Should marijuana be legal?

[Tenofovir]

LaSainte
**
If marijuana were made legal, none of these users would even KNOW any drug dealers and therefore would be much less likely to try other drugs. **

So if all marijuana was made legal, the marijuana users would be satisfied and all the other drug dealers would just evaporate into thin air?

I agree with you. But I also think we should ban alcohol which is physically and psychologically addictive. We should also ban money and interest as well as usury. In fact in early Christendom you were forbidden from lending money for interest. Wealth creation through the selling of debt and derivatives has contributed to the current banking crisis. People say they create wealth meanwhile they don’t manufacture or create they just buy and sell and make millions if not billions out of thin air thereby devaluating the currency and destroying companies/peoples’ savings. I don’t see too many people asking to have that outlawed.

Sadly most anti-cannabis crusaders will never step away from their own idols - booze, guns, money, medicine - it’s easier to just criticise cannabis.

 

[Tenofovir]

You know what you have if you eat 1,000 Snickers?

Diabetes?

 

[jmcrae]

In my region it is legal for medical purposes only. What we are noticing, though, is that the places that grow it still follow the same unsafe practices as illegal grow-ops. That needs to change. They need to establish and enforce safety standards.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Diabetes?

Therefore Snickers should be illegal.

 

[Tenofovir]

Therefore Snickers should be illegal.

Not if ya exercise … and exercise a lot. Or you’re blessed with a great genetic make up.

But as you say, many things in excess cause problems which lead to injury which when purposeful and avoidable is immoral.

 

[LaSainte]

LaSainte
**
If marijuana were made legal, none of these users would even KNOW any drug dealers and therefore would be much less likely to try other drugs. **

So if all marijuana was made legal, the marijuana users would be satisfied and all the other drug dealers would just evaporate into thin air?

Most drug dealers would go out of business, yes. Of course you will always have people who will do anything to get high, like huffing glue or inhaling whippits or shooting heroin, but this is not the vast majority of people. Most drug dealers would find that their clientele would be strictly limited to thrill-seekers and addicts, and most would probably go out of business.

The truth is, with the legalization of pot, a heck of a lot fewer people would have access to hard drugs because they would not be rubbing elbows with drug dealers.

Here’s how it works: marijuana is a socially acceptable drug, like alcohol. At any large party, someone may very well pull out a joint and start smoking it. Someone who has never tried it might be offered a hit, and, being a little drunk, might try it. They like í, ask where to get more, and BOOM, are put in contact with a dealer. They buy some pot a bunch of times and eventually, the dealer offers them something else, like E or coke. Maybe that person tries it and likes it and starts buying that too. That is why pot is a gateway drug.

Start selling pot at 7/11, and watch how the drug problem in America goes down.

Other drugs are not socially acceptable, so unless you just walked into the wrong party, you are very unlikely to see people break off a few lines of coke on the coffee table or bust out a syringe of H and tell you to pull up a chair. People do those drugs on the down-low, in bathrooms. So your average pot smoker who buys marijuana legally is VERY unlikely to ever come across a scenario where they are offered anything harder. This means that the person would literally have to SEEK OUT a dealer from whom to buy coke or heroin by going around and asking random people at parties if they sell it. Not going to happen, and if it did, who is going to just say, “yeah you don’t look like a narc, I have tons of blow in my car right now! Come on!”

Believe me, legalizing marijuana would make it a LOT harder to get other drugs.

 

[Zundrah]

You know what you have if you eat 1,000 Snickers?

A smirk?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Most drug dealers would go out of business, yes. Of course you will always have people who will do anything to get high, like huffing glue or inhaling whippits or shooting heroin, but this is not the vast majority of people. Most drug dealers would find that their clientele would be strictly limited to thrill-seekers and addicts, and most would probably go out of business.

The truth is, with the legalization of pot, a heck of a lot fewer people would have access to hard drugs because they would not be rubbing elbows with drug dealers.

Here’s how it works: marijuana is a socially acceptable drug, like alcohol. At any large party, someone may very well pull out a joint and start smoking it. Someone who has never tried it might be offered a hit, and, being a little drunk, might try it. They like í, ask where to get more, and BOOM, are put in contact with a dealer. They buy some pot a bunch of times and eventually, the dealer offers them something else, like E or coke. Maybe that person tries it and likes it and starts buying that too. That is why pot is a gateway drug.

Start selling pot at 7/11, and watch how the drug problem in America goes down.

Other drugs are not socially acceptable, so unless you just walked into the wrong party, you are very unlikely to see people break off a few lines of coke on the coffee table or bust out a syringe of H and tell you to pull up a chair. People do those drugs on the down-low, in bathrooms. So your average pot smoker who buys marijuana legally is VERY unlikely to ever come across a scenario where they are offered anything harder. This means that the person would literally have to SEEK OUT a dealer from whom to buy coke or heroin by going around and asking random people at parties if they sell it. Not going to happen, and if it did, who is going to just say, “yeah you don’t look like a narc, I have tons of blow in my car right now! Come on!”

Believe me, legalizing marijuana would make it a LOT harder to get other drugs.

You think marijuana is more of a gateway drug than alcohol?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Again, I’m afraid you don’t understand the slippery slope argument. It is not always a fallacy, which you seem to think it is.

I never stated or implied that it was always a fallacy. It wouldn’t be a fallacy in regards to this issue if you validly demonstrated that the use/decriminalization of MJ would inevitably lead to the use/decriminalization of more dangerous drugs for reasons A thru N. You haven’t done that. All you’ve done is toss out some irrelevant analogies without making any kind of argument or giving any reasons why you think that the use/decriminalization of MJ would necessarily result in the use/decriminalization of other drugs. Until you do that, your use of the slippery slope argument in this instance would seem to be fallacious.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LaSainte

Believe me, legalizing marijuana would make it a LOT harder to get other drugs.

I don’t believe you. You have no way to prove that. It’s more likely, given the slippery slope, that legalizing marijuana will make more people trying out marijuana, and when they get bored with marijuana, trying out something harder … and harder, and harder.

Like Whitney Houston. Rest in peace.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

cornbread

It wouldn’t be a fallacy in regards to this issue if you validly demonstrated that the use/decriminalization of MJ would inevitably lead to the use/decriminalization of more dangerous drugs for reasons A thru N. You haven’t done that.

I haven’t done that for the simple reason that these harder drugs have yet to be legalized. But for the reason cited in the post above, it is reasonable to argue that increasing permissiveness leads to increasing demand to try something more breathtaking.

As did Whitney Houston. Rest in peace.

More libertarian lunacy on the horizon.

First we get to kill our unborn babies.

Then we get to drug ourselves to death.

What next?

State licensed Pain-Parlors for sadists and masochists?

 

[LaSainte]

You think marijuana is more of a gateway drug than alcohol?

Only because you have to go through a dealer to get it. The dealer is the gateway, not the drug.

 

[LaSainte]

cornbread

It wouldn’t be a fallacy in regards to this issue if you validly demonstrated that the use/decriminalization of MJ would inevitably lead to the use/decriminalization of more dangerous drugs for reasons A thru N. You haven’t done that.

I haven’t done that for the simple reason that these harder drugs have yet to be legalized. But for the reason cited in the post above, it is reasonable to argue that increasing permissiveness leads to increasing demand to try something more breathtaking.

As did Whitney Houston. Rest in peace.

More libertarian lunacy on the horizon.

First we get to kill our unborn babies.

Then we get to drug ourselves to death.

What next?

State licensed Pain-Parlors for sadists and masochists?

Ah the Victorian era is alive and well on CAF! First you allow bare ankles, then bare wrists, the before you know it people are having sex with goats on the street corner in broad daylight while shooting up heroin!!! Where does it end?

 

[runwaymodel]

It is very disturbing to see so many people who smoke that stuff. I remember seeing people who were high on marijuana at events and it was like talking to a brick wall. They were slow to respond, failed to correctly answer basic questions and just had a vacant and vapid look on thier face. Quite sad. Why someone would want to reasonable smoke that stuff is beyond me…

 

[cornbread_r2]

I haven’t done that for the simple reason that these harder drugs have yet to be legalized.

The whole point of a slippery slope argument is to speculate about what might happen as the result of an action/policy.

But for the reason cited in the post above, it is reasonable to argue that increasing permissiveness leads to increasing demand to try something more breathtaking.

Now we’re getting somewhere. I agree that is a possibility, but not an assurance. When my pot-smoking acquaintances want to get really loaded they drink. In addition, not every breath-taking experience is bad or drug-related, e.g. sports, spirituality, meditation, skydiving. Finally – and this will apply to just about any reason you might propose – does the mere possibility that someone might try something more exhilarating justify the exorbitant governmental, social, familial and personal costs associated with MJ law enforcement? IMO, it can’t.

As did Whitney Houston. Rest in peace.

More libertarian lunacy on the horizon.

First we get to kill our unborn babies.

Then we get to drug ourselves to death.

What next?

State licensed Pain-Parlors for sadists and masochists?

Apparently you’re most comfortable dealing in hyperbolic analogies so I’ll leave you to it. Have a good one.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

cornbread

It wouldn’t be a fallacy in regards to this issue if you validly demonstrated that the use/decriminalization of MJ would inevitably lead to the use/decriminalization of more dangerous drugs for reasons A thru N. You haven’t done that.

I haven’t done that for the simple reason that these harder drugs have yet to be legalized. But for the reason cited in the post above, it is reasonable to argue that increasing permissiveness leads to increasing demand to try something more breathtaking.

As did Whitney Houston. Rest in peace.

More libertarian lunacy on the horizon.

First we get to kill our unborn babies.

Then we get to drug ourselves to death.

What next?

State licensed Pain-Parlors for sadists and masochists?

You really don’t understand libertarianism, do you? Mocking the truth is one thing, mocking something you don’t understand is putting your ignorance on display for all to see.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Scott
**
You really don’t understand libertarianism, do you? Mocking the truth is one thing, mocking something you don’t understand is putting your ignorance on display for all to see. **

I understand libertarians. They want to open all the fast roads to hell.And they usually succeed. First they argue that abortions should be allowed for rape and incest. Then they argue that abortions should be allowed for convenience. Then, like Peter Singer, they argue that abortions should be allowed for the wrong sex in the womb. Then they argue for infanticide at birth if you’re not happy with what comes out.

It’s called the slippery slope. Libertarians have been wheeing! down it for centuries.

You don’t understand Catholicism, which stands for something noble, even if it’s inconveniently noble.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Scott
**
You really don’t understand libertarianism, do you? Mocking the truth is one thing, mocking something you don’t understand is putting your ignorance on display for all to see. **

I understand libertarians. They want to open all the fast roads to hell.And they usually succeed. First they argue that abortions should be allowed for rape and incest. Then they argue that abortions should be allowed for convenience. Then, like Peter Singer, they argue that abortions should be allowed for the wrong sex in the womb. Then they argue for infanticide at birth if you’re not happy with what comes out.

It’s called the slippery slope. Libertarians have been wheeing! down it for centuries.

You don’t understand Catholicism, which stands for something noble, even if it’s inconveniently noble.

I reiterate my original point. What you describe is libertinism, not libertarianism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine

I challenge you to demonstrate my lack of understanding of Catholicism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Scott
**
I reiterate my original point. What you describe is libertinism, not libertarianism.**

Not really. It would be consistent with libertarian philosophy that one has a right to kill the unborn, that one has a right to marry a member of one’s own sex, etc.

The bishops oppose legalization of both.

Would I be right to assume you defend both rights? If you do, you are not an obedient Catholic. But you are welcome to call yourself a Catholic, ignorant as you may be of what a Catholic is.

The immoral and corrupt policies of the Libertarian Party are documented here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29#Abortion

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Scott
**
I reiterate my original point. What you describe is libertinism, not libertarianism.**

Not really. It would be consistent with libertarian philosophy that one has a right to kill the unborn, that one has a right to marry a member of one’s own sex, etc.

The bishops oppose legalization of both.

Would I be right to assume you defend both rights? If you do, you are not an obedient Catholic. But you are welcome to call yourself a Catholic, ignorant as you may be of what a Catholic is.

Please research libertarianism, not the Libertarian Party rubbish.

I would recommend you refrain from labelling people poor or inadequate Catholics. There is a precedent set at this forum against such behavior. Just a recommendation, mind you. If you want to go around strutting how much better a Catholic you are than others, or how inferior other people’s Catholicism is to yours, be my guest.

However, since you appear unwilling to learn what real libertarianism is, I will give you a few pointers. You’re welcome to verify this for yourself…or continue to rely on your misguided, inaccurate presumption of what it is, your choice.

Libertarianism is guided first and foremost by something called the Principle of Non-Aggression. While many libertarians argue the pro and cons of abortion, the Catholic libertarian argues that since both science and the Church have definitively concluded that life begins at the moment of conception, then abortion must therefore violate the Non-Aggression Principle. This view is also supported by the fact that the courts have traditionally upheld the inheritance rights of unborn beneficiaries. If the unborn have the right to inherit property, they must therefore be more than just parasitic blobs of tissue. This principle is rooted in the Right of Self-Ownership. This principle is reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence and the Catholic Theology of the Body. My body and soul were given to ME by God in order to glorify Him. Any attempt to frustrate this ownership interferes with my right and my ability to worship and glorify God in the way that God has intended.

Pope Paul VI fully realizes this in Humanae Vitae. Some may argue that it teaches the impossible. He discusses the value of self-discipline of the body and self-denial of bodily pleasures as a source of family tranquility, peace, and personality development within the family. He recommends chastity within marriage and appeals to public authorities not to tolerate any legislation that would introduce into the family practices that are opposed to the natural law of God. In other words, the state should not interfere with the natural right of self-ownership, because it is only when we mortify the flesh through VOLUNTARY self-denial that we worship God. If the state mandates how you are to treat your body, if is no longer self-denial and the worship of God is diminished.