Is it morally wrong to buy weed?

tayto lover

Dean0088 wrote: »

I'm sorry but law needs to be consistent. Can I assume you support the making illegal of alcohol, tobacco, cough syrup and bananas?

Is there a law against any of the other things you mention, bananas, cough syrup, alcohol etc. Are people being murdered for selling bananas in Dublin, Limerick etc.? I doubt it.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

It depends on the circumstances regarding the dealer. Many dealers are independent cultivators, or know the grower, and they are productive and passive members of society, in which case it is not immoral. It is a common opinion among users of Cannabis (and other drugs) that funding black market gangs who may be engaged in unsavoury criminal (e.g. violence, extortion, exploitation) is immoral. There is a very obvious difference here.

I do not think it is any less moral to smoke Cannabis in front of children than it is to smoke tobacco or have a few drinks. If I had kids and I smoked weed (I do not), I would not expose them to it until they were old enough to understand; the very same would apply to alcohol and/or tobacco.

The function of the law is very simple: to protect things (be it humans, animals or the environment) from other humans. It is not justifiable to attempt to protect people from themselves.

So people should be allowed to commit suicide then and my point about the police breaking into a house to prevent a man killing himself is irrelevant ?

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

So people should be allowed to commit suicide then and my point about the police breaking into a house to prevent a man killing himself is irrelevant ?

Yes. A person's life is their own. They have made the choice to take their own life. In contrast, murder is not a choice; it is someone else imposing their will upon you.

In any case, suicide and weed are two completely incomparable 'crimes'.

Fukuyama

Deleted User wrote: »

I do not think it is any less moral to smoke Cannabis in front of children than it is to smoke tobacco or have a few drinks. If I had kids and I smoked weed (I do not), I would not expose them to it until they were old enough to understand; the very same would apply to alcohol and/or tobacco.

+1 on this. I've heard many 'good parents' say they never smoke in-front of little Timmy and think anyone who does drugs around their children is setting a bad example. And I agree with them. Until a child is 16 or 17 they shouldn't be exposed to controlled substances.

But then these idiots crack open a can or pop a bottle of wine.

Alcohol ****ed up a lot in my family and I seen an heard an awful lot when I was very young. I'd put my own parents into the bracket I described above. Somehow, I think high people are a lot better than drunk people to deal with. Although, cannabis still shouldn't be smoked around children. And when smoked around teenagers it should be in a responsible manner. But the law should not control that - that's up to parents at the end of the day.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. A person's life is their own. They have made the choice to take their own life. In contrast, murder is not a choice; it is someone else imposing their will upon you.

In any case, suicide and weed are two completely incomparable 'crimes'.

So nobody should intervene in a suicide attempt then ?
Also what about many hospitals in the U.S. refusing to treat people or prioritize them for smoking /alcohol/drug related illnesses because they are self-inflicted ?

Fukuyama

tayto lover wrote: »

Is there a law against any of the other things you mention, bananas, cough syrup, alcohol etc. Are people being murdered for selling bananas in Dublin, Limerick etc.? I doubt it.

It's as though you have a black bag over your head and can't see through an issue.

There are no laws against creating drugs from the above - a very easy thing to do if you google for some guides. Is it immoral to do so?

People are being murdered because of prohibition of drugs. Tell me I'm wrong.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

So nobody should intervene in a suicide attempt then ?

Of course people can intervene, such as family and friends. Surely you must be able to see the difference between this and effectively legislating that your life belongs to the state, not to yourself.

What is the point in making suicide illegal, really? If someone wants to die, they will make it happen.

tayto lover wrote:

Also what about many hospitals in the U.S. refusing to treat people or prioritize them for smoking /alcohol/drug related illnesses because they are self-inflicted ?

I don't know whether this is right or not. Morality comes in shades of grey, not black and white.

tayto lover

Dean0088 wrote: »

+1 on this. I've heard many 'good parents' say they never smoke in-front of little Timmy and think anyone who does drugs around their children is setting a bad example. And I agree with them. Until a child is 16 or 17 they shouldn't be exposed to controlled substances.

But then these idiots crack open a can or pop a bottle of wine.

Alcohol ****ed up a lot in my family and I seen an heard an awful lot when I was very young. I'd put my own parents into the bracket I described above. Somehow, I think high people are a lot better than drunk people to deal with. Although, cannabis still shouldn't be smoked around children. And when smoked around teenagers it should be in a responsible manner. But the law should not control that - that's up to parents at the end of the day.

ok i respect your points but how do you smoke cannabis in a responsible manner if its against the law surely you are giving them the morally wrong message that its ok to break the law.

Hookah

tayto lover wrote: »

Is there a law against any of the other things you mention, bananas, cough syrup, alcohol etc. Are people being murdered for selling bananas in Dublin, Limerick etc.? I doubt it.

You missed the great Banana war between Fyffes and Chiquita, about a decade ago?

I forget how many died in South America.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course people can intervene, such as family and friends. Surely you must be able to see the difference between this and effectively legislating that your life belongs to the state, not to yourself.

What is the point in making suicide illegal, really? If someone wants to die, they will make it happen.



I don't know whether this is right or not. Morality comes in shades of grey, not black and white.

Suicide is NOT illegal anymore but is it morally right to stand by and allow someone to take their life ? Many people who commit suicide do so to avoid a certain bad period in their life, they would not take their life if that bad period could be by-passed.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

ok i respect your points but how do you smoke cannabis in a responsible manner if its against the law surely you are giving them the morally wrong message that its ok to break the law.

That is not morally wrong. A responsible parent would teach their children to think critically and sceptically, not to blindly follow the rules imposed upon them. Laws need to be completely justifiable. In this case, prohibiting assault, rape and murder cannot be protested - even the majority of intelligent anarchists would probably agree that forcing people not to commit these acts is of benefit to both society and individuals. On the other hand, prohibiting someone from ingesting a certain molecule is ludicrous.

tayto lover wrote:

Suicide is NOT illegal anymore but is it morally right to stand by and allow someone to take their life ?

I thought your basis for morality was largely the law. If it's not illegal, then it's not immoral, or have I misunderstood?

In my opinion, it depends on the circumstances. All moral decisions must be weighed accordingly based on the situation. I don't think it's right for the state to dictate to people what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

tayto lover wrote:

Many people who commit suicide do so to avoid a certain bad period in their life, they would not take their life if that bad period could be by-passed.

That's irrelevant. If someone wants to die (regardless of the reasons), then let them. Who are you to say they have no such right? It isn't your body.

Fukuyama

tayto lover wrote: »

ok i respect your points but how do you smoke cannabis in a responsible manner if its against the law surely you are giving them the morally wrong message that its ok to break the law.

It is okay to break the law. Martin Luther King said it's the responsibility of every citizen to obey just laws. Conversely, it's the responsibility of every citizen to disobey unjust laws. It's called civil disobedience.

What if Irish people had accepted that they were not allowed to play hurling? Or if the Polish jews hadn't risen up in Warsaw just because there was a law saying they weren't allowed.

I know I'm referencing bigger, more important issue. But you can see my point.

I think if you disagree with a law. And cannot get a firm political movement going (such as the pro-choice movement, gay marriage etc...) Then simply flout the law. It's a victim-less crime. If someone wants to tell me that by smoking a home-grown plant I'm harming someone then they'll have a tough time convincing me.

I can see your points. But I'll ask you this: If you could stop the world from taking one drug by way of magically banishing it to the depths of outer space - either cannabis or alchohol, what'd it be?

Fukuyama

tayto lover wrote: »

Also what about many hospitals in the U.S. refusing to treat people or prioritize them for smoking /alcohol/drug related illnesses because they are self-inflicted ?

Just on a side note, my own take is this:

Refusing, no. Everyone deserves healthcare.

Prioritizing, hell yes. If someone smokes themselves into a hospital bed, fully aware of the dangers (this ain't 1920 anymore) then someone who has another form of cancer (testicular etc..) deserves to be treated first.

Imagine this. You get stabbed and go to the hospital. I stab myself and go to the hospital at the same time. Why should I be treated first?

ro_chez

tayto lover wrote: »

Is there a law against any of the other things you mention, bananas, cough syrup, alcohol etc. Are people being murdered for selling bananas in Dublin, Limerick etc.? I doubt it.

Ah but if banana's were made illegal tomorrow, then the criminals would be selling banana's to the people who need their banana's!

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

Imagine this. You get stabbed and go to the hospital. I stab myself and go to the hospital at the same time. Why should I be treated first?

This is quite an interesting point. This is attempted suicide and by tayto lover's logic, it is morally right to intervene in order to save you, since your injury is immediately life-threatening.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

That is not morally wrong. A responsible parent would teach their children to think critically and sceptically, not to blindly follow the rules imposed upon them. Laws need to be completely justifiable. In this case, prohibiting assault, rape and murder cannot be protested - even the majority of intelligent anarchists would probably agree that forcing people not to commit these acts is of benefit to both society and individuals. On the other hand, prohibiting someone from ingesting a certain molecule is ludicrous.



I thought your basis for morality was largely the law. If it's not illegal, then it's not immoral, or have I misunderstood?

In my opinion, it depends on the circumstances. All moral decisions must be weighed accordingly based on the situation. I don't think it's right for the state to dictate to people what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.



That's irrelevant. If someone wants to die (regardless of the reasons), then let them. Who are you to say they have no such right? It isn't your body.

Is there no moral issue regarding suicide ? Of course its right that people should intervene and try and talk someone out of it for the sake of their children or family and to assist the person through their bad patch. Would you not teach your children to help their fellow man and to think critically and sceptically about the issue of suicide they way you would about cannabis ?

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

This is quite an interesting point. This is attempted suicide and by tayto lover's logic, it is morally right to intervene in order to save you, since your injury is immediately life-threatening.

I never said that one out-weighs the other, i gave an example of U.S. hospitals and their treatment of drugs/alcohol/smoking illnesses as being self-inflicted. I do not agree with that.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Is there no moral issue regarding suicide ?

I just said there was. Please re-read my posts. Families and friends have every right to try and intervene when someone is suicidal. The state does (or should) not have this right.

tayto lover wrote:

Of course its right that people should intervene and try and talk someone out of it for the sake of their children or family and to assist the person through their bad patch.

Again, I just said that. :pac:

tayto lover wrote:

Would you not teach your children to help their fellow man and to think critically and sceptically about the issue of suicide they way you would about cannabis ?

Yes. I'm not even sure what you have a problem with.

Let me make it simpler with emoticons:

Family and friends intervening in suicide =
The state legislating to make suicide illegal = :mad:

We've gone off-topic.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

I just said there was. Please re-read my posts. Families and friends have every right to try and intervene when someone is suicidal. The state does (or should) not have this right.



Again, I just said that. :pac:



Yes. I'm not even sure what you have a problem with.

Let me make it simpler with emoticons:

Family and friends intervening in suicide =
The state legislating to make suicide illegal = :mad:

We've gone off-topic.

But the state is again NOT legislating to make suicide illegal.

Hookah

tayto lover wrote: »

But the state is again NOT legislating to make suicide illegal.

But it used to.

A bad law that was done away with.

tayto lover

ro_chez wrote: »

Ah but if banana's were made illegal tomorrow, then the criminals would be selling banana's to the people who need their banana's!

Replace the word banana with cannabis and we are back to reality.

tayto lover

Hookah wrote: »

But it used to.

A bad law that was done away with.

Exactly and i have said previously, many times, that if this present law was changed to legalise cannabis i would support it. But its not and unlikely to be.

tayto lover

RVP 11 wrote: »

A big number here do not believe in the Big Guy at all.

Hookah

tayto lover wrote: »

Exactly and i have said previously, many times, that if this present law was changed to legalise cannabis i would support it. But its not and unlikely to be.

OK. But what does it's illegality have to do with morality?

Fukuyama

Tayto lover could you address my question? last post on the previous page.

Also, this thread has derailed..

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

But the state is again NOT legislating to make suicide illegal.

Your original moral hypothetical was about the police breaking down someone's door to stop a suicide. The only case in which they could do that is if legalisation mandated it.

Augmerson

Homegrown hurts nobody OP.

tayto lover

Hookah wrote: »

OK. But what does it's illegality have to do with morality?

It is impossible to seperate them imo
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2009/09/does-morality-trump-legality.html
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0081/pdfs/lawmoralityedited.pdf

tayto lover

Augmerson wrote: »

Homegrown hurts nobody OP.

Is that before or after the police raid ?
It could hurt you.