Is it morally wrong to buy weed?

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

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.

So your morals mean you follow the law no matter what.
Do you have limits to your strict law adherence?

tayto lover

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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.



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.

Goodbye Chuck. Sorry to see you leave but you were putting the blame for violence on the wrong people. I once broke a car window in the heat of summer as there was a dog suffocating inside through lack of air. Nothing happened to me for doing so.

tayto lover

mikom wrote: »

So your morals mean you follow the law no matter what.
Do you have limits to your strict law adherence?

Laws rarely mean anything until you break them.

jill_valentine

tayto lover wrote: »

Goodbye Chuck. Sorry to see you leave but you were putting the blame for violence on the wrong people. I once broke a car window in the heat of summer as there was a dog suffocating inside through lack of air. Nothing happened to me for doing so.

Are you honestly telling me you don't see any conflict between this post and the position you were arguing earlier about the rigidity of the law? None at all?

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

Laws rarely mean anything until you break them.

Is there a law on sidesteps?

haydar

tayto lover wrote: »

Laws rarely mean anything until you get caught breaking them.

FYP:D

tayto lover

jill_valentine wrote: »

Are you honestly telling me you don't see any conflict between this post and the position you were arguing earlier about the rigidity of the law? None at all?

The car owner and the garda told me to go on about my business and that i had probably saved the dog's life. The owner thanked me and the garda said that was the end of the matter. I felt morally obliged to break that window.
A garda who breaks down a door in pursuit of a drug dealer is probably covered by the law too under the drugs act.
The greater good is served.

Chuck Stone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S8OsJOP4Bw

tayto lover

Chuck Stone wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S8OsJOP4Bw

Is that you ?

Chuck Stone

tayto lover wrote: »

Is that you ?

Нет, Вы идиот.







.

SwarfegaHead

Who'd have thought it, the pro-legalisation people are the only ones actually putting up some coherent arguements. The people who disagree with it are going to hold their views no matter how many logical points are made to the contrary, they'll continue to sit there with their fingers in their ears shaking their head furiously.

Obeying laws for laws sake isn't how democratic societies progress, and anyone who thinks in that fashion is either ignorant or just here looking for an arguement. If the majority of people went about life like this the Civil Rights movement in the US never would have happened, homosexuality would still be illegal, and the Irish language would be long dead. Hell, maybe Nelson Mandella should still be in prison too, eh?

It's morally dubious to keep weed illegal, (but hey, it's bad for you, and might encourage the odd free thinker to think for themselves), I don't think anyone should worry too much about purchasing it provided it comes from the right sources.

tayto lover

SwarfegaHead wrote: »

Who'd have thought it, the pro-legalisation people are the only ones actually putting up some coherent arguements. The people who disagree with it are going to hold their views no matter how many logical points are made to the contrary, they'll continue to sit there with their fingers in their ears shaking their head furiously.

Obeying laws for laws sake isn't how democratic societies progress, and anyone who thinks in that fashion is either ignorant or just here looking for an arguement. If the majority of people went about life like this the Civil Rights movement in the US never would have happened, homosexuality would still be illegal, and the Irish language would be long dead. Hell, maybe Nelson Mandella should still be in prison too, eh?

It's morally dubious to keep weed illegal, (but hey, it's bad for you, and might encourage the odd free thinker to think for themselves), I don't think anyone should worry too much about purchasing it provided it comes from the right sources.

Yes indeed innocent lads like Shane Geoghegan and Anthony Campbell would probably back you up ... if they were not murdered by drug gangs. BUT i bet many will say they would be alive if it was legal. Its not and they are not.

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

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.

Basing you morals on the law is a bad idea. That's what my example earlier was trying to convey, if the law said to kill a child would you? If you wouldn't then you understand that the legal system is not something to base your morals off.

If you base your morals off the law and the law is based on your morals how will you evolve (in a moral sense)?

If the law is based on other's morals and your morals are based on the law are you not just a sheep?

You need to be able to support your morals with rational and objective arguments, not with a flawed legal system.

haydar

Seachmall wrote: »

Basing you morals on the law is a bad idea. That's what my example earlier was trying to convey, if the law said to kill a child would you? If you wouldn't then you understand that the legal system is not something to base your morals off.

If you base your morals off the law and the law is based on your morals how will you evolve (in a moral sense)?

If the law is based on other's morals and your morals are based on the law are you not just a sheep?

You need to be able to support your morals with rational and objective arguments, not with a flawed legal system.

Im not going to lie, that is hard to read!

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

Basing you morals on the law is a bad idea. That's what my example earlier was trying to get you to understand, if the law said to kill a child would you? If you wouldn't then you understand that the legal system is not something to base your morals off.

If you base your morals off the law and the law is based on your morals how will you evolve (in a moral sense)?

If the law is based on other's morals and your morals are based on the law are you not just a sheep?

You need to be able to support your morals with rational and objective arguments, not with a flawed legal system.

Why on earth would the law tell me to kill a child ? What a question. It usually takes a referendum to change or abolish a law, can you even imagine one being held for that as i can't. Is that a rational enough answer for you ?

SwarfegaHead

Criminals are criminals, and they always will be, if they don't have weed to profit from and kill for then they'll just find something else. Weed isn't the problem in those situations, people are. Organized crime has been in existence as long as laws themselves have. I don't think it's necessary for any of us to feel morally responsible for the actions of others, and if you do you've got more serious problems than a bit of dope to worry about.

You've attempted to make your point repeatedly, rightly so in fairness, we're all entitled to our opinions, but using these same non-arguements over and over again isn't really getting you anywhere.

tayto lover

SwarfegaHead wrote: »

Criminals are criminals, and they always will be, if they don't have weed to profit from and kill for then they'll just find something else. Weed isn't the problem in those situations, people are. Organized crime has been in existence as long as laws themselves have. I don't think it's necessary for any of us to feel morally responsible for the actions of others, and if you do you've got more serious problems than a bit of dope to worry about.

You've attempted to make your point repeatedly, rightly so in fairness, we're all entitled to our opinions, but using these same non-arguements over and over again isn't really getting you anywhere.

Why is the onus on me to make any argument ? The law is there and i obey it, i don't smoke at all. My morals tell me that smoking weed is wrong, simple as. If you can smoke it without thinking to yourself that its wrong or that you have to hide or do it in secret then fair play to you.

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

Why on earth would the law tell me to kill a child ?

It's food for thought and does happen in some countries.

Is that a rational enough answer for you ?

No because it's not an answer.

If you wouldn't kill the child you agree you can't base your personal morals on laws. Yet you still claimed you'll change your moral stance of weed if the law changes. You're not defining your own morals, you're living by other peoples'.

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

It's food for thought and does happen in some countries.No because it's not an answer.

If you wouldn't kill the child you agree you can't base your personal morals on laws. Yet you still claimed you'll change your moral stance of weed if the law changes. You're not defining your own morals, you're living by other peoples'.

Because the question could never arise imo. The Holy Innocents was a Bible story and that has already been run down here.

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

The law is there and i obey it, i don't smoke at all. My morals tell me that smoking weed is wrong, simple as.

Your morals tell you disobeying the law is wrong, not that smoking weed is wrong.
Different thing.

The boys in charge would love an island full of folks like yourself, then they could get away with whatever they liked........ Oh wait, that just happened.

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

Because the question could never arise imo.

It's a hypothetical question, nor is it difficult to answer.

How about this, if the law stated you had to identify any gay people to the authorities who would then execute the person would you do it?

This was a law that was nearly enforced in Uganda but was fortunately rejected after international intervention.

tayto lover

mikom wrote: »

Your morals tell you disobeying the law is wrong, not that smoking weed is wrong.
Different thing.

The boys in charge would love an island full of folks like yourself, then they could get away with whatever they liked........ Oh wait, that just happened.

Are you not living here too ?
I think you are all prepared to shoot me for my beliefs but not prepared to even challenge you're own.
Mine might be wrong but they are mine and i have nothing annoying me regarding them, can you all say that ? if you haven't then fair play. We can all agree to differ.

SwarfegaHead

The onus is on you because thats how intelligent debate works, simply saying "it's illegal, it is wrong, I am write lalalalala" is just avoiding the core of the subject.

You keep saying you wouldnt have a problem if it wasn't against the law but the attitude you're taking is the exact reason the laws on things like this don't change. If people ignore it it's never going to change. This is all pretty off topic anyway, seing as the question is on the moral side of things. In that sense it's a personal matter, but logic dictates that it shouldn't be much of problem. Weed has a few, mostly negligable, dangers, and they're far outweiged by the benefits. The organised crime aspect has been adressed more than once, and it's been shown that most if not all people contribute indirectly to far more reprihensible activities without putting a seconds thought to it. If you want to spend your life worrying about the possible negative repercussions of every single thing you purchase then help yourself, I'd rather enjoy my life.

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

It's a hypothetical question, nor is it difficult to answer.

How about this, if the law stated you had to identify any gay people to the authorities who would then execute the person would you do it?

This was a law that was nearly enforced in Uganda but was fortunately rejected after international intervention.

It is good that it was rejected and that was probably never in doubt, so the question is irrelevant.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Why is the onus on me to make any argument ? The law is there and i obey it, i don't smoke at all. My morals tell me that smoking weed is wrong, simple as. If you can smoke it without thinking to yourself that its wrong or that you have to hide or do it in secret then fair play to you.

:pac:

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

Mine might be wrong but they are mine and i have nothing annoying me regarding them, can you all say that ?

The law can be annoying when you get banged up for an innocuous act.

tayto lover

SwarfegaHead wrote: »

The onus is on you because thats how intelligent debate works, simply saying "it's illegal, it is wrong, I am write lalalalala" is just avoiding the core of the subject.

You keep saying you wouldnt have a problem if it wasn't against the law but the attitude you're taking is the exact reason the laws on things like this don't change. If people ignore it it's never going to change. This is all pretty off topic anyway, seing as the question is on the moral side of things. In that sense it's a personal matter, but logic dictates that it shouldn't be much of problem. Weed has a few, mostly negligable, dangers, and they're far outweiged by the benefits. The organised crime aspect has been adressed more than once, and it's been shown that most if not all people contribute indirectly to far more reprihensible activities without putting a seconds thought to it. If you want to spend your life worrying about the possible negative repercussions of every single thing you purchase then help yourself, I'd rather enjoy my life.

I never said i was right in any of this. i gave my views and supported upholding the law as it stands. I said i would not have a problem if the law changed and cannabis was legal. i am not convinced, however, that the plant has more good properties than bad. I am enjoying my life and have a clear conscience.

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

so the question is irrelevant.

The question is not irrelevant. Hypotheticals are a core part of intelligent discussion, if you are refusing to answer simply because you don't think it could happen you are not open to an intelligent discussion.

Either answer the question or stop wasting our time.

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

I am enjoying my life and have a clear conscience.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

tayto lover

mikom wrote: »

The law can be annoying when you get banged up for an innocuous act.

I agree that that could be annoying but getting banged up for not having a t.v. licence is also annoying.