>and are often recreational drug users themselves (i.e. too close to the issue)
I think this is an interesting thought. As a recreational drug user myself (I drink alcohol sometimes), I do indeed feel like drugs should be legalized, so as to enable regulation. But I don't feel like me dealing with the subject in my day to day life should have a bearing on whether I'm able to have an informed opinion on the matter. It's like saying rape victims are too close to rape and therefore their opinions on rape legislation are skewed.
Exactly, I completely agree, it's a very silly thought! What makes drug use different from my example that people aren't able to have an informed opinion on it when they're involved?
Yep, me too. However legislation on x (be it rape, recreational drugs, whatever), still requires discussion, and there's always ifs and buts, and the idea that someone involved in x is somehow not someone to be taken seriously on the matter strikes me as wrong.
Its fallacious only if I reject an argument you propose with that logic.
Obviously, in the application of a logical argument, you need to respond to logic with logic.
That being said, it's also obvious that a criminal isn't really a good authority on the justness of the crime they commit -- we implicitly understand that this is part of the rationalization process for antisocial behaviors.
Also, yeah, the rape "analogy" was both socially awkward and horrible, a double whammy. Generally, rape isn't a great topic for conversation.
>That being said, it's also obvious that a criminal isn't really a good authority on the justness of the crime they commit...
How is that obvious? It's not at all obvious to me that, for example, MLK Jr was not an authority on the justice of civil disobedience because he himself practiced civil disobedience.
If we disregard the opinions of people who think doing X is justified and therefore proceed to do X, then we bias ourselves toward the opinions of people who oppose X, as they will be overrepresented in the sample of people who choose not to do X.
Such cherry picking is not a logically sound method for developing an honest, unbiased worldview.
How is it not obvious that a legal transgressor would justify their transgression? The fact that bad people generally don't feel like bad people is a universal understanding of the human condition.
Not interested in making comparisons to someone that you can't separate from a type of neo-sainthood.
Anyhow, having an unpopular opinion isn't antisocial or illegal.
It's not a comparison. It's an analogy. This is actually a pretty important distinction because analogies are vital for illustrating concepts in a more concrete way; it's why we got drilled and tested on analogies again and again in school.
But let me try again without making an analogy:
Some percentage of people do X and therefore try to justify doing X.
But another percentage of people think X is justified and therefore do X.
You do not appear to make a distinction between these two cases. You lump the latter in with the former and then dismiss their views out of hand.
This is such bad logic that I am beginning to suspect that you are are actually being a hypocrite here: that you dislike drug users emotionally, and so you are trying extra hard to justify that dislike intellectually, even when it requires blatantly fallacious reasoning. (And, dammit, here I ended up making another analogy, albeit hopefully subtly enough that you don't accuse me of comparing you to a criminal.)
Doing drugs is immoral because it compromises your ability to serve your community and live up to the expectations and responsibilities that come with living in a society.
If you can keep your life balanced while on drugs, good for you. But you're still toying with the risk of you getting addicted and losing control; to even take that risk is selfish.
I think this is an interesting thought. As a recreational drug user myself (I drink alcohol sometimes), I do indeed feel like drugs should be legalized, so as to enable regulation. But I don't feel like me dealing with the subject in my day to day life should have a bearing on whether I'm able to have an informed opinion on the matter. It's like saying rape victims are too close to rape and therefore their opinions on rape legislation are skewed.