Opinions - Society vs individuals: do we have the right to use drugs?

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

What follows is my understanding of the issues surrounding the relationship between society and individuals and how drugs fit into the picture. I will also explain my view on the question of whether we have the right to use drugs. (This is, of course, a very brief summery of a huge subject)

Society is comprised of individuals. All societies have, as their ultimate purpose, maintenance and continuation. Societies differ, however, in the WAY in which they maintain themselves, which is relative to the “purpose” that the society gears itself into “progressing” to. Western societies, for example, try to educate its individuals and places emphasis on technological/intellectual progression. The Arab societies, however, leave 50% of their population (the females) uneducated, don’t put much effort into educating the males, and put emphasis on obeying their religion.

Societies, in this respect, mirror the individuals they are comprised of. The ultimate “purpose” of living organisms like humans is to survive and reproduce. There is another aspect humans have, however, which is a sense of metaphysical purpose/progression and, as we have seen, societies tend to reflect this trait as well. Now we come to the issue: in order to ensure that societies “progress”, the individuals have to conform and live their lives in a way that enables the progression. What if, however, the individuals don’t want to be restricted (for example, they wanted to use an illegal drug like cannabis)?

If all the individuals who wanted to smoke cannabis did as they pleased, the particular type of “progression” (such as the one emphasising education) would become less efficient. (Bear in mind that smoking cannabis is but one of many things people would do if there were no restriction- no laws. I am just dealing with one example, but the point is that people need to be controlled if society is to progress in any way). In the UK, the government wants as many people as possible to become educated. When the government learn, then, that smoking cannabis causes people to drop out of school or work less hard, they ban the substance because it threatens their image of the “progression” of society. (I am sure there were other reasons also... but u get my meaning)

Now we come to the major issue: If the individuals decide that they want to smoke cannabis, shouldn’t the definition of “progression” for that particular society reflect that? If not, then it follows that the purpose of that society is not dependant on the wills of the individuals, but on the will of the governing body. Who are they, however, to say what the purpose of society is/the way society should progress?

The way governing bodies try to deal with such problems is to claim moral/ethical OBJECTIVITY, and to inspire such a belief system in its individuals. I’m sure that you are familiar with the idea that democracy is better than dictatorship and that freedom is a basic human right.

This is, in fact, a delusion. Logically, there can be no objective morals/rights. The concept of morality/rights is purely a human concept; it has been “made up” by people. It follows, therefore, that morality/rights are completely subjective.

Who then has the “right” to dictate how a society should progress? It goes without saying that western governments know that legalising cannabis would not lead to the destruction of society, therefore their reasons for keeping it illegal are purely to protect what they have dictated is societies purpose. They convince the individuals that their purpose is “objectively right”, and it is easy for them to do this because the individuals have all been brought up within that value system. The governing bodies are not doing this for the purpose of being controlling or evil; they too have been brought up with the value system and when they enforce or preach it, they are advocating what they also believe to be “objectively right” values. The problems arise, of course, when people say they “don’t give a fk” about society” and want to just smoke weed. The governing body, of course, simply point out that this is a violation of the “objective morality” of living in a society, and they try to portray the drug user in as negative as light as possible to the rest of society.

Now we need to understand why purpose/values can never, by definition, be objective:

You might think that murder is wrong. “Murder is wrong” is an objective statement, however, and objective value judgments are impossible; all you can really say is that “I think murder is wrong”
For example:
“I think murder is wrong”
Why?
“Because I value life”
Why do you value life?
The only viable answer to this is that either you accept there is no logical reason for it: you just value it because you do or because u have been brought up that way. Or, (and its probably a bit of both) you value your life because you are a biological organism and valuing your existence is a function of your biological structure. These, however, are causal explanations of your belief that “murder is wrong” and not metaphysical justifications. Objective value judgements such as “murder is wrong” are, I’m afraid, completely illogical…

So do you have a right to use drugs? The question is clearly void… Just live how you want to live, but beware! : you are caught up in a complex self-perpetuating mess of illogical value judgements that delude themselves that they are objective. If you are not careful, they will throw you in a cell referring to this concept called “justice” which is subjective and thus making a value judgement about it is illogical but they wont listen because the progression of society, laughably, hinges upon such madness...

Reputation Comments on this post:

	I love posts like this. Outside the box and thought-provoking.
	Good stuff, I think we can make something with this.

[Horiz]

Not all morality is based on subjective experience. For example you mentioned the example of 'murder is wrong', I believe this is based on instinct, we do not have a want to kill other humans unless we need to.

I watched something years ago about the body language of a person being killed, supposidly a person begging for his life triggers remorse and guilt into the attacker.

Sorry if I've went off-topic a bit! I'll re-read this topic tomorrow when I'm awake

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by Horiz

Not all morality is based completely made up and based on subjective experience. For example you mentioned the example of 'murder is wrong', I believe this is based on instinct, we do not have a want to kill other humans unless we need to.

Like i said: "you value your life because you are a biological organism and valuing your existence is a function of your biological structure."

And similarly, because of the nature of your biological structure, you might develop certain value systems such as "murder is wrong" through something like instinct.

Of course this might or might not be the case... even if it is, like i said, it is still a Causal explanation of the existence of the morality; not a Metaphysical justification for the morality...

[doggy_hat]

So basically, there can be no solid, logical explanation for any value or opinion. And for this reason no law can be considered bad or good.

So argueing that drugs should be legal because people should have the right to do as they please doesn't hold any ground. Because inorder for it to make sense, people being allowed to do as they please has to make sense. And theirs no way to prove that it's right.

Laws made on these basics notions can't be explained because they're trying to place purpose and reason(abstract ideas that are not real or physically existent) to a world that only exists and nothing more. We're trying to create things that can't be real to justify our political views.

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by doggy_hat

So basically, there can be no solid, logical explanation for any value or opinion. And for this reason no law can be considered bad or good.

Not objectively, no. People can think (subjectively) that laws are good or bad, but laws in themselves are just laws... good/bad is observer relative, so to speak..

Originally Posted by doggy_hat

So argueing that drugs should be legal because people should have the right to do as they please doesn't hold any ground. Because inorder for it to make sense, people being allowed to do as they please has to make sense. And theirs no way to prove that it's right.

Laws made on these basics notions can't be explained because they're trying to place purpose and reason(abstract ideas that are not real or physically existent) to a world that only exists and nothing more. We're trying to create things that can't be real to justify our political views.

you said it better than i did

[elpatto]

One could argue that a society is a organism in its own right, it is clear that many rights/restrictions a individual faces are in fact a warped function of society itself. Ever heard of damage controll? Add this to varying rules/regulations that stem from cultural differences (There are likely parts of the world that will take your hands for stealing) and one can see that legalising of drugs would have to be a almost global or atleast regional affair that is extremely unlikely,due mainly to the sheer strain on the system/s (Road toll, STI's, hospital visits, revenue lost) and the risk the unmonitored individual takes using drugs.

I like some points you make but was made slightly nauseous by the whole "Muiyda aint' wrong" bit, without diving into pools of pseudo-philosophical bullshit I will just come out and say that there are some acts that individuals often commit that are straight wrong.

[Euthanatos93420]

Can we come up with a Thesis for why we should change the laws based on causing them to reflect the decisions of a large portion of americans. By saying this we can effectively circumvent the morality issue. Gays did it. In fact, we might learn a lot from them on how to campaign as a sub-culture. Unlike Hippies/Goths/emo/punks/etc. Drugs and homosexual sex (Note: Not sexuality) are independent decisions made by people. Whereas such other subcultures are reflect by dress and/or connotations of politcial and social concepts usually with an associated musical genre that reflects their ideals. Those who chose homosexual sex or drugs, while being the minority of the population are unlike racial discrimination which is an involuntary target.

Doing it E-Prime might help too. Creating this and spreading it around will give something politically motivating but without detail and it should say 'drugs should be legal' so much as 'our current system of drug user/abuser treatment causes Harm to users and the rest of society in the form of organized crime/violence/etc. while also making our nation highly dependant on IMPORTED CROPS of significant value. More tolerant laws could help more addicts recover, reduce violent crime, reduce incarceration costs, reduce import costs, etc.'

It should be an economical argument as well as a Harm-Reduction argument. Should be stated Amorally as you have so eloquently pointed out. And shouldn't be more than a page in a decent (12pt) font.

Euthanatos93420 added 8 Minutes and 7 Seconds later...

Creating this 'thesis' of sorts could give All drug users, anti-prohibtionists, Groups, lobbyists, etc. an impeccably logical statement of facts as to WHY drug laws MUST change because prohibition isn't convincing anyone but a handful of cultists (NA) to quit and most of them don't.

By making a non-subjective statement based on economic reform and culture reform we create a rock solid wall no one of any subjective moral scheme can even argue against. Because the argument is amoral it neatly can be worked into anyones moral scheme.

Furthermore, the statement should be void of anything that smacks of 'drugs aren't that bad." It sounds convincing but it would be a crippling point becase drug law reform has absolutly nothing to do with the harm drugs do to the body/mind and everything to do with the harm prohibition does to society.

Now we're getting somewhere!!

[bcubed]

I think the high degree of moral relativism in the OP would most likely be detrimental to the cause of drug legalization.

If you accept that murder isn't inherently bad, then why do you propse it's illegal? The most compelling argument is that it's bad for social order--particularly for those in power. Imagine any attempted murder was no cause to detain. People in power wouldn't last 10 minutes! Rather than go through the expense and indignity of running a presidential campaign--just bump off all your opponents! But then, the "bumper-off" would have to watch his back...perhaps no-one would be willing to run things!

Also...why should I grow 40 acres of corn if you get to harvest it all without work? In this lawless society, nothing would get built/done. Think about the most lawless parts of any city...how much (legal) business goes on there?

So, if there's no morals at all, then the argument "Drugs are illegal 'cause it serves to benefit those currently holding power and to run as smoothly as possible under their sway" is a completely logical and valid reason for the WOD. Now, I might beleive that's the underlying reason anyway, but at least with absolute morals, the Powers That Be have to dress it up as "save the children" or other such stuff and have a vulnerability, if their argument can be shown to be hogwash (i.e. "Emporer's New Clothes.")

The concept of morality/rights is purely a human concept; it has been “made up” by people. It follows, therefore, that morality/rights are completely subjective.

That's actually exactly the opposite of the principles upon which the USA (and, by extension, modern democracy)was founded: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...meaning that rights originate not from the benevolence of the government, but that the simple act of being human entitles one to certain rights. A government can repress one from using those rights; that's not the same as saying they don't exist.

It's lizard's contention that responsible drug use--i.e. drug use that doesn't compromise anyone else's rights--falls under "pursuit of happiness," one of the three inalienable rights the founding fathers bothered to enumerate in the Declaration of Independence (not an exhaustive list, BTW). Thus, everyone (being human transcends national boundaries) has the right to responsible drug use; it's just that most are wrongfully repressed from exercising those rights.

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by elpatto

I like some points you make but was made slightly nauseous by the whole "Muiyda aint' wrong" bit

"murder aint' wrong" is an equally objective statement to "murder is wrong"
They are both illogical. We are agreed, i think, that it is indeed "nauseating" on a human level to deal with such pure objectivity. As Nietzsche said:

“How much truth can a spirit bear, how much truth can a spirit dare? ... that became for me more and more the real measure of value.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Originally Posted by bcubed

I think the high degree of moral relativism in the OP would most likely be detrimental to the cause of drug legalization.

In social reality (if there is such a thing heh) You would probably be right: my argument is certainly not a useful one to anyone who wants to legalise drugs. But, although i am all in favor of the creation of useful arguments to legalise drugs, what i am presenting here is (meant to) analyse the issue from the point of objectivity. And so, of course, like you say, i use a form of moral relativism. Euthanatos93420 this is also in answer to your post. I certainly agree wit what you said in terms of its usefulness on a practical level....)

Originally Posted by bcubed

That's actually exactly the opposite of the principles upon which the USA (and, by extension, modern democracy)was founded: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...meaning that rights originate not from the benevolence of the government, but that the simple act of being human entitles one to certain rights. A government can repress one from using those rights; that's not the same as saying they don't exist.

If they exist only in the minds of the people who believe in them or invented them, then they are purely subjective. You can see, for example, that there is a difference between saying "Water is made from two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom" and "I think it is self-evident that all men are created equal" The first statement refers to the real world which is objective and would exist in such a way even if we were not there to observe it. The latter statement refers to a concept which is "observer relative": the only way it can be said to "exist" is as as a thought/concept in people's minds... The only thing, therefore, that can be said to be "objectively true" about the latter statement, is that people do indeed think it...

So it exists (in people's minds), certainly, and it is self-evident to those who it is self-evident to... but it is not an objective truth.

[Euthanatos93420]

I think you're missing the point Bcubed. The OP isn't advocating Anarchy or lawlessness (Which are not the same) but rather showing how the war on drugs cannot be won with a 'moral' argument because right now the religious right holds the moral majority on dope. You can preach till we run out of oxygen and all it comes down to is your personal powers of persuasion and the number of people you have time to spend with. Even then that person is vulnerable to the next persuasive asshole who fancies puppeting their brain and can undo your work.

Facts are facts and all but the most insane fundamentalists (Check out the landover baptist church for a few good laughs, they condone book burning and murder and explicitly state as much) hae to come to terms with them. The key is putting them in a concise and easily distributable format without resorting to inane irrational propaganda slogans.

That's actually exactly the opposite of the principles upon which the USA (and, by extension, modern democracy)was founded: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...meaning that rights originate not from the benevolence of the government, but that the simple act of being human entitles one to certain rights. A government can repress one from using those rights; that's not the same as saying they don't exist.

Little girl kidnapped by an old man. Kept in his basement for 8 years until she escapes.

Did she have those rights?

Objective answer:

It cannot be discerned how 'rights' are 'possesed' because they're not even material objects. You're making some shit up. WORDS. That people understand (Which is why you chose those words). Nothing validates those words other than the support of other words and actions from other people.

That's it. You can get as metaphysical as you want but in the end it's just more meaningless words in a system of human co-judgement. At least until those 'God[ess{s}]' come back and then....well..unless they can puppet your body for you it's an arm wrestle of God (Alien) and Humans.

Saying "Inalienable rights" is me standing here saying. "Fuck you!! You can't tax my fucking tea. Fuck you, My kids won't have to deal with your bullshit either. Sam, tell 'em how to keep these rights that we died for." Now go read some Samuel Adams if you're actually interested in finding out how to restore/preserve those freedoms you agree are 'inalienable' AS DO I!!!

[Euthanatos93420]

The first statement refers to the real world which is objective and would exist in such a way even if we were not there to observe it.

Not necessarily. These thing are observed with enough consistancy that it is possible, even probable that this is so, but we have no way to prove it exists other than that we percieve it and that we perceive 'other people' communicating as much.

When you break it down, all matter & energy are mathematical formula and nothing more. Therefore this statement amounts to 2+2=4. Which are really concepts we only think are real because we perceive them with consistency. Consistency is Also known as Synchronicity and they indicate probability but in an entirely subjective and relative universe there are no absolutes. Not even math.

However...consistency is verifiable and regardless if we presume this world is real or delusion then consistency comparisons are the best place to start making objective observations about this reality/delusion.

Speaking of delusions....I need to hit the sack. G'Night peeps.

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by Euthanatos93420

Not necessarily. These thing are observed with enough consistancy that it is possible, even probable that this is so, but we have no way to prove it exists other than that we percieve it and that we perceive 'other people' communicating as much.

When you break it down, all matter & energy are mathematical formula and nothing more. Therefore this statement amounts to 2+2=4. Which are really concepts we only think are real because we perceive them with consistency. Consistency is Also known as Synchronicity and they indicate probability but in an entirely subjective and relative universe there are no absolutes. Not even math.

However...consistency is verifiable and regardless if we presume this world is real or delusion then consistency comparisons are the best place to start making objective observations about this reality/delusion.

Speaking of delusions....I need to hit the sack. G'Night peeps.

You raise some interesting issues here. The problem with empiricism: that it is just "observed consistency". My defense to this is that firstly empiricism has successfully manipulated the world (look at the computer in front of you). Secondly, the kind of logic empiricists use (most of them) is called empirical logic, a system which took its ideas from logical positivism. This gives empiricists a means with which to analyse (with the purpose of destroying) metaphysical statements. For example, a logical positivist once said that he could not be considered an atheist because saying "God does not exist" was just as illogical as saying "God does exist" because both statements contain a word which does not relate to something which can be shown to exist in reality: God.

This approach may seem, from the outside, to be no more than faith on their part. It proved to be, however, an effective tool for understanding the world for scientists. Looking at our technological progression... it seems undeniable that this is so. You can and might look at your computer and say "it is just an observed consistency", it does not prove that computer science is "true" or, indeed, that reality exists. But what are you actually saying when you ask these questions? Postmodernism has always been confused about what "non-existence" actually is. Something can not be said to have "non-existence" as a quality, because such a thing could have no qualities; indeed, such a thing is not a thing. as Wittgenstein said, "of what you can not speak, you must remain silent" and i feel that when people, (usually postmodernists or solipsists) refer to not being able to "prove" that reality exists, they are referring to their definition that some things exist, and other things don't. When really, the problem is caused by their conjoining of the metaphysical (which is inherently subjective) and the reality they perceive (which is inherently objective, hence their problem). To take subjective metaphysical postulations such as the "non-existence of reality" and apply them to the objective external world is illogical.

I personally have not thought enough about this to give a properly comprehensive answer to the "observed consistency" "problem" with science and logic and, despite my defense of it, i concede that it is a significant issue.

Originally Posted by dyingtomorrow

Granted we don't want everyone owning a nuclear bomb,

But moreso, the right to consume anything you want, or to own anything save enormously destructive devices should be a basic human right, particularly in one's home.

I agree with your comments about the greater good, but consider your nuclear bomb example again. we wouldn't want one person to use it, because the risk factor for society as a whole would be extremely high. If, however, we allow everyone to take drugs (not all will, at first, but when the social stigma disappears and everyone has tried pure MDMA, i have a feeling that would change...) then there is still that same risk of death. Granted, it is much much much less than people owning nuclear bombs. But how can you objectively draw the line in such risk circumstances, and say with objectivity what is an "acceptable" risk and what is not? we can just use common sense, perhaps, and decide that society will be able to cope with people using drugs, and if not then it will just change/evolve and be different (hopefully better?) but then we can never really talk of "objective rights" because we are just Drawing an objective line in risk taking in relation to our subjective value judgement that society shouldn't take risks which could threaten its existence.

Or, the individual can just choose for themselves where to draw their personal line in risk taking. But then society will have a few people who take too many risks. Society will try to educate the young people that doing such things are bad, Society will probably make the most risky things illegal, such as owning nuclear bombs, and so the individual vs society problems continue...

[Euthanatos93420]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

You raise some interesting issues here. The problem with empiricism: that it is just "observed consistency". My defense to this is that firstly empiricism has successfully manipulated the world (look at the computer in front of you).

I think that statement boils down to your definition of 'success' though.

This approach may seem, from the outside, to be no more than faith on their part. It proved to be, however, an effective tool for understanding the world for scientists.

Scientists were doing such long before 'empiricism' and 'logical positivism' came along though. Egyptians had batteries (and possibly particle accelerators)

Looking at our technological progression... it seems undeniable that this is so.

Back to 'observed' consistency versus actual consistency because from our perspective nothing can truly be consistant, just statistically consistent.

You can and might look at your computer and say "it is just an observed consistency", it does not prove that computer science is "true" or, indeed, that reality exists. But what are you actually saying when you ask these questions? Postmodernism has always been confused about what "non-existence" actually is.

Not really. Expressing the opposite of material when the words we use are composed of the material that we are trying to point away from and into rather than at. It isn't so much a matter of 'non-existence' either but absolute existence. Call it God etc. it must be. The logic for that can be found in The Kybalion.

Something can not be said to have "non-existence" as a quality, because such a thing could have no qualities;

Conversely it could have all qualities.

indeed, such a thing is not a thing.

or it is the true thing and this is not.

as Wittgenstein said, "of what you can not speak, you must remain silent"

That doesn't mean that what can be spoken cannot be perceived. If such can be perceived then isn't it necessarily pertinent to speak of it even if it cannot be spoken itself?
I.e. No one can tell you what the matrix is, you have to see it for yourself.

Matrix: Something within which something else originates.

If we are incubating, and evolution (if even only in it's empirical forms) just about proves as much, then how can you say what you are to become when there is no word for it yet because no one has knows it but those who have experienced it because it is so far advanced that it would shatter our ego so traumatically that when if experience it often we would repress it.

and i feel that when people, (usually postmodernists or solipsists) refer to not being able to "prove" that reality exists, they are referring to their definition that some things exist, and other things don't. When really, the problem is caused by their conjoining of the metaphysical (which is inherently subjective) and the reality they perceive (which is inherently objective, hence their problem). To take subjective metaphysical postulations such as the "non-existence of reality" and apply them to the objective external world is illogical.

Convolution of the argument. Which is not to say that reality isn't real because that's just a blatant contradiction. So much as to say, what you think is reality isn't real, entirely, there must be more. Which, is invariably true. The extent or postulation of what is there probably would sound like something out of a fantasy novel because description of something not fully understood nor with a vocabulary adequate to describe such a perception.

I personally have not thought enough about this to give a properly comprehensive answer to the "observed consistency" "problem" with science and logic and, despite my defense of it, i concede that it is a significant issue.

Dude, from someone who has spent a very long time on it, let me tell you, there is absolutely no way to absolutely prove existence without being omniscient.

Absolutes can only apply to absolutes because absolute cannot be in a wholly relative universe such as ours and is therefore irrelevant. Funny how we can not only speak of something that we have proven cannot exist but also murder people based on those things.

Oh shit, did I just disprove God?

[TommyRowe]

Cannabis would not be the downfall of society. Nor would letting 14 year olds drive, gays get married, 18 year olds drink, people who have done drugs become cops etc.

But there is a problem. All of the above, most of society (as a generalization) feels those things are wrong. And because the Government cannot represent the wants and needs of the individuals, it does the next best thing and represents the majority. The majority I like to split up in two VERY VERY broad groups, liberals and conservatives.

For the sake of argument, just go with what Im saying...

Most of our societies beliefs are based on older, more traditional ideas. All of todays legal traditions mirror those of the olden days in some ways. Marijuana may not be as restricted as it was in the Reefer Madness days, but it is still restricted. Why?

Because the Government needs that control to be comfortable, and the general population needs the comfort of knowing the Government has that control. Now before you get started, Im not a anarchist or anything like that. Hell I work for the fucking government. I think them having control is a great thing, less work for me. However, I think things need to be revamped.

Its not a moral issue anymore. It simply boils down to, or should, a legal issue. The individual should have the right to smoke marijuana. What I dont understand and never will is how alchohol is perfectly legal (with restrictions) but Marijuana for recreational use is not. It doesnt make sense to me one bit. But thats how the governments thought process works. The average American wants to have a beer or glass of wine with his dinner. He doesnt wanna spark up a bowl so the rest of us suffer.

Everyone thinks differently. So then why should one person represent our thoughts. Well, can you think of a better method? Nobody has the right to decide who lives or dies (dealth penalty) but that same argumant can be used for the killer. What do we do then? Who knows. I would do something different than you though, I can say that 100% for sure. So somebody has to be the middle man, and that somebody is called the 51% majority. Though, nobody in modern society has voted on the death penalty, somebody did and thats why its legal. Kinda like somehow the sky is blue, we didnt have a choice but we sure as hell live with it.

It gives us a sense of consequence also. Although we think smoking pot is fine, we accept that should we sale it we are going to jail. Its a sort of security. Ive dealt with pot dealers. If their job was legal, well I would fear for society. You think they can do taxes? Would they?

Im rambling so Ill stop...

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by Euthanatos93420

Back to 'observed' consistency versus actual consistency because from our perspective nothing can truly be consistant, just statistically consistent.

There is no "actual" consistency because consistency itself is an observer-relative concept. In "objective/actual" reality, things don't happen consistently or inconsistently, they happen causally in relation to the parameters and specificities of the situation.

Originally Posted by Euthanatos93420

Expressing the opposite of material when the words we use are composed of the material that we are trying to point away from and into rather than at. It isn't so much a matter of 'non-existence' either but absolute existence. Call it God etc. it must be. The logic for that can be found in The Kybalion.

Thats exactly the problem of metaphysical language: there is a word called "existence" and there is also a concept called "opposite" and the metaphysical language structure allows for the assumption that the concept to which the word "existence" refers to has an opposite... In fact, there is only existence. the word is everything that is the case.

Originally Posted by Euthanatos93420

Conversely it could have all qualities.

indeed, i am confusing myself by talking about "qualities" of objects...

Originally Posted by Euthanatos93420

or it is the true thing and this is not.

Then that thing is the true thing, and the other isn't "not the true thing" but is simply not spoken of.

Originally Posted by Euthanatos93420

That doesn't mean that what can be spoken cannot be perceived. If such can be perceived then isn't it necessarily pertinent to speak of it even if it cannot be spoken itself?
I.e. No one can tell you what the matrix is, you have to see it for yourself.

When he said "cannot", what he really meant was "if we want our language to have meaning by means of referring to the unmetphysical world, then we can not, and should not, speak of metaphysical things such as "non-existence"

Indubitably, what is perceived can be spoken of but unless perceptions are understood within the context of positivism, then they are likely to be interpreted metaphysically. more on this later

Originally Posted by Euthanatos93420

If we are incubating, and evolution (if even only in it's empirical forms) just about proves as much, then how can you say what you are to become when there is no word for it yet because no one has knows it but those who have experienced it because it is so far advanced that it would shatter our ego so traumatically that when if experience it often we would repress it.

This is the duelist mistake of equating subjective capabilities for knowledge with what knowledge refers to. Knowledge (of science/logic) is a human creation: it is metaphysical. The only thing that is "true" about knowledge, or that can be "true" about anything is that it exists (in the case of knowledge, as thoughts in our mind) "Truth" from the empirical perspective is synonymous with existence. empiricists do not try to find out what exists and what does not: they try to find out what exists. Although Knowledge is indeed metaphysical: what it "refers" to (the physical world), is not. This is the reason that knowledge can lead to manipulation of what it "refers" to. If the knowledge were "wrong"- if science were faulty in some way, then the sense in which is would be "objectively wrong" would be that "objectively" it did not "refer" to reality. But, because computers and so on work, we can be sure that our science (to the extent of making computers) is not faulty. This concept is hard to put into words, but i hope u get what i'm trying to say.

Originally Posted by Euthanatos93420

there is absolutely no way to absolutely prove existence without being omniscient.

Considering what i have now said, this concept of "proof" is a metaphysical concept. The only question is whether or not a given concept "refers" to the physical world or not. If it is part of a logical system, which, incidentally, is also metaphysical, and yet it allows us to manipulate the physical world in a way which reflects that logic, then the very fact that the physical world can and is manipulated in that way shows that the metaphysical logic/knowledge indubitably "refers" to the physical world. becomes, as it were, a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it is not a prophecy: it is a hypothesis set in the context of science. That is the important difference between the metaphysics of science and logic and the metaphysics of language.

How this concept of "referal" "works", however, is beyond me...

[dyingtomorrow]

I think that "the greater good" is a very dangerous way of thinking respective of individual liberty. But I also must say that I despise our version of capitalism which has all the worst part of "freedom" and none of the good.

Everyone thinks themselves the responsible one. The kind that can safely own a gun, or drink and drive, or use illegal drugs, to no ill effect for society. Yet when you take people as a whole, everyone doing such things will increase the "danger level" for everyone. People who are so afraid of a tiny increase in theoretical, nonspecific danger - who value this ridiculous concept of "aggregate safety" greater than individual rights - they are a fascist and a tyrant just as much as any hardcore right winger. I suppose it comes down to the level of fear each person has, which determines what they think what vaguely socially harmful chattel or chemical should be permissible and what shouldn't be. That and their own hypocracy. Granted we don't want everyone owning a nuclear bomb, but should drugs be banned because we think that they cause social harm? Well the first answer is that prohibition versus social inclusion does not acheive the intended result anyways. But moreso, the right to consume anything you want, or to own anything save enormously destructive devices should be a basic human right, particularly in one's home.

[leadcoffin]

This issue has less to do with right and wrong than it does with trust and fear. Most people hear the horror stories, believe them, and never reach far enough out of their concrete shells to experience the truth. As a result, they cannot trust their fellow man to make appropriate decisions while under the influence. Alcohol is widespread enough in use that all aspects are seen at some point by most adults (lawmakers). With most drugs, even marijuana, this is not the case. They form this scary grey haze in the corner of the American public's eye.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Accurate analysis

[Sippin40oz]

Cars kill many people each year and so by similar definition are a danger to society! With cars you dont even have to use one to be killed by one. Does that mean as individuals we should have our right to use a car restricted? There are many other safer forms of transport so why is this different to drug use? society is a collection of individuals. Without individual rights and laws a cohesive society isnt possible. The problem is we just elect the wrong people to draw the line for us!

[Hollow Hippie]

Drugs should be an individual right until it threatens someone else, then it is an issue.

[Sven99]

I think that adults should certainly have the right to use drugs. We allow individuals to make informed choices when it comes to their own risk with many other subjects, and this should apply to drugs also.

However I think the 'rights of the individual' slant is probably one of the weakest arguments from a pro-regulation perspective, and so I tend to focus on others.