What is the purpose in taking these substances? If it recreational, I'm suspicious of any substance, or use of a substance (i.e., when, like alcohol, the substance doesn't have to be used in this way), where its use becomes the focus of the occasion, rather than simply a supporting element ( its the difference between a few drinks down the pub with friends versus going out with the express purpose of getting blind drunk, or between the former and going to a rave and getting out of your head on ecstasy). I'm not sure how to express this point in moral argument though, though I think it has to do with the artificiality and self-centredness of enjoying a substance for its own sake. 

​If the purpose is spiritual, then, in general, psychedelics are a lazy and poor substitute for genuine spiritual effort and experience. Perhaps they may help a few people in the beginning of their spiritual journey (perhaps in questioning materialism), but you can't just take pills or plant matter and progress very far spiritually. For many they will do more harm than good (even ignoring side effects and the like).

​I have heard that they, as well as substances like MDMA, can be good for certain psychological conditions. I know little of the details, but this may be an acceptable use, and presumably doesn't contravene natural law. 

ccmnxc wrote:

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

What is the purpose in taking these substances? If it recreational, I'm suspicious of any substance, or use of a substance (i.e., when, like alcohol, the substance doesn't have to be used in this way), where its use becomes the focus of the occasion, rather than simply a supporting element ( its the difference between a few drinks down the pub with friends versus going out with the express purpose of getting blind drunk, or between the former and going to a rave and getting out of your head on ecstasy). I'm not sure how to express this point in moral argument though, though I think it has to do with the artificiality and self-centredness of enjoying a substance for its own sake. 

​If the purpose is spiritual, then, in general, psychedelics are a lazy and poor substitute for genuine spiritual effort and experience. Perhaps they may help a few people in the beginning of their spiritual journey (perhaps in questioning materialism), but you can't just take pills or plant matter and progress very far spiritually. For many they will do more harm than good (even ignoring side effects and the like).

​I have heard that they, as well as substances like MDMA, can be good for certain psychological conditions. I know little of the details, but this may be an acceptable use, and presumably doesn't contravene natural law. 

His position on recreation wasn't entirely clear to me, though I share sentiments similar to yours. I think the general track he had in mind is that if use of psychedelics is in principle legitimate, then there are certain contexts, including spiritual and intellectual, where it would be both allowable as well as arguably beneficial (we mostly left out discussion of the medicinal usage of said drugs). I'm guessing that were he pressed on the recreation component, he would go along the lines of saying that since there is no inherent wrongness in the use of psychedelics, it should be fine for recreation in moderation and in controlled circumstances, whatever that might mean. 

Regarding the spiritual, he said that while it is probably not good to subsist on psychedelic induced spiritual experiences, that it should be okay for someone to use it every now and then for spiritual ends. He compared it somewhat to the Charismatic movement (Catholic, specifically) and noted how there are certain artificial conditions put in place such as a large group of worshipers, a band playing music which carry weighty or uplifting messages, and just that general atmosphere Charismatic worship produces. If these are licit and beneficial means for disposing someone to receptivity to the Holy Spirit, then psychedelics seem to be on the table as well insofar as the charge of artificiality that might be leveled against drugs could plausibly be leveled against Charismatic worship as well. 

Part of my issue is that I want to take a pretty hard line here and say that, exempting some in-principle uses for medicine, such psychedelics are immoral, and in doing that, I may simply be going further than reason allows for. Additionally, one of the reasons I'm so expressly against their use is the effect I see it having on their personality (his in particular) inasmuch as while he is still perfectly capable of reason, there is a sort of hippy-ish not-quite-planted-in-reality impression he gives off that didn't exist before his drug use, but maybe that's simply a byproduct of his trying to describe a process that simply cannot be so described to someone who hasn't had the experience themselves. But anyways, thank you for the feedback.

Why JT even responded to you is beyond me.

Points:

1. On its own the worst one could say is that use of psychedelics is irrational (akin to spinning round in circles until one gets dizzy for instance). In order to make it immoral let alone gravely immoral one would need further arguments such as an appeal to social effects i.e. relation to the common good. One could make the stronger case that it would be immoral to take them and then do something their influence would interfere with, just as, for instance, it would be wrong to take sleeping pills and operate heavy machinery.

2. I don't think in themselves psychedelics are akin mystical experiences. From personal experience and far greater experience with others who have taken it lsd and analogues do have a tendency to stimulate what might be called ontological thoughts. Certainly unless there are additional factors (buried memories for instance) they tend to produce a more positive state, both at the time and afterwards, than alcoholic intoxication.

3. Lsd and psilocybin both have a stimulating effect ton the imagination (the jury is still out on whether this is a direct effect or because of the novelty value + temporary disassociation they cause). Low dosage usage of both has been shown to have a positive effect on clinical depression. Both also have use in various forms of psychotherapy both for their effects on bodily awareness and on buried memories. MDMA has even greater value for the former.

4. Re Charismatics, I think what is important here is that they are means to induce an extastic state/ state of intoxication.

Last edited by DanielCC (12/28/2017 5:41 pm)

lacktone wrote:

1. Is there any way to argue against it from a natural law perspective, and 
2. If this can be done without first subjecting oneself to the drugs themselves?

Altered, impaired, incapacitated, high, transcendent, out of it, left of center, whacked-out, pick your semantic. Stoned is stoned. I find reality the better form of escapism. You can pick your compass heading and there will always be something of interest between you and the horizon on that radial. Chemically speaking, you're not going to be lucid enough to have a legitimate claim on cognizance. I find it to be a cop-out. I also find people who alter their lucidity selfish. 

That's very Beatnik...
 

99% of people who take drugs do it for the explicit purpose of feeling pleasure.   Almost all talk of this different states of consciousness talk is rhetorical justification.  If life's goal is something higher than pleasure, then drug use is at the least unhelpful.

The other 1% of cases are more complex.