What is worst Drinking or Smoking Pot

[blind_otter]

Honey, you know what a research paper looks like, yet you cite a website as a "research study done on pregnant women who smoke marijuana" that is, as far as I can tell, not a research paper. Has no subjects, cites no sources, no description of how the information was obtained. As I assumed, you chose to remain ignorant. yourself.

 

I am royally pissed. This is f*ing moronic. The whole legal system is full of sh*t when it comes to POT. Not any other drug, mind you, I'm talking about MARIJUANA.

 

My husband is currently in federal prison for growing pot. He will serve 2 years in prison, 1 year in work release, and 1 year under house arrest. He was not involved with the trafficking of any other drug.

 

Meanwhile, in the prison he is serving time in, a guy who was paroled for kidnapping a girl, raping her, and cutting her arms off because she was fighting back and THEN kidnapping and murdering ANOTHER girl right after he was paroled, is serving LESS TIME than my husband and he will soon be happily trotting out on the streets. In fact I think that that man was released fairly recently.

 

Screw that. Friggin moronic and ridiculous marijuana laws using my tax dollars for non-violent drug offenders when the obvious option is freaking treatment. So help me god I am so royally pissed. I hate everyone who is willfully ignorant and who tries to stand on this goddamn moral high ground, and all this time f*cking rapits and murderers are going free.

 

All of this is fueled and facilitated by IDIOTS.

[honey2005]

As I assumed, you chose to remain ignorant.

 

I read what you posted.

 

My husband is currently in federal prison for growing pot.

 

I agree that the punishment was very harsh. I've heard people talk about others who have committed much worse crimes than that get less time. I'm sorry to hear about your husband.

 

Meanwhile, in the prison he is serving time in, a guy who was paroled for kidnapping a girl, raping her, and cutting her arms off because she was fighting back and THEN kidnapping and murdering ANOTHER girl right after he was paroled, is serving LESS TIME than my husband and he will soon be happily trotting out on the streets. In fact I think that that man was released fairly recently.

 

^^ Like that.

 

So help me god I am so royally pissed. I hate everyone who is willfully ignorant and who tries to stand on this goddamn moral high ground, and all this time f*cking rapits and murderers are going free.

 

Sorry, I do'nt think I'm on any moral high ground. I think when someone breaks the law they should be punished. Your husband knew the laws yet he broke them anyway. I completely agree that he shouldn't, by any means, have been punished more than a kid her raped, mutilated, and killed a girl. That is terrible.

 

All of this is fueled and facilitated by IDIOTS.

 

Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me an idiot.

[Naive]

I think that pot is fine for whoever likes it. It may be illegal, but that does not make it any worse than alcohol. If you don't like to smoke or think it's bad then don't do it, simple as that! I tried it and never again, I did not like the sensation, but I do not harass or criticize the people that do smoke.

[supermom]

I think that being drunk is more harmful than being stoned, in regards to being around other people. If I had to choose to ride in a car with someone drunk or someone stoned, I'd pick the stoned one (not that either is good) but seriously, my husband and I both drink on occasion and both smoke pot (not around kids btw) and I feel people get more emotional, angry, sad, etc when they are drinking. Being stoned doesn't make you want to fight, cry, get upset, it makes me relax, and sometimes I like to watch Cops while I'm stoned, but have you ever seen an episode of domestic violence due to pot? No, I haven't. I've seen when the husband/wife is drunk, but not stoned. No, I cannot speak for everyone's situations, just what I've seen.

 

Yes I will admit I like pot, kinda like self medicating. Makes me mellow, happy, goofy, etc.

 

Please don't judge me okay?

[honey2005]

If you don't like to smoke or think it's bad then don't do it, simple as that! I tried it and never again, I did not like the sensation, but I do not harass or criticize the people that do smoke.

 

I hope you're not implying that I've harassed or criticized anyone, because I haven't.

 

Please don't judge me okay?

 

I haven't judged anyone, and I won't judge you. I don't look down on anyone who does pot, I've simply stated my opinion that it is wrong. I'm not trying to change anyone else's opnion, I'm only showing why I hold my opinion, because people have demanded that I do so. It does upset me though, that when my opinion is different than others on here, they claim I am judging, harassing, or criticizing them. If anyone is doing the harassing or criticizing, it is several of the pro pot people who have posted, who have claimed I was moronic, idiotic, brainwashed, etc. because of my views. I have said nothing like that to any one on here, so I would appreciate it if everyone would back off of me. I haven't tried to change your opinions, so stop trying to change mine.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by honey2005

It's hilarious how everyone is trying to make the girl who doesn't do the illegal drugs, drink, smoke, etc. out to be the bad guy.

Even if it wasn't your intention, this is a judgement.

It implies that a standard of righteousness would dictate that you are the 'good girl', whereas people who do drugs are 'bad', because if it weren't that way, you wouldn't find it hilarious.

 

Chances are you have several addictions you're not even conscious of. Being addicted, even to drugs you'd consider even worse than pot, is not a matter of being a 'good' or 'bad' person, and frankly, it's quite offensive to those who suffer from addictions to marginalize their struggle as being a function of character, when that has nothing to do with it.

 

A young, innocent baby is born. It could very well be an alcoholic. Alcoholism has nothing to do, surprisingly, with alcohol consumption. You're an alcoholic for life, before you ever take your first sip of alcohol--and even if you never do, it will manifest itself in other ways.

You, on the other hand, know the effects of pot, know that it, too, slows your reaction time, etc., yet you continue to use it.

That's part of being an American!

 

60's Black people knew that by breaking the law, they'd face violence and opposition, but they continued to do it.

A group of colonists knew that by not paying their taxes, they'd face opposition and death sentences, but they continued to do it.

 

You can state your opinons on how pot isn't bad for you, even though many medical studies will prove you wrong

Hopefully it's abundantly clear that those studies are inconclusive.

 

You can overdose on ANYTHING, in theory. Drugs have an incredible value in our society, and we apply them in amazing ways. To say that people who medicate their stress with marijuana (assuming most people take it to relax, and not to go driving) don't have a legitimate problem that needs helping is ridiculous. People kill themselves over stress. Stress is a risk factor for other physical disorders--it's not 'all in your head'.

 

Marihuana isn't right for you, because you've been indoctrinated against it. But who are you to come in with your one-sided, limited information and condemn it?

 

Coke is bad for you, the soda. McDonalds is bad for you. Cigarettes are TERRIBLE for you. Alcohol is a deadly poison. We let people poison themselves with some things, and not with others--and that's a policy based on FEAR, not science.

 

You said this was untrue. You have no way of knowing how often I consume products that contain caffiene. I try to watch what I eat so I RARELY eat chocolate, even though I love it. I do not drink plain coffee, though, once in awhile when I go to the mall with a friend (who is driving, not me) I will drink a cup. I love tea, but I'm too lazy to go in and make myself a glass very often, so I usually go without. So probably 95% of the time I have no harmful drug in my body, so my statement "I don't need to put a drug into my body to get a "high". I'm quite happy, relaxed, etc. the way I am without any illegal drugs in my system." is true.

Drugs are only harmful if you take too much of them. Chances are you always have trace amounts of caffeine, excessive sugar, nitrates, lithium, chlorine, lead, mercury inside your body at any given point.

 

Originally posted by honey2005

Sorry, I do'nt think I'm on any moral high ground. I think when someone breaks the law they should be punished. Your husband knew the laws yet he broke them anyway. I completely agree that he shouldn't, by any means, have been punished more than a kid her raped, mutilated, and killed a girl. That is terrible.

Rosa Parks broke a law.

MLK broke laws.

The colonists broke laws.

 

What if a law isn't just?

 

Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me an idiot.

I don't think you're an idiot.

 

I think the person who made "Reefer Madness" in 1936 (?) is an idiot, and I think you suffer from the misinformation and fear that decades of academic dishonesty have perpetuated.

 

In other words, you're a brilliant person who's been taught by idiots, and so people may think you're an idiot when you're not.

 

No one wants you to smoke pot, but it doesn't hurt to be informed about it, on both sides.

[netrie]

Originally posted by jvjrose

I would like to see what everyone thinks about these two items.

 

The worst thing is to be with a man or woman who is addicted, completely addicted to either or both.

[honey2005]

Even if it wasn't your intention, this is a judgement.

 

Of course dyer, you would know exactly what I'm thinking, wouldn't you. It wasn't a judgement, it was a statement of the facts. Many people have posted to make me out to seem like a bad person because of my opinon. I am not brainwashed, stupid, or anything else many of you may think. I know the facts, I've learned MANY more from this post, but in the end it is still wrong FOR ME.

 

Chances are you have several addictions you're not even conscious of. Being addicted, even to drugs you'd consider even worse than pot, is not a matter of being a 'good' or 'bad' person, and frankly, it's quite offensive to those who suffer from addictions to marginalize their struggle as being a function of character, when that has nothing to do with it.

 

I would appreciate it if you would notice that I haven't said anything about addictions, all I have mentioned was use.

 

and frankly, it's quite offensive to those who suffer from addictions to marginalize their struggle as being a function of character, when that has nothing to do with it

 

Yes, I would think so, too, so it's a good thing I haven't said anything about addictions. It would be nice if you would stop putting words in my mouth. I don't think people who have addictions are bad people, I think they are probably all very good people who just need help in overcoming their problem. But, like I've just said, I have never said anything about addictions in the thread, until now.

 

A young, innocent baby is born. It could very well be an alcoholic. Alcoholism has nothing to do, surprisingly, with alcohol consumption. You're an alcoholic for life, before you ever take your first sip of alcohol--and even if you never do, it will manifest itself in other ways.

 

Yep, you're not the only one who knows that. I know all about alcolism being inherited. I don't know if that happens with marijuana, though.

 

 

Hopefully it's abundantly clear that those studies are inconclusive.

 

Yes, and it's just as abundantly clear that the studies you and others show are just as inconclusive. It's still debatable, and I chose to be safe than sorry.

 

60's Black people knew that by breaking the law, they'd face violence and opposition, but they continued to do it.

A group of colonists knew that by not paying their taxes, they'd face opposition and death sentences, but they continued to do it.

 

That has nothing to do with marijuana. Drugs do not just hurt the person who takes them, they indirectly harm others as well. The Blacks broke the law to gain equality, the colonists broke the law to prove a point. Those were nobel causes, this, IMHO, is not at all.

 

 

That's part of being an American!

 

I'm an American, too, and I can state my opinion if I wish.

 

People kill themselves over stress. Stress is a risk factor for other physical disorders--it's not 'all in your head'.

 

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I'm not a stupid person. I am very well educated. There are other ways to cut down on stress besides taking illegal drugs.

 

Marihuana isn't right for you, because you've been indoctrinated against it. But who are you to come in with your one-sided, limited information and condemn it?

 

And who are you to say I can't state my opinion. You guys are giving me plenty of one sided information about how marijuana is helpful, but I do a search and find tons of contradicting information. You demanded I back up my OPINION with valid information, which was wrong of you in the first place. You have no right to demand a reason for anyone's opinion, but I tried anyway.

 

Coke is bad for you, the soda. McDonalds is bad for you. Cigarettes are TERRIBLE for you. Alcohol is a deadly poison. We let people poison themselves with some things, and not with others--and that's a policy based on FEAR, not science.

 

The question was "What is your OPINION on which is worse, alcohol or marijuana?" and I gave my OPINION.

 

I think the person who made "Reefer Madness" in 1936 (?) is an idiot, and I think you suffer from the misinformation and fear that decades of academic dishonesty have perpetuated.

 

I think I'm a pretty smart girl who chose to stick to her beliefs no matter how much pressure she face from her peers. I also think I've read plenty of information from you guys over the past few days about the truth of marijuana, and I still choose to keep my stance. I don't think that's suffering from misinformation.

 

Rosa Parks broke a law.

MLK broke laws.

The colonists broke laws.

 

What if a law isn't just?

 

Yes, a very nobel stand is to grow marijuana in your back yard. What a way to beat the system.

 

No one wants you to smoke pot, but it doesn't hurt to be informed about it, on both sides.

 

That's why several people have already said how I should go out and get high to see what it's like? I think that's wanting me to smoke pot. I've learned alot from what everyone has said on here, and I have still not judged anyone. I know most of the people who have posted are great people. I've read many of their posts on other threads and I admire them, I just disapprove of this one thing they do. That doesn't mean I'm judging them, harassing them, criticising them, or even disliking them.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by honey2005

Of course dyer, you would know exactly what I'm thinking, wouldn't you. It wasn't a judgement, it was a statement of the facts.

I'm talking about directly implying that anyone's a bad person because they smoke dope is a judgement. It is, even if that wasn't your intention, your prejudice was clear.

 

You find it hilarious that you're 'attacked' for your belief that drugs are wrong. That implies that it wouldn't be hilarious, i.e., acceptable, if we were to attack people who have addictions.

I would appreciate it if you would notice that I haven't said anything about addictions, all I have mentioned was use.

You opened the floodgates with the speculation that marijuana is a gateway drug.

Yep, you're not the only one who knows that. I know all about alcolism being inherited. I don't know if that happens with marijuana, though.

It's addiction that's inherited, not a paticular taste for a certain chemical.

Yes, and it's just as abundantly clear that the studies you and others show are just as inconclusive. It's still debatable, and I chose to be safe than sorry.

The burden of proof isn't on us. Simple logic, if you say marijuana is bad for you, you can't shift the burden of proof.

That has nothing to do with marijuana. Drugs do not just hurt the person who takes them, they indirectly harm others as well. The Blacks broke the law to gain equality, the colonists broke the law to prove a point. Those were nobel causes, this, IMHO, is not at all.

Many whites considered blacks being equal incredibly offensive.

Many politicians have failed to be elected because of the voting rights of women and blacks.

The colonists harmed the British by killing them in a gruesome way, death by musket wasn't pretty.

The colonists weakened Britain's treasury incredibly.

 

Nobility is in the eye of the beholder. A bunch of whiny puritans who won't pay their taxes isn't a noble cause to a redcoat. A bunch of lowly 'coons who won't give up their seat wasn't a noble cause for segregationists.

 

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I'm not a stupid person. I am very well educated. There are other ways to cut down on stress besides taking illegal drugs.

You haven't justified it's illegality.

 

And who are you to say I can't state my opinion.

Oh, where did I say that?

 

You guys are giving me plenty of one sided information about how marijuana is helpful, but I do a search and find tons of contradicting information. You demanded I back up my OPINION with valid information, which was wrong of you in the first place. You have no right to demand a reason for anyone's opinion, but I tried anyway.

As a result, your action was your own choice, not me forcing you to do anything. Wouldn't demanding a backup for an opinion also fall under free speech?

 

The trouble with free speech, to many, is that everyone's entitled to it.

 

Yes, a very nobel stand is to grow marijuana in your back yard. What a way to beat the system.

Again, nobility.

 

Civil disobedience isn't about impressing people, it's about breaking laws that are unjust.

 

That's why several people have already said how I should go out and get high to see what it's like? I think that's wanting me to smoke pot.

I think they were joking, sort of making fun of your uptightness--see, marijuana, contrary to reports of hallucination, makes you relax a lot, and so if you were relaxed, you wouldn't post so much. It was nothing more than a joke, I'm sure no one here would actually share their weed with you.

[Moose]

I'm sure no one here would actually share their weed with you.

 

Oh....I dunno, I probably would.....I love to get newbies higher than the government....I laugh my a$$ off!!!!

 

hehe

[honey2005]

You find it hilarious that you're 'attacked' for your belief that drugs are wrong. That implies that it wouldn't be hilarious, i.e., acceptable, if we were to attack people who have addictions.

 

I'm glad you can change one sentance that has NOTHING to do with addictions into that.

 

You opened the floodgates with the speculation that marijuana is a gateway drug.

 

I've read plenty of times from reliable (IMO) sources that marijuana COULD BE a gateway drug.

 

It's addiction that's inherited, not a paticular taste for a certain chemical.

 

*Sigh*. Thanks dyer. I didn't know that. I don't know anything.

 

The burden of proof isn't on us. Simple logic, if you say marijuana is bad for you, you can't shift the burden of proof.

 

The reasearchers do a study, one comes out positive and says " Yes, marijuana is bad for you." Another group does a study that comes out negative and says " Nope, the other study was wrong, marijuana is not bad for you." This continues to happen. We don't know what is true because for something to be accepted it has to be able to form the same reaction every time it's tested. Well it can't because every person is different.

 

The burden of proof isn't on us.

 

I don't have to prove anything to you. I don't care what you do, I don't care who goes out and gets high. I just know it's wrong for me to do.

 

You haven't justified it's illegality.

 

I don't have to justify anything . This is my opinion.

 

Oh, where did I say that?

 

Everytime I state my OPINION, you say "prove it".

 

Wouldn't demanding a backup for an opinion also fall under free speech?

 

I think it would fall under not knowing the definition of an opinion.

 

"A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof"

 

The trouble with free speech, to many, is that everyone's entitled to it.

 

Oh, I didn't know that either. I'm not an American or anything .

 

Again, nobility.

 

Civil disobedience isn't about impressing people, it's about breaking laws that are unjust.

 

I really doubt people who grow marijuana do it because the law is unjust. I seriously doubt they think "Well that law just isn't fair, I'm going to make a noble stand and grow some of it in my back yard." D*mn those cops for arresting people who break the law.

 

I think they were joking, sort of making fun of your uptightness--see, marijuana, contrary to reports of hallucination, makes you relax a lot, and so if you were relaxed, you wouldn't post so much.

 

I can post as much as I want.

 

It was nothing more than a joke, I'm sure no one here would actually share their weed with you.

 

Oh, how sad. When someone says "you should go get high" that doesn't mean they were going to give me their weed, especially if they live hundreds of miles away.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by honey2005

I'm glad you can change one sentance that has NOTHING to do with addictions into that.

Again, the floodgates were opened by you and your gateway-drug claims.

I've read plenty of times from reliable (IMO) sources that marijuana COULD BE a gateway drug.

That's not science, that's speculation. Evidence is inconclusive, which means that you can't say "Marijuana's a gateway drug", and be correct.

 

The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion.

Everytime I state my OPINION, you say "prove it".

How about this: It's my opinion that, when it comes to matters of legality, baseless opinions are worthless. Ergo, I'm not debasing your opinion, just trying to give it a little worth in the realm of a discussion on legality, which isnt' as subjective as you'd hope.

I think it would fall under not knowing the definition of an opinion.

 

"A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof"

No, that's BS. You seem to think this whole "Right to an opinion" only applies to you, because you get upset when anyone challenges your opinion, despite the fact that any right you have, I have as well.

I really doubt people who grow marijuana do it because the law is unjust. I seriously doubt they think "Well that law just isn't fair, I'm going to make a noble stand and grow some of it in my back yard." D*mn those cops for arresting people who break the law.

I really don't think you understand the legalization movement, at *all*. You're totally unqualified to say that.

 

See, you still have a right to your opinion, I'm just pointing out that because you don't understand the legalization movement, your opinion on whether or not civil disobedience is occuring doesn't have any worth *IN A DISCUSSION ON LEGALITY*. If we were talking about astrophysics, I wouldn't know what I was talking about, and even if I had this really cool opinion, it wouldn't be worth anything.

I can post as much as I want.

I was explaining the joke to you, not saying you should stop posting.

Oh, how sad. When someone says "you should go get high" that doesn't mean they were going to give me their weed, especially if they live hundreds of miles away.

I think it was obvious that they were joking then, for that very reason.

[supermom]

Marijuana can be a gateway drug, in my experience I've seen peers that I started smoking with turn to other drugs. Personally, I've never tried other drugs and never had a desire to.

 

Why is there so much argument regarding this subject? Didn't the original poster ask for opinions only? There shouldn't be so much arguing over this right?

[honey2005]

It's my opinion that, when it comes to matters of legality, baseless opinions are worthless

 

I don't care that my opinion is worthless to you. The first poster asked for opinions and I gave mine.

 

No, that's BS. You seem to think this whole "Right to an opinion" only applies to you, because you get upset when anyone challenges your opinion, despite the fact that any right you have, I have as well.

 

I don't have to give facts and proof about why I believe something, look again at the definition of opinion. I don't think I'm the only one who has a right to an opinion; I would gladly listen to everyone else's, but it is BS when you start to imply that only yours' and peoples' who agree with you are "worthwhile", which is exactly what you're doing. I don't get upset when people challenge mine, I get upset when they demand evidence as to why I believe that.

 

 

I really don't think you understand the legalization movement, at *all*. You're totally unqualified to say that.

 

Actually, I can say whatever I want. Another example of our freedom of speech.

 

your opinion on whether or not civil disobedience is occuring doesn't have any worth *IN A DISCUSSION ON LEGALITY*.

 

This isn't a A DISCUSSION ON LEGALITY, it's an opinion thread on which is worse, alcohol or marijuana.

 

even if I had this really cool opinion, it wouldn't be worth anything.

 

Who are you to judge the worth of someone's opinion?

 

I think it was obvious that they were joking then, for that very reason.

 

Yes, and it was EXTREMELY funny.

 

Marijuana can be a gateway drug, in my experience I've seen peers that I started smoking with turn to other drugs. Personally, I've never tried other drugs and never had a desire to.

 

It doesn't look like Dr. David Myers is the only one who thinks so, eh?

 

Why is there so much argument regarding this subject? Didn't the original poster ask for opinions only?

 

Now where have I heard that before?

 

There shouldn't be so much arguing over this right?

 

Right.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by honey2005

This isn't a A DISCUSSION ON LEGALITY, it's an opinion thread on which is worse, alcohol or marijuana.

 

I'm not going to indulge you in this 'you won't let me have an opinion' nonsense. I was fine with you saying you don't approve of marijuana. I objected to you saying that people should be imprisoned for it, or that it's some awful health danger, compared to what's legal. If you want to talk opinions, I respect yours. If you want to bring up totally unproven facts, I object.

 

Who are you to judge the worth of someone's opinion?

Your opinion's fine. It's your facts that are questionable.

 

It doesn't look like Dr. David Myers is the only one who thinks so, eh?

A lot of people "think so". Think so's do not a fact make. A medical doctorate doesn't make your opinion infallible. If there were conclusive evidence that marijuana suspends volition and causes people to take other drugs, and it's not the other way around (people who are predisposed to drugs just happen to do marijuana), then someone would have posted it by now.

[honey2005]

I objected to you saying that people should be imprisoned for it, or that it's some awful health danger, compared to what's legal. If you want to talk opinions, I respect yours. If you want to bring up totally unproven facts, I object.

 

I think if something is illegal and someone breaks the law, they should be punished for it.

 

that it's some awful health danger, compared to what's legal.

 

When did I say this?

 

Your opinion's fine. It's your facts that are questionable.

 

You're the one who demanded I show you facts, so I did. Many of which I found on WebMD, the same place you got some of your information.

 

A lot of people "think so". Think so's do not a fact make.

 

And "thinking it can't" doesn't make it a fact either. I'm going to stick to "better safe than sorry", but you can do and think what you want, which is your right.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by honey2005

I think if something is illegal and someone breaks the law, they should be punished for it.

Then you wouldn't support the American Revolution, nor the Civil Rights Movement.

 

Laws have to be just. That's a maxim of democracy.

 

You can have the opinion that marijuana laws are just, but your opinion is, as stands, baseless.

When did I say this?

You're saying you haven't cited health dangers of marijuana? I know you've certainly tried.

You're the one who demanded I show you facts, so I did. Many of which I found on WebMD, the same place you got some of your information.

I didn't demand anything, I just assumed you'd want your opinion to be backed up, since your opinion is pretty radical.

 

The stuff you've posted thus far are not facts. They're just opinions of other people. Again, being a doctor doesn't make everything you write a papal edict on public health.

And "thinking it can't" doesn't make it a fact either. I'm going to stick to "better safe than sorry", but you can do and think what you want, which is your right.

Okay. I'm going to pick "logic" over "better safe than sorry", and logic dictates that it's the asserter's responsibility to back up his or her claim, not the other way around.

[honey2005]

Then you wouldn't support the American Revolution, nor the Civil Rights Movement.

 

I wouldn't compare that to smoking marijuana. Sorry.

 

You're saying you haven't cited health dangers of marijuana? I know you've certainly tried.

 

I've never compared marijuana to more harmful, legal drugs, like you've said I have. I've stated the dangers because you told me to prove it.

 

I didn't demand anything, I just assumed you'd want your opinion to be backed up, since your opinion is pretty radical.

 

My opinion : Smoking marijuana is wrong for me. How is that radical? If I changed my opinion to: Marijuana is great, I'm going to go get high right now, it would be good enough for you?

 

Again, being a doctor doesn't make everything you write a papal edict on public health.

 

I've never said it did.

 

Okay. I'm going to pick "logic" over "better safe than sorry", and logic dictates that it's the asserter's responsibility to back up his or her claim, not the other way around.

 

It's not my "claim" it's my opinion, and the definition of opinion states that I don't have to back it up with facts.

[honey2005]

I just thought I would add...

 

I think if something is illegal and someone breaks the law, they should be punished for it.

 

Then you wouldn't support the American Revolution, nor the Civil Rights Movement.

 

Different people will believe that different laws are unjust. What happens if some guy (or girl) thinks that the "don't drive while drinking" law is unjust? Do they just go and get drunk, get behind the wheel of a car, and put others lives in danger? What about someone who thinks the law against killing someone is unjust? He may think that if someone offends him, he has the right to deal with it anyway he sees fit, so he kills them. He would be going against an unjust law, much like people who think it's ok to smoke marijuana. I'm not saying smoking marijuana is as bad as the two examples I've just given, but I do think that if they want to change a law they think is unjust, they should go about it a different way than breaking the law. So, I do think that if someone breaks a law they should be punished for it. If they didn't, what is the use of having laws in the first place?

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by honey2005

I wouldn't compare that to smoking marijuana. Sorry.

You're extending the analogy.

I've never said it did.

You've given doctor's opinions, and called that a fact.

Originally posted by honey2005

What happens if some guy (or girl) thinks that the "don't drive while drinking" law is unjust? Do they just go and get drunk, get behind the wheel of a car, and put others lives in danger? What about someone who thinks the law against killing someone is unjust? He may think that if someone offends him, he has the right to deal with it anyway he sees fit, so he kills them.

There's enough information and history out there to show that those laws are just. Both of your examples result in the taking of innocent lives, or a huge risk thereof. Not having innocent lives taken is a valuable point of social order.

 

Your opinion is that the law against marijuana is also just. That's an opinion that requires justification, and although you've given a great summation on why you don't use marijuana, or even why it's not a great idea for someone else to, you haven't provided enough information that a lack of marijuana would be more beneficial for the society.

 

The legalization of marijuana would:

1. Devastate organized crime.

2. Alleviate the prison system.

3. Increase revenue for goverments, locally and federally.

 

What's your case for the illegalization of marijuana?

 

So far, you've got health issues as part of your case, but it's abundantly clear that the Federal government doesn't care about keeping people healthy, as caffeine, nicotene, alcohol, and McDonalds are still legal as well. Marihuana was illegalized during a time of fear and misinformation. So, do you have anything else that justifies its illegalization?

So, I do think that if someone breaks a law they should be punished for it. If they didn't, what is the use of having laws in the first place?

The government has a responsibility to make just laws; in turn, citizens have a responsibility to follow the law.

 

In the case of marijuana, the government failed first.

[honey2005]

You've given doctor's opinions, and called that a fact.

 

I've posted doctor's opinions, but I've never said "This is a FACT".

 

There's enough information and history out there to show that those laws are just.

 

It's your opinion that the illegalization of marijuana is unjust. It could be anyone else's opinion that it should be ok to drink and drive, set your own speed limit, or any number of other things. Laws are made for a reason, and if you don't think the reason is just, you can go about changing it in a manner that won't make you end up in jail. That's the difference between now and the time of the American Revloution. We live in a country where we can have a say in our laws.

 

Your opinion is that the law against marijuana is also just.

 

I think I would save my energy for a better battle. That doesn't mean others would, though.

 

That's an opinion that requires justification, and although you've given a great summation on why you don't use marijuana, or even why it's not a great idea for someone else to, you haven't provided enough information that a lack of marijuana would be more beneficial for the society.

 

No opinion requires justification. If I was trying to make others take on my views, then it would require justification, but I don't care if others see it the way I do, so therefore, I don't need to justify anything.

 

you haven't provided enough information that a lack of marijuana would be more beneficial for the society.

 

If there wasn't marijuana we wouldn't be having this crazy argument, and that would be beneficial for society. Ha ha joking .

 

 

The legalization of marijuana would:

1. Devastate organized crime.

2. Alleviate the prison system.

3. Increase revenue for goverments, locally and federally.

 

What's your case for the illegalization of marijuana?

 

If I was trying to make you see it my way I would need a case, but I'm not, so I don't have to think of one.

 

So far, you've got health issues as part of your case, but it's abundantly clear that the Federal government doesn't care about keeping people healthy, as caffeine, nicotene, alcohol, and McDonalds are still legal as well

 

That is one thing I completely agree with you on. If the goverment is going to keep marijuana illegal, the other harmful things you mentioned above should be illegal as well (I dunno about McDonald's though, I'm not sure if it slows your reaction time, blah blah blah, either.)

 

The government has a responsibility to make just laws; in turn, citizens have a responsibility to follow the law.

 

In the case of marijuana, the government failed first.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by honey2005

I've posted doctor's opinions, but I've never said "This is a FACT".

You've said it constitutes as proof, and proof consists of facts.

Laws are made for a reason

That in no way implies a just reason. As I said before, people have a responsibility to follow laws so long as the government makes their end of the bargain.

No opinion requires justification.

I believe the people who made drug laws were thinking the same thing.

That is one thing I completely agree with you on. If the goverment is going to keep marijuana illegal, the other harmful things you mentioned above should be illegal as well (I dunno about McDonald's though, I'm not sure if it slows your reaction time, blah blah blah, either.)

So basically, anything that can cause serious harm to your ownself should be illegal. That's a twisted view of freedom. Should the government tell you which cereal to buy? Cinnamon Toast Crunch is bad for your teeth.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You're confusing your adages. The above only applies to two independent wrongs. In the case I outlined, the second only applies if the first applies as well, they're dependent.

[honey2005]

That in no way implies a just reason. As I said before, people have a responsibility to follow laws so long as the government makes their end of the bargain.

 

I never said it was "just". You should read the entire post before you comment.

 

if you don't think the reason is just, you can go about changing it in a manner that won't make you end up in jail...We live in a country where we can have a say in our laws.

 

So basically, anything that can cause serious harm to your ownself should be illegal. That's a twisted view of freedom. Should the government tell you which cereal to buy? Cinnamon Toast Crunch is bad for your teeth.

 

Cinnamon Toast Crunch doesn't slow your reaction time, POSSIBLY cause hallucinations, etc. I don't care if it endagers the person doing it, it's who it indirectly effects that bothers me.

 

the second only applies if the first applies as well

 

Two wrongs doing make a right = if someone does something wrong, doing something else wrong won't correct the first mistake, meaning they are dependent.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by honey2005

I never said it was "just". You should read the entire post before you comment.

Er, so laws are compulsory to follow, even if they're unjust?

Cinnamon Toast Crunch doesn't slow your reaction time, POSSIBLY cause hallucinations, etc.

Totally arbitrary health effects. If I want to slow my reaction time, why should the government stop me? No one reccomended driving while intoxicated, that can still be illegal like it is now. A lack of sleep slows your reaction time.

Should the government step in and make us get our 8 hours?

Two wrongs doing make a right = if someone does something wrong, doing something else wrong won't correct the first mistake, meaning they are dependent.

No, that's not what I was talking about at all.

 

The government has to make just laws.

 

We have a responsibility to follow laws.

 

The second is DEPENDENT, i.e., we don't have to follow laws if the government doesn't make just ones. Your logic is silly, because it states that we'd have to follow unjust laws, which makes no sense at all.

[honey2005]

Er, so laws are compulsory to follow, even if they're unjust?

 

Laws are made for everyone to follow, not just a select few. If you think a law is unjust, breaking that law won't do anything to change it, it will just get you into trouble. You should follow the law until the law is changed; there is no point in having laws if no one is going to follow them. We have a say in our laws, if you don't feel it's just, go about changing it in a legal manner.

 

If I want to slow my reaction time, why should the government stop me?

 

Because you're endangering others, not just yourself.

 

I personally have not seen a sign that says DONT SMOKE AND DRIVE.

 

It seems some people don't know it's dangerous to smoke and drive. I don't think we should risk innocent peoples' lives just so you can feel good about having the "right" to put something into your body.

 

 

The second is DEPENDENT, i.e., we don't have to follow laws if the government doesn't make just ones. Your logic is silly, because it states that we'd have to follow unjust laws, which makes no sense at all.

 

My logic is to CHANGE unjust laws, not break them. Your logic seems silly to me. If you can say which laws are unjust, so can anyone else. Someone could think it's not fair for a neighbor to have better things than him, so he goes and destroys/steals his neighbor's property. Someone could think speed limits aren't right, so they drive whatever speed they like. You can't just go breaking whatever laws you see unjust.