Marijuana

[InLove]

Hi, Peace to All Here--

Okay, I was wondering what could possibly be taking priority here on CR other than the hurricane--duh--this site is global. So, of course one thing that might do it is drugs. (I know that sounds sarcastic, but bear with me, please--my kids are in Houston and can't get out--thanks for your prayers, please?)

But LOL--this is a national issue. Marijuana, I mean. I have believed for many years that it should be legalized. I do not parttake anymore for the simple fact that it is illegal in my country, and I cannot afford to break the law. God's Word tells me that I must comply--and I believe I am also told that sometimes (often, even) things will not make much sense in this area. For example, if we got rid of all the illegal marijuana traffic in the U.S., we would put a great dent into the business of those who use it to introduce things like crack. We could clear the jails and courtrooms and go after the real culprits--those who make money off real dependencies, and maybe that includes some pharmaceutical companies, as well.

I find it odd and disturbing that the U.S. government could so obviously benefit from the legal sale of marijuana, but refuses to hardly bring it up after so many years. I must ask myself if there is more profit to be had by keeping on the wrong side of the law?

This from one who is legally blind--

I do know that marijuana, like any other medicine, can affect certain people in a bad way--people with epilepsy should not take it.

Compare that warning with the list of warnings you get for your average, over-the-counter sinus medicine.

When my husband (not J.H.--God love Him and so do I, but the wonderful guy who has gone on to the place we are all still talking about here on CR) was so ill and dying, the medical students and even some doctors told him off the record that they wished with all their hearts that they could condone his medical use of marijuana.

Well, guess that is all I will say for now--I'll tell you that I miss it, but I have not used it for a long time. I just do not understand why it is illegal.

InPeace,
InLove

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by InLove

I just do not understand why it is illegal.

InPeace,
InLove

i never understood it either InLove, but maybe that is the ticket. more money can be made on a black market than if it were legal.?

remember moonshing is like a big deal.

(i confess i am not an angel & there is nothing i have not tried. but i also know it was the grace of God & moms prayers that i am still alive)

[bananabrain]

i guess the point i was making (between coughs, that is) is that the difference between marijuana (or indeed cocaine) tobacco and alcohol (but not firearms) is largely a matter of custom. in the US and UK, people have decided that there is a "moral" difference, whereas this appears pretty flimsy and suspect.

my basic argument is that of the "prohibition" period. alcohol was banned as a "moral evil". however, the needs and behaviours (and therefore the market) remained - and while that market exists someone will always try and supply it. in fact, there's a price premium to be charged for supplying something illegal; therefore you got bootlegging millionaires (like the kennedys) and well-financed, rich organised crime and, of course, unregulated moonshine. compare that with our current situation. cocaine, because it is not legal, can be mixed with almost anything to "cut" it and, therefore, can do even more harm to your body - and, when the "product" is faulty, because it's illegal, there's nobody to sue - so there's no compunction to have quality product.

what is more worrying is that the organisations manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling the product are paying no income tax, corporation tax, pension contributions and so on. this is not a "moral stance" - what has been created is a TAX HAVEN; unlike with tobacco and alcohol, where the money can be used to remedy the social ill and you have someone to sue when you get lung cancer. imagine the possibilities - narcotics taxes could pay for a hell of a lot of doctors and policemen, instead of which *your* legitimate taxes have to be used to finance some ridiculous "war on drugs" that can't be won because nearly everyone is part of the demand market! all it does is give politicians something to talk about ("drugs are bad, m'kay"). imagine being able to sue "blow inc" because your last purchase was substandard!

in short, what has been criminalised is a *substance* - and substances are morally neutral. alcohol is just a chemical; you can drink it responsibly, or you can go out driving drunk. in either case, it is your behaviour that is immoral, not some inherent evil in the substance. same with tobacco and marijuana; you can enjoy it in appropriate company for the feeling it brings, or you can spend your time smoking dope, eating pizzas and playing videogames and neglecting your children. same with cocaine - if it isn't evil when it's used as an anaesthetic (the only time i've had it) then it isn't the cocaine that makes you into a reckless megalomaniac arsehole - it's the behaviour that's objectionable, not the substance itself. it should still be illegal to drive on drugs just as it's illegal to drive drunk, just as it is to trade stocks while you're high. but not acknowledging the reality of the problem because of some nonsense about one chemical being morally superior to another is simply ridiculous and costs us all billions of dollars to no discernible effect.

firearms are a different matter - they are made with only one purpose; to harm. it's not so much of a problem in the UK of course, but your problem in the US is that it's pretty clear that when your founding fathers put the "right to bear arms" in the constitution they didn't envisage a bunch of maniacs with rocket launchers in their basements - and that's actually a problem with your constitution rather than anything else. treating firearms, alcohol and tobacco as part of the same problem of "moral degeneracy" (exacerbated by having them dealt with by the same government agency) simply confuses the issue instead of allowing clear thinking to solve the problem the only logical way, the only way that hasn't been tried - and the only way that solved the alcohol problem in the 20s.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

firearms are a different matter - they are made with only one purpose; to harm. it's not so much of a problem in the UK of course, but your problem in the US.

LOL, what part of the UK are you taking that from? I "kind of" own an illegal firearm and know at least 16 others that carry firearms on them or in the cars/houses. Heck I even know two arms dealers..... It is a problem here just as it is anywhere else... you just ain't looking in the right place...

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

my basic argument is that of the "prohibition" period. alcohol was banned as a "moral evil". however, the needs and behaviours (and therefore the market) remained - and while that market exists someone will always try and supply it. in fact, there's a price premium to be charged for supplying something illegal; therefore you got bootlegging millionaires (like the kennedys) and well-financed, rich organised crime and, of course, unregulated moonshine. compare that with our current situation. cocaine, because it is not legal, can be mixed with almost anything to "cut" it and, therefore, can do even more harm to your body - and, when the "product" is faulty, because it's illegal, there's nobody to sue - so there's no compunction to have quality product.

what is more worrying is that the organisations manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling the product are paying no income tax, corporation tax, pension contributions and so on. this is not a "moral stance" - what has been created is a TAX HAVEN; unlike with tobacco and alcohol, where the money can be used to remedy the social ill and you have someone to sue when you get lung cancer. imagine the possibilities - narcotics taxes could pay for a hell of a lot of doctors and policemen, instead of which *your* legitimate taxes have to be used to finance some ridiculous "war on drugs" that can't be won because nearly everyone is part of the demand market! all it does is give politicians something to talk about ("drugs are bad, m'kay"). imagine being able to sue "blow inc" because your last purchase was substandard!
b'shalom

bananabrain

that is what i see too. "blow inc" LOL.
nearly everyone is part of the demand market & the little guy in the market is the one always getting busted...oh yah! we are doing something now for the war on drugs. get that piece of crack out of your mouth boy.
well that looks good to the public. a few kilo of pot & cola. one kid goes to jail for a joint & the whole town knows about it. but the district attorney (well we wont bust him cause that would just look really bad)

there are still a few dry counties, of course surrounded by lots of liquor stores. & the sin tax, is that what they call it?
no beer on sunday, so buy up the night before or cross the state line for a case.
meanwhile back at the pentagon...

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Bandit

that is what i see too. "blow inc" LOL.
nearly everyone is part of the demand market & the little guy in the market is the one always getting busted...oh yah! we are doing something now for the war on drugs. get that piece of crack out of your mouth boy.
well that looks good to the public. a few kilo of pot & cola. one kid goes to jail for a joint & the whole town knows about it. but the district attorney (well we wont bust him cause that would just look really bad)

there are still a few dry counties, of course surrounded by lots of liquor stores. & the sin tax, is that what they call it?
no beer on sunday, so buy up the night before or cross the state line for a case.
meanwhile back at the pentagon...

All I can say to this is... lol

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

InLove, I hope your kids get through the storm OK.

So, if I am reading correctly, there seems to be a general consensus about the issue, in that most seem to agree it is up to the individual, and that there is an unclear reason for the laws against recreational use of "substance."

OK, hypothetically speaking, would it be better if such things were legalized? I mean, what would society look like then? I have heard the argument before, that if pot were legalized, fewer people would use it because it would no longer be "exciting," or whatever. Then again, if I am reading correctly here, there are those who no longer partake, that might resume if it were legal, so potentially there could be more people "under the influence." How and should the government tax and regulate the industry and sale?

Should such things only be legalized for medicinal reasons, and prescribed like medicine? Would that change the black market at all? How could Big Pharma structure the process to maintain a profit and justify the process?

If there is such a public acceptance, why is government still hesitant to change the laws?

Does any of this impact our standing in the eyes of God? Because something is legal does not make it intrinsically moral. Or is it irrelevant in the end analysis anyway? Or does God see this as a cultural thing, permissable for some and not for others?

Are we accountable for our actions under the influence? Even those under the influence of legal prescriptions? Or is this a case by case kind of thing? Are dealers accountable for the lives they affect, just as business is supposed to be? Should a dealer be held accountable for the accidental death of a patron who, arguably, misuses a product? To what extent? (monetary like a business, or manslaughter or worse as an individual?)

Just my rambling thoughts on the matter, but I see the issue as rather sticky in any way it is looked at.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, all!

InLove, I hope your kids get through the storm OK.

So, if I am reading correctly, there seems to be a general consensus about the issue, in that most seem to agree it is up to the individual, and that there is an unclear reason for the laws against recreational use of "substance."

OK, hypothetically speaking, would it be better if such things were legalized? I mean, what would society look like then? I have heard the argument before, that if pot were legalized, fewer people would use it because it would no longer be "exciting," or whatever. Then again, if I am reading correctly here, there are those who no longer partake, that might resume if it were legal, so potentially there could be more people "under the influence." How and should the government tax and regulate the industry and sale?

Should such things only be legalized for medicinal reasons, and prescribed like medicine? Would that change the black market at all? How could Big Pharma structure the process to maintain a profit and justify the process?

If there is such a public acceptance, why is government still hesitant to change the laws?

Does any of this impact our standing in the eyes of God? Because something is legal does not make it intrinsically moral. Or is it irrelevant in the end analysis anyway? Or does God see this as a cultural thing, permissable for some and not for others?

Are we accountable for our actions under the influence? Even those under the influence of legal prescriptions? Or is this a case by case kind of thing? Are dealers accountable for the lives they affect, just as business is supposed to be? Should a dealer be held accountable for the accidental death of a patron who, arguably, misuses a product? To what extent? (monetary like a business, or manslaughter or worse as an individual?)

Just my rambling thoughts on the matter, but I see the issue as rather sticky in any way it is looked at.

It's like.... *thinks* Waffels... I eat them cause they are nice.. not because they are cool, they are full of flavour sweet and nummy, Just like I have found with cannabis.... I have been growing my own weed for along time so if they did make it legal then yay, no worries, I dont have to pay tax..... If they don't make it legal then I will have to contiue to be a secret stoner. No if you make things legal it doesn't make it moral.... Ok here comes an example.... Netherlands prostitution..... its legal, do you believe it is moral to sell your body for money?

[17th Angel]

I really see no problem with Cannabis, yet lots of people will see it as a major issue for their own personal reasons which I think is overexagerating.... YES! I know I spelt that word wrong... heh. The way I see the UK they cannot just go, OK! Thats it! Weed is ok to use go right ahead... Because how would you place a limit on it? Like the drink driving... you then will have too relaxed attitudes... Then I know in my views it is stupid but some fools are bound to say... "Well you legalised Cannabis! Why can't you make LSD, XTC, Coke or whatever legal?" As there is never a dead stop is there? If you give people an inch they will take a dang mile.....

[bananabrain]

LOL, what part of the UK are you taking that from?

a middle-class bit of london; not that we don't have our fair share of crime, but it's not exactly hackney. the point is that you probably aren't going to come across someone with a gun. that's my point. scrotey oiklets with hoodie tops may be a nuisance, but they can be dealt with perfectly effectively by unarmed police.

I "kind of" own an illegal firearm and know at least 16 others that carry firearms on them or in the cars/houses. Heck I even know two arms dealers..... It is a problem here just as it is anywhere else... you just ain't looking in the right place...

i don't think i want to look in the "right place". as i understand it, you're ex-army, right? so presumably you are a trained weapons user and, as such, can be trusted to behave responsibly and act with respect, rather than leave the thing lying around, or wave it at people for no good reason. i have far less of a problem with that, as i know plenty of army people, both here and in israel, who know that a personal firearm is a responsibility, not (as in the US) a "right", which is something that doesn't make sense to me. and, as someone with army connections you would know people who are still "in the business". that all makes sense. the thing is, it's still illegal and that is still a problem. i'd like to know - do you think you *need* it? if so, why? are you forced to live where you are? do people *know* you have one and that's what you're relying on? either way, you're not talking about a situation that i would consider exactly common for the UK in general, or at any rate outside inner-city estates. maybe i'm naive, but i'd like it if it stayed that way.

like i say, firearms are different; the reason they are associated with drugs is because drugs are illegal. otherwise, you'd have a lawyer instead of a gun. (although sometimes i think guns are cheaper and faster, eh)

I mean, what would society look like then?

more like holland than colombia, i suspect. after all, what you're doing is making it possible for me to buy my 'happy powder' on my credit card at the off-licence or whatever (or indeed somewhere where i can be asked for proof-of-age), rather than having to buy cash from a criminal, with the associated risk.

I have heard the argument before, that if pot were legalized, fewer people would use it because it would no longer be "exciting," or whatever. Then again, if I am reading correctly here, there are those who no longer partake, that might resume if it were legal, so potentially there could be more people "under the influence."

i don't buy the "exciting" argument. there is an entire marketing industry (all paying tax, pension contributions and sueable) whose job it is to convince you that it is exciting to drink beer (and, indeed eat chocolate and rub face cream on your arse) - the point is that its very participation in the system "corrupts" it - it is forced to change to stay competitive. how many drug dealers would welcome being undercut by a supermarket? i mean, how would they win a turf war?

How and should the government tax and regulate the industry and sale?

the same way they do the tobacco and alcohol industries. these are recreational chemicals. the liability issues are dealt with by the risk and legal sectors, the quality assurance by pharma and manufacturing, but the police still arrest you for drunk driving or high trading. it is also arguable that if something is legal, you can hardly argue that you were forced to interact with criminals - thus placing the burden of responsibility back onto the individual where it belongs. and profitable?? do me a favour. look at how chocolate is marketed and tell me hash couldn't be marketed the same way. "fresh from the foothills of the himalayas...."

If there is such a public acceptance, why is government still hesitant to change the laws?

in the UK, they're scared of people accusing them of being soft on crime. instead of which, we ought to accuse them of being economically irresponsible and wasteful of the public purse.

Does any of this impact our standing in the eyes of G!D? Because something is legal does not make it intrinsically moral.

i am commanded to drink wine as part of my religious observance. i am not commanded to drink excessively (apart from on purim and pesach) but neither would i be free from censure if i smacked someone in the gob because i was shite-faced and lairy. as i say, the responsibility remains with the free-will. saying "i was mullahed" isn't an excuse.

Even those under the influence of legal prescriptions?

that i would say is more of a case by case thing. the essential thing is that if you have free will and choice, you should use it for good. there is no sin without free will.

Are dealers accountable for the lives they affect, just as business is supposed to be?

absolutely - except they can't, practically speaking, be held accountable at present, which legalisation would change. quite apart from the fact that paying tax is not something they really want right now.

Should a dealer be held accountable for the accidental death of a patron who, arguably, misuses a product? To what extent? (monetary like a business, or manslaughter or worse as an individual?)

nobody forced you to smoke. nobody forced you to drink. nobody forced you to get in that car. the "misuse" of a product is a smoke screen - is it "misuse" of kleenex if i stuff it in someone's mouth till they choke? is it "misuse" of a car if i run someone over - and, more to the point, is it the manufacturer's fault? surely not, unless there is an actual design flaw.

prostitution is another case in point. i don't like it, but nobody is forced to go to a prostitute. and should prostitutes not be entitled to the protection of the law and the medical establishment as much as, say, stuntmen?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[juantoo3]

Ok then, should the legalizing stop with naturally occuring substances? What impact on herbal remedies in general, including others that are outlawed or downplayed? (like Mormon tea or Sarsaparilla, the one I think affects the nervous system adversely we are told, the other causes cancer as do cigarettes, spinach and eye makeup.)

You raise another good point bringing prostitution into the picture. It is legal here in the state of Nevada, but from what I understand the girls are also regulated and given frequent medical exams for their own health and the health of their clients. Sidestepping the marital fidelity issues, is there are similar argument to be made here as well, that a consenting adult should be allowed to do with and to their body whatever they choose to do?

Is there a moral boundary to be drawn somewhere, and if so, where? I have been racking my memory, and other than some vague New Testament references about the body being a (the?) Temple, I do not recall any specific prohibitions against these things. It's not like the Bible says "thou shalt not smoke." It's not like the Bible says "thou shalt not frequent a brothel." I do recall it saying "a little wine is good for the stomach," and "strong drink for those about to perish," and some general proscriptions against being overly drunken. Beyond this, and some interpretations I have heard regarding what Faithful brought up about the association between hallucinogenics and sorcery, I do not recall anything indicating a prohibition or regulation of these things.

[juantoo3]

I like the way you think BB!

Your thinking so far in this is in line with what I have thought for a while now.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

"thou shalt not smoke."
It's not like the Bible says "thou shalt not frequent a brothel." I do recall it saying ".

True but then again it doesn't say anything about

"Thou shalt not grab a rifle and run a river of blood of the unholy through your cities and cleanse your city in the wrath of God." Does it? So is that OK to do? I think there is a limit to what you should reconise yourself as right or wrong...


Also thanks Bananabrain for your reply... I am not a man of wealth and riches so In ways where I live I have to live with... pardon the pun. I have a Desert Eagle which has no papers, but yes weapons are what I do best. Sadly there aren't much jobs apart from in the military where my weapon and killing training is of much use.... *shrugs his shoulders...* I would believe I am very responsable and take care with my weapon. It is apart of many things to why I arm myself.. I cannot get out of the military habit, I also have it for a peice of mind... I used to get.... paranoid at nights? Not dangerously but I couldn't sleep well thinking someone wanted me dead... lol So now I can. If someone enters my house and places my girlfriend in terror, I shall bear no mercy, the greatest insult to me, is someone entering my house and daring to either rob me, scare me or kill me. I tolerate nothing from no one in my own home. Obviously I would give a warning shot, if they steel believe they are going to do what I wish them not to... I would hit them in a limb, leg - arm, or better yet the kneecap .... Then see how keen they are. I would never leave my home with this weapon. It is soley for home protection.... and range practice

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, 17th, and by the way, welcome to CR!

"Thou shalt not grab a rifle and run a river of blood of the unholy through your cities and cleanse your city in the wrath of God." Does it? So is that OK to do? I think there is a limit to what you should reconise yourself as right or wrong...

Agreed, but I cannot help but see an apples and oranges thing here. Afterall, there is this little commandment that says, "thou shalt not murder."

Besides, I think the wars to depose the unholy are pretty much long over. I don't think they ended quite as well as initially hoped for, but that is another story for another day...

In the end I see what is effectively self to self, or at least (in the case of prostitution) consenting adults. Whereas something like the tongue in cheek reply is more a "do to others," which rightly or wrongly I have always seen as a worse or greater sin. I mean something like greed works only by its actions against others, rape is an action against another, etc...these I have always viewed as greater sins.

Whereas something like what we have been discussing, recreational use and such, is pretty much self to self, if indeed a sin at all.

[17th Angel]

That is how I kind of look to at it, I am smoking a reef.... I am not hurting anyone, I am keeping myself to myself in my own home not forcing the smell or anything upon another living being, I am harmless. You see others though will look at that like I am Satan himself....


Btw thanks for the welcome, So your saying an act placed upon another not done to yourself or by choice is a greater sin? I think I would have to agree.


------
won't let me edit my previous post so i shall add it here...

I also have a warning sign in my front door showing a hand holding a firearm saying "Warning I Don't Dial 999." So to answer your other question others should know that I have an armed defense of my house.... not just a little innocent joke sign.