Is it morally wrong to buy weed?

:rolleyes::pac::rolleyes::pac::rolleyes::pac::rolleyes::pac::rolleyes::pac::rolleyes:

LisaLowlife

I didn't read all of the posts on this discussion but it seemed to go waaaay off track for a while.... :pac:

To the original question, no it's not morally wrong to buy dope. I buy from a guy who grows his own and wouldn't be involved in the dealings of stronger drugs.

If the government won't legalise it, then we are left no choice but to buy on the street.

Though, tbh I wouldn't want to see what the taxes would be on it if it did get legalised.........

Hookah

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Those links are supposed to back up your argument?

Did you actually read them?

tayto lover

LisaLowlife wrote: »

I didn't read all of the posts on this discussion but it seemed to go waaaay off track for a while.... :pac:

To the original question, no it's not morally wrong to buy dope. I buy from a guy who grows his own and wouldn't be involved in the dealings of stronger drugs.

If the government won't legalise it, then we are left no choice but to buy on the street.

Though, tbh I wouldn't want to see what the taxes would be on it if it did get legalised.........

nd we have been at this point before too. You may need to read the whole thing, sorry.

ScumLord

Dean0088 wrote: »

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.

How do you know he hadn't been sticking his balls in the microwave? Is it impossible to contribute to testicular cancer through lifestyle?

If anything someone using cancer should go to the head of the cue because they've been taking anti carcinogenic medication through their cannabis use.



Morals and laws don't really mix is what this thread shows me. People get to restrict others quality of life and then use the law as an impossible hurdle that the opposition must overcome to continue living their life to the desired potential.

Just saying "It's the law" from the other side of the fence is like giving those that have the restrictions imposed on them the finger as far as I'm concerned. "The law" is a few lines of text written in a book by someone who's more than likely dead. Our laws are archaic, backwards, and nothing but self serving in a lot of ways, they only serve the pockets of the law profession which makes them null and void as they're just not in the best interests of, or serving the people.

I agree with laws and the intent of them as long as the intent is to help us all get along and not be a tool of punishment and vengeance. I think we're all being taken for a ride by the law and it's stupid to stand by and support it when it kicks you in the face and robs you at every opportunity.

If the law made logical sense to me I'd have no problem with it but when it flies in the face of reason and logic I will give it no time. Life's to short to spend it waiting for lines of text in a 50 or more years old book to change.

tayto lover

Hookah wrote: »

Those links are supposed to back up your argument?

Did you actually read them?

Yes. They take both sides of the argument. My point is that there is no way to get around the issue without having a national referendum as there are hundreds of links to both sides just like the pros and cons of cannabis. BUT law and morality is linked whether we like it or not.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

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

That's because it's a Big Girl.

Hookah

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes. They take both sides of the argument. My point is that there is no way to get around the issue without having a national referendum as there are hundreds of links to both sides just like the pros and cons of cannabis. BUT law and morality is linked whether we like it or not.

And to get back to the morality of buying weed for a second, it's only the law that creates the conditions for the immorality surrounding the business.

Ergo, the law is stupid.

tayto lover

ScumLord wrote: »

How do you know he hadn't been sticking his balls in the microwave? Is it impossible to contribute to testicular cancer through lifestyle?

If anything someone using cancer should go to the head of the cue because they've been taking anti carcinogenic medication through their cannabis use.



Morals and laws don't really mix is what this thread shows me. People get to restrict others quality of life and then use the law as an impossible hurdle that the opposition must overcome to continue living their life to the desired potential.

Just saying "It's the law" from the other side of the fence is like giving those that have the restrictions imposed on them the finger as far as I'm concerned. "The law" is a few lines of text written in a book by someone who's more than likely dead. Our laws are archaic, backwards, and nothing but self serving in a lot of ways, they only serve the pockets of the law profession which makes them null and void as they're just not in the best interests of, or serving the people.

I agree with laws and the intent of them as long as the intent is to help us all get along and not be a tool of punishment and vengeance. I think we're all being taken for a ride by the law and it's stupid to stand by and support it when it kicks you in the face and robs you at every opportunity.

If the law made logical sense to me I'd have no problem with it but when it flies in the face of reason and logic I will give it no time. Life's to short to spend it waiting for lines of text in a 50 or more years old book to change.

Fair points from your own views. So going by that a professional racing driver should be allowed to drive faster than anyone else on the road because he knows what he's doing. He feels that the law is punishing him by making him drive slowly. We cannot pick and choose which laws to keep and which to break.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

How do you know he hadn't been sticking his balls in the microwave? Is it impossible to contribute to testicular cancer through lifestyle?

If anything someone using cancer should go to the head of the cue because they've been taking anti carcinogenic medication through their cannabis use.



Morals and laws don't really mix is what this thread shows me. People get to restrict others quality of life and then use the law as an impossible hurdle that the opposition must overcome to continue living their life to the desired potential.

Just saying "It's the law" from the other side of the fence is like giving those that have the restrictions imposed on them the finger as far as I'm concerned. "The law" is a few lines of text written in a book by someone who's more than likely dead. Our laws are archaic, backwards, and nothing but self serving in a lot of ways, they only serve the pockets of the law profession which makes them null and void as they're just not in the best interests of, or serving the people.

I agree with laws and the intent of them as long as the intent is to help us all get along and not be a tool of punishment and vengeance. I think we're all being taken for a ride by the law and it's stupid to stand by and support it when it kicks you in the face and robs you at every opportunity.

If the law made logical sense to me I'd have no problem with it but when it flies in the face of reason and logic I will give it no time. Life's to short to spend it waiting for lines of text in a 50 or more years old book to change.

Some people just like controlling everyone else's lives, I reckon.

tayto lover

Hookah wrote: »

And to get back to the morality of buying weed for a second, it's only the law that creates the conditions for the immorality surrounding the business.

Ergo, the law is stupid.

Again a personal opinion but one that is maybe in the minority.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Fair points from your own views. So going by that a professional racing driver should be allowed to drive faster than anyone else on the road because he knows what he's doing. He feels that the law is punishing him by making him drive slowly. We cannot pick and choose which laws to keep and which to break.

Your moral absolutism is making it difficult for you to see the absurdity in comparing joyriding with smoking weed.

LisaLowlife

tayto lover wrote: »

nd we have been at this point before too. You may need to read the whole thing, sorry.

We're all entitled to our own say. I only didn't read it all as it went off track and I wanted to discuss the purchasing of dope, not suicide or moral issues. :P

Hookah

tayto lover wrote: »

Again a personal opinion but one that is maybe in the minority.

Not of the current generation, however.

Time will see repeal of the law. The current economic situation will likely accelerate that repeal.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Some people just like controlling everyone else's lives, I reckon.

Look its not about control as such and personally i don't want to control anyone.
People on both sides of the argument are suffering, another young man lost his life last night i believe through gang troubles. Everyday people are getting convictions for possession of cannabis which i don't like to see either.
The debate needs to be taken to the people through a referendum.

tayto lover

Hookah wrote: »

Not of the current generation, however.

Time will see repeal of the law. The current economic situation will likely accelerate that repeal.

Hope you are right.

ScumLord

tayto lover wrote: »

Fair points from your own views. So going by that a professional racing driver should be allowed to drive faster than anyone else on the road because he knows what he's doing. He feels that the law is punishing him by making him drive slowly. We cannot pick and choose which laws to keep and which to break.

The racing driver could go fast on a public road if it was set up like a racing track with proper run off areas and all the traffic going in the same direction, it's called the Nurburgring. Otherwise he'll have to drive with the possibility he's going to come across a poor driver at some stage.

We can pick and choose the law isn't like the laws of physics they only apply if another person is there and can overpower you so they can apply their laws to you.

I still don't see what's so great about linking morals and laws either, morals are constructs that change depending on a persons mood, terrible things to be basing laws on.

tayto lover

LisaLowlife wrote: »

I didn't read all of the posts on this discussion but it seemed to go waaaay off track for a while.... :pac:

To the original question, no it's not morally wrong to buy dope. I buy from a guy who grows his own and wouldn't be involved in the dealings of stronger drugs.

If the government won't legalise it, then we are left no choice but to buy on the street.

Though, tbh I wouldn't want to see what the taxes would be on it if it did get legalised.........

If its legalised and people start growing their own will there be any taxes raised ?

Hookah

tayto lover wrote: »

If its legalised and people start growing their own will there be any taxes raised ?

Why should there be?

Perhaps if they sell it, but that's a different matter.

tayto lover

ScumLord wrote: »

The racing driver could go fast on a public road if it was set up like a racing track with proper run off areas and all the traffic going in the same direction, it's called the Nurburgring. Otherwise he'll have to drive with the possibility he's going to come across a poor driver at some stage.

We can pick and choose the law isn't like the laws of physics they only apply if another person is there and can overpower you so they can apply their laws to you.

I still don't see what's so great about linking morals and laws either, morals are constructs that change depending on a persons mood, terrible things to be basing laws on.

You will find that thats what is done.

jill_valentine

tayto lover wrote: »

It is impossible to seperate them imo

You have already given us at least one real-world instance where a moral imperative compelled you to disregard the law for the greater good. You broke a car window to save a dog - which was absolutely the right thing to do, inarguably - and in doing so broke the law by damaging somebody else's property.

Your argument is absurdly inconsistent to the point that I can only assume you're trolling. When we pursue the moral case, you fall back on the potential legal consequences. When we pursue the inconsistency of the legal consequences, you revert to the health risks, and when we picked those apart, you came back to the moral case. Pick one parapet to stand on and defend it, or don't. You've strung us along for pages now, and you've adopted a completely different highground for every poster you engaged.

Fukuyama

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes. They take both sides of the argument. My point is that there is no way to get around the issue without having a national referendum as there are hundreds of links to both sides just like the pros and cons of cannabis. BUT law and morality is linked whether we like it or not.

Why do people keep saying referendum?

We would not need a referendum... cannabis is statute law. It's not in the fcuking constitution.

Also, morality and law are not always linked. I can give you plenty examples of laws that have nothing to do with morality. For example, it's illegal to buy alcohol after 10.30pm. Yet at 10.29pm it's perfectly fine. I see the POINT to this law - and agree with it entirely. Morality just doesn't come into it.

ScumLord

tayto lover wrote: »

You will find that thats what is done.

It shouldn't be though, laws can be based on scientific reason, the human is an animal, science can tell us what the human animal needs where it's breaking points are and how to create an environment that encourages better behaviour. The law isn't even trying as far as I can see, laws are political, moral as you say and popular. Why would I dedicate myself to upholding these laws when they're based and formed by corruption, lies and elitism?

I'd like to have proper laws, laws that you could follow and say they make logical sense, but we don't have that at the moment.

Interceptor

gladi8r wrote: »

considering you are probably giving the money to thugs who murder people and terrorize neighborhoods, is it wrong in your opinion to buy weed?

when i talk about these "thugs" I am talking about the people on top who import the weed not the small time dealers who sell it to you

Nah, an unemployed mate of mine is growing a half dozen plants in his attic, selling it to friends and using the money to pay his mortgage. I see it as my moral duty to help him through these tough times...

'cptr

Fukuyama

tayto lover wrote: »

If its legalised and people start growing their own will there be any taxes raised ?

Growing cannabis takes months and is very difficult to do (indoors). It's a lot of effort.

You can grow potatoes easily yet people don't.

There is no evidence to suggest cannabis growing would increase if legalise. The reason it's done now is because cannabis is illegal and people want a good, clean supply.

If I could buy it in the shops it'd be cheaper than growing it at home (ESB, fertilizer, equipment which costs hundreds etc...).

Herb Powell

LisaLowlife wrote: »

I didn't read all of the posts on this discussion but it seemed to go waaaay off track for a while.... :pac:

To the original question, no it's not morally wrong to buy dope. I buy from a guy who grows his own and wouldn't be involved in the dealings of stronger drugs.

If the government won't legalise it, then we are left no choice but to buy on the street.

Though, tbh I wouldn't want to see what the taxes would be on it if it did get legalised.........

It's illegality surely drives prices up

tayto lover

jill_valentine wrote: »

You have already given us at least one real-world instance where a moral imperative compelled you to disregard the law for the greater good. You broke a car window to save a dog - which was absolutely the right thing to do, inarguably - and in doing so broke the law by damaging somebody else's property.

Your argument is absurdly inconsistent to the point that I can only assume you're trolling. When we pursue the moral case, you fall back on the potential legal consequences. When we pursue the inconsistency of the legal consequences, you revert to the health risks, and when we picked those apart, you came back to the moral case. Pick one parapet to stand on and defend it, or don't. You've strung us along for pages now, and you've adopted a completely different highground for every poster you engaged.

I am only showing the many different aspects to the cannabis debate. I am sure you agree that there are many and varied opinions and different moral issues on buying, using in front of kids, health, driving under influence of it, law on possession/supply, searches etc etc. Not trolling but we all seem to be going round in circles at the same time.

mikom

tayto lover, is it morally right to be complicit in the persecution of human beings for the ingestion of a plant just because a book says they should not?

tayto lover

Dean0088 wrote: »

Why do people keep saying referendum?

We would not need a referendum... cannabis is statute law. It's not in the fcuking constitution.

Also, morality and law are not always linked. I can give you plenty examples of laws that have nothing to do with morality. For example, it's illegal to buy alcohol after 10.30pm. Yet at 10.29pm it's perfectly fine. I see the POINT to this law - and agree with it entirely. Morality just doesn't come into it.

Can you really see someone striking a pen through the existing law to legalise cannabis ? I can't and the debate is so big now that many people associated with the law can only see a referendum on the issue. That is word of mouth though from a solicitor i play golf with. Maybe he is wrong too.

tayto lover

mikom wrote: »

tayto lover, is it morally right to be complicit in the persecution of human beings for the ingestion of a plant just because a book says they should not?

Would it not be morally right to try and change the law to prevent that occurring, as with the record it carries too ?