Taboo subject -- gun-owning pot-smokers?

[Yooper]

What is law other than a manifestation of a moral code? Rape, robbery, and murder are abhorrant according to most individual moral codes. The law allows for penalties to those who don't share that conviction and lack self-control, and acts as a deterrant to those who may not share the same moral value, but aren't lacking self-control.
Morals govern what we do. Laws govern what we may do to others. Personally, I think that if an individual wants to take drugs, or use alcohol in a way which will do no harm to others, fine and dandy, he answers only to his moral code. If the alcohol or drugs cause that individual to harm others, he answers to everyone's moral code.

 

[thefitzvh]

What is law other than a manifestation of a moral code?

and

Laws govern what we may do to others.

In a perfect world, maybe... but todays laws are mostly controls on behaviors that some group of politicians decide is improper.

Is it immoral to carry a concealed weapon? Then why can't I? Because somebody somewhere decided that I might hurt someone.

The truth is: law and morality are completely independant of each other. Sure, they might overlap on some issues, but the majority of laws are horsepuckey.

James

 

[Yooper]

Laws provide penalties for behaviors which run contrary to the consensus of moral codes for some geographic area. The politicians are elected by the inhabitants of that geographic area. The moral codes of those inhabitants will cause them to stay in contact with their elected representative and make their moral code known to him or her if they agree or disagree with a piece of legislation. If they do not, maybe they should re-examine their moral code for responsibility components.

You can decide whether or not it is immoral for you to carry a gun, and behave accordingly.

The laws are the result of the consensus of morality, it may be different than yours, however.

We are not victims, we have recourse.

 

[rayra]

'Pot same as Alcohol' riiiight. Nevermind those pesky LAWS.

Nevermind the arguments surrounding Pot - how do pot users fill out a 4473, is what I want to know. They are obviously comitting a Felony in lying on the form.

 

[Justin]

Ooops, I just read the last paragraph of your post and realized that I've just wasted my time posting a well-reasoned response to your questions. Sorry about that--don't bother reading the rest of the post--it will only annoy you.

John, while Ian's response may have been smarmy, his use of sarcasm does not make it false. Do some digging into the early history of drug prohibition and you will see that its early days are intertwined with racism and bigotry.

 

[thefitzvh]

Pot same as Alcohol' riiiight. Nevermind those pesky LAWS.

"AR15s the same as a Mini-14?? RIIIIIIIIGHT. never mind those pesky LAWS

Since you're in Kali, you should understand that many laws are just plain stupid.

Just because something is prohibited, doesn't mean it's any worse than something else.

The arguments for drug control are the same as those for gun control, and just as fallacious.

James

 

[Ryan in the House]

I am against legalizing Marijuana. I believe it has a negative impact on our society, conveys a negative image, and it has negative overall effects... although I hear it has medicinal properties, I still dont want it legalized for conventional purchase.

I know alcohol isn't much better (and I'm answering this before anyone gets on my case about it)... but I've held a tolerance level for responsible alcohol use because having one or two beers will not mess with your mind the way a joint would; which has immediate effects on your nervous system (a system I dont like to mess with). Alcohol is nowhere near as potent (ok, we're talking about BEER and not MOONSHINE, which is illegal anyway) as a joint, which is why I hold tolerance for alcohol, but not for Marijuana.

Not only does smoking pot sponsor a bad image for kids (drugs = bad), but legalizing it would only make it easier for kids to get their hands on, and experiment with it earlier. When I have a kid, I want to make sure he/she can't just walk up to a neighbor and say "Can I have a hit of that?" If it's too easy to get, then everyone is effected.

 

[thefitzvh]

I am against legalizing Marijuana. I believe it has a negative impact on our society, conveys a negative image, and it has negative overall effects... although I hear it has medicinal properties, I still dont want it legalized for conventional purchase.

Once again, a statement that is used by the antis. Replace Marijuana with guns.

I don't like pot, but saying that alcohol is less harmful is just plain wrong. Beer messes with one's mind MUCH more than a joint will. I've dealt with both. I've never had a stoned patron throw a glass at someone for looking at his girlfriend, or single-handedly attempt to fight a group of bouncers. If a patron is stoned, and I ask him/her to leave, they do. Not so with the guy who has just consumed 6 beers. In addition, over-consumption of marijuana differs very little from the effect of one joint, whereas over-consumption of alcohol leads to complete loss of control of body and emotion, and can lead to death VERY easily. There is no concrete evidence that it's possible for a human to overdose on MJ, while alcohol poisoning deaths are somewhere around 5000 per year. In tests on mice, cannaboid concentrations need to be approximately 5-10 thousand times higher to cause death.

That's irrelavent though, because in a free society, a human being should be able to injest or smoke what has been proven to be a relatively benign substance without fear of government intrusion.

Back on topic, regarding MJ and guns: I'd say the same rules apply for alcohol, they don't mix. Although personally I'd be unconcerned if a person got stoned prior to a range trip, whereas I'd be damn scared if a person was drunk and shooting.

 

[wasrjoe]

Not only does smoking pot sponsor a bad image for kids (drugs = bad), but legalizing it would only make it easier for kids to get their hands on, and experiment with it earlier. When I have a kid, I want to make sure he/she can't just walk up to a neighbor and say "Can I have a hit of that?" If it's too easy to get, then everyone is effected.

I am 19. I could get pot about twice as easily as I could get beer, if I so desired. Drug dealers don't card.

BTW, I don't smoke pot, but know people who do. Hell, it's hard to be my age and NOT know people who do.

 

[Ryan in the House]

I dont know any drug dealers, nor do I know anyone who knows drug dealers; and I'm 18.

At least keeping Marijuana illegal for conventional sale would be making an effort to halt back on how much gets to kids. You can't take a "Ah screw it... those kids will get their hands on it anyway." approach to drugs.

 

[wasrjoe]

But why? Why do you want to restrict someone's freedom of choice simply because it has a "negative" impact on "society"? (Whatever that is.) The simple fact is that people who smoke pot responsibly are not harming you. If someone is not harming you, why do you wish to restrict what they do?

At least keeping Marijuana illegal for conventional sale would be making an effort to halt back on how much gets to kids.

"For the children!" is something of a running joke around here. Keeping marijuana illegal isn't like flipping a light switch. It costs lives, manpower, money, and creates a black market. As has been said a few times in this thread, look at the prohibition. It created an environment which suited organized crime perfectly. And yes, as I have said, it is restricting a freedom. Freedom is something I enjoy and I don't take kindly when people try to impede it - whether or not I personally use that freedom.

 

[Ryan in the House]

Marijuana has been in the unfavorable public eye for a long time; since 1937. To expand on that, the majority doesn't want their impressionable young kids to see other people lighting up joints. If it's legalized, it's likely to be socialized. People won't be hiding it, or doing it in their bedroom when their parents leave the house. They're going to be in our parks, in our streets... lighting up a joint and getting high. I don't find that very appealing, and I doubt that I ever will.

You say our cops are dying fighting the drug war. They die fighting the gun war, too. I'm obviously not for banning guns, but it's also obvious that they face risks every day when they step out into the street and there are criminals that could be armed to the teeth with .50 caliber pistols that could blow a hole thru someone's intestines the size of a baseball. Our cops face risks everyday, and to suggest to legalize Marijuana because it will cut back on the police casualties just makes no sense to me when I look at the big picture.

Keeping Marijuana illegal is not exactly stomping on people's freedom - it's taking away their right to smoke something illegal, decidedly immoral, and highly unfavorable in the general public eye. If you could say that, you can say restricting adult/child sexual relationships and beastiality is stomping on freedom - technically, neither of them harm society directly, and neither of them impede on your personal life; but both are widely looked down upon, and therefor, we do not embrace it.

My cousin was a police officer in the PG County area (and I think he still is), and he believed in the efforts to stomp out drug usage. He put himself in danger to do what he felt was cleaning up society. In our area of PG, we had a lot of drug usage, too.

We have two strong conflicting views. It might be best to agree to disagree... because otherwise, this would go on forever.

 

[Brian Dale]

there are criminals that could be armed to the teeth with .50 caliber pistols that could blow a hole thru someone's intestines the size of a baseball

sorry; wrong forum for that one to fly.

Keeping Marijuana illegal is not exactly stomping on people's freedom - it's taking away their right to smoke something illegal,

OK - pi r squared is the area of a ______________?

decidedly immoral,

Immorality is doing that which harms others. The examples we see posted earlier in the thread refute the notion that smoking marijuana is "decidedly" immoral. I suggest that an assertion of the immorality of smoking marijuana depends on the speaker's complete belief that morality is following all of the laws that exist, to the letter, all of the time. Was the civil disobedience of such people as Gandhi, King and Corrie TenBoom (hid Jews in the Netherlands, WWII) immoral, in your view? What about Mordechai Anielewicz, fighting in the Warsaw ghetto?

and highly unfavorable in the general public eye.

If we all lived to please Mrs. Grundy, we'd still be living in caves and banging the rocks together. Since when do civil rights and fundamental human rights depend on what's favorable in the public eye?

If you could say that, you can say restricting adult/child sexual relationships ...

Foul! No, you can't. It's still a straw man, even when you set the straw on fire.

I am pleased that your cousin is or was a police officer. My rights existed before he was born, and neither his efforts nor his feelings diminish my rights, your rights or his rights. I expect that your cousin put forth as much effort as my father did (as a career Fed) to enforce the law while upholding people's rights.

 

[joab]

They're going to be in our parks, in our streets... lighting up a joint and getting high. I don't find that very appealing, and I doubt that I ever will.

Why would public stonedness be any more acceptable then public drunkedness which is not legal now.
Smoking dope would actually be less noticable in publis than the rummies with their little brown bags are now.

Keeping Marijuana illegal is not exactly stomping on people's freedom - it's taking away their right to smoke something illegal,

Just as prohibition simply kept people from using something that was made illegal.
Just as the AWB did not stomp any rights by simply keeping people frombuying illegal hi cap magazines ( without paying double price)

it's taking away their right to smoke something illegal, decidedly immoral, and highly unfavorable in the general public eye

There was a time when voting women and desegregated schools were considered to be immoral, illegal, and unfavorable in the public eye.
Just as PDAs from same sex couples is today, but two heteros can stand on the corner swallowing each other's tongues with no more than a tsk-tsk from the oldsters

you can say restricting adult/child sexual relationships and beastiality is stomping on freedom - technically, neither of them harm society directly, and neither of them impede on your personal life; but both are widely looked down upon, and therefor, we do not embrace it.

You could say that,But you could only truly believe that if your knick-name was "Shorteyes"
The individual child is most definetly harmed and their personal life is pretty much destroyed, and therefore society is harmed in turn.
As for the bestiality don't ask don't tell would probably apply here.

 

[Brian Dale]

In my above post, I failed to notice another possibility. When I wrote,

that an assertion of the immorality of smoking marijuana depends on the speaker's complete belief that morality is following all of the laws ...

I missed that such an assertion could also be based on the idea that each individual is a milk cow for the rest of society, and that each must be as productive as possible for the good of the collective. Laziness, sloppiness, and failure to keep one's efforts on productive activity would be delinquency, in such a system.

There was a system like that, not long ago. They had gulags.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

Some people are simply not equipped to handle freedom or the complexities that would define it. There are those that have a need to be directed and instructed on how to live. They have no grasp of morality or the difference between right and wrong.

 

[JohnBT]

"They're going to be in our parks, in our streets... lighting up a joint and getting high."

Um, I hate to be the one to tell you this...it's been that way since at least the '60s.

One example of many: A Baltimore Colt football game I attended with my father and the company owner. These 6 really big guys came in and sat directly behind us. We figured we were in for a long, noisy afternoon on the 50-yard line, but NO, a minute before kickoff they fired up a cigar-sized joint and faded into the woodwork for the entire game. The Colts came from way back and stomped the Dolphins.

John...if you can remember the '60s you weren't really there.

 

[TechBrute]

I missed that such an assertion could also be based on the idea that each individual is a milk cow for the rest of society, and that each must be as productive as possible for the good of the collective. Laziness, sloppiness, and failure to keep one's efforts on productive activity would be delinquency, in such a system.

In a socialist system, sure. In a capitalist system, you are free to bankrupt yourself and live off the street.

 

[goon]

What is law other than a manifestation of a moral code?

But it really isn't. The law doesn't teach you not to do something because it is wrong and hurts other people, it tries to frighten you into submission.

My moral code has nothing to do with fear or intimidation.
I "behave" because I don't have any inclination to harm other people, not because there is a law outlining what could happen to me if I don't behave.
If I was inclined to harm another person and willing to pay the price for my actions, the law wouldn't stop me.
My moral code might though.

They are two separate animals.

 

[TechBrute]

Marijuana has been in the unfavorable public eye for a long time; since 1937.

Ryan, go research why it is illegal and then report back. You'll find it is illegal because a very rich man wanted it to be. He needed to villianize it so that he could become richer. You don't have much world experience at your age (I don't mean that in a demeaning manner), but you will find out that the line that they have been feeding you in health class isn't always the entire truth.

 

[Yooper]

goon

The law does not need to teach anything, it simply allows for penalties to those who break it. If that threatens or frightens anyone unreasonably, they should work to change the law.

If your moral code causes you to not harm others, fine, so does mine. But, if you were inclined to harm others and were willing to pay the penalty, I would have to wonder if you had a moral code in the first place, let alone one which could stop you.

I have known people who had no distinct moral code, they functioned under a legalistic premise and their actions were calculated value judgments based upon that.

 

[bogie]

If it suddenly became legal tomorrow, and if I wouldn't lose my job if I partook, I'd happily pursue a buzz following a day at the range...

Last buzz: April 20, 1984. Reported for basic the next day.

 

[roo_ster]

Law!=Morality

If you're a'token up, do us all a favor & keep the hoglegs locked up. Same goes for imbibing lotsa alcohol.

If you want to know WHY wacky tobaccy is viewed in a negative light, do a little digging.

For all you Law=Morality folks, here's a few hits from that most classic of law codes, the Code of Hammurabi:

If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

So, if law=morality, Olympic class swimmers can pretty much commit any crime & get off scot free, as no one would dare accuse them of ANYTHING.

If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.

Ahh, but surely it is moral to return escaped slaves to their owners. Not only is it in the Code of Hammurabi, but Congress & the Supreme Court said so.

 

[Mr. Clark]

I have known people who had no distinct moral code, they functioned under a legalistic premise and their actions were calculated value judgments based upon that.

I don't think that anyone here is arguing for NO laws whatsoever, just that there are differences in laws laws that punish behavior that infringe other's rights and that punish behavior that doesn't infringe other's rights. Drug laws, guns laws, blue laws, etc. fall into the latter category and shouldn't be laws at all. This is the Malum In Se Vs. Malum prohibitum and prior restraint arguments.

I think they are also pointing out the limitations of laws in actually influencing behavior. The vast majority of people are good regardless of the law, a small minority are bad regardless of the law. You are right when you say

The law does not need to teach anything, it simply allows for penalties to those who break it.

but this is not useful when trying to decide if the law they are breaking should even be a law at all. The fact that it is a law gives it no automatic legitimacy, especially considering the number, subject, and enforcement of most laws today. If there were far fewer laws, and those laws only addressed the Malum In Se actions of others, that probably wouldn't be the case.

Besides, as other's have pointed out, sometimes breaking an unjust law is simply a matter of judging the practicality of doing it, and sometimes it is the ONLY moral choice.

 

[Yooper]

Who, then, decides which laws are unjust? The thug breaking into your house in the middle of the night is absolutely convinced that laws against his behavior are unjust, and his moral code justifies his actions.