who supports marijuana rights?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, we can be a strong nation without strong morals but it is more difficult. The importance of morality is simply the strength of morality in the common populace and its effect on society as a whole. I suppose that my arguments may sort of sound like the slippery slope argument but still, I think that an increase in crime from the legalization of harder drugs is a guaranteed outcome not a possibility.

In the end, I think that there is no need for marijuana so why compromise morality for it? Morality is still an important thing for society from bottom to top.

Meh, I don't care what your opinion of my beliefs is, Remnant. There are many cannot take care of him/herself. Why do you think welfare and social security and law enforcement exist? Certainly a wise or intelligent human being could figure out a way around such things or to not need their presence? Well, either they aren't wise or intelligent or there are other factors. No matter what, it shows the whole perfect individualism philosophy does not work perfectly. (I do not mean to criticise anyone on social security or welfare if they are reading this, I just wanted to show that perfect individualism does not work)

Morality isn't something you "compromise". It's not a currency that you have to conserve. What ever you choose to allow and tolerate those are your morals. If you choose to allow marijuana then it becomes part of your moral code. Everything is relative here! The only way you can even say what is more or less moral is by comparing it to something else. America today would be offensive and obscene to someone living 200, 100, or even 50 years ago, but today we seem to think that we are doing fine. And in another hundred years the Americans will look back at the 21 century and wonder why we were so closed minded and uptight.

Morality also isn’t something you can choose for others. You obviously wouldn’t ever do any illegal drugs, and neither would I ( I don’t even drink alcohol ), but that doesn’t mean that someone else’s moral compass doesn’t say it’s OK for them to do those things. As long as their behavior does not infringe on your rights to follow your own morality, you don’t have any right telling them how to live.

I guess that does sound a bit libertarian, but I don't agree with much those crazies say about the economy. lol

I think this topic needs to be many others, to hard to follow along.

Well, I would consider allowing marijuana relatively less moral than not allowing it. How does that count for relative? Also, the state has the right to tell people what to do if it is in the state's best interest. People exist to further the ability of the state to compete and hold its own against global competition. If there are actions that weaken us then they are to become immoral and must be banned. I think that smoking marijuana weakens our ability to compete against other nations and therefore is immoral and therefore needs to be banned.

I don't really agree too much with the libertarians about the economy either, although I am starting to see capitalism as an efficient system for getting things accomplished it still isn't really my ideal system just it is probably less prone to problems with lacking incentives and such. Pure laissez faire sounds like a recipe for a disaster though.

I agree on that. I'd rather not see a civil war between the power company and the water company.



We've reached the fundamental difference of opinion. I would propose that the state is an entity made of citizens that exists to provide a secure environment for all citizens to live in the highest standard possible.

I would argue that in order to protect the lives of its citizens the state must try to maintain the most power compared to other states. The happiness and well-being of the citizens is a secondary concern and often a side-effect of a dedication to the pursuit of power as people are often motivated best by economic incentives, and things such as health and education are also often necessary to have a strong nation. However, because power is important the state must try to maintain high levels of patriotism and other "moral" (quoted to reflect your belief in subjectivity) things. Some freedom is allowed because micromanaging in inefficient and ineffective but not too much because that would lead to weakening due to moral decay or crime or waste.

You start down that slippery slope when you decide that it is right to force your moral decisions on others. This is true especially when you get upside down, like thinking that it is a worse offense to your morals when someone smokes marijuana than when you force him to spend years in jail.

M.J is a medicine. Unless its the law to use it, its against the law. The law is the law; I can only speak the law in this matter.

Social casualty.

A drug dealer sells pot to 12 year old kid.

The drug dealer had it out with a gang member the previous month.

The gang members pull around the corner as a sale takes place in a car with his homies.

Sprays the the sidewalk where the deal takes place with bullets.

The kid dies and drug dealer survives...

Oh yeah then one bullet hits a window and just misses the head of someone sitting at there computer on the internet minding there own business.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reality check

It happens in real life..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of going to college an 18 year old who barely finished high school becuase of pot use instead of doing homework. Ended up not going to college becuase he or she would rather smoke pot.

Drug abuse, duh.

Fact of reality.. In real life too..

Reverse Propagandist don’t want to bring up these issues.. M.J is for medical purposes only. Until the law says otherwise is the law different then it is now.

I've seen those pot magazines with those losers on the front smoking.

But I know people with cancer, conic pain and other legitimate medical conditions need it or would benefit. However federal government scares doctors to where most wont prescribe it. That is what I believe is illegal and countering the LAW of the voters.

My advice if I was speaking to the government right now, back off..

That is what creates psychological divides between the government and its people, who by which are supposed to be comprised of it's citizens. Not some pupas overtures who cannot respect the people who employ them.

Nough is enough, Haaaa!

Actually, if you did not see, jdavis gave a link to slippery slope and showed it to be a logical fallacy. Also, by breaking the law the marijuana smoker deserves to be punished by whatever harshness is considered necessary to get the job done. Besides, it is right for society to do whatever is necessary to promote its interests, if society believes that it is wrong to smoke marijuana then it is wrong to smoke marijuana. Same as any other crime, if the government thinks that speeding is bad for society then the government has to stop speeders. Speeding obviously has less moral implications than marijuana because speeding does not have a large psychological effect unless it is to an extreme and even then it is still a normal part of a person's psychological make up.

Yes, you seem to be able to say that the slippery slope is a fallacy when we have numerous examples of many governments, including the US government, travelling down that slope willingly and deliberately.

Your own basic fallacy is the proposition that your imagined moral damage caused by marijuana justifies putting people in jail for using it. You entirely fail to recognize the moral and societal damage caused by jailing people for using. You don't assess the damage and find that one is less damaging than the other. You simply deny that the damage exists that is caused by breaking into people's homes and lives, confining and killing them, damaging their families, and so on. You don't take responsibility for that, or for telling the truth.

I believe that the moral damage caused by marijuana does. Even if marijuana is not harmful enough to justify a law opposing it still defying that law for simple hedonism is not justified or justifiable. Smoking marijuana cannot be dealt with in a fine because fines do not solve the problem, so therefore a harder measure must be used in order to combat this situation. If the harder measure is prison than so be it. The goal is to deal with the problem, and that means dealing with the people. The people who do marijuana know the consequences of their actions and are not justified in using it and therefore are more immoral simply because they are openly defying the law. In the end it should be done because marijuana does not help these people and hurts them instead and marijuana is something that can also spread and in order to fight it effectively we must be able to impose harsh punishments.

Awesomelyglorious - what the hell are you going on about?

morality, hedonism etc - are you some sort of religious fundamentalist?

Yes, "awesome" seems to want to bring back the early 20th century.

The idea that marijuana somehow damages morals is a very dubious one. You will notice that "awesome", just like a lot of the sellers of this "morality" deal, just keeps going on and on and on and on and doesn't let his ideas rest on any firm base. This morality comes out of the ether and returns to ether. If it were based on some kind of reality it would become falsifiable.

Awesomelyglorious observed

So not much has changed, then.




______________________________
It's the global warming gonna getya

Well, ok then, marijuana is linked to failures in education and in the job market. This can be seen in a typical high school because the stoner students are usually somewhere around the bottom of the academic rankings and such. Cannabis also has been linked to psychological disorders such as schizophrenia and people who take cannabis are more likely to develope these disorders. Marijuana is considered a gateway drug. Marijuana is bad for pregnant women, something that could possibly be avoided by intelligent people. Marijuana has been linked with poor driving abilities and marijuana users should not operate machinery and this opens up another legal can of worms. Marijuana damages memory. Marijuana negatively impacts judgement (which means morality so surprise surprise). Marijuana does have some amount of withdrawal, maybe not as bad as other drugs but it still does exist. Marijuana is psychologically addictive. The most common form of devery for marijuana, the blunt, is harmful to the lungs and the legalization of marijuana creates a whole new issue about where and when it can be smoked as many people will not want second hand marijuana smoke. Marijuana affects ambition and drive and many people who smoke marijuana become passive due to those effects. Marijuana negatively impacts the immune system. Marijuana is not necessary for society as a recreational drug.

I don't care about how marijuana compares to alcohol or tobacco, I don't like alcohol and I hate tobacco. Also, I am not a religious fundamentalists I am simply strongly socially conservative. Religious fundamentalists tend to also be socially conservative the difference though is that I take less of a cue from God and simply see the problem of the system is that people don't know their head from the other end and that proper moral guidance is the way to fix that.

Bush is not as bad as the Romans because even though there is corruption there is always corruption but there is not outright betrayal of the nation to foreign interests though. We have seen much worse presidents in the past. Also, I tend to doubt that Bush is insane, he does not act insane and has not done anything crazy enough to merit the title of "insane person".

academic failure, poor employment records, lack of drive and ambition, schitzophrenia etc - these are all 'chicken and egg' areas. Finding links doesnt prove a causative relationship. Its quite possible the high-school drop outs have made that lifestyle choice, and MJ fits into that chosen lifestyle.

Schitzophernia - whos to say they arent self-medicating? various strains of cannabis have an anti-anxiety, anti-depressant, anti-manic and perhaps even anti-psychotic effects (high cbd varieties). In this case a link proves nothing.

Gateway drug - NO

damages memory - temporarily, so what?

psychologically addictive - everything thats enjoyable is 'psychologically addictive'

immuno-suppression - Well ive heard quite the opposite. Why is it recommended for AIDS sufferers?

not necessary - most enjoyable activities arent 'necessary' what sort of argument is that?

mad emperors - caused by chronic lead poisoining

moral guidance - think you may be needing a little yourself

What does that leave us with? - (alleged) concerns about pregnancy and a few legal technicalities regarding use of heavy machinery and passive smoking - that hardly constitutes grounds for prohibition, let alone any sort of moral standard.