I read all the posts. No part of the complete context appears to answer my question, which I'll repeat, as apparently, since you say:
2) I'm not going to argue with you about your presumptions.
you're no great fan, either of context or presumptions, at least, of anyone else.
3) Is injecting oneself with heroin a moral act?
In and of itself, it is a morally neutral act, much in the same manner that a morning cup of coffee and a cigarette is a morally neutral act. I usually manage to ignore these drug threads of late, but you have been passing out such lurid misinsformation with such assurance, that my threshold of annoyance has been overcome.
Like most people exposed to the medical/judicial crash&burn cases, you have quite an a-statistical, jaundiced view of the problem. Heroin users die off at a rate not much different than the general population. Heroin users mostly work for a living, and pay for their heroin out of their paycheck. So says the DEA, and as is painfully obvious from a comparision of the estimated gross heroin consumption, and the number of esitmated hard core addicts.
If it is immoral to use heroin, on the basis of it's potential for harm, than it is painfully obvious that a number of other things are also immoral, including alcohol and late-night television.
I can tell you about something that is truly, unambiguously morally evil, though. And that's for a country founded on the moral basis of protecting individual human freedom allowing its government officials to dictate what you may put in your mouth, without requiring courtroom quality evidence of the critical nature of the harm avoided. The moral harm from this violation of basic human trust between the governed and the governors so far outstrips the harm from heroin, as to make it irrelevant.
When you put your hand over your heart and pledged "liberty and justice for all", did you actually mean "liberty and justice for rich drunk white people"?
Whose morals are those? Not mine; must be yours. You said you've read my posts on this topic. If you had, you would have read about the differences between heroin and other substances, and my science based opinion that it's a bit disingenuous to compare them. You, however, need to claim some kind of medical parity between street narcotics and legal substances. I repeat, they are not in the same pharmalogical or physiologic class.
I usually manage to ignore these drug threads of late, but you have been passing out such lurid misinsformation with such assurance, that my threshold of annoyance has been overcome.
So glad to be of use to a dyspeptic sophist such as yourself. My lurid misinformation is based on extensive education ( three degrees) and twenty years of hospital work, tending to the very people we are discussing. I imagine yours has been colored by, um, law school?
Like most people exposed to the medical/judicial crash&burn cases, you have quite an a-statistical, jaundiced view of the problem.
Why, thank you.
Heroin users die off at a rate not much different than the general population.
And I said differently where? Your factoid is beside the point. I would respond to you by mentioning that heroin users, "die off" of a number of diseases and conditions that afflict the general population at a much lower rate. If that helps, and I suspect it doesn't.
Heroin users mostly work for a living, and pay for their heroin out of their paycheck. So says the DEA, and as is painfully obvious from a comparision of the estimated gross heroin consumption, and the number of esitmated hard core addicts.
I see. So that negates the behavior of addicts who rob to support their habits, and who are involved in the violence that surrounds the drug trade. How enlightening. I bet it also excuses the fact that they are addicts whose lives revolve around drugs. It neutralized the negative effects on their families, their health, and the community at large. The fact that they spend their pay on heroin rather than food, the mortgage and medical care for the kids is more than compensated for by the fact that they work, and pay taxes. Might I add that I sure hope they aren't doing anything on the job that could harm another human being?
If it is immoral to use heroin, on the basis of it's potential for harm, than it is painfully obvious that a number of other things are also immoral, including alcohol and late-night television. M/P>
If you had read my posts, as you said you have, you would already know that comparing heroin to alcohol or , god forbid, late night tv, is not a valid comparison. They are not in the same classification of poisons. I know you are not being disingenuous. You are being sophistic. And that, my friend , is the crux of the matter.
I can tell you about something that is truly, unambiguously morally evil, though. And that's for a country founded on the moral basis of protecting individual human freedom allowing its government officials to dictate what you may put in your mouth, without requiring courtroom quality evidence of the critical nature of the harm avoided. The moral harm from this violation of basic human trust between the governed and the governors so far outstrips the harm from heroin, as to make it irrelevant.
Nice rhetoric, but irrelevant to the thread at hand.The thread at hand is about dope cut with anthrax, the risk one assumes when using it, even with full knowledge, and who is resppnsible for the inevitable outcomes of using it.
Now, I will tell you what I think is an unambiguous evil. Folks who marginalize the real experiences of humans - including their suffering - to a handful of abstract concepts in order to win an argument.
When you put your hand over your heart and pledged "liberty and justice for all", did you actually mean "liberty and justice for rich drunk white people"?<
Oh, you are so right. That is exactly what I say.
I hope you find whatever it is you are looking for, donh. As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over.