If we see how many people get caught up in the spiral of drugs it is clear they are immoral. People who can't pay for their addiction steal cars, then there is the young family in South America shot by the criminal gangs for not producing enough heroin. It is wrong.
It is morally wrong to use harmful and illegal drugs, especially when addiction is possible. It is also morally wrong to misuse pharmaceutical drugs because a doctor is trusting you to take the medication correctly and not "shop around" for more prescriptions. It is not morally acceptable to lie to that person (or your family) about your drug use.
Drugs themselves do not have any moral value attached to them, they are neither good nor bad. But the uses that they are put to can have a moral value. When someone chooses to do a drug for recreational intent they are deciding to alter their brains in such a way that can bring harm to themselves and others. Drug users can claim that it is their choice and their actions are only harming themselves, but that is not true. My own family has gone through the deaths of three members due to prescription drug overdose, and since that time I have come to see drug use as an extremely self centered thing to do.
Drugs when used under prescription for the betterment of someone doesn't seem to cause any kind of harm to anyone. But when drugs are abused then it becomes immoral because it now causes harm to not only the person who abuses them but also others.
People sometimes argue that if someone is using drugs only for recreational purposes then why is it immoral?
Answer: Drugs essentially and inherently I believe aren't immoral: if you use it for recreation it isn't immoral but this use for recreation eventually leads to addiction and abuse; yes there might be exceptions but majority of cases tell us that people eventually get addicted and start abusing these drugs and this where it gets harmful and immoral.
An addict or someone who abuses drugs will start stealing to fulfill his need for drugs; start joining gangs because there they can get drugs easily and start killing people because when they are high they are not aware of many things, some even hallucinate and commit suicide because they are unaware at that instance. Some after getting high start fulfilling their sexual desires through rape and child abuse.
I agree drugs essentially have nothing to do with these crimes, but being the rational beings we should contemplate over it that eventually drugs will engender all these crimes or at least increase the chances of these crimes.
My father has been hooked on heroin and rock cocaine for many year...Since 1970s, he is in his 70's..., and now live with my ex or mother ofnmy child...I have seen him sleep with prostitutes and have seen him overdose for many years..He will act like a moral person when others see him, in fact the women he lives with does drugs with him, she acts like its her ex father in law and she is caring for him..Both are ex felons and have had prison time..Both are sexually immoral ..., both have many family members hiding or looking the other way.., but they will not trust them in thier home or with their kids, the woman born 1969 july 15 is younger then him, he was born in 1941 , rumours of her giving him oral sex and rumours of how he also got his grandson hooked on drugs , his grandson commmited suicide a few months ago, and when police went to the home they found about 18 Chihuahua dogs and alot of drugs and drug paraphernalia, because suicide victim did it in front of his (step grandfather) the system assumed they grandfather and his mother were innocent, they thought all drugs were the suicide victims drugs!, the methadone clinic has many dirty urinalysis tests bit the policennever checked...So imoral!, yes!...The pain so many have now that for do many years two crack addicts can be considered father in law or daughter in law ?, but the children or others are not involved, when the five children were minors they all had to go to paternal families and st. Judes ranch for children in nevada!...For years the sytem has know of the of the imoral relationship , but lust with drugs even lust between a grandfather and his daughter in law is not against the law of man? It is against the laws of GOD! ....So al show should read the BIBLE and pray, because so much immorality has filled this earth!, a movie with joan Crawford came put years ago with lorne green atumn fall, was agood movie that explains the true life situation! , as these two drug addicts also tried to claim others as "not all their" "or mentally unstable!, yes the pain and broken heart is thier because it should be clear to society of how immoral acts are from sin!...
For something to be immoral you have to first agree on the definition of what it is to be immoral . There are different views on this. Two main views on this , the first; socially agreed on or accepted "rights and wrongs" formed over generations in societies by norms, values and traditions. In short subjective morals)- this however is grouped on opinion of the mass as apposed the minority and apposed to a set foundation of what is right and wrong. I believe what is wrong isn't created by man but is set. I do not think man should be able to choose what is immoral depending on the country they come from or the positive laws that influence there culture. The second way to determine morality, is natural law theory. In natural law theory it is immoral to kill someone, however it is your choice to do this because no one should be able to tell us what to do over our own bodies. However regardless of if we are allowed the choice to take drugs, the question is, is it immoral? Taking drugs reduces our ability to make reasonable decisions. It robs us of our humanity because of this, what separates us from the animals is our freedom. Its the very reason we have the right to owe property and a right to owe bodies and why it is immoral to kill. If we remove our reason we are removing our freedom. It is immoral to remove our freedom because it violates the laws of nature. To say it is moral to eat poisons berries because they are natural is incorrect as it is immoral to kill your self "knowingly" thus natural drugs too are considered immoral as they have a negative effect on the nature of humans. Humans nature is to be free. However if you are unaware of your reason and unaware that of natural law theory, in effect you would not be acting immoral because in short you would not be considered human.
When a person is physically dependent on a substance and craves a drug, their decision making goes out the window and what was once a rational human being is now making decisions all in line of how to get more of the drug. I know this may not be as much of a problem for richer folks but for poorer people who cannot afford a drug habit, these decisions will typically lead to criminal activity and not a legal 9-5 type job. Drug dealers and drug users, most of them at some point, made the decision to get involved in the habit. Drug convictions and sentencing, which people describe as overly burdensome in the first place, are indeed a burden to society and our government's tax dollars. The need for drug treatment programs and drug rehab are just more ways that we need to spend our money to get drug users back on the streets as functional, but never completely addiction-free individuals. The decision to get into this type of lifestyle is immoral because of the costs it not only places on an individual's own autonomy and their ability to make legal/moral choices, but also because of its cost on society. The sustaining of this cycle by people who continue to decide to involve themselves in the world of drugs is often uninformed but being uninformed is no excuse to be exempt from justice. Mercy is never an obligation.
Drugs are tools. Specifically drugs are substances that alter a person physically or mentally. There is nothing inherently immoral about doing that. In fact there is nothing inherently immoral even about doing that for fun.
The problem comes when the effects of a given drug are problematic. For instance when bath salts leads people to eat other people. But that is one drug with its own unique effects. Other drugs carry little or no risk of causing violent psychosis. And even in that case it's not necessarily the case that total prohibition is the best policy. What if people could do bath salts only in a lock-in facility surrounded by professional staff who can intervene to protect them and others if they have a bad trip? That could save a lot of lives.
There is a point to be made that for the government to ban a person from putting something into their own body is very intrusive. This concern has to be weighed with other concerns such as public safety, but there is no good reason to ban any drug if it is limited to a lock-in facility under the supervision of trained professionals. I don't think every drug should have that requirement attached to it, but the worst should.
Other drugs including some I would have religated to a lock-in facility and some that I wouldn't should require an educational video about its effects to be watched before buying or imbibing it. There is an understandable desire to protect others from themselves, especially our loved ones. But at the same time we have to respect that we all have the right to set our own values, goals, priorities, and preferences ourselves. So once informed of the risks the person should get to decide whether or not it is worth it.
When your grandma falls down the stairs and needs a hip replacement she is given diamorphine, which a very potent type of heroin. She shall have that drug pumping through her veins for days on end to eliminate pain. But when she is checked out she does not continue to buy the drug, she simply recovers as normal. But why? Why does she not get addicted like so many others? This concept was explored by Professor Bruce Alexander in an experiment in which he puts a rat in a cage with other rats, toys, and food. So basically rat heaven and then put in the cage water laced with cocaine and normal water. The results were shocking, none of the rats overdosed, none of them abused the drugged water. But if you put the same two glasses of water with a single rat alone in a cage they shall abuse the drugged water and overdose. Therefore drugs do not lead to this abuse of illicit drugs, its the person condition and environment that allow them to become dependant n such products, ruining lives.
1.) You have cancer. You take prescribed medical marijuana to counteract the nausea and appetite suppression of chemotherapy.
2.) You have profound social anxiety. You use prescribed benzodiazepines so you can walk out in front of people and make a presentation. Your job relies on such presentations.
3.) You suffer from (1) or (2) and use the aforementioned palliative. It works, but you don't have a prescription.
4.) You're not ill. You use weed/benzos to have an experience once a month or so. The drugs are fun. Your occasional use doesn't cause any long-term damage (to you or anyone else).
5.) Problem user. Your drug use adversely affects your life and/or the lives of those around you.
Aside from (5), I don't understand the moral judgement so often imposed on drug users. Or any number of other social transgressions. IMO, do whatever you want. If it causes harm to others, it's usually wrong and should be subject to retribution. If it causes harm to you alone, you should still most often have a (discouraged) right to pursue it. If the crime is victimless, it should be re-examined.
Possession of any number of substances is currently illegal, regardless of the concept of harm to anyone. Doing "recreational" drugs is broadly thought of as immoral, illegal, and an imprisonable offense.
The result is an ever-escalating number of prison inmates who have never harmed anyone, and will never hold a decent job because of their convictions. We pay for their upkeep (billions each year, more per capita than you want to know). We lose their ingenuity and income as taxpayers - now and in the future - and still have to pay to feed and house them, hundreds per head per day.
Given the lack of harm (and prospective harm) to anyone, and the inmates' prior status as working taxpayers, the reasoning behind the legal process doesn't make much sense, unless you account for conventional morality.
Condemn people for crimes - harms - committed against other people, or against the environment. Otherwise, for everyone's sake, leave them alone. No one can afford a moral system that isn't based on actual harm (that isn't based in reality).
When drug use causes harm, prosecute it. If a given drug is inextricably linked with harm (where the statistics are significant), take action against it. Otherwise, stop wasting public time and money. It's not a crime if there isn't a victim.
MEDICINE, BRO HOW ARE U NOT KNOWING DAT BRUH. Medicine is the equivalent of drugs but it is much different as it helps our body, not destroy it or power it up, some may give you issues but medicine doesnt. Overall medicine saves lives and lets us be health, though some are bad.
Everyone above had excellent responses, so I'm not going to go over what they already said. But I do have one question? How can drugs, which are not human, be either moral or immoral?
Humans make things 'moral' or 'immoral' due to decisions we make. An object itself can't make those decisions, so this is kind of a silly question to me, but I do see why it was brought up. America is one of the most religious countries around and where there is religion, there are morals. I mean even if you aren't religious, you probably have certain feelings about different issues.
I'll say one more thing: Drugs certainly are IMMORTAL!(not that they'll never go extinct or anything) They've been in use for as long as we've been around. Abd I think they'll stay in use as long as we are around! Whether one chooses to look at them as moral or immoral though, well, that's a person by person debate....
After using drugs for years helping me with depression and loss they helped me get back on my feet and in my opinion are no different then alcohol. They should be a personal choice, but should be regulated someway so it would be safer then buying it from a criminal. It would put cartels out of business and make it harder for teenagers to get drugs that would not be safe if they were to use their own judgment, drugs like opiods and amphetamines along with others such as cocaine. It makes more sense to mass market and make this safer and we could raise billions in tax revenue, money the government needs. So no they are not immoral its the poor manegment of the situation and illegality that makes it seem taboo. Over half of our (usa) imprisoned population are there on drug charges which costs millions a year to fund their stays. So no the situation drives drug users from just using drugs to immorality because there is no 'right' way to go about there situation and desire for drugs.
I use drugs and am nicer and usually more patient than most people. But god forbid they find out i like to drop acid or smoke weed they immediatley assume that i am going to rob my grandma for money to fuel my non existant drug addiction i hate that. So drugs dont make you immoral its what you do to get drugs that can make acdrug user immoral.
Drugs are a source of pleasure. So long as their use does not adversely affect overall happiness their use is morally justified.
This statement is supported by the ethical theories of utilitarianism, relativism, and objectivism.
The fact that we discourage an open dialogue about recreational drug use has the effect of enticing young people to experiment in irresponsible and destructive ways
Drugs in and of themselves are not immoral. The humans who use, misuse and abuse them become so when drugs become a part of everyday life. Some drugs, such as presciption medications, are lifesavers. Recreational drugs such as heroin, cocaine and meth can ruin people's lives when it comes to addiction. Just like "guns don't kill people, people kill people," drugs aren't immoral, people are immoral.
I am always amazed at the logical disconnect expressed by conservatives on the question of people getting intoxicated. The rationalization is that we are not supposed to "get stoned" because it may harm someone. Yet most of these same people support "gun rights, often echoing a variation on the "Supporting Headline".
They are quite right on both points!
Some people should NEVER get intoxicated. They will ruin their lives and those of others if they do. Similarly weapons are harmless by themselves.
Yet the same individuals eager to trust others with weapons, which after all are designed to cause harm---for, "good" or "bad"--refuse to allow people to get intoxicated because it might theoretically cause harm.
Yet, any sane person is much more comfortable around someone handling an intoxicant than they are around someone handling a gun.
So 'fess up "moral majority". You are NOT concerned about harm, you just want to force people to think like you.
As for intoxicants, Christ changed the water into wine and left us to figure out how to handle it.