Buying coke online in Kant

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

>>>✅(Click Here)✅<<<

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Buying coke online in Kant

My Beatport Collection Downloads Playlists. Create playlist.

This Is a Philosopher on Drugs

Buying coke online in Kant

There were many fascinating comments to my previous post on drugs , and are evidence for why Cal Newport has called readers of this blog 'freakishly smart. Lindsey of Crooked Lines left this comment :. Many of the drugs at the University of Michigan, where I went to school, for example — especially the ever popular marijuana — made their way there from Detroit, and while the affluent drug users in Ann Arbor are, for the most part, safely insulated from the effects of the trade, the people who live in and around the earlier links of the supply chain whether or not they are part of the trade itself are not so privileged…. Lindsey is elevating the societal impact of her behavior — the funding of narco-violence — above personal preferences in deciding not to buy drugs on ethical grounds. The tricky part is that there is essentially zero societal impact of a single person buying or not buying a drug. Economists argue that it's irrational to vote in an election because it's essentially impossible that your vote will affect the outcome. As the old joke goes, if an economist sees another economist at the voting booth, they say, 'I won't tell if you won't tell. Why yes, but everybody does not think this way. What are the ethics surrounding decisions that, if universalized, would make a big difference, but which, at the margin, make essentially zero difference? In Kant's Categorical Imperative he includes this moral maxim of universality: 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction. The implications of Kant to non-voters would be, 'If everyone chose not to vote, the democracy wouldn't function. So vote! That seems like a fine aspirational ethic — a principled stance applied to things like democracy and drug buying — but the more realistic approach would to weigh the probability of universal adoption of the action. If it's insanely low — like in the case of non-voting or drug-buying — then ignore it. If, on the other hand, there were only five total drug buyers in the world, and if you stopped buying drugs that would drastically shrink demand and perhaps result in less drug violence, you would be right to incorporate societal implications more seriously in your decision as they much greater. Bottom Line : In the case of buying drugs, since the personal impact positive and negative so vastly outweighs the societal impact, I believe solely a personal consideration of costs and benefits is an ethical way to think about it. But ethics is simply a basis for making individual decisions, and to each his own. Just one of many, right? Voting is irrational because it is a winner take all event. However, buying drugs and other aggregated activities is not like voting. Even though this bit is tiny, it is somewhat proportional to your tiny demand. Voting is like a step function — its derivative is 0 so marginal behavior is irrelevant. But for all other aggregate functions of human behavior no matter the curve , they will have nonzero derivatives. Moral of story: voting is an exceptional case because the effects of the margins truly are 0. But for many other things in life, the effects of the margins are not 0. Though not sure I understand your first point — I don't think most people think about 'supporting the artists' — maybe. The issue is more complicated because if drug-use reached majority levels it would surely be turned into a legal substance via the mechanism of democracy or at least, that is what one could expect. I dont actually know how it is elsewhere, but in Chile a great deal of college students simply grow their own. I actually heard it as an argument towards stripping the violent-drug-culture impact that consuming marihuana creates as an illegal drug. Instead of buying it from a seedy violent drug subculture, exposing yourself to crime, violence and police enforcement, you grow a couple of plants and sell it at a very low cost to only your weed-friendly acquaintances. Im pretty sure most would quickly forget their pledge for responsible drug use, but in essence the whole thing doesnt seem like a terrible idea. Particularly since it seems kant-ish. Would I do this if everyone did it? Send the whole rotten pack of drug dealers to hell. And it only applies to drugs you can grow easily in your backyard Chile being a very good place for it — there used to be hemp plantations by the dozen. Her opinions are far, far from the everyday reality of hundreds of thousands of pot smokers who get their weed through small distribution channels of growers and their friends with extended networks. Lindsey is profoundly disconnected from the reality of buying weed, so how would she know anything about it? This may apply to drug crops like opium poppies and coca only because they are illegal , but where is the data to support her sweeping assumption otherwise known as bullshit concerning marijuana? Just as the violence and corruption engendered by the prohibition of alcohol was promptly eliminated by its repeal, so should we demand the repeal of the unjust and socially destructive prohibition of marijuana and all other illegal psychoactive substances. If drugs were legalized, these problems would go away, just like Kennedy and Capone went away when prohibition ceased or at least found some other activity other people had problems dealing with on their own. You think Americans would rather buy heroin grown in Kansas or Canada, or freaking Kabul? In fact, restricting the freedom of individuals to access substances seems to violate most of the more fundamental Kantian principals. Many drugs are a social thing, and especially smokers like to encourage their friends to join them. This means that often each smoker spreads it to their friends, and maybe a few of their friends spread it to their friends. The individual impact for drug use can reach farther than voting which is a more personal affair other than debating politics with politically interested people. Wow, Ben, thanks—both for starting a really interesting discussion about this, and for the link to my embarrassingly crude and underdeveloped blog! I wanted to clarify my comment a bit, and then hopefully add something to the discussion. Vince, I truly apologize if anything I wrote sounded self-righteous—that was not my intention at all. I have had the opportunity and been in countless social situations where everyone around me was doing drugs, and I had to make the same decision that Ben is now making—and in a lot of those cases and no, this was not middle school it was the expected social norm. And Ted, thank you so much for your useful analysis—the fact that drug usage is not a step function so much more eloquently describes why I made the choice I made…because my choice does have an impact. I think the points about local growers are really good ones, and as T points out, it seems that in some instances there may be a socially-responsible way to procure drugs. If you can find a way to do this, Ben, perhaps my point is then not relevant to your decision. Unfortunately that is enough money on corrupt hands to fund a constant bloody war through Mexico. Not to mention the destabilizing effects of Narco money going into corrupt government officials and the Narco assassinating those that go against them. Not to mention the Cartels have been moving up into the U. I think that makes it a pretty strong case for the serious global cost to black market drug use. Definitely suggests the importance for either legalization or buying from American growers to weaken the Mexican Cartels. Lindsey, thanks for your reply. Ben, fascinating discussions in the last few posts. Indeed, you raised this question many months ago, and I have had it in my 'draft posts' folder ever since. Would love to hear your theories at some point. As Scott notes, if we follow the principle of universality and will that all of mankind purchases drugs, then drug illegality ends or becomes unenforceable and societal harm plummets. Let us suppose that government intervention is immoral and responsible for the negative social externalities associated with private drug use. Let us also suppose that the universality principle would suggest that drug use is moral in the absence of government and immoral if government exists. Following Kant, should a moral actor apply the universality principle with the assumption that other agents are acting morally? Yes — I brought up the Categorical Impereative as a refernece point, not that it is the compass for my own moral system. Thanks guys. Ben, your blog is a truly a wonderland to me— a perpetual source of stimulation and entertainment, and a fun place to grow some new neurons. Kant was solely interested in what we as rational beings, can will. He derived proper motive from a priori knowledge — logical operators and so on, rather than empirical data or observations. So you cannot will not voting because that would mean willing rational creatures to universally not express reason — a logical rabbithole. This is actually a very shallow understanding of Kantian ethics. They fundamentally are wrong under Kantian ethics:. The inordinate gratification of our bodily wants is that abuse of aliments which blunts the operations of the intellect : drunkenness and gluttony are the two vices falling under this head. The drunkard renounces, for the seductive goblet, that rationality which alone proclaims the superiority of his rank; and is, while in his state of intoxication, to be dealt with as a brute only, not as a person… The former state of degradation, abject even beneath the beasts, is commonly brought about by the excessive use of fermented liquors, or of stupefying drugs, such as opium, and other products of the vegetable kingdom; the betraying power whereof lies in this, that for a while a dreamy happiness, and freedom from solicitude, or perhaps a fancied fortitude, is begotten, which, after all, concludes in despondency and sadness, and so unawares, and by insensible and unsuspected steps, introduces the need and want to repeat and to augment the stupefying dose. Gluttony must be reputed still lower in the scale of animal enjoyment; for it is purely passive, and does not waken to life the energies of Fancy,—a faculty susceptible for a long time of an active play of its perceptions during the obstupefaction of the former, upon which account gluttony is the more beastly vice. Are ethics reducible to personal decisions, as Kant says? What is the difference between that position as a human goal and that of a sociopath, who has reached it? Instead, we are social animals, and thus we are inclined to look to others for comfort and consolation in despair of not having final answers. That is the basis of ethics, and not the flight from others to an illusory autonomy. Even if Kant says different. Just my 2 cents. The basics of ethics and piety too is determining right from wrong regardless of what everyone else does. In fact, a corollary of the teachings of Jesus is that the greater the percentage of people taking the path, the more likely it is the less worthwhile. I respectfully disagree. Prophets like for instance Giordano Bruno followed their understanding of nature to their death. Well i am new here. I am an engineer and right now working with a software company. I believe that certain type of drugs like Maryjuana,Hash are not that harmfull but well addicted and i have gone through the same things as ted have mentioned above. But i am not in to this any more. I believe it gives you a greater ability to think in a wide area whether you are high or not. Car Buyers. Your email address will not be published. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. Skip to content There were many fascinating comments to my previous post on drugs , and are evidence for why Cal Newport has called readers of this blog 'freakishly smart. I disagree with your comparison of voting and drug buying. Please pass the bong. Michael, I think you need a big fat toke. Track that down and get back to me. Thank God I have a cure for that. Thanks for your speedy reply and the research, Michael. Cheers, Dario. Dario, Indeed, you raised this question many months ago, and I have had it in my 'draft posts' folder ever since. Jake Bryant, Exactly. Leave A Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. And Should I?

Buying coke online in Kant