Is it morally wrong to buy weed?

ro_chez

mikom wrote: »

Give the specs a clean there horse.

Why do u bother?

FlutterinBantam

ro_chez wrote: »

Why do u bother?

heh heh, why don't you call me a troll buddy.


That's the usual approach:rolleyes:

mikom

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Going for the cryptic approach are we?

What flaw are you referring to sir?

A criminal record which affects travel and job prospects for such an innocuous thing as buying some weed.
Meet my friend "Vicious circle", you may know him as he's a buddy of "flawed law".

tayto lover

mikom wrote: »

If you were a gay man caught in a homosexual act and dragged up in front of the court a few years back, how would you plead? And how do you think you would get on?



Give me a one or two line answer as to why it was made illegal.

1 That situation has occurred with gay men in the past. If it was illegal then it and they received a conviction i'm sure they would have felt bad. Looking at old cases many did plead guilty because the law as it stood made them guilty. They have my sympathy but it was the law at the time.

2. All illegal drugs were made illegal because they were found (by the medical profession) to be dangerous. Thats why some drugs are legal and others not.
It will take new research by the same medical profession to change the law and make it legal. Nothing to do with me or you at all.

tayto lover

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That is not the initiation of violence. Self defence is what happens when someone else initiates violence against you.

More red herrings and obfuscation.

I'm getting bored of this tbh.

So you blame the police and the medical profession for making the drug illegal but not the person for using that illegal substance. Would you also blame the police for storming into a house to prevent a person committing suicide, and suicide is not even a crime now.

FlutterinBantam

mikom wrote: »

A criminal record which affects travel and job prospects for such an innocuous thing as buying some weed.
Meet my friend "Vicious circle", you may know him as he's a buddy of "flawed law".

So , my friend,if you break the law and as a result some countries feel you are not really the type of dude they want, and do not permit entrance.

They are 'all wrong' and don't know what they are talking about?

It's the law that's wrong of course:rolleyes:

Wetbench4

tayto lover wrote: »

1 That situation has occurred with gay men in the past. If it was illegal then it and they received a conviction i'm sure they would have felt bad. Looking at old cases many did plead guilty because the law as it stood made them guilty. They have my sympathy but it was the law at the time.

2. All illegal drugs were made illegal because they were found (by the medical profession) to be dangerous. Thats why some drugs are legal and others not.
It will take new research by the same medical profession to change the law and make it legal. Nothing to do with me or you at all.

I don't think that was why it was made illegal at all. It was America who created a misinformation campaign against weed which some people still belive today. Reefer madness etc. If you read the earlier link i posted, you will see that weed has tonnes of benefits, and the bad side effects haven't even been properly studied or proven, so are probably false aswell.

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

So i can go to court on any charge and plead that i am morally against that law. How do you think i would get on ?

I didn't say that, did I?

I'm merely explaining that laws and morals are not the same.

Laws cannot not represent the moral standings of each individual, in a perfect world they would but as is they represent the common morals of the majority (or they attempt to do so).

You cannot say I am acting immorally if I smoke weed as we do not share those morals, it would not be rational nor objective of you to make such a claim. You can state that I'm acting illegally, which is fine as I am (hypothetically of course).

You have to make a decision, do you prioritize your morals or the law? If you found yourself in some country that required you to kill a child who stole a loaf of bread to survive; would you?

The law states you must or you will be punished, but your morals will tell you that you shouldn't.

Once again this doesn't relate to weed and is a somewhat black and white example however it clearly shows how morals and laws are different and you will not necessarily agree with both at the same time.

tayto lover

Wetbench4 wrote: »

I don't think that was why it was made illegal at all. It was America who created a misinformation campaign against weed which some people still belive today. Reefer madness etc. If you read the earlier link i posted, you will see that weed has tonnes of benefits, and the bad side effects haven't even been properly studied or proven, so are probably false aswell.

I have read both sides of that. There are many conflicting views but something like cannabis cannot be made illegal without medical evidence. You will notice that any papers/studies/reports on the plant were written by medical people.

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

I didn't say that, did I?

I'm merely explaining that laws and morals are not the same.

Laws cannot not represent the moral standings of each individual, in a perfect world they would but as is they represent the common morals of the majority (or they attempt to do so).

You cannot say I am acting immorally if I smoke weed as we do not share those morals, it would not be rational nor objective of you to make such a claim. You can state that I'm acting illegally, which is fine as I am (hypothetically of course).

You have to make a decision, do you prioritize your morals or the law? If you found yourself in some country that required you to kill a child who stole a loaf of bread to survive; would you?

The law states you must or you will be punished, but your morals will tell you that you shouldn't.

Once again this doesn't relate to weed and is a somewhat black and white example however it clearly shows how morals and laws are different and you will not necessarily agree with both at the same time.

You are going back to my original point that we do what we want to do and not what is legal and we try to convince ourselves that we are morally right. Are we just fooling ourselves ?

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

1 That situation has occurred with gay men in the past. If it was illegal then it and they received a conviction i'm sure they would have felt bad. Looking at old cases many did plead guilty because the law as it stood made them guilty. They have my sympathy but it was the law at the time.

I was just following orders.
Where have I heard that before.

tayto lover wrote: »

All illegal drugs were made illegal because they were found (by the medical profession) to be dangerous. Thats why some drugs are legal and others not.

Cannabis was not made illegal on medical grounds.
So try again.
Think slavery and servants in the early 1900's
You've been codded up to the eyeballs.

tayto lover wrote: »

It will take new research by the same medical profession to change the law and make it legal. Nothing to do with me or you at all.

The original banning didn't take into account research.

Chuck Stone

tayto lover wrote: »

So you blame the police and the medical profession for making the drug illegal but not the person for using that illegal substance.

I don't know or care who made it illegal. I'm blaming us as so called enlightened human beings for being so bloody stupid as to perpetuate the farce.

Would you also blame the police for storming into a house to prevent a person committing suicide, and suicide is not even a crime now.

If I or anyone else chooses to commit suicide then that's no business of anyone elses - if people are determined enough then they will do it and no amount of coercion or violence will stop them (love and self-care might prevent it).

More red herrings.

I hope you give some serious thought to your position on the initiation of violence.

I'm done with you. Good luck.

mikom

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

So , my friend,if you break the law and as a result some countries feel you are not really the type of dude they want, and do not permit entrance.

They are 'all wrong' and don't know what they are talking about?

It's the law that's wrong of course:rolleyes:

Innocuous act receives criminal record.
Nobody benefits, especially not John Q taxpayer, pal.

tayto lover

mikom wrote: »

I was just following orders.
Where have I heard that before.



Cannabis was not made illegal on medical grounds.
So try again.
Think slavery and servants in the early 1900's





The original banning didn't take into account research.

While it was not banned on medical grounds originally any attempt to legalise it afterwards was decided on medical grounds. Thats why its still illegal. It was actually banned in 1837 so its taking a long time to get legalised.

minidazzler

I consider it more morally objectionable that it's illegal.

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

While it was not banned on medical grounds originally any attempt to legalise it afterwards was decided on medical grounds.

Medical grounds you say.
Dr. David nutt and he mentions morals..... how queer..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCChf2WHNE4

Nutt had accused ministers of "devaluing and distorting" the scientific evidence over illicit drugs by their decision last year to reclassify cannabis from class C to class B against the advice of the ACMD.

Nutt told the BBC today that Brown had "made up his mind" to reclassify cannabis despite evidence to the contrary.

"Gordon Brown comes into office and, soon after that, he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal... it has to be a class B drug. He has made his mind up.

"We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, 'No, no, there is no extra evidence of harm, it's still a class C drug.' He said, 'Tough, it's going to be class B'."

FlutterinBantam

mikom wrote: »

Innocuous act receives criminal record.
Nobody benefits, especially not John Q taxpayer, pal.

Hmmm,....seems you are at odds with very many civilised countries .

These countries seem to think they would benefit anyway .


But hey, they are all wrong, and the laws are flawed, yep , I get the jist of it;)

Good man yourself.

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

2. All illegal drugs were made illegal because they were found (by the medical profession) to be dangerous. Thats why some drugs are legal and others not.
It will take new research by the same medical profession to change the law and make it legal. Nothing to do with me or you at all.

You should read this;

"The only logically and morally consistent argument for marijuana prohibition necessitates the criminalization of all harmful recreational drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine."

- A Doctor's Case For Legal Pot (WSJ)

that we do what we want to do and not what is legal and we try to convince ourselves that we are morally right. Are we just fooling ourselves ?

I'm not eniterly sure of the question or if I can answer it but I'll throw some stuff out there and see what sticks:

We don't bend our morals to the law, nor should we. The law bends itself to our morals, or at least that's how it's supposed to be.

Sometimes we obey the law because we agree with it and sometimes we obey it because the punishment as a result of breaking it is not worth it. Likewise sometimes we break the law out of protest and sometimes we break the law because the risk is worth it and it doesn't conflict with our morals.

I don't think we're fooling ourselves when it comes to morals because when we act in a way our morals can't justify we feel guilt. When we feel guilt we admit what we've done is immoral and that guilt is our punishment (guilt is an emotion, or combination of emotions, that we evolved alongside our innate morals through Evolutionary Altruism but can still be brought on when we act against our intellectual morals).

Essentially, and this might answer your question, we act based on our morals. The only time the law really comes into play is when we disagree with it but fear the repercussions. Which is fine, because that rarely actually happens (as the law tries to conform to our morals). If you think of the hundreds or thousands of laws being enforced there are maybe 50 that are genuinely up for debate amongst the masses. Once those masses come to some form of agreement the law will adapt to that.

haydar

You will actually find that cannabis was made illegal due to peoples interests rather than medical studies.

In fact even one study way back in the 1800s (which was carried out by an Irish doctor who's name doesn't come to mind) was vehemently pro cannabis and its effects. As far as i know this was the biggest study ever carried out on the subject.

In America it was associated with Mexican immigrants and the blacks by the government which also turned public opinion against it.

mikom

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

But hey, they are all wrong, and the laws are flawed, yep , I get the jist of it;)

Good man yourself.

Fair enough buddy.
Continue to stew.

tayto lover

minidazzler wrote: »

I consider it more morally objectionable that it's illegal.

Thats an individual opinion and you are entitled, like everyone else who posted here, to have that opinion. I do not smoke and whether cannabis stays illegal or is made legal it will not matter to me. What does annoy me though is the fact that people are dying because of it, people are unable to get jobs or travel because of convictions and because people are distancing themselves from the criminal end of it (murders, gangland violence) by claiming that they are morally right to use it. It is too simplistic to argue that the law is wrong and to blame the law for the trouble the drug causes. It is not a victimless crime.

DonalK1981

tayto lover wrote: »

Not if its done within the LAW. People who break the laws of the country subject themselves to the above by breaking it. Simple. You are either for or against the LAW. You cannot pick and choose which laws to obey.

There is a Jurisprudence (module on law degree) school of thought which asks is an immoral law valid? The Nazi regime which forced the Jewish population to the concentration camps was a valid law. That had some harsh health outcomes. The cannabis question will be a long time changing, as public opinion isn't strong enough in favour of having it legalized. Tayto Lover, you would have been in support of the Nazi book burnings, and the holocaust as you are in support of the criminalisation of a naturally growing plant, not too far removed from that other legally smoked plant tobacco may I add?

tayto lover

mikom wrote: »

Medical grounds you say.
Dr. David nutt and he mentions morals..... how queer..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCChf2WHNE4

Nutt had accused ministers of "devaluing and distorting" the scientific evidence over illicit drugs by their decision last year to reclassify cannabis from class C to class B against the advice of the ACMD.

Nutt told the BBC today that Brown had "made up his mind" to reclassify cannabis despite evidence to the contrary.

"Gordon Brown comes into office and, soon after that, he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal... it has to be a class B drug. He has made his mind up.

"We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, 'No, no, there is no extra evidence of harm, it's still a class C drug.' He said, 'Tough, it's going to be class B'."

Class C, A or B it is still illegal. Remember those venial sins of years ago as against mortal sins ? You still got penance.

haydar

mikom wrote: »

Fair enough buddy.
Continue to stew.

Don't bother with him

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

Remember those venial sins of years ago as against mortal sins ? You still got penance.

More man made shite designed to lead people around by the nose.

tayto lover

DonalK1981 wrote: »

There is a Jurisprudence (module on law degree) school of thought which asks is an immoral law valid? The Nazi regime which forced the Jewish population to the concentration camps was a valid law. That had some harsh health outcomes. The cannabis question will be a long time changing, as public opinion isn't strong enough in favour of having it legalized. Tayto Lover, you would have been in support of the Nazi book burnings, and the holocaust as you are in support of the criminalisation of a naturally growing plant, not too far removed from that other legally smoked plant tobacco may I add?

You can't say that as decisions are not made in hindsight. I might have been a draft dodger for all you know smoking weed and burning my uniform.

tayto lover

mikom wrote: »

More man made shite designed to lead people around by the nose.

Again if you don't like it or believe it, then belittle it.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I wonder if Flutter really believes the stuff he says about drugs. He sounds like someone out of a 50's anti-marijuana PSA.

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

Again if you don't like it or believe it, then belittle it.

That's the spirit.

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

You should read this;

"The only logically and morally consistent argument for marijuana prohibition necessitates the criminalization of all harmful recreational drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine."

- A Doctor's Case For Legal Pot (WSJ)

I'm not eniterly sure of the question or if I can answer it but I'll throw some stuff out there and see what sticks:

We don't bend our morals to the law, nor should we. The law bends itself to our morals, or at least that's how it's supposed to be.

Sometimes we obey the law because we agree with it and sometimes we obey it because the punishment as a result of breaking it is not worth it. Likewise sometimes we break the law out of protest and sometimes we break the law because the risk is worth it and it doesn't conflict with our morals.

I don't think we're fooling ourselves when it comes to morals because when we act in a way our morals can't justify we feel guilt. When we feel guilt we admit what we've done is immoral and that guilt is our punishment (guilt is an emotion, or combination of emotions, that we evolved alongside our innate morals through Evolutionary Altruism but can still be brought on when we act against our intellectual morals).

Essentially, and this might answer your question, we act based on our morals. The only time the law really comes into play is when we disagree with it but fear the repercussions. Which is fine, because that rarely actually happens (as the law tries to conform to our morals). If you think of the hundreds or thousands of laws being enforced there are maybe 50 that are genuinely up for debate amongst the masses. Once those masses come to some form of agreement the law will adapt to that.

Thats what i've been saying. When the masses manage to get the law changed then i will continue to obey the law. Until then my morals lead me to keep the law and deem weed illegal. I don't see the law conforming to the morals of the masses though as long as the majority see cannabis as harmful or until the argument/debate is won by the other side.