toldailytopic: Is it immoral to smoke Marijuana?

[Town Heretic]

As was assisting freed slaves.

True, though you had an inherent declaration of the founders (ALL men are created equal) and a strong moral argument to be made in defense of the principle of man's liberty that doesn't find a parallel here. This isn't a law in support of an evil or evil institution, though you could be argued as proposing a law that supports one.

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

No. Alcohol can be ingested with heath benefits, in moderation. It can be taken for a purpose other than intoxication. Snowmobiles isn't a parallel on any level. I think you can make a compelling case against cigarettes on any number of levels and would be on your side if you did.

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

I wasn't there for that one. Probably pushed by big tobacco with the help of church leaders who rightly viewed it as a thing with but one purpose set against the value of sobriety. :idunno:

A rabbit trail I'd rather not go down.

Okay, but you started that one. I'm fully prepared if you change your mind. I love discussing the law. oly: :thumb:

 

[some other dude]

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

The FDA regulates all manner of substances that fall under the descriptive "drugs", including health supplements, alcohol, tobacco, shampoo, etc.

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.

No, the point I am making is that there is no moral reason to criminalize marijuana. And it could well be argued that there are many immoral reasons. Research the history of marijuana drug legislation.

 

[some other dude]

True, though you had an inherent declaration of the founders (ALL men are created equal)

Even three fifths of a man?


I gotta go! :wave:

 

[Town Heretic]

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

:think: Fine whine, perhaps?

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).

Except you have to abuse alcohol to produce the negative. It can be, as previously noted (and I'd be happy to do the AMA links), beneficial and healthy.

Tobacco is an example of modern slavery: an immoral and harmful thing protected by the state without any good other than a purely economic one to speak for it. Money drives and protects its hypocrisy.

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

Are poison mushrooms legal to ingest? lain: They're natural.

Want a list of horribly natural things you shouldn't legalize the consumption of?

 

[Paulos]

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

I'm working up a reply to your question, but in the meantime, I'd like to turn the tables and ask you: What exactly is it about marijuana that you think makes it so dangerous that it needs to be kept illegal?

 

[chrysostom]

he is just trying to protect you
and
isn't that scary

 

[Town Heretic]

...the point I am making is that there is no moral reason to criminalize marijuana.

Then I say you've failed, since your moral argument seems to ammount to, "But all the other moms are letting their kids do it."

There are any number of moral objections to pot, beginning with the inarguable fact that it only serves one purpose: to intoxicate its user, to impair and diminish his judgment...a judgment that directly impacts his ability to define and make moral choice. And it does this while working no appreciable good other than providing a false joy.

There's a little bit of an answer for you as well, Paulos. :e4e:

 

[chrysostom]

they don't want you to smoke
but
they hand out free condoms

 

[Paulos]

There are any number of moral objections to pot, beginning with the inarguable fact that it only serves one purpose: to intoxicate its user, to impair and diminish his judgment...a judgment that directly impacts his ability to define and make moral choice. And it does this while working no appreciable good other than providing a false joy.

There's a little bit of an answer for you as well, Paulos.

Everything you said applies far more to alcohol than to marijuana. Alcohol use causes 30,000+ deaths annually from overdose, disease, drunk driving, and alcohol related violence. Almost 40% of all violent crime in America is alcohol related. By contrast, Marijuana
is far safer than alcohol, far less likely to lead to violence, causes zero overdose deaths each year, and has been tried by 100 million Americans, including our last three presidents.

The only things standing in the way of marijuana legalization are willful ignorance and rank hypocrisy.

 

[kmoney]

:think: Fine whine, perhaps?

Sounds good. Keepin' it classy.

Except you have to abuse alcohol to produce the negative. It can be, as previously noted (and I'd be happy to do the AMA links), beneficial and healthy.

From what I've seen, wine and perhaps liquor are where the health benefits come in. Does beer bring the same benefits?

Tobacco is an example of modern slavery: an immoral and harmful thing protected by the state without any good other than a purely economic one to speak for it. Money drives and protects its hypocrisy.

So would you support a legal ban on tobacco products?

Are poison mushrooms legal to ingest? lain: They're natural.

Want a list of horribly natural things you shouldn't legalize the consumption of?

I'm not saying we should consume all that is natural. I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal to possess it. And the laws should be about what is done while under the influence of the substances, like what is done with alcohol. I think the default position is for the thing to be legal and I don't see a compelling argument to have the laws that we do.

 

[Town Heretic]

Sounds good. Keepin' it classy.

:thumb: Maybe the whine will be about the cool bear shortage. :think:

From what I've seen, wine and perhaps liquor are where the health benefits come in. Does beer bring the same benefits?

Yes. A beer a day helps keep cardiovascular disease at bay...to an extent. Why? Probably because of the folate's impact on homocysteine levels in the blood, which correlate to lower incidences of cardiovascular problems.

So would you support a legal ban on tobacco products?

I would. I think the overwhelming argument, both fiscal and moral, is against the product.

I'm not saying we should consume all that is natural.

Didn't think you would. Just responding to the notion that natural is somehow a part of the consideration here.

I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal to possess it.

Except that possession is indicative of intent to use. People don't typically buy a six pack as a paper weight, by way of parallel.

And the laws should be about what is done while under the influence of the substances, like what is done with alcohol.

We have criminal laws against conduct, but we also have criminal laws against states of intoxication to bar attempts at using a permissible state as a mitigation or defense relating to an act.

I think the default position is for the thing to be legal and I don't see a compelling argument to have the laws that we do.

I've set out one or two prior. Any drug whose singular purpose is to intoxicate promotes that feature and invites a wider influence in relation to other drugs, even if that window is relatively small. Legalize that pure intoxicant and you encourage the growth of any number of ills and do so serving no particular good purpose.

 

[Town Heretic]

I wrote:

There are any number of moral objections to pot, beginning with the inarguable fact that it only serves one purpose: to intoxicate its user, to impair and diminish his judgment...a judgment that directly impacts his ability to define and make moral choice. And it does this while working no appreciable good other than providing a false joy.

Everything you said applies far more to alcohol than to marijuana.

No. Demonstrably not the case. You're conflating the misuse of alcohol with the intended use of pot.

Alcohol use causes 30,000+ deaths annually from overdose, disease, drunk driving, and alcohol related violence. Almost 40% of all violent crime in America is alcohol related.

Correct. All abuses of the product. And many a killer uses a gun or knife, but the response isn't to ban either. The entire point of pot is to impair your mental faculties, which is a recipe for misconduct.

The only things standing in the way of marijuana legalization are willful ignorance and rank hypocrisy.

That's just nonsense, given I've set out points against it that are neither rooted nor the product of ignorance and there's literally nothing in my objection that can remotely be described as hypocritical...well, can't be demonstrated to be. Anyone can declare a thing.

:e4e:

 

[lightbringer]

Correct. All abuses of the product. And many a killer uses a gun or knife, but the response isn't to ban either. The entire point of pot is to impair your mental faculties, which is a recipe for misconduct.

Yeah but if your attacker is high on Marijuana all you have to do is toss him some french bread and guacamole, end of assault! :rotfl:

 

[some other dude]

There are any number of moral objections to pot, beginning with the inarguable fact that it only serves one purpose: to intoxicate its user, to impair and diminish his judgment...

point 1: "inarguable"? Ridiculous.

point 2: more than one purpose - religious ceremonies, medical use, etc

point 3: what is the moral argument against intoxication? Is it qualified by degrees? Is a mild intoxication necessarily immoral?

point 4: what is the moral argument against altering (I'm not willing to give you "impair" and "diminish") one's perceptions?

point 5: I really shouldnt be here right now

 

[PyramidHead]

I wrote:

There are any number of moral objections to pot, beginning with the inarguable fact that it only serves one purpose: to intoxicate its user, to impair and diminish his judgment...a judgment that directly impacts his ability to define and make moral choice. And it does this while working no appreciable good other than providing a false joy.

Demonstratively wrong, serves medicinal and spiritual/meditative uses, as well as uses that are unique person to person. And for some reason you've jumped on the 'you can have one beer but you need to smoke 20 joints' train which is stupid.

No. Demonstrably not the case. You're conflating the misuse of alcohol with the intended use of pot.

In case you haven't noticed, a lot a lot 'misuse' alcohol under the pretense that alcohol is supposed to be used like that. And I mean a lot of people use it like that. Go, say for an example, to any bar, liquor store, street corner, or party, and observe it for yourself.

Correct. All abuses of the product. And many a killer uses a gun or knife, but the response isn't to ban either. The entire point of pot is to impair your mental faculties, which is a recipe for misconduct.

'The entire point of pot is to impair your mental faculties, which is a recipe for misconduct'. Are you sure about that? As in, why do you claim this? Here's what weed does: It gets you high. If you smoke too much, you get super stoned. BUT no matter how much you smoke in one sitting, you will not die. The same cannot be said of alcohol, or nearly any other psychoactive.

That's just nonsense, given I've set out points against it that are neither rooted nor the product of ignorance and there's literally nothing in my objection that can remotely be described as hypocritical...well, can't be demonstrated to be. Anyone can declare a thing.

:e4e:

Not hypocritical, merely uneducated. To demonstrate:

How many times have you smoked weed, Town Heretic?

 

[Paulos]

You're conflating the misuse of alcohol with the intended use of pot...The entire point of pot is to impair your mental faculties, which is a recipe for misconduct.

Famed astronomer Carl Sagan used marijuana to spur his creative thinking and to combat writer's block. Many artists, musicians, and intelligentsia have used marijuana to the same end. So much for the claim that "The entire point of pot is to impair your mental faculties".

 

[Town Heretic]

Famed astronomer Carl Sagan used marijuana to spur his creative thinking and to combat writer's block.

Writer's block is a psychological problem and both sound like marvelous enough excuses, but hardly necessary or remotely causal except as an extension of his belief.

Many artists, musicians, and intelligentsia have used marijuana to the same end. So much for the claim that "The entire point of pot is to impair your mental faculties".

Given the state induced is precisely that, whatever claims are made to the contrary: beans.

 

[PyramidHead]

Writer's block is a psychological problem and both sound like marvelous enough excuses, but hardly necessary or remotely causal except as an extension of his belief.


Given the state induced is precisely that, whatever claims are made to the contrary: beans.

Well how about people who use it for pain, depression, anxiety, etc.? Or does everyone who smoke use it as an 'excuse'?

 

[some other dude]

Is it always immoral to participate in an activity that necessarily results in inpairment of mental faculties?

 

[Town Heretic]

Demonstratively wrong, serves medicinal and spiritual/meditative uses

To begin with I already noted I didn't object necessarily to doctor supervised use for a medical purpose. The rest is hand waiving psychologically sponsored nonsense. You don't need pot to be creative or to meditate. And there are no unique uses, only unique applications, which are no more arguments than "Because I really enjoy getting high" would be.

And for some reason you've jumped on the 'you can have one beer but you need to smoke 20 joints' train which is stupid.

I've done nothing of the sort and you can't support that declarative with a single quote of mine.

In case you haven't noticed, a lot a lot 'misuse' alcohol under the pretense that alcohol is supposed to be used like that.

Again, I haven't shied from the abuse element, but I've answered on that point. And 100% of auto related fatalities involve automobiles. So we assert that the problem is the car? :squint:

'The entire point of pot is to impair your mental faculties, which is a recipe for misconduct'.

Are you sure about that? As in, why do you claim this?

Because that's the thing, the state, from which any claimed benefit is derived.

Here's what weed does: It gets you high. If you smoke too much, you get super stoned. BUT no matter how much you smoke in one sitting, you will not die. The same cannot be said of alcohol, or nearly any other psychoactive.

Did I say otherwise?

Not hypocritical, merely uneducated. To demonstrate:

How many times have you smoked weed, Town Heretic?

Not uneducated? Are you uneducated in the law unless you violate it? Of course not. That's a silly non qualification. Else, only pedophiles could intelligently discuss the problem of pedophilia. I doubt you'd advance that as an argument.

Unlike some, who from sobriety or abstinence of one sort or another, almost proudly recount their experience with moral failure, I'm disinclined. Which is another way of saying, politely, none of your business.