So can cars, steak knives, firearms, chainsaws and aspirin. I don't consider alcohol or cannabis use to be immoral and even if I did I wouldn't feel justified in telling someone else what they can or can't do provided it doesn't harm anyone else.
I understand your position, completely; I just don't agree with your conclusions. OTOH, I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone.
I think an objective moral here would be like I said. A deterministic path from use to harming others. In other words, if they do x, y will usually happen because they can’t help it. So like with alcoholics there are some deterministic behaviors that pretty much happen with all alcoholics.
Again, we end up talking about personal freedoms - "license, if you will - versus the morality of what is good for society as a whole. Personal freedom is useless to society as a whole unless it's backed up by a societal morality that frowns on destructive behavior. We tolerate drug use - including alcohol - to excess and that encourages some folks to get into stronger drug use, which leads to increasing the demand for illegal drugs, which leads to wholesale criminal enterprises, which inevitably leads to violent crime, and so on.
You have a mighty shallow depth of understanding about cannabis and particularly many of those who use it.
www.mindbodygreen.com
The discussion over pot legalization is quite the emotional issue, eh? Brings out the worst in some, huh?
My argument is not really over legalization. Legalization is a messy at best, but so is a lot of other legislation that we have control of and not. FYI though, arguments that attempt to use shame or rudeness in some fashion won't be winning a lot of folks over to the legalization side.
My point is more over the need to educate folks that they don't need the recreational buzz to have a good life. Intoxication is not really that cool like society and media has always raised us to believe. Changing mental status with chemicals recreationally on occasion is fine, but regular use is not productive for the user or others associated.
Chasing euphoria on a regular basis certainly has been the downfall of a lot of folks. Changing laws won't effect that one way or the other. Changing attitudes about the need for euphoria in daily life is the better argument.
Heck, if I want decongestants that actually work (pseudoephedrine) I have to show DL and sign, so I think they're also 'discouraging' trying to buy too many of those so you can't home-brew meth
Does it never occur to people (excluding those who want to puff for some medical condition) to wonder WHY they are willing to risk their careers and their LTCH/CCW and perhaps jail 'just' to get high? If it isn't addictive, why is the pull to burn one (or more) every day so strong?
You don't have to. Those with the potential to become alcoholics are around 30%, and a mild to non-existent hangover effect is a strong predictor of that tendency
Poppies are a plant, coca is a plant, belladonna is a plant, hemlock is a plant. The whole idea that because something occurs in nature it is automatically harmless and wonderful is magical thinking. Gaia is just another name for the lady who is "... red in tooth and claw" and she would kill you without a second thought
And? All of them should be completely absent from the law. I can't figure out if it's the complete failure of the attempts to prohibit people from taking part of these substances or the illogical desire to control what other people do that keeps this issue alive.
Cocaine is a plant, just sayin. I get your point and agree though lol.
It’s purpose is not to discourage you as a legitimate consumer of an over-the-counter medicine. It’s to try to catch people who exhibit purchasing patterns that might indicate that they’re using it to make meth.
That makes my point. Those statistics make alcohol use somewhat predictable in terms of deterministic behavior. Not 100% predictable or even 50% predictable. MJ is in the same class in my opinion. People predisposed to addiction will get addicted to whatever.
