Should marijuana be legal?

[runwaymodel]

I have never smoked pot a day in my life and I don’t ever intend to. If my kids brought weed into my house, they would be evicted with the quickness. What are you trying to imply?

I am not implying anything. By my statement I was refering to people in general who smoke pot. If you don’t smoke that junk than I see no reason why you should get defensive.

If you claim that hemp and marijuana has so many benefits and seem to support legalizing it, I cannot comprehend why you then would be offended if your kids brought some home. Obviously I am too young to have children myself, but I consistently do not support marijuana so it would be no surprise that I would not want the future kids to associate themselves with it in any way.

 

[iloveangels]

What iloveangels, I believe, is trying to say is that we should avoid doind anything that is morally wrong. Masturbation is wrong so one should not do it. Drugs are obviously wrong, so if you are not a moral person than maybe logic should resignate with you. It appears to me that people who are trying to explain why marijuana should be legalized are trying to justify their actions. I mean, if you know its wrong and smoke pot what do you do when Sunday comes around–do you recieve communion?

If you smoke pot, stay the hell off the roads, that’s my advice.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Actually, it is problem with enforcing moral behavior by force of law. To me it is an indication that our clergy are failing miserably at their jobs. If people were behaving morally of their own accord, there would be no need for these laws.

The Law of Four C’s: Chaos, Community, Conscience, and Cops.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/files/2011/12/ColsonsLaw.jpg

The paradox of democracy is that it is founded on the premise of strong consciences but tends to produce weak ones by its very permissiveness. Its maximization of freedom (freedom from cops) rests on the willing submission of its citizens to conscience; yet this very freedom from cops tempts us to free ourselves from conscience, too. Paradoxically, this excess of freedom, or rather this mistaken kind of freedom, requires more cops to stave off chaos, thus resulting in less freedom. (For the two kinds of freedom — freedom from conscience and freedom from cops—are also inversely proportionate).

Colson’s Law states that the only alternatives to conscience are cops or chaos. If the inner shield of a community is lowered, the outer shield must be raised to stave off chaos. Therefore, a community, especially a free democracy, that loses its conscience will necessarily become a police state.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Actually, it is problem with enforcing moral behavior by force of law. To me it is an indication that our clergy are failing miserably at their jobs. If people were behaving morally of their own accord, there would be no need for these laws.

The Law of Four C’s: Chaos, Community, Conscience, and Cops.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/files/2011/12/ColsonsLaw.jpg

Peter Kreeft:

The paradox of democracy is that it is founded on the premise of strong consciences but tends to produce weak ones by its very permissiveness. Its maximization of freedom (freedom from cops) rests on the willing submission of its citizens to conscience; yet this very freedom from cops tempts us to free ourselves from conscience, too. Paradoxically, this excess of freedom, or rather this mistaken kind of freedom, requires more cops to stave off chaos, thus resulting in less freedom. (For the two kinds of freedom — freedom from conscience and freedom from cops—are also inversely proportionate).

Colson’s Law states that the only alternatives to conscience are cops or chaos. If the inner shield of a community is lowered, the outer shield must be raised to stave off chaos. Therefore, a community, especially a free democracy, that loses its conscience will necessarily become a police state.

Of course the cops are picking up the slack on something that should traditionally be in the purview of the clergy. People’s consciences are disordered with regard to marijuana, as most people think legalization would be harmless…if people were conscientiously well-formed, such a degree of law enforcement would be unnecessary…but the fact remains, in our current cultural malaise, criminalization of marijuana is absolutely necessary.

I mean have they read about the quarters in Amsterdam where pot is now legal? They are absolute cesspools that tourists avoid.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Of course the cops are picking up the slack on something that should traditionally be in the purview of the clergy. People’s consciences are disordered with regard to marijuana, as most people think legalization would be harmless…if people were conscientiously well-formed, such a degree of law enforcement would be unnecessary…but the fact remains, in our current cultural malaise, criminalization of marijuana is absolutely necessary.

I mean have they read about the quarters in Amsterdam where pot is now legal? They are absolute cesspools that tourists avoid.

It isn’t legal in Amsterdam. Police simply refuse to enforce the law. It is legal in Portugal, and the rates of drug abuse are going DOWN, because the money that was spent on law enforcement and criminal prosecution and incarceration is being spent on treatment and education.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

It isn’t legal in Amsterdam. Police simply refuse to enforce the law. It is legal in Portugal, and the rates of drug abuse are going DOWN, because the money that was spent on law enforcement and criminal prosecution and incarceration is being spent on treatment and education.

Yes, I think what you meant to say is that money that would have been spent attacking the drug trade is now extracted, through taxation, even from people with conscientious objections, to enable a lifestyle that is morally reprehensible.

That’s why utilitarian arguments in favor of legalization aren’t satisfactory. I rail against proponents of legalization because I know the inevitable next step is the creation, by governement, with my tax dollars, of drug treatment facilities with revolving doors that treat the recurring addictions of regular drug abusers, thereby enabling a lifestyle, with my money, that is absolutely detestable to me.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Yes, I think what you meant to say is that money that would have been spent attacking the drug trade is now extracted, through taxation, even from people with conscientious objections, to enable a lifestyle that is morally reprehensible.

That’s why utilitarian arguments in favor of legalization aren’t satisfactory. I rail against proponents of legalization because I know the inevitable next step is the creation, by governement, with my tax dollars, of drug treatment facilities with revolving doors that treat the recurring addictions of regular drug abusers, thereby enabling a lifestyle, with my money, that is absolutely detestable to me.

Your tax dollars already pay for prisons which do a reprehensible job of rehabilitating convicted drug users, many of whom become addicted to worse drugs and commit crime against other people to support their habits.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Your tax dollars already pay for prisons which do a reprehensible job of rehabilitating convicted drug users, many of whom become addicted to worse drugs and commit crime against other people to support their habits.

1. Yes, so, why don’t we add another entry to the list of ways in which the government, by coercive means, through pain of fines and/or incarceration, regularly forces me to violate my conscience and my religious obligation to abstain from enabling or participating in illicit lifestyles, hmm?
2. Well, the problems with the failure of prison facilities to successfully rehabilitate convicts isn’t the same moral preoccupation that conscientious objectors of marijuana legalization have against handing out free, subsidized drug rehab. I’m all for improving the prison rehabilitation process, and with my tax dollars if necessary. I don’t have a moral preoccupation with supporting prison facilities.
3. There’s a huge difference between prison and taxpayer subsidized drug treatment facilities. Prison has a punitive, involuntary confinement component that satisfies the moral obligation to punish those who break the law.

In the latter, such a punitive component does not exist. Indeed such facilities would be treating, on the taxpayer dime, the same clients over and over again. Why stop taking drugs when you can get on and off them at taxpayer expense?

Why don’t we fix the prisons first, before paying for new facilities, hmm?

 

[seekerz]

Actually, it is problem with enforcing moral behavior by force of law. To me it is an indication that our clergy are failing miserably at their jobs. If people were behaving morally of their own accord, there would be no need for these laws.

One of the not-too-common occasions on which I agree with most of your post, Scott. Enforcing morality by force of law is one of my pet grouses, not because I have anything against laws, but because I feel that as a society, if we leave people to come up against the arm of the law to learn right from wrong, then we are abdicating our responsibility in a big way. I do disagree with you that it is the clergy failing miserably at their jobs, rather, it is our collective responsibility as Christians, to live in a way that teaches morality to those around us.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

seekerz

**I do disagree with you that it is the clergy failing miserably at their jobs, rather, it is our collective responsibility as Christians, to live in a way that teaches morality to those around us. **

As Christianity continues to fail, moral chaos will ensue. If anyone thinks the morality police are active in opposing the legalization of marijuana and other drugs, wait till they see how active the real police will be when the chaos of American immorality rules.

As the conservative Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft has already suggested, there could well be a civil war to restore morality.

The clueless libertarians will lose it.

 

[GWright]

I don’t see why cannabis has (or needs) any legal status at all, its just a plant, part of nature.

If someone pointed out a tulip in a garden and said it was “illegal”, but the lily next to it was “legal”, it would sound absurd.

I voted option 1. I fully support age laws - just as with other social drugs, such as alcohol - but not tax, as nature being subject to tax is as ridiculous as nature being illegal.

(It is impossible to guarantee high tax returns anyway, as the plant can be easily grown by anyone privately).

As for age - adults only. Cannabis is not addictive or fatal, however it can - just like any food / substance - be abused, leading to lack of motivation which would be bad for students. Also, while it is known to be benign for adults, there are concerns regarding its effect on adolescents still growing / developing. So, age laws make good sense.

The history of cannabis law is quite revealing. Prohibition was sold to the american people by tapping into racist sentiment in the early 20th century. The plant was (falsely) portrayed as being a tool of black / latin men, supposedly out to seduce white girls and undermine white american society (a crudely imagined and nonsensical scenario). This era is known as “reefer madness” in American history.

The hidden, real reasons for cannabis prohibition are very eye opening and, while the racism of the reefer madness era has faded, these reasons remain resonant today. Here are some quick examples of the players who have a hidden interest in lobbying against cannabis:

The Cotton Industry. Hemp (cannabis grown to use as fiber) is much stronger than cotton, does not rot or mildew like cotton does and produces a much higher yield per acre than cotton. Cotton is (one of) the most common fibers we use in clothing etc. Comparing the qualities of Hemp with Cotton shows that a Hemp industry would render the Cotton industry redundant.

The Alcohol Industry. Alcohol companies make a fortune, their wares are global brands. It is a legal social drug, despite it being addictive, potentially fatal (if abused for long enough) and socially problematic (causes violence, car crashes, accidents etc). Governments also make a fortune via taxing alcohol. Cannabis is also a social drug and so would naturally compete with alcohol. Cannabis may appeal more to some people, given it is not physically addictive and non-fatal, and the fact they could “grow their own” to save money. Clearly the Alcohol Industry has a direct interest in suppressing cannabis to, to protect their profits.

Governments. Remember the tax from Alcohol? That makes a lot of money for Governments. Just as non-illegal Cannabis may cause a loss of profits to the alcohol industry, it would likely cause a loss of tax revenue for Governments. Its the same argument and so Governments also have an interest in suppressing cannabis to protect their income stream from taxed legal drugs.

There are others too. Law Enforcement for one (if they didn’t need to Police cannabis, they wouldn’t need such a big budget, right?). Medicine companies are another. They want to chemically reproduce THC from cannabis and sell us that -“marinol” - as opposed to us just having natural cannabis for free.

So that is the situation we are in today. You could argue its not such a big deal for it to be illegal, and I agree it isn’t. But there are some unexpected negative effects of illegality. Mainly these are it forced people who wish to smoke it to go to drug dealers, some of whom may also sell harder / dangerous drugs. So illegality potentially exposes cannabis smokers to hard chemical drugs, things like cocaine, mdma, lsd etc, which may lead to bad choices or pressure to try those. Additionally, the profits from any illegal black market goods often go towards funding and sustaining serious crime. So illegality potentially forces cannabis smokers to indirectly fund serious criminal enterprises. Illegality is definitely counterproductive.

I would favour cannabis having no legal status. The government could make at least some money from it, via licensed shops (of the dutch mould). But many people would chose to grow their own. This would actually be a positive thing for society, as it would make cannabis worthless for drug dealers, damaging their enterprise and reducing the chance that people (esp young people) will be hanging around criminals.

One modern* argument for prohibition is that cannabis can cause a increase in the chance of psychosis, in individuals pre-disposed to the condition. But the rise is negligible, on an already slim chance. And alcohol has the exact same effect on such individuals, meaning the argument is hypocrisy. Even if cannabis did prove “not for everyone”, what is the problem with that? We already accept that alcohol and tobacco are “not for everyone”, for various reasons.

(*If you look through the history of cannabis prohibition, the arguments to maintain illegality often change. That is very revealing).

I am not ashamed to say I have smoked cannabis and indeed enjoyed smoking it (in various European countries, where it is mostly illegal (!) but rarely Policed aggressively. There seems an unspoken mutual code of common sense between Police and smokers.).

I do not promote it as “cool” or at all necessary, just a personal choice from life’s rich tapestry.

One of my favourite places in the world is a certain canal corner in amsterdam, out side an easy-going pub, popular with locals. An outdoors table by the canal side, on a starry night, is the perfect place for a cold beer and (legal) smoke. There’s a pleasant hubub of chat and people shout and wave from barges cruising around, some playing music / with parties etc. The dutch waitress even brings beer right to your table (a novelty for a Britisher). What’s not to like? I could sit there forever.

 

[Publisher]

I think it should be…in many states it’s legal for medicinal purposes…though still against federal law.

Here in Oregon one can get a “medical marijuana” card and grow your own. In California it is a booming industry to supply “medicine” to the “cannabis clubs” through out major cities.

I have some friends who use it medicinally…they are on chemo and the nausea and pain they experience is mitigated by cannabis use. It stimulates the appetite. The UC Davis agricultural students ahve come up with amazing strains that “target” symptoms of AIDS and cancer treatment side effects. There is a strain for pain…and from what I am told by the users of this strain…their pain disappears in less than 5 minutes after taking a “hit” from their vaporizor. Baked goods are also used to get a “body high” which cancels out the discomforts of AIDS and cancer treatments and helps them sleep…and is used as an anti-depressant.

There is no denying it’s benefit for medical use for those who suffer from certain ailments and disease.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

I think it should be…in many states it’s legal for medicinal purposes…though still against federal law.

Here in Oregon one can get a “medical marijuana” card and grow your own. In California it is a booming industry to supply “medicine” to the “cannabis clubs” through out major cities.

I have some friends who use it medicinally…they are on chemo and the nausea and pain they experience is mitigated by cannabis use. It stimulates the appetite. The UC Davis agricultural students ahve come up with amazing strains that “target” symptoms of AIDS and cancer treatment side effects. There is a strain for pain…and from what I am told by the users of this strain…their pain disappears in less than 5 minutes after taking a “hit” from their vaporizor. Baked goods are also used to get a “body high” which cancels out the discomforts of AIDS and cancer treatments and helps them sleep…and is used as an anti-depressant.

There is no denying it’s benefit for medical use for those who suffer from certain ailments and disease.

1. There’s also no denying that there are plenty of alternative pain medications tailored to these diseases that are NOT hallucinogenic in nature.
2. Emerging studies are beginning to show that smoking marijuana is, like smoking any drugs, highly toxic to the lungs.
3. The medical marijuana ‘industry’ has far more recreational clients than genuinely afflicted victims of cancer and AIDS. It’s mostly a sham industry.

 

[ahs]

…the Peter Kreeft explanation…]
Of course the cops are picking up the slack on something that should traditionally be in the purview of the clergy. People’s consciences are disordered with regard to marijuana, as most people think legalization would be harmless…if people were conscientiously well-formed, such a degree of law enforcement would be unnecessary…but the fact remains, in our current cultural malaise, criminalization of marijuana is absolutely necessary.

…money that would have been spent attacking the drug trade is now extracted, through taxation, even from people with conscientious objections, to enable a lifestyle that is morally reprehensible.
… the inevitable next step is the creation, by governement, with my tax dollars, of drug treatment facilities with revolving doors that treat the recurring addictions of regular drug abusers, thereby enabling a lifestyle, with my money, that is absolutely detestable to me.

…As Christianity continues to fail, moral chaos will ensue. If anyone thinks the morality police are active in opposing the legalization of marijuana and other drugs, wait till they see how active the real police will be when the chaos of American immorality rules.

The collective-above seem, to me, to be a very strong argument to keep marijuana illegal, the strongest I’ve seen because it doesn’t rely on making connections that are difficult to make (the gateway argument) or fault a drug for something it cannot do on its own (drug abuse). It presents human nature for what it is in its fallen state and relies on teh plain facts of who we are and where we are as a society.

However, the post from GWright puts things back into a reality check of what is, what isn’t, and who is ultimately responsible for what.

ETA: While the Church is silent on the issue.…] I guess I don’t really care one way or the other. For the puropose if this pole I voted for option #1. I will tell you that I have smoked marijuana in the past, few enough times to count on my hands. I don’t believe I’d do it again if it became legal…though I might grow a bit since I enjoy gardening…

 

[nickybr38]

I’m not a huge fan of the argument that legalizing marijuana would put an end to illegal trafficking of marijuana. People should obey the law, whether they agree with it or not.

By this logic we should legalize prostitution as well. You know? To protect all those women who are prostitutes…

Ugh.

At the very least I can say that I am consistent. I don’t drink alcohol. I don’t smoke cigarettes… and I won’t touch marijuana. Never have. Never will. I don’t need any help being calmer or happier. I’m perfectly capable of finding peace and joy without any chemical assistance.

Honestly, alcohol should probably be illegal as well. Cigarettes practically are. You can’t smoke them in public. You can’t smoke them in front of a public building. And you can’t smoke them in your own care if your kids are in that car.

The stupid part is, these laws wouldn’t be needed if people weren’t so stupid.

PS: There are studies that suggest marijuana can cause heart problems. Long term use, of course, but there you have it. My brother is a long time smoker and he’s to the point where he cannot manage stress at all without his weed. He has completely lost the ability to face his issues unmedicated. How sad is that?

 

[GWright]

It isn’t legal in Amsterdam. Police simply refuse to enforce the law.

Small amounts have a “decriminalised” status, which I think means its a non-criminal offence, like speeding in a car or whatever. You are right that in practice, the Police don’t bother with it, in terms of personal use in Amsterdam.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

seekerz

**I do disagree with you that it is the clergy failing miserably at their jobs, rather, it is our collective responsibility as Christians, to live in a way that teaches morality to those around us. **

As Christianity continues to fail, moral chaos will ensue. If anyone thinks the morality police are active in opposing the legalization of marijuana and other drugs, wait till they see how active the real police will be when the chaos of American immorality rules.

As the conservative Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft has already suggested, there could well be a civil war to restore morality.

The clueless libertarians will lose it.

I will be on the side of the Christian moralists. You can get off your soapbox now, your moral high-horsing isn’t winning any converts. It makes you out to be a pontificating blow-hard.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

1. There’s also no denying that there are plenty of alternative pain medications tailored to these diseases that are NOT hallucinogenic in nature.
2. Emerging studies are beginning to show that smoking marijuana is, like smoking any drugs, highly toxic to the lungs.
3. The medical marijuana ‘industry’ has far more recreational clients than genuinely afflicted victims of cancer and AIDS. It’s mostly a sham industry.

The medical benefits of cannibis have been proven, in spite of your posturing.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I’m not a huge fan of the argument that legalizing marijuana would put an end to illegal trafficking of marijuana. People should obey the law, whether they agree with it or not.

By this logic we should legalize prostitution as well. You know? To protect all those women who are prostitutes…

Ugh.

At the very least I can say that I am consistent. I don’t drink alcohol. I don’t smoke cigarettes… and I won’t touch marijuana. Never have. Never will. I don’t need any help being calmer or happier. I’m perfectly capable of finding peace and joy without any chemical assistance.

Honestly, alcohol should probably be illegal as well. Cigarettes practically are. You can’t smoke them in public. You can’t smoke them in front of a public building. And you can’t smoke them in your own care if your kids are in that car.

The stupid part is, these laws wouldn’t be needed if people weren’t so stupid.

PS: There are studies that suggest marijuana can cause heart problems. Long term use, of course, but there you have it. My brother is a long time smoker and he’s to the point where he cannot manage stress at all without his weed. He has completely lost the ability to face his issues unmedicated. How sad is that?

Since when is the purpose of law to save people from themselves? That is the purpose of the Church, or are you willing to abdicate this duty to the government? God is my God, not Caesar. I owe Caesar nothing, I owe God everything.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

The medical benefits of cannibis have been proven, in spite of your posturing.

Benefits which I didn’t deny…what I denied is that pot is uniquely beneficial to sufferers of AIDS or cancer. It is NOT.

Since when is the purpose of law to save people from themselves? That is the purpose of the Church, or are you willing to abdicate this duty to the government? God is my God, not Caesar. I owe Caesar nothing, I owe God everything.

There are plenty examples of this. That’e exactly why suicide is prevented by law enforcement. That’s why irresponsible parents who cannot support their children on their own are paid welfare stipends by the government. Unfortunately, it’s necessary, lest we allow those children to be continually impoverished.

Also, YOUR Catholic Church recommends in the Catechism that civil authorities should use the power of law to suppress objectionable or obscene materials like pornography. The state can and should protect people from themselves.