Is something morally wrong with legalizing marijuana?

[Washington]

Of course not; you be crazy to want to give life to people in this screwed up world. Id just creating more people to create more problems for this problematic world. Having kids just to fill this empty void from lack of happiness or self expectation derived from worldly values and desires is not a good thing.

Also, marijuana is way safer than alcohol is; yet most people don't have a problem with having both kids and a beer in the fridge/

Kids in the fridge! Hmmm. Now that's a for sure way to keep em out of trouble.

 

[Skaloop]

Even if it were legal, I don't think I'd use it. The smell is terrible.

Really? I love the smell. I can't smoke it (well, I can, but it is not an enjoyable experience for me), but if someone else is, I love the aroma. Far more pleasant than tobacco smoke.

 

[Skaloop]

I suspect the first question to ask is: Is there something morally wrong with smoking mj?

Only if you consider breaking the law to be immoral. Make it legal, and the morality of smoking it becomes pretty moot.

 

[mpok1519]

What does it matter if marijuana is legalized and normalized? It's way safer than the crap we shove in kids' faces everyday. The reasons for it being so taboo are trivial and meaningless. Kids can handle the fact that mommy and daddy smoke pot just as they can handle alcohol use or prescription drug use, two things wayyyyyy more dangerous and psychologically and physically addicting than marijuana.

 

[The Valkyrie]

Really? I love the smell. I can't smoke it (well, I can, but it is not an enjoyable experience for me), but if someone else is, I love the aroma. Far more pleasant than tobacco smoke.

I don't like the smell of any kind of smoke.

 

[TranscendHumanity]

My sister thinks its a great idea. I'm not so sure. What do you think?

No one have right to tell you what you are doing to yourself. If you want to cutting own throat or to hate other people and never talk to them because they have different race, is not anyone else right to say no.

 

[LyraJean]

It did work. Those who wanted to drink still drank and it removed the "it's ok" label, so kids didn't have easy access to it because adults kept it hidden from them....

Look, I don't know what the answer is. All I am saying is any law made that does not have the children in mind is a bad law.

How about $100 x # of Oz fine every time you get caught with pot? The penalty never goes up or down, and the only jail time required are for those who can not pay in a reasonable amount of time.

Same with every other drug as well. $100 x a set amount depending on the drug. Like per 6 pack, per pint, per gram, per pill. No jail time unless a crime was committed as well, such as driving while under the influence or stealing someone's TV.

Prohibition had little to do with "protecting the children". It was more with my husband beats me when he's drunk so let's get rid of alcohol.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Kids in the fridge! Hmmm. Now that's a for sure way to keep em out of trouble.

Gotta keep 'em out of trouble somehow.

 

[chingchang]

God did not create man and woman for us to spill life by intoxicating ourselves. Claiming that "we all should have a right to do whatever we want with our lives" is nothing but a huge denial of responsibility. We have the power to use the government to stop our neighbours from drinking and smoking, so you will have to answer before God why you didn't. When there is a right way of living your life, what goes against forcing people to follow that path.

Your thinking is what scares me. The mindset of many people in our nation is ripe for full-on Fascism. Who determines what a "right way of living your life" is? We...collectively...shouldn't be in the business of forcing people to do ANYTHING. BTW...you must be ignorant of the BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars spent on the "drug war" and the complete and utter failure it has been. There is nothing wrong with marijuana. God created it...a seed bearing plant and called it good. He then gave it to man for food. READ GENESIS 1!!!!!

CC

 

[chingchang]

You can take away other people's rights, without having your own revoked. Whether you want to or not, is more a function of Satan's grip of your mind.

Only Satan would come up with a plan to demonize something God created! Do you know why marijuana is illegal? No...you just think you do. The irony is that this information is a simple Google search away from your brain....

I'll post a youTube video to help you out:

YouTube - Why Marijuana is illegal (Part 1)
YouTube - Why Marijuana is illegal (Part 2)

CC

 

[Wirraway]

God did not create man and woman for us to spill life by intoxicating ourselves. Claiming that "we all should have a right to do whatever we want with our lives" is nothing but a huge denial of responsibility.

OR, you could learn to handle your booze and leave the rest of us who can drink responsibly alone.

We have the power to use the government to stop our neighbours from drinking and smoking, so you will have to answer before God why you didn't. When there is a right way of living your life, what goes against forcing people to follow that path.

how do you propose stopping me from smoking, drinking, swearing and throwing poker parties?

 

[Autumnleaf]

So those evil paper and tobacco barons are putting the squeeze on well meaning hemp growers. Using US soldiers by proxy, no less. I thought I believed in some odd conspiracies but that takes the cake.

 

[chingchang]

So those evil paper and tobacco barons are putting the squeeze on well meaning hemp growers. Using US soldiers by proxy, no less. I thought I believed in some odd conspiracies but that takes the cake.

Facts from Wikipedia:

DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, and hemp

The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings,[19] reports[20] and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[21]
Cannabis activist Jack Herer has researched DuPont and in his 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Herer concluded DuPont played a large role in the criminalization of cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp. If hemp had been largely exploited, Herer believes it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic (nylon), and may have hurt DuPont's profits. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also the Secretary of the Treasury under the Hoover administration. Mellon appointed Harry J. Anslinger, who later became his nephew-in-law, as the head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Anslinger stayed until 1962.[22]
In 1916, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) chief scientists Jason L. Merrill and Lyster H. Dewe created paper made from hemp pulp, which they concluded was "favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood in USDA Bulletin No. 404."[23] In his book Herer summarized the findings of Bulletin No. 404:[24]

USDA Bulletin No. 404, reported that one acre of hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres (17,000 m2) of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/4 to 1/7 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires) but instead safely substitutes hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. ... If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags.
​

Hemp was a relatively easy target because factories already had made large investments in equipment to handle cotton, wool, and linen, but there were relatively small investments in hemp production. Big technological improvements in the wood pulp industry were invented in the 1930s; for example the recovery boiler allowed kraft mills to recycle almost all of their pulping chemicals, and other improvements came later. There was also a misconception hemp had an intoxicating effect because it has the same active substance, THC, which is in potent cannabis strains; however, hemp only has minimal amount of THC when compared to recreational cannabis strains.
An alternative explanation for Anslinger's opinion's about hemp is that he believed that a tax on cannabis could be easier to supervise if it included hemp and that he had reports from experiments with mechanical harvesting of hemp reporting that the machines was no success and reports about cannabis farms.[25]

"The existence of the old 1934-1935 crop of harvested hemp on the fields of southern Minnesota is a menace to society in that it is being used by traffickers in marihuana as a source of supply."[26]
​

"they were able to cut only a part of the Tribune Farm crop by machine, two thirds of it they did by hand with a sharp hand cuttertuff".[27]
​

An argument for the alternative theory is that hemp was not an alternative as material in the new commercial products from DuPont using oil or coal as raw material, the nylon-bristled toothbrush (1938) followed more famously by women's “nylons” stockings (1940). Nylon was intended to be a synthetic replacement for silk not hemp.

...now go stick your head back in the sand.

CC

 

[BlackCherry]

how do you propose stopping me from smoking, drinking, swearing and throwing poker parties?

We could have the police trace your phone calls and IP address whenever you make use of words often showing up in invites.

Seriously, don't you feel ashamed of yourself for being such an obstreperous child with your silly arguments? Somebody needs to grow up.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

We could have the police trace your phone calls and IP address whenever you make use of words often showing up in invites.

Seriously, don't you feel ashamed of yourself for being such an obstreperous child with your silly arguments? Somebody needs to grow up.

That use of government force is highly unlikely...as well as highly suspect to constitutionality.

It would be far too costly for such issues as smoking or drinking, which could be gotten with very little effort even if made illegal.

Tracing phone calls and IP addresses in this day of prepaid phones (which require no ID or user info when purchased) and proxies (which mask IP addresses and pathways) is almost impossible, anyway.

 

[LyraJean]

We could have the police trace your phone calls and IP address whenever you make use of words often showing up in invites.

Seriously, don't you feel ashamed of yourself for being such an obstreperous child with your silly arguments? Somebody needs to grow up.

It'll be all fine and dandy with you until the police show up at your door. Then it'll be wrong.

 

[Chajara]

We could have the police trace your phone calls and IP address whenever you make use of words often showing up in invites.

Seriously, don't you feel ashamed of yourself for being such an obstreperous child with your silly arguments? Somebody needs to grow up.

Obvious troll is obvious. I say that because I refuse to believe anyone actually thinks like this. My brain just can't handle it.

 

[Skaloop]

We could have the police trace your phone calls and IP address whenever you make use of words often showing up in invites.

Seriously, don't you feel ashamed of yourself for being such an obstreperous child with your silly arguments? Somebody needs to grow up.

Phone calls and the internet are not necessary to partake in any drugs, be they legal or illegal. So that probably wouldn't work to prevent anything.

 

[mpok1519]

The evidence is stacked against the prohibition of marijuana; there simply are no good reasons for it's illegality, as there are no reasons why it should have been legislated as an illegal drug.

But guess what? Our legislators wontmake it legal to compete with big-pharma, as our politicians are In the pockets of big-pharma. Why make marijuana legal to compete with more dangerous and heavier drugs our pharmaceutical companies feed to everyone? Why make marijuana legal so people don't buy more expensive and health-impacting drugs? If people are unhealthier as a result of pharmaceuticals, people will just have to buy more of their drugs.

 

[Skaloop]

The evidence is stacked against the prohibition of marijuana; there simply are no good reasons for it's illegality, as there are no reasons why it should have been legislated as an illegal drug.

But guess what? Our legislators wontmake it legal to compete with big-pharma, as our politicians are In the pockets of big-pharma. Why make marijuana legal to compete with more dangerous and heavier drugs our pharmaceutical companies feed to everyone? Why make marijuana legal so people don't buy more expensive and health-impacting drugs? If people are unhealthier as a result of pharmaceuticals, people will just have to buy more of their drugs.

I'm all for legalizing pot, but I don't buy that "big pharma" line. The government would make craploads of money off of pot, far more than any pharma drug would provide. Especially since (a) people who don't need big pharma drugs would buy pot, (b) big pharma still sells plenty of things that deal with things pot can't, and (c) big pharma would be able to package and sell marijuana just like anyone else; whoever had the best product would triumph.