problems get so tangible that the police can't hold up to scrutiny without making an effort of enforcement. So, there's a period of raids and then all is good because the chief can once again say, "We do what we can".

In short, you're right that I can't predict a free market of heroine but, on the other hand, I have no reason to believe that it will have a less damaging effect on society than the current prohibitions do. No matter how bad those may also be in their current state.
To me, the war on drugs was lost the day it began. There is always going to be a demand, so there will always be a supply. They actually made some headway and slowed the traffic of cocaine and heroine (or perhaps the demand simply became too great), so our streets get flooded with homemade meth. Prohibition is only creating more dangerous chemicals for the people who want to get high.

I would also like to share that I despise the abuse of drugs. I've seen a lot of people throw their lives away to pop a pill. Being around that, I came to realize that there will always be a demand for recreational drug abuse. That is the true root of the problem and, until we can fix that, we have to find a way that is safer for users.

[SMadsen]

To me, the war on drugs was lost the day it began. There is always going to be a demand, so there will always be a supply. They actually made some headway and slowed the traffic of cocaine and heroine (or perhaps the demand simply became too great), so our streets get flooded with homemade meth. Prohibition is only creating more dangerous chemicals for the people who want to get high.

I would also like to share that I despise the abuse of drugs. I've seen a lot of people throw their lives away to pop a pill. Being around that, I came to realize that there will always be a demand for recreational drug abuse. That is the true root of the problem and, until we can fix that, we have to find a way that is safer for users.
It's interesting to despise drug abuse and yet advocate a free market for drugs.

I guess what I despise most about addictions is what it does to its surroundings. Especially that, provided there's a will to lessen the impact on the surroundings, it usually*) takes way more resources to deal with addictions than any other condition in society, except perhaps war. The interesting thing, however, is that this is regardless of the legality of the object of addiction.

A drug addiction is just as hard to cure, no matter if the drug is legal or illegal. The only questions seems therefore to be if a legalization means fewer addicts or more addicts. I don't buy the argument with drugs that become non-cut and cleaner if legalized. That amounts to arguing that if shoes became legal, you couldn't buy a pair that wouldn't wear down after 14 days. Guess how many pairs I bought of those in my less wealthy days.

*) "usually" because there's also a very cheap but often less recommendable way to deal with it: Chop off the addict's head.

[Michael]

Explaining the practical application doesn't change the argument :)

Yes, the bag in this case is law and the apples represent justification. If morality is all that is in the bag then the bag will become utterly empty after you remove morality. And yes, the bag will still exist but that's irrelevant. What is not irrelevant, however, is that you somehow state that the bag isn't empty after elimination of the moral imperative. Since you will not give heroine free in all cases once legislation is free of moral sentiment, you apparantly find in the bag that there are certain damaging effects of heroine that can be more rationally assessed than morality allows?

I've stated nothing of the sort.

I've asserted that if one wants to change the law regarding heroin, one needs to address the morality that drives/defines the illegal status.

I've asserted nothing in the form of an opinion about what status the law should be at that point. I've only observed that merely removing or defeating the moral justification for any given law doesn't necessarily remove the law in question from the law books. The law tends to have lots of inertia here.

One could, theoretically, contruct a new law to make heroin illegal at that point, or not. I've offered no argument either way on that point - merely pointed out that one could do that - if the moral argument for the law was politically defeated first.

Or is it merely your own moral yoke that prevents you from lifting all bans on heroine? If so then your argument is of course merely part of an irrelevant exchange of different morals.
I've made no argument about legalizing, or not legalizing heroin.

For the record, I'm generally in favor of complete decriminalization of narcotics, though I'm open to potential arguments for technical-commercial limitations (such as those placed on liquor).

Before repeating it in your post above, you stated that (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2805&postcount=16), "the existing prohibition is entirely driven by morality."

Again, the practical legislative procedures are of no matter to the inconsistency at stake here, namely that of stating that a substance made illegal entirely due to moral sentiment would still be illegal without moral sentiment.

I would agree if you stated that a society must impose duties on state and populace regarding the actually damaging effects of certain substances and other goods and services, - everything from strictly scientifically justifiable substances such as antibiotics to commonly rationally or plainly and simply statistically justifiable substances such as alcohol when consumed in certain situations or even gambling or prostitution in this or that situation - but from there to say that all such impositions are "entirely driven by morality" yet there is perhaps something about it without morality after all is a leap that I can't see much sense in.
I don't agree that society must impose duties on state and populace regarding the damaging effects of certain substances and other goods and services.

My approach is driven by liberty. Liberty is my default position. I'll accept limitations upon liberty, but only under specific circumstances where the limitation on liberty has a significant public good and a minimal limitation. Otherwise, no. I will never support a blanket policy of governmental interference with any liberty. To me, the default is liberty and the onus is on the state to justify any limitation.

In the case of heroin, the state has failed to justify the limitation on the liberty of heroin usage. The state has only a moral argument to make and that's insufficient justification for the law. Ergo, the law sucks and ought to be changed.

[SMadsen]

I've stated nothing of the sort.

I've asserted that if one wants to change the law regarding heroin, one needs to address the morality that drives/defines the illegal status.

I've asserted nothing in the form of an opinion about what status the law should be at that point. I've only observed that merely removing or defeating the moral justification for any given law doesn't necessarily remove the law in question from the law books. The law tends to have lots of inertia here.

One could, theoretically, contruct a new law to make heroin illegal at that point, or not. I've offered no argument either way on that point - merely pointed out that one could do that - if the moral argument for the law was politically defeated first.
I've made no argument about legalizing, or not legalizing heroin.
Ok, then it seems I have misconstrued your "Not at all" (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2798&postcount=13) reply to my question of legit heroin use in kindergarden.

[SMadsen]

Michael, just to avoid talking past each other again, the statement that drug prohibitions are entirely based on morality is the only focus of my attention.

As far as my logical capabilities are concerned there is no way it can be argued that a disallowance entirely based on moral sentiment does not become an allowance without the moral sentiment.

Therefore, the statement that a specific disallowance is based on morality must be able to stand up in a test of whether or not the disallowance logically becomes an allowance once it looses the moral sentiment. If there's just a shred of disallowance left then there's either moral sentiment left as well or the statement is simply false.

When talking about law then, yes of course, it goes without saying that law will not disappear once it looses its alleged moral argument. I have no interest in that discussion since it that has nothing to do with the concept I'm trying to pursue here. How to nullify and repeal legislature is quite another topic.

[Multiplum]

One thing I find interesting is how a drug can be considered "evil", and how our governments go to such extents and spend so much tax money on drug campaigns. Often, the result is that the medical properties of the drug in question are disregarded. Heroin has many uses, LSD and MDMA are unquestionably incredibly valuable tools in psychotherapy. Actually, pretty much every known drug has the potential to help someone. Yet, once a drug has been deemed "evil", the authorities go to extreme lengths to prevent any research that can conflict with the "official" knowledge.

We're often denying the sick and suffering a medicine they would benefit greatly from, and for what?

Is it our puritan heritage that makes it immoral to use a drug that in addition to its medical properties also promotes some sort of feeling of well-being?

Is the use of psychoactives inherently immoral?
I mean, unless it's alcohol, nicotine or caffeine, because - lest we forget - that's ok.

[Michael]

Ok, then it seems I have misconstrued your "Not at all" (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2798&postcount=13) reply to my question of legit heroin use in kindergarden.
Yes you have. Removing the moral justification for heroin illegality opens the door to a more rational-based form of illegality (or not). My argument there (or here) is entirely based on legal, political and legislative perspective.

Michael, just to avoid talking past each other again, the statement that drug prohibitions are entirely based on morality is the only focus of my attention.

As far as my logical capabilities are concerned there is no way it can be argued that a disallowance entirely based on moral sentiment does not become an allowance without the moral sentiment.

Therefore, the statement that a specific disallowance is based on morality must be able to stand up in a test of whether or not the disallowance logically becomes an allowance once it looses the moral sentiment. If there's just a shred of disallowance left then there's either moral sentiment left as well or the statement is simply false.

When talking about law then, yes of course, it goes without saying that law will not disappear once it looses its alleged moral argument. I have no interest in that discussion since it that has nothing to do with the concept I'm trying to pursue here. How to nullify and repeal legislature is quite another topic.
Well, the topic of the OP is the law regarding heroin and that's what I've been addressing here. All my comments are within the context of the OP (thus, my comments are entirely about the legislation of law).

If you are pursuing a different issue here, that's fine, but I've not been addressing anything except the specific example of the legality of heroin.

Perhaps you could frame your concern in a specific way and we can discuss that - as it stands, I'm not sure where you are going if it is not in respect of the OP.

[SMadsen]

One thing I find interesting is how a drug can be considered "evil", and how our governments go to such extents and spend so much tax money on drug campaigns. Often, the result is that the medical properties of the drug in question are disregarded. Heroin has many uses, LSD and MDMA are unquestionably incredibly valuable tools in psychotherapy. Actually, pretty much every known drug has the potential to help someone. Yet, once a drug has been deemed "evil", the authorities go to extreme lengths to prevent any research that can conflict with the "official" knowledge.

We're often denying the sick and suffering a medicine they would benefit greatly from, and for what?

Is it our puritan heritage that makes it immoral to use a drug that in addition to its medical properties also promotes some sort of feeling of well-being?

Is the use of psychoactives inherently immoral?
I mean, unless it's alcohol, nicotine or caffeine, because - lest we forget - that's ok.
The "evil" of a drug is irrelevant because such a term masks the real issues that surround the potential uses of the drug. Though I'm sure that many who regard the legislature as being moralizing will, often from on an utterly moral basis themselves, agree with the term "evil" and assign the term "good" to their own assertion of the drug. That's the multi-faceted nature of morality (and is why it's useless in law).

However, the rationally assessible negative or downright damaging effects of a drug, which most almost always has to do with addiction and the societal consequences thereof, are not irrelevant. From that it follows that the rationally assessible positive effects of a drug are not irrelevant, either. Actually, for a huge amount of drugs, society goes to huge lengths to administer the dichotomous nature of drugs, namely ensuring the potentially or known usefulness while preventing the potentially or known addictive effects.

For example, amfetamin has known addictive effects (i.e., damaging effect, not the "evil" of it) and is therefore illegal outside medical use. But precisely the medical use, i.e. the positive use, of amfetamin is an amazingly huge industry. Heck, it can even be given to kids when it's possible to justify by the positive effects.

The same with morphine is of course well known. There's far between people who haven't experienced morphine in some medical form. Heroine is just another more soluable variant of morphine. Sure, the diacetate group has some effects that other morphine derivates don't have but that's usually remedied by other forms of opiates. So if there isn't some downright hard justification for heroin (something that can't be solved by other drugs) what is it you want heroine to do that would warrant a legality in cases where it's not currently legal? Is it merely an overall legality of all narcotics you're advocating rather than some medical uses that we allegedly "cheat" ourselves from?

[SMadsen]

If you are pursuing a different issue here, that's fine, but I've not been addressing anything except the specific example of the legality of heroin.
You addressed an allegedly morally driven legality of heroin. What I addressed isn't really further away than that, Michael, namely the subject of an allegedly morally driven legality of heroin.

What I didn't address is your address of how legislature isn't nullified or repealed by loosing "moral justification" but, then, not addressing that is hardly equal to going off topic :D

[Michael]

The "evil" of a drug is irrelevant because such a term masks the real issues that surround the potential uses of the drug. Though I'm sure that many who regard the legislature as being moralizing will, often from on an utterly moral basis themselves, agree with the term "evil" and assign the term "good" to their own assertion of the drug. That's the multi-faceted nature of morality (and is why it's useless in law).
I think this is where we are having a conflict.

The terms "evil" and "good" are, in reality, the justification and impetus of law itself.

Asserting that these terms are useless for the law just doesn't make sense. These terms are very useful to the law as it stands (in political terms).

We are having this discussion only because many of us here are disputing the "heroin is evil" concept.

For example, most people agree that use of a child for sexual purposes is evil. That's why it is against the law. One would be very hard pressed to actually supply a fully rational-scientific argument to fully justify that law. In reality, and throughout history, sexual relations with minors has never caused all that much harm (some cases yes, but other cases no). But the vast majority in the present case believes this act to be 'evil' and thus the law stands. Scientific data showing that sexual relations do not actually harm children will be ignored in the face of a socio-political assertion that 'child sex is evil'. I'm asserting that the illegality of heroin falls exactly into this category. Scientific assertions of the non-harm of heroin won't affect the law. The law is predicated on the "heroin usage is evil" concept.

However, the rationally assessible negative or downright damaging effects of a drug, which most almost always has to do with addiction and the societal consequences thereof, are not irrelevant. From that it follows that the rationally assessible positive effects of a drug are not irrelevant, either. Actually, for a huge amount of drugs, society goes to huge lengths to administer the dichotomous nature of drugs, namely ensuring the potentially or known usefulness while preventing the potentially or known addictive effects.
That appears to only apply to drugs that are invented/manufactured for profit. Naturally occuring products don't seem to fall into this pattern. If one investigates the actual legislation that makes pot or heroin illegal, you will see that the argument made at that time had very little to do with science or body harm and everything to do with authoritarian society seeking to control behavior (and/or protecting profits or markets of large established corporations). The possible medical harm arguments are raised only after the fact of the establishment of the illegality.

For example, amfetamin has known addictive effects (i.e., damaging effect, not the "evil" of it) and is therefore illegal outside medical use. But precisely the medical use, i.e. the positive use, of amfetamin is an amazingly huge industry. Heck, it can even be given to kids when it's possible to justify by the positive effects.
Btw, I believe that's spelt amphetamine. ;)

See above. Those drugs that are manufactured for profit are treated legally different than drugs that are available without a massive corporate pharmaceutical company to manufacture it.

The same with morphine is of course well known. There's far between people who haven't experienced morphine in some medical form. Heroine is just another more soluable variant of morphine. Sure, the diacetate group has some effects that other morphine derivates don't have but that's usually remedied by other forms of opiates. So if there isn't some downright hard justification for heroin (something that can't be solved by other drugs) what is it you want heroine to do that would warrant a legality in cases where it's not currently legal? Is it merely an overall legality of all narcotics you're advocating rather than some medical uses that we allegedly "cheat" ourselves from?
I think the law is most concerned about the distribution channels here. Manufactured by regulated corporation is good, not manufactured by regulated corporation is bad. That's a reality of our capitalist political system. The capitalists have been very effective in leveraging the use of the concept of 'evil' to get rid of potential profit-killing competition.

[Michael]

You addressed an allegedly morally driven legality of heroin. What I addressed isn't really further away than that, Michael, namely the subject of an allegedly morally driven legality of heroin.

What I didn't address is your address of how legislature isn't nullified or repealed by loosing "moral justification" but, then, not addressing that is hardly equal to going off topic :D
I didn't accuse you of going off topic, I'm merely stating that my argument is predicated on politics, not philosophy - as per the OP.

When I speak of the importance of the moral drive of any given law, and/or the need to address/defeat that, I'm making a political argument entirely.

The law is not normally an example of philosophic consistency. There is no actual need for the law to be philosophically consistent (though many might like that).

[SMadsen]

I think this is where we are having a conflict.
Yes. I think you're right about that.

The terms "evil" and "good" are, in reality, the justification and impetus of law itself.
If that was the case then issues considered 'evil' would generally, if not always, be illegal. That's not the case.

Asserting that these terms are useless for the law just doesn't make sense. These terms are very useful to the law as it stands (in political terms).
It is useful in political debate and proposal but utterly useless in law. As said before, there is no way you can build a judicial system on the following justification: "Because I say so". No process of trial can be based on that (conviction can but trial can't).

We are having this discussion only because many of us here are disputing the "heroin is evil" concept.
"Many of us" constitutes many things, e.g. a mob and a potential majority, but it never constituted a default validity.

For example, most people agree that use of a child for sexual purposes is evil. That's why it is against the law.

It is not why it's against the law. That many people, for instance, agree that homosexuality is evil has nothing to do with the legality of homosexuality. In fact, it would be illegal to be a homosexual if that was the case and, as far as I know, that's only the case in some more or less explicit theocracies.

One would be very hard pressed to actually supply a fully rational-scientific argument to fully justify that law. In reality, and throughout history, sexual relations with minors has never caused all that much harm (some cases yes, but other cases no). But the vast majority in the present case believes this act to be 'evil' and thus the law stands. Scientific data showing that sexual relations do not actually harm children will be ignored in the face of a socio-political assertion that 'child sex is evil'. I'm asserting that the illegality of heroin falls exactly into this category. Scientific assertions of the non-harm of heroin won't affect the law. The law is predicated on the "heroin usage is evil" concept.
The social sciences have already fully justified the ethics that justify that law. In the framework of especially Western societies, sexual relations between adults and minors are, practically without exception, always based on deception of trust. Thus, they have very harmful effects.

That the vast majority believes it to be evil reflects the workings of morality, NOT of law.

[SMadsen]

That appears to only apply to drugs that are invented/manufactured for profit. Naturally occuring products don't seem to fall into this pattern. If one investigates the actual legislation that makes pot or heroin illegal, you will see that the argument made at that time had very little to do with science or body harm and everything to do with authoritarian society seeking to control behavior (and/or protecting profits or markets of large established corporations). The possible medical harm arguments are raised only after the fact of the establishment of the illegality.

Btw, I believe that's spelt amphetamine. ;)

See above. Those drugs that are manufactured for profit are treated legally different than drugs that are available without a massive corporate pharmaceutical company to manufacture it.

I think the law is most concerned about the distribution channels here. Manufactured by regulated corporation is good, not manufactured by regulated corporation is bad. That's a reality of our capitalist political system. The capitalists have been very effective in leveraging the use of the concept of 'evil' to get rid of potential profit-killing competition.
The point is that Multiplum said that "once a drug has been deemed "evil", the authorities go to extreme lengths to prevent any research that can conflict with the "official" knowledge". This is simply not true IF authorities do NOT go to extreme lengths to prevent any research that can conflict with the 'official' knowledge (meaning, I take it, the alleged official characterization of 'evil').

In fact, in the case of both amphetamines (sorry about the spelling) and opiates, authorities go to extreme lengths to encourage not only research but, as you also point out, manufacture even though the authorities also go to extreme lengths to criminalize the damaging effects.

And, by the way, why on earth does a drug have to inflict "body harm" in order to be rationally justified as harmful? I'm sorry but that's silly. I again submit, as I've already mentioned in this thread, that the societal effects of addictions are way more harmful than any individual physical defect caused by some drug (the societal harm is actually the kind of harm you guys talk about when pounding on the criminalization of a drug so you shouldn't be all that unfamiliar with the concept :D ).

[Michael]

If that was the case then issues considered 'evil' would generally, if not always, be illegal. That's not the case.

Not necessarily. Some things that are widely agreed to be "evil" are made to be illegal. Some things are not (or haven't achieved that status yet).

For example, some people believe that it is evil to kill animals for food or profit. Some believe that charging of interest on a debt is evil. Neither of these are illegal at this time, though they have perhaps in the past, and may be in the future.

It is also important to note that neither humans nor the law itself are required to be philosophically or logically consistent. Its nice if they are, but it is not necessary for functionality of the law. And with law, functionality is the primary concern.

It is useful in political debate and proposal but utterly useless in law. As said before, there is no way you can build a judicial system on the following justification: "Because I say so". No trial whatsoever can be based on that.
Yes you can. If enough (a majority) agree that "it is so" then a law can be created and applied.

For example, a majority of Californian voters recently asserted that same-sex marriage was 'defacto evil' and retroactively established a law to ban a bunch of existing same-sex marriages. The Bible allegedly says it is so, and a bunch of people obviously said "because it is so" (or because the Bible said it was so). And so it is.

Alternatively, under absolute monarchies or dictatorships, it is enough for the sovereign to say "because I say so" - it is law.

*cue Yul Brenner voice as Ramses II, "so let it be said, so let it be written, so let it be done!"

A simple moral assertion of 'evil' can be sufficient to create a law in many cases.

"Many of us" constitutes many things, e.g. a mob and a potential majority, but it never constituted a default validity.
It can be in a democratic ruled society such as our present system. "Many of us" is often quite sufficient to make a new law. Most western governments actually rule with the active support of only 25-35% of the population (note: adult population, not just voters).

The social sciences have already fully justified the ethics that justify that law. In the framework of especially Western societies, sexual relations between adults and minors are, practically without exception, always based on deception of trust. Thus, they have very harmful effects.
Deception of trust? That sounds more like some rationalized ethics applied after the fact in an effort to interpret the existing law as rational and reasonable. In reality, the law is a result of a majority asserting that sex with minor children is evil, plain and simple. Even if the child appears to enjoy it and suffers no actual physical harm, the act is held to be evil by definition.

And technically speaking, it is the child's inability to grant consent that is the legal basis of the law against sex with minors.

As for the social sciences that justify the ethics, the social sciences did so only after the fact of the law being made (particularly in the cases of anti-drug laws like heroin or marijuana, or your example of sex with minors). The illegal status almost always predates the social science based ethics invoked to defend the illegal status.

That being said, the efforts of social science are often quite useful to 'buttress' the illegal status argument and to help convince those who do not accept the essential moral principle of the law. Or social science based ethics may be used to try to build an argument against the existing law. But the social science is not what made the law in the first place. Indeed, most actual science shows that heroin and pot are not all that harmful, yet they are (in most cases) still illegal according to the principle that 'drugs are evil'.

As I've noted repeatedly in this thread discussion, it is my theory that any serious or substantial change in the law regarding heroin and/or pot can only be driven by a political campaign against the state's power to regulate private behavior - qua behavior. That is what can or will actually change the law. Social science studies alone are not sufficient to do this. Proving that 'the law is an ass' does not negate the reality of that law.

Indeed, more than a few social science studies have suggested that a significant portion male minors (possibly a majority) do not suffer actual 'psychic' harm from their sexual 'abuse' (the statistics are quite the opposite for female minors). Does this mean we ought to consider making sex with male minors legal? I can't imagine that this data would impinge upon the 'sex with children is evil' concept that drives the law. The point being that social science based ethics are all well and fine so long as that supports the existing social morality bias. If there is a conflict between the two, the social morality bias will trump the social science every time.

Btw, the laws that permitted slavery were ultimately repealed, not on the basis of social science or ethics, but upon a change in social morality that held slavery to be 'evil'. One might also add that the laws that originally permitted slavery to be legal were also driven by social morality that understood other races to be 'inferior' human beings. It was the changing moral beliefs about other humans that created and then repealed slavery laws.

That the vast majority believes it to be evil reflects the workings of morality, NOT of law.
Sure. But it doesn't really matter WHY you follow the law.

Whether you are afraid of God's eternal damnation, or the loss of your personal liberty or fortune, or your family's shame, or the fear of being made into someone's bitch in prison if you don't, doesn't really matter to the law. The law is only concerned with the fact of compliance or non-compliance with the law. Why you personally choose to comply with the law is ultimately your own private business.

[SMadsen]

Deception of trust? That sounds more like some rationalized ethics applied after the fact in an effort to interpret the existing law as rational and reasonable. In reality, the law is a result of a majority asserting that sex with minor children is evil, plain and simple. Even if the child appears to enjoy it and suffers no actual physical harm, the act is held to be evil by definition.

And technically speaking, it is the child's inability to grant consent that is the legal basis of the law against sex with minors.

As for the social sciences that justify the ethics, the social sciences did so only after the fact of the law being made (particularly in the cases of anti-drug laws like heroin or marijuana, or your example of sex with minors). The illegal status almost always predates the social science based ethics invoked to defend the illegal status.

That being said, the efforts of social science are often quite useful to 'buttress' the illegal status argument and to help convince those who do not accept the essential moral principle of the law. Or social science based ethics may be used to try to build an argument against the existing law. But the social science is not what made the law in the first place. Indeed, most actual science shows that heroin and pot are not all that harmful, yet they are (in most cases) still illegal according to the principle that 'drugs are evil'.

As I've noted repeatedly in this thread discussion, it is my theory that any serious or substantial change in the law regarding heroin and/or pot can only be driven by a political campaign against the state's power to regulate private behavior - qua behavior. That is what can or will actually change the law. Social science studies alone are not sufficient to do this. Proving that 'the law is an ass' does not negate the reality of that law.

Indeed, more than a few social science studies have suggested that a significant portion male minors (possibly a majority) do not suffer actual 'psychic' harm from their sexual 'abuse' (the statistics are quite the opposite for female minors). Does this mean we ought to consider making sex with male minors legal? I can't imagine that this data would impinge upon the 'sex with children is evil' concept that drives the law. The point being that social science based ethics are all well and fine so long as that supports the existing social morality bias. If there is a conflict between the two, the social morality bias will trump the social science every time.
I'm glad to see that you don't deny a rational justification of illegalizing sex with minors.

I'm not really arguing what the law initially is a result of. It may well be a result of morals, of emotional whims and personal vendettas. What I'm arguing is that to work in a court of law, i.e. a judicial system such as yours and mine, it must be rationally justified. Otherwise, there is no way in hell to try a case. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, a law trying to impose morality solely creates situations of guilty until proven innocent.

Law is way more than satisfying the whims of any legislator, - it has to apply to the conditions of the judicial system. If based on morality it will eventually crash in such a system.


Anyhow, I don't think for a moment that rational justification works so that it occurs after the law. These issues are ancient and most probably predate what is considered to be current judicial systems. Therefore, they may well have been dealt with under certain guilty-until-proven-innocent systems such as theocracies and autocracies, but that's not free pass to argue that current judicial systems work on the basis of moral imposition. It only means that the issues existed before as well as they do now.

Btw, the laws that permitted slavery were ultimately repealed, not on the basis of social science or ethics, but upon a change in social morality that held slavery to be 'evil'. One might also add that the laws that originally permitted slavery to be legal were also driven by social morality that understood other races to be 'inferior' human beings. It was the changing moral beliefs about other humans that created and then repealed slavery laws.
Yes, laws of slavery were ultimately repealed. They imposed morality and are excellent examples of laws that have crashed during conceptualization of the current civil rights system.

[Michael]

I'm glad to see that you don't deny a rational justification of illegalizing sex with minors.
But the "consent" issue is just the legal mechanism. The reality is that "child sex is evil" is the core of the law.

I'm not really arguing what the law initially is a result of. It may well be a result of morals, of emotional whims and personal vendettas. What I'm arguing is that to work in a court of law, i.e. a judicial system such as yours and mine, it must be rationally justified. Otherwise, there is no way in hell to try a case. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, a law trying to impose morality solely creates situations of guilty until proven innocent.
I disagree. The child sex laws are a good example of "guilty until proven innocent" in reality. That's due to the "child sex is evil" meme. Moral outrage doesn't foster prudence.

And furthermore, the fact that the law decrees that sex with minors is illegal (because child sex is evil), that's all the law needs to function. Indeed, it produces some bizarre results that are not intended - but that's because the law is morally driven and that doesn't permit 'gray areas'. If child sex occured, then the law is violated (details don't matter).

An example of this would be an adult woman sexually involved with a 16 or 17 year old male. To the law, this is horrific child abuse and must be punished with the full force of the law (and usually is). In reality, this is a common sexual fantasy of most teenaged males and many adult males generally have a real hard time calling this a 'crime' rather than 'the kid got lucky'.

Law is way more than satisfying the whims of any legislator, - it has to apply to the conditions of the judicial system. If based on morality it will eventually crash in such a system.
I strongly disagree with this. Morality is certainly the driving motive for the laws against sex with minors and this is fully functional in the legal system. Morality says "no sex with children" and that's what the law states. One doesn't have to question any morality to apply the law. One only has to have evidence of the act occuring and the law can be applied.

It is to be noted that police forces can and often will push to apply the "thought-crime" of sex with children, even in cases where no actual children were involved. Apparently just desiring or thinking about sex with children is sufficent for the law to convict. That's the law enforcing morality in a very clear way (i.e. entrapment stings in chat-rooms where an adult police officer impersonates a child and lures another adult into a meeting - no actual child is involved or violated, yet the full force of the law against violation of children is applied).

Anyhow, I don't think for a moment that rational justification works so that it occurs after the law. These issues are ancient and most probably predate what is considered to be current judicial systems. Therefore, they may well have been dealt with under certain guilty-until-proven-innocent systems such as theocracies and autocracies, but that's not free pass to argue that current judicial systems work on the basis of moral imposition. It only means that the issues existed before as well as they do now.
I disagree. Child-sex laws are a perfect case in point. Sex with children has always been legal for thousands of years in most cultures around the globe. Making child-sex illegal is a very modern development. Likewise with rape. Likewise with assault.

Indeed, it was the 20th century before any physical crime against a female could be prosecuted in its own right without a related male filing charges for damages to 'his property'.

And it is to be noted that the modern impetus for making new laws to address these issues was almost entirely moral and quite contemporary to our modern legal systems.

And speaking of our 'modern legal system', for us Anglos, we're using a legal system that hasn't changed much in 800 years. It is only the European (or Napoleonic) Code-Law system that is 'new' (and extremely authoritarian I might add - created by Napoleon, surprise, surprise). There is no substantial change to the form of the Common law system in the last half-dozen centuries.

Yes, laws of slavery were ultimately repealed. They imposed morality and are excellent examples of laws that have crashed during conceptualization of the current civil rights system.
Huh? You telling me that the "current civil rights system" was in place in 1834 when the Brits made slavery illegal in all British territory? That's hard to believe.

Indeed, the British anti-slavery campaign was led by clerics with an argument that was entirely moral-based - in an environment that did not recognize 'civil rights' for anyone except the nobility.

I think that slavery, child-sex laws and recreational drugs are perfect examples of moral-driven lawmaking. Morality was the driving force for all of these laws. Rationalized ethical justifications are created for all of them - after the fact, not before. Morality drives the law, not rationalized ethics.

[SMadsen]

Michael, a few questions, please.

- Does all law equal morality?

- If all law does not equal morality, how do you distinguish between law that equals morality and law that does not (and what is the latter if not morality)?

- If all law equals morality, what are the criteria for being enshrined by law and for not being enshrined by law?

[Michael]

Michael, a few questions, please.

- Does all law equal morality?
I'll say 'yes' for the purpose of this discussion.

I've been leaning in this direction for a long time, though I'm not certain if I'm fully comfortable with it yet. :)

- If all law equals morality, what are the criteria for being enshrined by law and for not being enshrined by law?
An act of a legislature or sovereign according to formally recognized legal rules.

This is a restatement of my earlier comment that 'all laws are moral, but not all morals are laws'. I will venture to add that there is nothing intrinsic about which morals are codified into law and which are not, other than political expediency.

[SMadsen]

I'll say 'yes' for the purpose of this discussion.
So, in the following quote (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1052&postcount=25) from a post you made, you basically argue that speaking on cells phones while driving is an immoral act while holding a cup of coffee while driving is morally acceptable. But why then go to such great lengths to discuss the potential danger of either act?
Speaking on the telephone while driving causes cognitive impairment of the ability to drive - in itself. Thus, the 'normative' function of using the telephone while driving is an impairment.
Holding a cup of coffee poses a potential impairment - if it is dropped. If not dropped, it causes no cognitive impairment in its 'normative' usage.

[SMadsen]

An act of a legislature or sovereign according to formally recognized legal rules.

This is a restatement of my earlier comment that 'all laws are moral, but not all morals are laws'. I will venture to add that there is nothing intrinsic about which morals are codified into law and which are not, other than political expediency.
Yes, I understand that law neither appears nor disappears magically but requires human agency :)

That's not quite what I had in mind with the question. What is it, for instance, that makes speaking on a cell phone while driving a vehicle morally unacceptable but makes driving a vehicle morally acceptable?

Why is consumption of trans fat immoral while consumption of non-trans fat apparantly is not?

[Michael]

Yes, I understand that law neither appears nor disappears magically but requires human agency :)

That's not quite what I had in mind with the question. What is it, for instance, that makes speaking on a cell phone while driving a vehicle morally unacceptable but makes driving a vehicle morally acceptable?
The subjective and moral whims of individual humans codified into law (or not).

As it stands now, driving a vehicle is morally accepted. Driving a vehicle while operating a cellphone is in flux. There is a strong movement to categorize that as "immoral" behavior. This movement is identical to the movement to categorize it as 'illegal' behavior.

It is to be noted that there is a movement out there trying to assert that driving a vehicle itself is immoral, but no one seems to pay attention to them. ;)

Why is consumption of trans fat immoral while consumption of non-trans fat apparantly is not?
Because subjective human moralists have decreed it so (and apparently a majority agree).

[SMadsen]

The subjective and moral whims of individual humans codified into law (or not).

As it stands now, driving a vehicle is morally accepted. Driving a vehicle while operating a cellphone is in flux. There is a strong movement to categorize that as "immoral" behavior. This movement is identical to the movement to categorize it as 'illegal' behavior.

It is to be noted that there is a movement out there trying to assert that driving a vehicle itself is immoral, but no one seems to pay attention to them. ;)
So in advocating that speaking on a cell phone while driving should be illegal, you are actually advocating the view that it's immoral to speak on the cell phone while driving?

Since morality suffices to create law how do you justify a prohibition on what would seem to need a moral only basis?

Because subjective human moralists have decreed it so (and apparently a majority agree).
Yes, but how can it be justified? Is a statement such as "we hereby decree that trans fat is immoral and therefore illegal" sufficient justification for law?

[Michael]

So in advocating that speaking on a cell phone while driving should be illegal, you are actually advocating the view that it's immoral to speak on the cell phone while driving?
Correct.

Since morality suffices to create law how do you justify a prohibition on what would seem to need a moral only basis?

Morality does not suffice to create law. Morality may be sufficient to justify the creation of the law, but the creation of law requires human agency and a democratic majority.

Yes, but how can it be justified? Is a statement such as "we hereby decree that trans fat is immoral and therefore illegal" sufficient justification for law?
If a democratic majority accepts it, then yes.

Indeed, New York City has done exactly this.

[SMadsen]

Indeed, New York City has done exactly this.
I don't know the actual debate and final argument but I bet that it contains what I earlier called "consideration of circumstance", such as socio-political and socio-economical consequences.

If you call that socio-political apologetics (I can't remember the exact phrase you used) then I won't object but I do object to the extension you're trying to add to the definition of morality. We already have a word for it and it's not morality but ethics.

[SMadsen]

Morality does not suffice to create law. Morality may be sufficient to justify the creation of the law, but the creation of law requires human agency and a democratic majority.
:D Michael, that's like saying bisquits and cream aren't sufficient to make Oreos as it also needs human intervention. As reporters constantly bug politicians with: "That's not an answer".

How do you justify a ban of speaking on cell phones while driving on a moral only basis? For example, am I right in assuming that such a justification would be in the vicinity of the assertion that it ought to be banned because it ought to be banned? And if so, why all the extraneous stuff about the danger of it?

[Michael]

:D Michael, that's like saying bisquits and cream aren't sufficient to make Oreos as it also needs human intervention. As reporters constantly bug politicians with: "That's not an answer".

How do you justify a ban of speaking on cell phones while driving on a moral only basis? For example, am I right in assuming that such a justification would be in the vicinity of the assertion that it ought to be banned because it ought to be banned? And if so, why all the extraneous stuff about the danger of it?
The "extraneous stuff about the danger of it" is part of the process of convincing people about the morality of it. It is immoral to impose danger/injury upon other people. Some people may be ignorant of the morality of their actions. They may need to be 'informed'.

As for making law, the process is the same. The citizenry has to be aware and morally motivated to enact a law that codifies any given morality into law. Some morals are codified into law, some are not. The difference between the two is human subjectivity (rational or irrational it may be).

It is to be noted that not every laws originates as 'morality'. In some cases, they become moral only when passed into law - that is because it is immoral to violate the law. ;)

[john]

One thing you all are forgetting. Opiates (where heroin comes from) ARE used in medicine and are accepted as valid pain relievers. Heroin is an extreme form of an opiate and I don't think it really has too much medical value. (My opinon)

Other considerations apart, legalizing drugs most certainly slove the problem that Mexico currently is facing. We would love for the turf wars to end.

[Michael]

One thing you all are forgetting. Opiates (where heroin comes from) ARE used in medicine and are accepted as valid pain relievers. Heroin is an extreme form of an opiate and I don't think it really has too much medical value. (My opinon)
(I hope you didn't wade through all those pages of SMadsen and I arguing about the nature of morality and the law - it is a topic that comes up a lot!)

And yes, heroin is apparently legal and morally acceptable as long as the State authority is the dealer. This just illustrates the absurdity of the law.

Drug laws tend to look like economic monopoly-enforcement laws designed to protect profits of particular companies.

[SMadsen]

And yes, heroin is apparently legal and morally acceptable as long as the State authority is the dealer. This just illustrates the absurdity of the law.

Drug laws tend to look like economic monopoly-enforcement laws designed to protect profits of particular companies.
:D It's not who the dealer is but for what purpose it's being dealt. As John correctly points out, the ethical concern is not who but what.

[Michael]

:D It's not who the dealer is but for what purpose it's being dealt.
If that's the case, then the issue is entirely a moral one.

As John correctly points out, the ethical concern is not who but what.
I believe John's expressed ethical concern is for the death of Mexicans in Mexico due to the ethics of US drug enforcement.

[john]

Shadow of vigilantes appears in Mexico drug war

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (Reuters) – Shadowy vigilante groups are threatening Mexico's drug gangs near the U.S. border in retaliation for a wave of murders and kidnappings that killed 1,600 people in this city alone last year.

One group in the border city of Ciudad Juarez pledged last week to "clean our city of these criminals" and said their mission was to "end the life of a criminal every 24 hours."
The emergence of vigilantes would be a new twist to a vicious drug war that killed 5,700 people in Mexico last year and forced the United States to give hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Mexican government.
Ciudad Juarez, a manufacturing center in the desert across from El Paso, Texas, was the scene of the worst violence in 2008 as drug cartels fought each other as well as staging kidnappings for ransom and extorting businessmen.
In an e-mail to news organizations, the "Juarez Citizen Command" said it was funded by local businessmen sick of abductions and extortion in the city, home to factories that export goods to the United States.
While none of the city's 1,600 in the last year were undoubtedly the work of vigilantes, a body was found on January 7 with a message next to it that read: "This is for those who continue extorting."
And six men in their 20s and 30s were shot dead and dumped together in Ciudad Juarez in October with a cardboard sign reading: "Message for all the rats: This will continue."
Drug gangs often leave threatening messages with the bodies of their victims, but security officials said those two incidents might have been the work of vigilantes.
Another group, "Businessmen United, The Death Squad" put a video on Internet site YouTube last June threatening to go after kidnappers and criminals in Ciudad Juarez, the biggest city in Mexico's Chihuahua state. The video is no longer on YouTube.
"FACELESS, ANONYMOUS"
State officials in Chihuahua said they were investigating who was behind the messages.
"We cannot tolerate the presence of these type of faceless, anonymous groups," said Manuel del Castillo, a spokesman for the state government.
Retiring CIA chief Michael Hayden said last week that Mexico's drug violence was possibly a greater problem than Iraq for President-elect Barack Obama. The U.S. Justice Department also says Mexican gangs are one of the biggest threats to the United States.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has sent tens of thousands of troops and federal police to battle drug gangs but the violence has become worse since he took office in 2006.
At least two other groups calling themselves vigilantes have sent statements to news organizations in the past two months, one in the northern state of Sonora bordering Arizona, and the other in the Pacific state of Guerrero, home to the beach resort of Acapulco.
In Ciudad Juarez, some residents say they would welcome vigilantes. "That way they would stop the gangs, the mafia. People are leaving here because of so many murders," said David Hinojosa, 30, who shines shoes in the city.
The city has been rocked by gun battles and beheadings by rival gangs fighting over smuggling routes into Texas, despite the presence of around 3,000 troops and federal police.

But local lawmakers say encouraging vigilantes is a mistake. Some residents question whether soldiers are moonlighting as hitmen for drug gangs, a charge the army denies.
"People's reactions are understandable. But this is not the route we should take to solve things," said Andreu Rodriguez, an opposition lawmaker and the head of security issues in Chihuahua's state legislature. (Additional reporting and writing by Robin Emmott in Monterrey; Editing by Kieran Murray)



This is what we are coming to. Not only here in Mexico. People in the USA are going to get sick of the drug and gang related violence also. Legalizing drugs would eliminate this problem from both countries.

If some crackhead wants to screw up his life doing that shit, who am I to tell him not to?

[Greendruid]

Shadow of vigilantes appears in Mexico drug war

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (Reuters) – Shadowy vigilante groups are threatening Mexico's drug gangs near the U.S. border in retaliation for a wave of murders and kidnappings that killed 1,600 people in this city alone last year.

This is what we are coming to. Not only here in Mexico. People in the USA are going to get sick of the drug and gang related violence also. Legalizing drugs would eliminate this problem from both countries.

If some crackhead wants to screw up his life doing that shit, who am I to tell him not to?

Any idea if this is affecting/spilling over into Las Cruces or El Paso? I used to live in the former for a little over a year and wonder about the place from time to time.

[SMadsen]

If that's the case, then the issue is entirely a moral one.
No, your issue with whom the dealer may or may not be is a moral issue while the issue of use/abuse is an ethical one ;)

I believe John's expressed ethical concern is for the death of Mexicans in Mexico due to the ethics of US drug enforcement.
Exactly, a concern that's being fed from one and only one kind of use of drugs.

Whichever way you look at it, drug abuse has to do with irrational cravings. Medicinal use of drugs are guided by rational needs. Apart maybe for a few businessmen, it's quite another issue than that of abuse. The applications are what society must concern itself with and respond to as different uses of drugs has different effects on society.


.. ding! .. round two :)