Hybrid Marijuana

[ecoli]

I don't think if it is right or wrong morally is what we were discussing. The issue I see is, is it a good idea or not. Part of a governments duties is to protect its people, if forcibly removing something is the way to do that, then that is what the government should do.

But is it the gov'ts job to protect you against yourself? As long as you aren't hurting anyone else in the process, then maybe they're overstepping their bounds.

 

But, if I'm wrong, and the government should protect you against your own destructive decisions, then, why pick and choose their battles. Why is pot illegal, but alcohol isn't, when alcohol is demonstratably more destructive. Where is the line that the government isn't allowed to cross to make sure your safe? I think it's arbitrary, but perhaps its in the wrong place...

[ParanoiA]

You're making the "everyone is just like me" error. I realise that you are smart enough to think for yourself and that's all fine and dandy. BUT YOU ARE NOT EVERYONE ELSE. OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO BIAS AND INFLUENCE BY THE STATUS QUO.

 

So what? You are not thinking this out very carefully. You are promoting behavioral legislation because some people are too stupid? I have to do without basic freedoms because some people are susceptible? Joe Blow has to sit in prison because of your lack of faith in people? You can't really be serious. Freedom only for the lowest common denominator?

 

If you follow your logic to its ends you're going to regulate every moment of everyone's lives. If someone eats fatty food in front of someone else, they could be very impressionable and start eating fatty foods themselves. We both know fatty foods are bad for you, but some people are susceptable and can't be expected to suffer for this susceptability - so let's outlaw the eating of unhealthy foods in public. I could go on and on. But that's silly isn't it?

 

I don't think if it is right or wrong morally is what we were discussing. The issue I see is, is it a good idea or not. Part of a governments duties is to protect its people, if forcibly removing something is the way to do that, then that is what the government should do.

 

But I'm arguing that the government's motivation is moral, not protection. If the government was trying to protect us then Alcohol wouldn't be legal would it? You said we all know weed is safer - you specifically mentioned legislators and politicians so how could they be making it illegal for protection?

 

Besides, this whole paragraph of mine that you're chopping up is all about the concept of the government being assigned "legitimator" - not necessarily in the context of just drugs, but society's insistance that the government's laws reflect our ideas of morality. Do you understand what I'm saying? You might re-read that before you go on, because I think you're slightly misinterpreting what I'm saying.

 

Is it that much of an inconviencience to not smoke pot? It seems you are getting too emotive about this.

 

I'm emotive about people rotting in prison for society's sick ideas of legislating morality. I see no difference between this an the Salem witch trials. History will later reflect our cruelty, hypocrisy and shame. They will shake their heads at us the way we shake our heads about our ancestor's backward assed views.

 

I don't remember anyone saying that drugs are immoral. I've heard people say that they are stupid, destructive, that they cause harm to all types of people, that they are a sign of social ineptitude, all types of things, but immoral? Either you've been listening to different propaganda to me, or you're committing a strawman fallacy.

 

Again, this in support to the theme of government being deemed the great legitimator by society due to incremental ammoral legislation.

 

This is an important point, because people use this argument alot - "if we legalize it then everyone will start doing it...". But the government is not supposed to be your reference for right and wrong - only legal versus illegal.

 

The government also has deemed prostitution legal in Nevada. Are they saying it's perfectly ok for all women in Nevada to whore themselves? Legally, yes. Morally - that's up to you. The government isn't "saying" anything, it's just legal. Understand the difference yet? So, you can't use the argument that "everyone will think it's ok". Sure they will, legally - not morally.

[ParanoiA]

Seriously now, science forum.

 

Ok, now you're being intellectually dishonest. What is scientific about these statements of yours?

 

my point still stands that it isn't news

 

OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO BIAS AND INFLUENCE BY THE STATUS QUO.

 

Part of a governments duties is to protect its people, if forcibly removing something is the way to do that, then that is what the government should do.

 

It seems you are getting too emotive about this.

 

All of these are beliefs and opinions of yours. Where's the source for your claims? I wouldn't expect any, because we're not arguing any facts here, just philosophical opinions and beliefs. When I bring up a fact to use for this discussion, I'll source it.

[the tree]

But I'm arguing that the government's motivation is moral, not protection. If the government was trying to protect us then Alcohol wouldn't be legal would it? You said we all know weed is safer - you specifically mentioned legislators and politicians so how could they be making it illegal for protection?

You already know this. Alcohol is legal to protect economies, and cannabis is illegal to cater for snobs and racists.

The government's motivation is votes but one of its duties is protection. This stands even when they completely fail in either respect.

This is an important point, because people use this argument alot - "if we legalize it then everyone will start doing it...". But the government is not supposed to be your reference for right and wrong - only legal versus illegal.

I know that. I make a point of not using the law as a point of reference for deciding what is right or wrong. Unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware, many people are not as enlightened as you or I.

So, you can't use the argument that "everyone will think it's ok". Sure they will, legally - not morally.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I did not suggest I thought anyone would think that it would be o.k. morally. But that they would think it would be safe, sensible, a reasonable thing to do.

[ecoli]

You already know this. Alcohol is legal to protect economies, and cannabis is illegal to cater for snobs and racists. The government's motivation is votes but one of its duties is protection. This stands even when they completely fail in either respect.

Anybody else see something morally wrong in this statement. The government shouldn't be legislating morality due to an agenda.

 

But that they would think it would be safe, sensible, a reasonable thing to do.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people will think its safe. Look at cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is legal, but the government, and other sources, do a great job of letting people know that cigarettes are dangerous. I would venture to say that even most smokers are now aware about how dangerous they're habit is. But you see, at least people get to choose about whether or not they get to smoke. Despite all the medical facts that are available, they can still make their own moral decisions.

[ParanoiA]

I know that. I make a point of not using the law as a point of reference for deciding what is right or wrong. Unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware, many people are not as enlightened as you or I.

 

Oh man. I'm sorry but this is blatant elitist conceit. I like you tree, so please don't get too pissed at me, but it really is conceited to hold such a perspective. This is the mentality that drives the liberal "I know what's best for you" approach to government. The "we are the enlightened ones" attitude. That's where this ammoral incrementalist legislation comes from in the first place. I vehemently dispise it. You have no right to grant yourself "enlightenment" over everybody else in terms of legislation and order.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood. I did not suggest I thought anyone would think that it would be o.k. morally. But that they would think it would be safe, sensible, a reasonable thing to do.

 

You're right, I did misunderstand. But my point still stands in that there are alot of things that are legal and are NOT safe, sensible and reasonable. The government is not responsible for any stupid thing you do.

 

True, at first any legislation decriminalizing dope will be answered with hoots and hollers and initial interest will spike some - but will go away very quickly. Take a look at Holland's drug problems before and after legalization. Our own drug Czar had to misrepresent the facts just to keep from looking like complete idiots in the face of their new drug structure. ( I'll source that when I get back from lunch - I'm starving...and no I didn't smoke anything...)

[the tree]

Anybody else see something morally wrong in this statement. The government shouldn't be legislating morality due to an agenda.

I do. I never said this is a good thing.

they can still make their own moral decisions.

I'm sorry but where did the idea of an individual smoking tobacco or cannabis being a moral issue come from? It's victimless remember.

I wouldn't expect any, because we're not arguing any facts here, just philosophical opinions and beliefs. When I bring up a fact to use for this discussion, I'll source it.

"this activity is good for you" is a statement of fact, and so should be sourced. That's all I was saying.

You have no right to grant yourself "enlightenment" over everybody else in terms of legislation and order.

You are right, I'm sorry. Calling myself enlightened is arrogant.

But still, people do make really stupid decisions and I see it as the duty of everyone to do something about that.

[Pangloss]

What the heck is "achall"?

[Bluenoise]

Meh weeds pretty lame anyways. Just makes you stupid, sleepy, and a strange mix of feeling good with paranoia on the side.

At least alcohol make people ultrasociable and do funny things. Leads to many memoriable stories.

No need to make Weed illegal. Though to tell you the truth I couldn't care either way.

 

It's just not for those of us that have better things to do with our time.

[Pangloss]

My personal opinion on the legalization of marijuana is that aside from ideological libertarians, proponents of the issue are mainly self-serving hypocrits who are uninterested in dealing with the serious ramifications to society of drug abuse -- they just want their drug of choice to be cheaper and not carry the risk of imprisonment.

 

Even worse, I think if any prescription drug carried the side effects or dangers that marijuana is already KNOWN to carry, then the argument would be about money-grubbing drug companies and how they're willing to kill their own customers just to show a profit.

 

Until these issues are dealt with, I think the issue of legalization is moot and trivial. We're not mature enough as a society to settle these far simpler questions, so we're certainly not mature enough to handle this one.

[ecoli]

I do. I never said this is a good thing.

I know, I didn't mean to suggest that you did. I was just trying to agree with your point.

I'm sorry but where did the idea of an individual smoking tobacco or cannabis being a moral issue come from? It's victimless remember.

The reason it's illegal is because of the moral code of the uninformed majority. Therefore, its a moral issue.

[Ndi]

But is it the gov'ts job to protect you against yourself?

 

NO!

 

I thought the definition of freedom in a society was "your freedom ends where mine begins". As long as you don't heart anyone else, you should be free to do whatever you want.

 

Let's assume I sing like a microwaved cat. Should there be a law against my singling as long as nobody can hear me? Is it OK for me to sing in my basement if I don't bother anyone? Is it OK for me to smoke pot in my basement as long as I stay there while high? What principle could *possibly* deny me that (let us ignore the fact that if nobody knows I can't be prosecuted).

 

The reason it's illegal is because of the moral code of the uninformed majority. Therefore, its a moral issue.

 

There is a difference between morals and misconceptions and/or century-old-myths. Loads of things have been deemed immoral and were later dismissed as natural/OK, let alone evolve into law.

 

I know it tends to work that way but it's no argument. (not personal)

[Sisyphus]

First off, I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana. It's relatively harmless, and even easier to use responsibly than alcohol.

 

That said, I don't think it's quite so simple as "victimless crime" in all cases, generalizing to all drug laws. For example, I fully support drunk-driving laws, even if the drunk driver follows all the rules of the road and doesn't hit anything, and even though technicially this is still a victimless crime. Why? Because he's endangering others unacceptably merely through his temporary lack of judgment, reaction time, etc. Similarly, being really drunk while supposedly being responsible for small children (even if you don't beat them in your intoxicated state or anything). Again, similarly for any drug that would make one inherently dangerous to others in any situation, even if no harm is actually done.

[ParanoiA]

First off, I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana. It's relatively harmless, and even easier to use responsibly than alcohol.

 

That said, I don't think it's quite so simple as "victimless crime" in all cases, generalizing to all drug laws. For example, I fully support drunk-driving laws, even if the drunk driver follows all the rules of the road and doesn't hit anything, and even though technicially this is still a victimless crime. Why? Because he's endangering others unacceptably merely through his temporary lack of judgment, reaction time, etc. Similarly, being really drunk while supposedly being responsible for small children (even if you don't beat them in your intoxicated state or anything). Again, similarly for any drug that would make one inherently dangerous to others in any situation, even if no harm is actually done.

 

I would say that operating machinery, weapons, - any activity that endangers the lives of people regardless of state of mind - should obviously be illegal under the influence of any substance - legal or not. Prescriptions are such a thing. I can take pain pills legally, but I'm not supposed to operate machinery or drive under the influence of it.

 

But being responsible for your children is a sorry excuse to refrain someone from enjoying themselves. My parents are quite well rounded folk, and every christmas was the family party - most of the adults were drunk. Not puking and falling on each other, just getting loud, laughing, having a good time. I see no need for perfect judgement capacity at all times.

 

I don't agree with connect-the-dots legislation. Someone does drugs, then they MIGHT steal to get more - so outlaw them. Someone gets drunk, then they MIGHT do something stupid - so outlaw it. That's indirect, connect-the-dots crap and lumps everyone into the same category and assumes a chain reaction of behavior that only a small percentage will validate.

[ParanoiA]

My personal opinion on the legalization of marijuana is that aside from ideological libertarians, proponents of the issue are mainly self-serving hypocrits who are uninterested in dealing with the serious ramifications to society of drug abuse -- they just want their drug of choice to be cheaper and not carry the risk of imprisonment.

 

And the problem is? You're damn right I want my drug of choice to be cheaper and not carry the risk of imprisonment, black market empowerment, wasting precious crime prevention resources, not to mention emboldening the position of Alcohol being the only legal alternative - a murderer of thousands every year. Yes, I want the more sensible intoxicant to be legal.

 

Even worse, I think if any prescription drug carried the side effects or dangers that marijuana is already KNOWN to carry, then the argument would be about money-grubbing drug companies and how they're willing to kill their own customers just to show a profit.

 

They do that with Alcohol? Are they arguing about money-grubbing companies willing to kill their own addicted customers to show a profit? Pot doesn't kill people, so I doubt that conversation would take place.

[ParanoiA]

Meh weeds pretty lame anyways. Just makes you stupid, sleepy, and a strange mix of feeling good with paranoia on the side.

 

But I usually leave once the dope is gone...

[ParanoiA]

Here's the source on the drug war facts comparison between the US and the Netherlands. I've actually read this before, years ago, but I don't remember where it was. There was a bit about our drug Czar comparing our homocide rate to theirs and concluding it was higher in Holland. Later it was proven that he apparently added the statistics for their "attempted" murder, or something similar, to the homocide rate. The homocide rate in Holland is much lower, by 4 or 5 times. If I can find that article, I'll update this post with that link too.

 

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

[GutZ]

Meh weeds pretty lame anyways. Just makes you stupid, sleepy, and a strange mix of feeling good with paranoia on the side.

At least alcohol make people ultrasociable and do funny things. Leads to many memoriable stories.

 

It gives me amazing reaction time, I can't sleep on it or get tired, and I am probably more intelligent (Not an amazing feat but...), and oppose to alcohol it makes me more sociable according to many people I know, and that comes alot from someone like me. To me it's like being "in the zone" all the frickin time. I am far more relaxed so I am not as anxious as I usually am, which means I make more rational decisions. The only thing I get paranoid is getting caught.

 

We all are different though. I just don't see it. Call me close-minded but it's the one of the very few issues I am pretty stuck in my way about. So that's the last post in this thread for me, and I love you all! (heterosexual way of course).

[the tree]

But being responsible for your children is a sorry excuse to refrain someone from enjoying themselves. My parents are quite well rounded folk, and every christmas was the family party - most of the adults were drunk.

I'm sure you know that really they were exercising some restraint, even if as a kid you weren't aware that there was a "designated driver". It is irresponsible of a parent to be getting themselves into a state where they can't do the parent thing when needed.

I don't agree with connect-the-dots legislation. Someone does drugs, then they MIGHT steal to get more - so outlaw them.

That's subjective isn't it? If someone drinks and drives then they ARE FAIRLY LIKELY to cause an accident of sorts, so that should be illegal? Obviously there's a point to draw a line.

[ParanoiA]

I'm sure you know that really they were exercising some restraint, even if as a kid you weren't aware that there was a "designated driver". It is irresponsible of a parent to be getting themselves into a state where they can't do the parent thing when needed.

 

Yes, this is correct. It would be quite irresponsible not to care for your offspring properly.

 

That's subjective isn't it? If someone drinks and drives then they ARE FAIRLY LIKELY to cause an accident of sorts, so that should be illegal? Obviously there's a point to draw a line.

 

Well, you might disagree, but I don't see it that way at all. Since I view driving vehicles as a dangerous activity - regardless of capacity of judgement - then I do not see it as predicted downstream behavior. Same with operating weapons and machinery. These things should be illegal to do under any drug, no matter the drug's legal status.

 

And while I might come off very tolerant about personal freedoms, I'm quite intolerant when it comes to violating other's rights. Anyone caught driving under the influence of anything ought to lose their license and serve jail time. We should not be lax about this in the least. This is attempted murder to me.

 

So yeah, there's a line...