toldailytopic: Is it immoral to smoke Marijuana?

[Arthur Brain]

I would disagree along with TH here. I'm not much of a drinker at all, and on the annual occassion I do, it is usually with a meal at a restaurant. The meal tends to block any effect of one dark beer.

Well there again you're talking about 'discernible' effect which starts where? A very very mild buzz? Additionally, this encompassed the majority, so there are those who have an occasional pint with a meal with little noticeable effect, but I wager most drink to get a 'discernible' 'hit' from mild intoxication through to being completely drunk. So what's the real difference between that and cannabis on a similar scale?

 

[Granite]

What are you, French? :french:

Sure, but the point is always to get a buzz of one degree or another. It's the singular reason to smoke.

:smokie:

:dizzy:

:freak:

:smack:

:rip:

Reefer madness...

A buzz? Well, yes, of course. So what?

 

[Town Heretic]

Well similarly one might appreciate the barely discernible effects of one or two tokes on a spliff and enjoy the flavour of it as well.

Well, no. It isn't like tobacco smoke, flavored toward that purpose. I don't think you'd find a sliver of a fraction of people who would suggest your counter, unless they were high.

Ok, I appreciate that most people don't smoke without the aim of a buzz to some degree, but then most people drink in order to get the same, even if it's just to 'wind down' and have a mild relaxing 'hit' as oppose to getting 'sloshed'.

I think that's exactly right: but not an inherent problem with the substance, only the people ingesting it. And I know of and would suspect there are a great many people who drink wine with meals or have a beer without the least intention of doing more than enjoying that flavor. I'm one of them, now and again.

Well there again you're talking about 'discernible' effect which starts where? A very very mild buzz?

An impairment of judgement. And it isn't as though people were particularly rational creatures to begin with on the whole. So here's a great idea: let's dumb them down and then see what happens. :shocked:

Additionally, this encompassed the majority, so there are those who have an occasional pint with a meal with little noticeable effect, but I wager most drink to get a 'discernible' 'hit' from mild intoxication through to being completely drunk. So what's the real difference between that and cannabis on a similar scale?

There isn't any, except that my experience (and I think a few studies) would suggest the drunk is a more dangerous brute.

A buzz? Well, yes, of course. So what?

So let's add another log onto that fire of impaired rationality? :think:

:nono:

 

[Paulos]

So let's add another log onto that fire of impaired rationality? :think:

:nono:

Like it or not, the log has already been added. Marijuana is the biggest cash crop in America--bigger than corn, bigger than wheat. The cat is out of the bag, deal with it. And in this case, the only way to deal with it is to legalize it and regulate it in much the same way as we regulate alcohol. How would that not be better than what we are doing now? What we are doing now has proven to be an epic failure for decades.

 

[Town Heretic]

Like it or not, the log has already been added.

Well...no. It isn't legal in most states and the use, were it so, would inarguably increase.

Marijuana is the biggest cash crop in America--bigger than corn, bigger than wheat.

Prostitution is a real money maker too. lain:

The cat is out of the bag, deal with it.

Not a rational argument for legalization. What's there to deal with that isn't being?

And in this case, the only way to deal with it is to legalize it and regulate it in much the same way as we regulate alcohol.

Why? Or, better yet, why not heroin or any other additional drug whose sole purpose has been set out prior?

How would that not be better than what we are doing now?

What's the benefit? And if you say income, how does that argument differ from heroin, crack, etc.?

What we are doing now has proven to be an epic failure for decades.

Only if you believe a law is a failure so long as it's being broken. But that's not how we gauge the success of a law, is it. Some laws have broader implications and make broader statements.

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

So let's add another log onto that fire of impaired rationality? :think:

:nono:

Is this an argument for keeping it illegal?

 

[Paulos]

Not a rational argument for legalization. What's there to deal with that isn't being?

How about the fact that the consequences of marijuana's illegality are worse than the consequences of its use?

 

[Town Heretic]

Is this an argument for keeping it illegal?

I don't see that the law needs additional argument. More of a challenge for those who want to add another drug to the open market. Given its singular use outside of medically related usage, what's the justification/argument for it?

 

[some other dude]

And I know of and would suspect there are a great many people who drink wine with meals or have a beer without the least intention of doing more than enjoying that flavor. I'm one of them, now and again.

How often do you drink non-alcoholic beer or wine?

 

[Town Heretic]

How about the fact that the consequences of marijuana's illegality are worse than the consequences of its use?

That's a strong enough declarative. It sounds as though you have something in mind. Where are the facts to support it?

 

[some other dude]

I don't see that the law needs additional argument. More of a challenge for those who want to add another drug to the open market. Given its singular use outside of medically related usage, what's the justification/argument for it?

The justification for legalising marijuana?

Since there's no provision for prohibiting marijuana in the constitution, shouldn't the burden of providing justification be on those who wish to criminilize it?

 

[Town Heretic]

How often do you drink non-alcoholic beer or wine?

I don't. I've never had one that I liked the taste of, though it should be noted I rarely drink in any event and almost singularly with meals when I do. Most bears don't appeal to me, though I've found a handful I prefer to soda or tea with a good meal. I tend to like sweet wine and have very particular tastes with the harder stuff, which I've all but eliminated from the menu.

 

[kmoney]

I don't see that the law needs additional argument. More of a challenge for those who want to add another drug to the open market. Given its singular use outside of medically related usage, what's the justification/argument for it?

Then what do you see as the argument against it?

 

[kmoney]

I don't. I've never had one that I liked the taste of, though it should be noted I rarely drink in any event and almost singularly with meals when I do. Most bears don't appeal to me, though I've found a handful I prefer to soda or tea with a good meal. I tend to like sweet wine and have very particular tastes with the harder stuff, which I've all but eliminated from the menu.

Black bears are the best. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

The justification for legalising marijuana?

Right. It's against the law, serves no particular good purpose. It is reasonable to suggest we might want a compelling reason to switch our public face on the issue.

Since there's no provision for prohibiting marijuana in the constitution, shouldn't the burden of providing justification be on those who wish to criminilize it?

The Constitution allows for the passing of any number of laws not directly set out else. So, no.

 

[Town Heretic]

Black bears are the best. lain:

Nah. Polar. They're always cold. lain:

The argument against is that it serves no good purpose, can be a gateway drug, works physical harm, is involved in any number of accidents and other activity where people are harmed and is a contributer to it. I don't see any argument for it other than a purely fiscal one (not that that can't be advanced with some teeth/only that no one has yet).

 

[some other dude]

More of a challenge for those who want to add another drug to the open market.

Are you kidding?


If I did a cut and paste of the list of FDA regulated drugs that are currently on the market, it would crash Knight's servers.

 

[Town Heretic]

Are you kidding?


If I did a cut and paste of the list of FDA regulated drugs that are currently on the market, it would crash Knight's servers.

Come on, sod, you're not seriously trying to conflate drugs with a legitimate medical purpose, aimed to that purpose, with pot...lain:

Because if you want to make a different argument for specific medical conditions under a doctor's supervision then that's another and very different conversation.

 

[some other dude]

Right. It's against the law

As was assisting freed slaves.

, serves no particular good purpose.

the same could be said for alcohol, tobacco, snowmobiles, etc

It is reasonable to suggest we might want a compelling reason to switch our public face on the issue.

Did we have a "compelling" reason when marijuana laws were enacted?

The Constitution allows for the passing of any number of laws not directly set out else. So, no.

A rabbit trail I'd rather not go down.

 

[kmoney]

Nah. Polar. They're always cold. lain:

True. But I hear their environment is getting warmer. So we'll need an alternative. lain:

The argument against is that it serves no good purpose, can be a gateway drug, works physical harm, is involved in any number of accidents and other activity where people are harmed and is a contributer to it. I don't see any argument for it other than a purely fiscal one (not that that can't be advanced with some teeth/only that no one has yet).

In my view, all of what you just mentioned can be levied against alcohol. And tobacco (except the accidents part as tobacco doesn't hinder mental faculties).

The thought of banning a naturally occurring plant just seems strange to me.