Is it morally wrong to buy weed?

Chuck Stone

tayto lover wrote: »

I once broke a car window in the heat of summer as there was a dog suffocating inside through lack of air.

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes indeed innocent lads like Shane Geoghegan and Anthony Campbell would probably back you up ... if they were not murdered by drug gangs.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Strawman-motivational.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Straw_Man&usg=__u_-T_jq1vOKqMGRPjfmcO8aAT1Y=&h=450&w=360&sz=26&hl=en&start=0&sig2=Goe1O7qQqRtJtPt7YMEKeQ&zoom=1&tbnid=UJtj89gZN9_drM:&tbnh=154&tbnw=110&ei=dWbdTd2OJYmJhQfUz8m3Dw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dstraw%2Bman%2Bfallacy%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26gbv%3D2%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D492%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=500&vpy=103&dur=241&hovh=251&hovw=201&tx=109&ty=142&sqi=2&page=1&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0

tayto lover wrote: »

My morals tell me that smoking weed is wrong, simple as.

smoking weed is wrong, simple as.
smoking weed is wrong, simple as.
smoking weed is wrong, simple as.
smoking weed is wrong, simple as.
smoking weed is wrong, simple as.
smoking weed is wrong, simple as.
smoking weed is wrong, simple as.
smoking weed is wrong, simple as.
smoking weed is wrong, simple as.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://thefreeman.net/journal/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/not-listening.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thefreeman.net/journal/%3Ftag%3Dnot-listening&usg=__SfX9yn3DLGQJN_112Foa14iwkXM=&h=300&w=400&sz=27&hl=en&start=0&sig2=xuUepGyeJvRtG9eJwKfHqA&zoom=1&tbnid=zISmSjXseRonOM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=190&ei=x2jdTeztEpCzhAfAzPmhDw&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNot%2Blistening%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D492%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=329&vpy=128&dur=2009&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=137&ty=119&sqi=2&page=1&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

_______________________________________________

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lolbot.net/pix/4324.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lolbot.net/index.php%3Fcontent%3Dviewer%26id%3D4324&usg=__HbH7wyi7Spg2cl-i7vrld4uLOeY=&h=420&w=420&sz=51&hl=en&start=0&sig2=sxrWZusle5gMF3B7-l9NDg&zoom=1&tbnid=f-OFxWjMYNrzMM:&tbnh=162&tbnw=179&ei=B2ndTY3vCJKFhQfrjtWiDw&prev=/search%3Fq%3D****%2Bthis%2Bthread%2BI%2527m%2Bouta%2Bhere%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D492%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=153&vpy=134&dur=314&hovh=162&hovw=179&tx=103&ty=68&sqi=2&page=1&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Another bollox law.

I know it is for non payment of a fine, but the licence leads to this.

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

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.

Nobody is making you stay on the thread. If i give a ridiculous answer to a ridiculous question then you would not be happy either. What about this question which did occur. There was a shipwreck years ago and only the captain, 14 passengers and three crew managed to get into the lifeboat in the freezing seas. The captain knew that there were too many in the boat, not enough food either and that they would never make it. He ordered that the women and children be thrown overboard in order to perhaps save some lives. Now that was a moral dilemma. The rest survived. When tried later he was acquitted.
I think he made a good decision and was morally right. I bet you or i would not like to have to make that decision.

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

What about this question which did occur.

Good question, I agree with his decision.

I bet you or i would not like to have to make that decision.

Of course we wouldn't but it's important to analyze the question objectively. I wouldn't have made the same decision as him but it was objectively the right decision.

I'm not looking for a ridiculous answer nor is my question ridiculous. I'm asking it to see how you relate your morals to laws.

You appear to base your morals off of laws so for that to be logically consistent you must be willing to kill the child.

If you don't kill the child you are showing your morals are not based solely on laws.

It's an extremely simple question.

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

Good question, I agree with his decision.Of course we wouldn't but it's important to analyze the question objectively. I wouldn't have made the same decision as him but it was objectively the right decision.

I'm not looking for a ridiculous answer nor is my question ridiculous. I'm asking it to see how you relate your morals to laws.

You appear to base your morals off of laws so for that to be logically consistent you must be willing to kill the child.

If you don't kill the child you are showing your morals are not based solely on laws.

It's an extremely simple question.

Of course morals can not be based solely on laws. With regard to drugs i agree with the laws as i have not been convinced that they are wrong. If it was proved conclusively and the laws were changed i would have no problem

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

If it was proved conclusively and the laws were changed i would have no problem

So you want to be told what to do.... Is that it?

Fukuyama

tayto lover wrote: »

Of course morals can not be based solely on laws. With regard to drugs i agree with the laws as i have not been convinced that they are wrong. If it was proved conclusively and the laws were changed i would have no problem

So basically you don;t think for yourself?

If everyone thought like you we'd still be living under the set of laws we had 300 years ago...

tayto lover

mikom wrote: »

So you want to be told what to do.... Is that it?

No. The moral dilemma regarding drugs is with the drug users. If they are happy to use them and not feel wrong then so be it but it is against the law at the same time so i believe it must have some effect on them.

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

With regard to drugs i agree with the laws as i have not been convinced that they are wrong. If it was proved conclusively and the laws were changed i would have no problem

So you want to be told what to think?
Jaysus, the joy division will be around shortly..... hang tight.

tayto lover

mikom wrote: »

So you want to be told what to think?
Jaysus, the joy division will be around shortly..... hang tight.

I know exactly how i think, act and do. Do you ?

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

I know exactly how i think, act and do. Do you ?

Let me check with my nanny.

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

Of course morals can not be based solely on laws. With regard to drugs i agree with the laws

Ok, so you merely agree with the laws, you're not actually basing your morals on them?

That's fine.

Users here have already presented valid arguments, care to give valid counter-arguments?*

*We've already established you have reasons, other than the law, to believe it should be illegal so please leave it's current legal status out of it. We understand you don't agree with it's use because of it's current legal status, we're interested in why you personally feel it should remain illegal.

IRISHREDSTAR

Hash was legal in fact it was the law in the US that settlers were required to grow cannabis word 'canvas' is comes from cannabis, you know all the wagons in cowboy movies, all the covered in canopies made from cannabis they also used cannabis to make ropes etc. but in the 1930’s new technologies meant we could make anything from cannabis that we use oil to make fuel, plastics etc... Big oil and chemical companies had it banned.

Seachmall

IRISHREDSTAR wrote:

Hash was legal in fact it was the law in the US thatsettlers were required to grow cannabis word 'canvas' is comes from cannabis, you know all the wagons in cowboy movies, all the covered in canopies made from cannabis they also used cannabis to make ropes etc. but in the 1930’s new technologies meant we could make anything from cannabis that we use oil to make fuel, plastics etc... Big oil and chemical companies had it banned.
So I think it's o.k. to buy hash and it won't do you any harm

Growing Hemp was mandatory in some states in the early part of the 1900s. Hemp is not hash nor is it cannabis. It is a material that comes from the cannabis plant, it is not a drug.

ArtSmart

most definitely.

way too pricey.

steal it dude

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

Ok, so you merely agree with the laws, you're not actually basing your morals on them?

That's fine.

Users here have already presented valid arguments, care to give valid counter-arguments?*

*We've already established you have reasons, other than the law, to believe it should be illegal so please leave it's current legal status out of it. We understand you don't agree with it's use because of it's current legal status, we're interested in why you personally feel it should remain illegal.

It will remain illegal until there is a change of law, vote, referendum, and medical evidence to support its legalisation. Dr Geraldine Lyster, Clinical Psychologist, St. Brigid's Psychiatric Hospital, Ardee, Co. Louth, now retired during a lecture to the Mental Health Association in 2000 (AFAIK) described cannabis use as being the main cause of many suicides of young men and women in her area. She was very convincing. Until i hear a counter-argument that convinces me otherwise i will probably continue to believe it.

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

Dr Geraldine Lyster, Clinical Psychologist, St. Brigid's Psychiatric Hospital, Ardee, Co. Louth, now retired during a lecture to the Mental Health Association in 2000 (AFAIK) described cannabis use as being the main cause of many suicides of young men and women in her area. She was very convincing. Until i hear a counter-argument that convinces me otherwise i will probably continue to believe it.

British Journal of Psychology.

Jump down to the "Cannabis and suicide: longitudinal study" in paper sections. The abstract reads

Although there was a strong association between cannabis use and suicide, this was explained by markers of psychological and behavioural problems. These results suggest that cannabis use is unlikely to have a strong effect on risk of completed suicide, either directly or as a consequence of mental health problems secondary to its use.

This study took a sample of over 50,000 people and was the first longitudinal study performed on the subject.

Dr. Lyster didn't perform a scientific study nor do I imagine she has anywhere near 50,000 people "in her area".

IRISHREDSTAR

Cannabis is good for you
Scientists working in the UK have revealed that cannabis has the potential to destroy leukaemia cancer cells
Scientists in Madrid have found cannabis to complete destroy cancer brain tumours
They have also found it works on breast cancer
and all without the nasty side effects of chemo

tayto lover

IRISHREDSTAR wrote: »

Cannabis is good for you
Scientists working in the UK have revealed that cannabis has the potential to destroy leukaemia cancer cells
Scientists in Madrid have found cannabis to complete destroy cancer brain tumours
They have also found it works on breast cancer
and all without the nasty side effects of chemo

What about the T.H.C's and your lungs ?
What about if you have a mild depression ?

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

British Journal of Psychology.

Jump down to the "Cannabis and suicide: longitudinal study" in paper sections. The abstract reads


This study took a sample of over 50,000 people and was the first longitudinal study performed on the subject.

Dr. Lyster didn't perform a scientific study nor do I imagine she has anywhere near 50,000 people "in her area".

Maybe not but she had many young patients and knew their history personally.

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe not but she had many young patients and knew their history personally.

Doesn't matter, if she didn't do a report or publish a study it's not in the scientific domain. It's food-for-thought but not proven (as of yet anyway).

The linked report is a reliable source. I'm sure, as a scientist, Dr. Lyster would acknowledge that she had presented a hypothesis and that this report presents evidence to disprove that hypothesis.

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

Doesn't matter, if she didn't do a report or publish a study it's not in the scientific domain. It's food-for-thought but not proven (as of yet anyway).

The linked report is a reliable source. I'm sure, as a scientist, Dr. Lyster would acknowledge that she had presented a hypothesis and that this report presents evidence to disprove that hypothesis.

It is not disproved by this study either as i read it. It says it need more work.

tayto lover

Seachmall wrote: »

Doesn't matter, if she didn't do a report or publish a study it's not in the scientific domain. It's food-for-thought but not proven (as of yet anyway).

The linked report is a reliable source. I'm sure, as a scientist, Dr. Lyster would acknowledge that she had presented a hypothesis and that this report presents evidence to disprove that hypothesis.

Her is another link to a 21 year study
http://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago014808.pdf

Seachmall

tayto lover wrote: »

It is not disproved by this study either as i read it. It says it need more work.

Absolutely it needs more work, all science needs more work. Science is never absolutely conclusive. However it is a more reliable source than Dr. Lyster.

This is a scientific study, Dr. Lyster's evidence is purely anecdotal (she has performed no study nor were her opinions analyzed using the scientific method).

Anecdotal evidence, as defined by Wikipedia:

The expression anecdotal evidence refers both to evidence that is factually unreliable, as well as evidence that may be true but cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases.

You can claim that the report is wrong but it is far more reasonable to claim that Dr. Lyster is mistaken in her assumptions with regards to the link of cannabis and suicide.

IRISHREDSTAR

tayto lover wrote: »

What about the T.H.C's and your lungs ?
What about if you have a mild depression ?

yes your right cannabis is good for depression especially when compared to dangerous antidepressants.It can also be usefull in treating Schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder . But the multi billion tablet company's dont what people to know this.
if taken as vapour cannabis has no Irritates

Thc,s in hash stop people Glaucoma(12.5% of blindness) from going blind or of course they can go to the doctor and get tablets made from horse urine and go blind with a nasy taste.cannabis is also good for Alzheimer’s, MS
Cannabis is good for you

zenno

the dublin radio station fm 104 will be talking about this cannabis subject right now if anyones interested.

tayto lover

zenno wrote: »

the dublin radio station fm 104 will be talking about this cannabis subject right now if anyones interested.

Can't get that station where i am unfortunately. Thanks though.

tayto lover

IRISHREDSTAR wrote: »

yes your right cannabis is good for depression especially when compared to dangerous antidepressants.It can also be usefull in treating Schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder . But the multi billion tablet company's dont what people to know this.
if taken as vapour cannabis has no Irritates

Thc,s in hash stop people Glaucoma(12.5% of blindness) from going blind or of course they can go to the doctor and get tablets made from horse urine and go blind with a nasy taste.cannabis is also good for Alzheimer’s, MS
Cannabis is good for you

Could you post links that prove this please.

zenno

tayto lover wrote: »

Can't get that station where i am unfortunately. Thanks though.

you should be able to listen to it here online it works ok. http://www.fm104.ie/boxtube/

tayto lover

What about this report from New Zealand Seachmall
Her is another link to a 21 year study
http://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago014808.pdf