|
|
Post by Alex on Nov 30, 2012 22:20:00 GMT -8
So the state law decriminalizing Marijuana in Washington may not change a lot with the federal laws overriding however...
What are your thoughts on Cannabis? Is it itself wrong, or the misuse of it? Do you think it's on the order of an alcohol, where it is arguably manageable? Or a drug that is always damaging?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Dec 3, 2012 21:21:51 GMT -8
The studies show that marijuana is on the level of alcohol-- possibly dangerous in some circumstances, but actually less addictive.
Personally I think it is ridiculous to have people who use or carry mj in prison. Ticketing, perhaps, but jail? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by LadyAjax on Dec 5, 2012 11:02:36 GMT -8
Two personal anecdotes that spring to mind:
When I was an undergraduate I took an Ethics course with about 34 other people. The instructor posed the question "How many of you think that drugs should be illegal?" all 35 of us raised our hands. We spent the next 3 weeks discussing the constitution, the bill of rights, personal liberty, the cost and logistics (both economic and social) of a "war on drugs", the ethics of criminalizing addictions (individuals must admit to criminal behavior in order to seek treatment.), and the potential economic and social benefits of decriminalizing drugs. At the end of that time the instructor asked the question again and only 2 people raised their hands to indicate that they still believed that all "drugs" should be illegal.
Later when I was a graduate student in psychology I took a psycho-pharmacology course which was an in depth look at the substances which alter brain functions and their medicinal uses to treat psychiatric disorders. When the professor got to the distinctions of drug classifications, she told us that Schedule 1 drugs are those which are "not considered legitimate for medical use." Included in this classification are heroin, LSD, and marijuana.
Excuse me? I asked the instructor how they could include marijuana with heroin and LSD. She gave me this deadpan look and in a very "Ferris Beuller, Beuller, Beuller" flat voice recited the definition once more "There are no legitimate medical uses for schedule one drugs - this is the DEFINITION of a schedule one drug and marijuana IS included in this category, you will be required to know THIS definition as part of this course". The professor went on to explain the mechanism of action, the short and long term physiological results of exposure (and as an aside, how it could be used in medical treatment) and its addictive potential. All of which were far far less destructive in both the short and long term than alcohol.
Not even addressing the considerable beneficial industrial uses for hemp, in my opinion it is scientifically, logically/intellectually and ethically disingenuous to criminalize marijuana.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 1, 2013 12:45:28 GMT -8
I'm not a complete libertarian about substances. For instance, I think some substances are so dangerous that they should certainly be illegal (meth, crack, heroin, for instance). But, then there are legal recreational drugs such as alcohol that have potential for both good and ill. Marijuana in some senses seems very akin to alcohol (though I'd argue worse than alcohol in some ways, less dangerous than it in many) so it is a bit baffling why one should be legal and the other shouldn't. One could even argue that cigarettes* are easily worse than marijuana, and yet they are legal.
That said, I still don't think I'd actually vote to legalize it because I know that when something is legal it is more available and I deal with high school students every day whose lives are stunted by marijuana use. But if it came to prohibiting alcohol so that it is less available to minors, I'd probably balk. It's easy for me to vote against legalizing marijuana because I don't use it and don't want to. So, in my mind, why legalize something I have no interest in and have only reservations about.
I guess it depends how you see your vote: is it a statement of what you see as absolutely right or as an expression of your preference for how the rules should be.
My two cents.
*mind you, I'm excluding tobacco pipe smoking here, which is the most benign  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 1, 2013 12:47:11 GMT -8
I should add that as Christians we should obey the law as long as it doesn't contradict our faith, so I have little patience for Christians who want to flaunt freedom in Christ in this area, if they are breaking the law.
|
|
Watchermike
Intermediate Member
Living for the Lord
Posts: 77
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: You sent a E-mail (Thank God)
|
Post by Watchermike on Feb 15, 2013 10:20:32 GMT -8
I'm fully against pot being legal and since the Government finally found a way to tax it, I'm expecting the same sorry outcome cigarettes and alcohol are getting. I have seen the studies of pot smoking and it burning your brain cells brings up the ever popular question: "Why do we need more dummies in the world?" And don't say "so quick to judge" after seeing it on brain scans. It's like the Government is saying "Do these things so we can have complete control over you mindless idiots."
This is just my opinion but I don't thing I'm near wrong about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 20, 2013 21:37:36 GMT -8
For children and teens, it seems to have a long term effect in some areas; for adults there doesn't seem to be a strong argument of brain damage. A better argument might be made against the short term effects, or the culural role it plays vs other drugs, but I'd be curious how it's worse than commonly accepted and legal drugs. It seems a moral objection is better grounded by objecting to any drug; such as alcohol you mention, rather than differentiating them. But how about a difference in the cultural use, or in the unrealized effects versus the readily apparent? One of the problems with the topic is that it's so polarized it's difficult to get a full picture of the health impact, since so many are cited depending on the point being made, and often conflict. Still, what makes it worse? www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/health/marijuana-research-roundup?c=&page=1 |
|
Watchermike
Intermediate Member
Living for the Lord
Posts: 77
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: You sent a E-mail (Thank God)
|
Post by Watchermike on Feb 21, 2013 10:54:21 GMT -8
Alex, Like any substance like pot I stay to my opinion. If the government had a way to tax it in the past,It would have been legalized years ago. We stand under a crooked bunch of politicians that the only aim they have is complete control and red tagging our rights(conditions). So I would say that drugs with physiological and euphoric effects could possibly be more enhanced by the FDA as a control method. I'm probably not to far off base with my opinion on pot or other euphoric drugs that are illegal at this time. I realize that pot has some properties that may inhibit a good re pore on a health stand point but that will quickly pass leading to a bunch of brainless idiots(smoking it because they can).
|
|
grokit
Intermediate Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by grokit on Mar 25, 2013 7:53:00 GMT -8
It's funny to me that any of you think that whether a substance is legal or not has any real significant effect on its use. People who want it, get it. and people that don't don't.
It's also strange to me how much trust is given to our government and medical community. Those people are just as messed up as the rest of us and don't know what to do just as often. A degree or an election doesn't give anyone any real ability to make better decisions for individuals and their situations.
I have used cannibus (eaten, smoked) and enjoyed it. But it's been well over a decade since I last partook. It didn't do much for me except for the novelty of the altered state of thinking, and that was kind of fun. I've seen cannibus help people. My mom has suffered through chemotherapy and fibromyalgia for which the suffering of both was mitigated by the use of marijuana. I've also seen Ibuprofen literally disintegrate my grandmothers stomach which required emergency surgery. I've had family members killed by drunk drivers, and I've seen crank "cure" my brother of constant illness.
The logic of the decisions about what's legal or not escapes me. I'm not arguing for or against the use of any of these substances (I certainly think the crank my brother uses has many more negative effects than positive). What I am saying is that making blanket decisions for everyone else based on your own experience is a narrow way of thinking that is dangerous. If people can't make choices in this world for themselves, how can we expect them to make choices about anything that's truly important. I mean if we're going to tell people what they should put in their bodies, shouldn't we be legally enforcing the love of Christ, the only real substance we need?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 25, 2013 14:07:37 GMT -8
While I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you here in general, I do disagree with this statement:
I think I made this point earlier, but maybe not? Less alcohol was consumed during Prohibition simply because alcohol was illegal. I think its very reasonable to think it would be the same with marijuana. There is certainly a part of the population who won't smoke it now because it is illegal, and if it was legal, those people would become users, and that percentage of people would be significant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 25, 2013 20:29:39 GMT -8
A quick addition, part of the moral judgement of any topic is if is violating the law of the land. whether it stops people is different than to ethics of using it.
Alex makes some good arguments above. I have to say my thoughts around it are about the moral use rather than whether it should be legal.
|
|
