Narcotics and Morality

[Stark Evade]

Re: Narcotics and Morality

I am still rather undecided about the issue of recreational drugs.

On the one hand, I feel that no human animal has the right to tell another human animal not to put something in its mouth or lungs. It seems rather basic to me.

On the other hand, however, I feel the story of "A Scanner Darkly" to be quite disturbing and also have a difficult time dealing with the fact that people can become quite destructive consuming things that significantly impair their judgment. A society that allows its residents to freely consume heroine, cocaine, PCP, ecstasy, LSD, etc. and also gives them access to cars seems a bit terrifying.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Narcotics and Morality

Half-measures are inefficient. As long as there is a demand, any prohibition will be ineffective; people will look for ways to circumvent the law and supply the demand.

In Islam we destroy the demand - literally. Any alcohol or illegal drug consumption is punishable by death. You get caught drinking any alcohol or consuming other illegal subatances, we kill you. Look at Singapore, a non-Muslim nation. It doesn't spend a penny on any anti-narcotics division or on any drug rehabilitation programs. As a result, all the externalities and costs of drugs are non-existent in Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law_of_Singapore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_...Act_(Singapore)

I wouldn't want any nation to have drug problems. Imagine if Armenia ever had drug related problems. Imagine how that would sink your country. Armenia cannot afford anymore problems than it has now. It would be excellent if the Armenian government imposed such laws. What good is there in drugs? What good is there in turning your people into junkies simply to adhere to a destructively perverse and extreme understanding of "human rights?" By being a citizen of any country, you are a part of that society and therefore, whether you like it or not, what you do to yourself will have an effect on the whole of society. The aggregate effect of everyone thinking "Oh, it's my personal decision and it will affect only me" is bullshˇt. If everyone thought like that, then you would have a detrimental decay and failure of that society. You cannot let people do that to themselves - it's immoral because the other citizens in the country will pay for that wrecklessness in increased taxes and compromised security that comes with drug related economics and politics. What right do some human rights groups have to impose their beliefs and judge others about capital punishment and how it should be dealt?

You can't let your emotions get in the way of these things. When someone injects, snorts or smokes that drug they have chosen the value of their life. They have chosen to be a burden on society for their own vile selfish pursuit. You can't have half-measures and expect to value the lives of junkies and good citizens equally and expect you can have a fair and just society. Those that choose to destroy themselves choose to take others down with them.

Ask yourselves, how Armenia, a country with less than 3 million people, surrounded by hostility, landlocked without resources can allow itself to bare the cost of its population exercising its "human right" of "the pursuit of happiness" (hedonism)? How can Armenia survive? It's imperative that there are no compromises or yielding to the forces of Satanism irrespective of what your religion is.

Drugs are a curse I do not wish even for the worst of my enemies.

I'm okay with killing users and dealers. I want a to live in a Sharia state or some kind of Singapore.

p.s. I created this thread so we dont digress on the other.

I'm glad Armenia isn't Islamic, nor America. Thank the devil. Islam only seeks to subjugate the individual and the idea of free will to an absolutist creed - a closed system.

Any ideology, that acts on fear and compulsion and is rooted in the idea of telling other people what to do and how to live and how to think, is an absolutely unjust ideology. It leaves no room for choice, but seeks to force people to a certain mindset. People thereby arrive at "truths" not via reason or deduction, but by fear and emotion.

[jgk3]

Re: Narcotics and Morality

So you are arguing that a society becomes morally superior without any of its individuals genuinely becoming more virtuous through participation in a more rigid legal system?

The system you described in Vienna works because of the ethic or will of the people, the aggregate of their person attitudes towards this law in their society. It does not need enforcement because people agree with it to such a level that it is impractical, redundant or wasteful to enforce it. You could say that this is less of an enforced law and more of a shared value of the people, much like keeping right in a hallway so that you don't obstruct he traffic.

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Narcotics and Morality

certainly true

Laws and police are created to perpetuate a certain social order,

and also true.

having it based out of religion and having it behave more conservatively doesn't make the people any better.

do i believe a people genuinely change the condition of themselves based on solely on religion? No.

But what I do believe, is that religion tries to secure an environment and an atmosphere that tries to promote people to make that decision. It's like, religion does see that it might not genuinely penetrate the hearts and minds of the people, but it takes up the responsibility to not let people decay. It tries to create a system to try to increase the likelihood for people to make that decision. It tries to only allow room for potential and good and tries to block out the bad. By doing that, there can be a gradual increase in the good of the system.

For example, in Vienna Austria, there are no turnstile or gates to get onto the subway - they aren't monitored. The people are civil enough to by their own tickets. Thats an example of a system that works well. I think religion's goal is to try to achieve a level of civility and decensy where people do not have to worry about basic problems. I think it tries to design a system where a certain level good should be the standard.

[jgk3]

Re: Narcotics and Morality

exactly.

[yerazhishda]

Re: Narcotics and Morality

i did say "illegal substances."

Illegal relative to where? Turkey?

****************

As a side note, the issue of 'morality' is thrown out the window when a gun is put to your head to act a certain way. For example, If someone puts a gun to your head telling you to throw a cat out of a 20 storey building, you cannot be morally responsible for 'animal cruelty'. The person who held a gun to your head and forced you to throw the cat out the buidling is responsible.

Put this in context of drug/alcohol use in countries where it is prohibited. You are not being 'moral' because you refrain from the use of drug/alcohol; your country puts you under penalty of death if you do use it. It is an act of self-preservation, not morality.

Contrast this to a Muslim in America who can use alcohol but refrains from doing so because of his religion. He is moral because he has a choice and made a good choice in the context of his religion. The issue was one of personal morality, not fear of death.

[jgk3]

Re: Narcotics and Morality

why should society have to pay higher premium's for someone else's chosen lung cancer?

Good point. But is that a fault with one's choice to smoke, or of our socialist system?

Also, if you chose sharia out of your own will, after learning about it and understanding its merits, then you did act out of your own will. But say you were born into it and were not allowed to question it, do you think you would've come to your same conclusion about it that you have today? I'm not trying to say that it's any less moral than our system, but by the same token, it is essentially no more moral either.

Laws and police are created to perpetuate a certain social order, having it based out of religion and having it behave more conservatively doesn't make the people any better.

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Narcotics and Morality

So does that include medicine? Tobacco? Caffeine?

i did say "illegal substances."

we have exemptions for medical purposes. we're allowed to consume medicine with pig ingredients if no other option is available.

I would include tobacco. I'm not sure if our jurists go that far. If they don't, then i guess i can't unless i try to find a loophole.

why should society have to pay higher premium's for someone else's chosen lung cancer?

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Narcotics and Morality

My point to you is, I wouldn't be too proud of a sharia law situation. It is not "morally" superior to what is going on in America as you cut it out to be. When you are denied of even conceiving alternatives in your mind that are common in the west, this doesn't make you any better. You find moral high ground because of a synthetic position that was forced upon you, not one you won for yourself.

I do think it is morally superior. I chose it myself after reading a whole bunch b.s. for so many years. Its the most effective way to deal with many social/moral problems.

There are other issues that have to be addressed, yes i understand that. But I choose Sharia on my own will. I think it the best option right now. Can it be improved? I think it can.

And i did say im okay with superior. As long as there is some kind of Hammurabi code like thing on drugs and some other issues i care about im okay.

[jgk3]

Re: Narcotics and Morality

sorry SoyElTurco, I tried moving my post into this thread with my mod features, by accident it looks like I bumped my name on top of the thread. I still have to get used to these features. You did good to move it out of the obama thread though.