Being refuted is not the same as proven to be false, in this case just denial of the truth. If it ad hominem is to speak the truth, then I’m guilty.
See my post about distribution above. Not only are you refuted, you are wrong in your assertations about the importation, distribution and sale.
What would make you believe in this anti-smoking society we live in, which has the goal to outlaw smoking completely for health reasons is going to turnaround and legalize another substance in which you smoke in order to consume? That is just a pipe dream. You have too many in the medical community and insurance community that will fight any and all attempts to legalize just on health reasons, and once again all the arguments you are stating are the same old arguments that have been floating around since the 70s.
NOTHING. Absolutely nothing would make me believe that.
It is still immoral to get stone, and all the arguments you make as to why it would not if be “if it was legal” is just excuses to justify people’s wrong choices to get stone.NOTHING. Absolutely nothing would make me believe that.
However, that has NOTHING, absolutely nothing to do with the original question.
What is your point?
I agree with you.
Being someone that use to smoke pot I don’t believe it is possible to smoke in moderation. Two hits and I was stoned.I agree with you.
But I never said it was moral to get stoned. In fact I’ve said it is NOT moral. I’ve also said it is NOT moral to get drunk. But it is still moral to drink IN MODERATION.
In fact, when we look at sins and admirations, we see that it is a sin to be a glutton but is it admirable to live in moderation. All that I have ever suggested was that it is not immoral to smoke marijuana in MODERATION and I have never suggested that it is remotely healthy or moral to abuse.
That has been stated DOZENS of times. Apparently you missed it
And for some folks, even the slightest bit of alcohol gets them tipsy. We each must know our limits.Two hits and I was stoned.
You cannot equate marijuana with alcohol, in fact with pot the more you use the easier it is get stone, unlike alcohol, marijuana has a reverse tolerance effect. There is no way one can judge the effects of pot as one would do with alcohol.And for some folks, even the slightest bit of alcohol gets them tipsy. We each must know our limits.
Knowing when to stop is the key to moderation.
Apparently you should have stopped at 1.
Again, I’m in no way saying that marijuana is a safe, or good for you. But my friend, and parish priest, Fr. Peter and I have tipped back more than a few beers at gatherings or when we go out to dinner together. Alcohol, even in moderation, dulls the senses. I believe I am legally drunk if I have 2 drinks inside of 60 minutes according to my body mass and the alcohol laws here.
When I drink beer in moderation with my priest am I acting in an immoral way?
Is he?
Tobacco, something I only use when someone gives me a free cigar at a wedding or in celebration of a birth, tends to elevate the heart rate, yet provide a calming and relaxing state. It can also make you somewhat dizzy.
Now look at marijuana and please tell me, in a LOGICAL way, other than the legality, how is it so different from other commonly used drugs? Remove the illegal status and that removes the “gateway” drug stigma. Remove the illegal status and that also removes the criminal element and the inherant profits and violence used to protect the profits. Make it legal, regulate the dosage, tax it, and sell it like you sell tobacco or alcohol, to adults, with 1 “stick” equal to 1 or 2 “drinks” and it strikes me that it would eliminate a whole range of problems.
So, if I smoke a “joint” with my priest I may be breaking the law, but am I acting in some immoral manner?
Is he?
And all that said, how could it be immoral to use, IN MODERATION, marijuana if it is not already immoral to use other recreational drugs like tobacco and wine.
That is not in agreement with some others, but I suppose each person is different, so it could be reasonable for one, and not another.
I have no question with it, I posed a situation and asked for an opinion based on the circumstances. You side-stepped the question, and diverted the situation back to me. No thanks, I’m not playing that game. Answer the question or not, it doesn’t matter, the answer is clear that it is moral to have a beer or two as long as the alcohol is not abused.
I’m sure if I looked along the river banks or roads that abut my property I’d find some growing wild. That would eliminate all the criminal enterprise you suggest, but again, in the situation I posed, the question was asked from the hypothetical standpoint presuming the illegal status was removed (clearly stated in the paragraph prior). So your points are irrelevant and I’d again then ask for a simple evaluation based on the situation I put forth. As with the question above, you simply sidestepped and diverted.
Hello? Anyone there? I clearly said it was immoral to get stoned. I clearly agreed with you on that point. We are not talking about abuse, we are discussing moderation in use and if there is morality or immorality in that.
If you justify the risk for adults then you open up the door to children.
I know some very successful, responsible adults who even in their late 40s still occasionally smoke
That British Schizophrenia study has been posted in these forums a few times.
Why would that be any more true for pot than for cigarettes or alcohol?
If 10% abuse the privilege why should the other 90% be held accountable? How many people abuse tobacco or alcohol? Does that mean no one can have it?
You believe 14 year olds should be smoking pot?
He did not say that. Yes, I took the liberty of speaking for someone else. But THEY ARE smoking it now. It does not mean anyone believes they SHOULD BE smoking it at age 14. It is just a statement of fact. And it came from your information.
Illegal versus legal suppliers arguement . . .
Okay just for arguments sake (because we certainly haven’t had enough arguments yet),
what if it was legalized (not just for medical use), everything runs smoothly, it’s been accepted, etc. Given that a whole illegal industry (trafficking) is based upon marijuana, what illegal drug would step up into it’s place? Would it be hash or more poppy? Would coke rise again? Maybe more meth labs? I’m not asking this to start arguments, I was just curious to get other peoples take on this odd thought that I had. Nature abhors a vacuum and I assume so do traffickers . . . .
Also, in looking up the number of people imprisoned for marijuana possession, I ran across this pdf. It lists myths about marijuana and its use.
www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/marijuana_myths_facts/index.html
No. But there are lots of things that adults can do that 14 year olds shouldn’t.
I’m not sure I’d buy the argument that something would fill the void. The logic for my statement is that the ‘void’ simply remains filled, the distribution simply evolves to a different network of suppliers, in the hypothetical case it would be a network of legitimate businesses.Okay just for arguments sake (because we certainly haven’t had enough arguments yet
what if it was legalized (not just for medical use), everything runs smoothly, it’s been accepted, etc. Given that a whole illegal industry (trafficking) is based upon marijuana, what illegal drug would step up into it’s place?
