The main crime associated with Marijuana use is the questioning of authority.

... and perhaps an unnatural consumption of snack foods.

A side note on the Golden Rule you mentioned: It has its origins in Matthew 7:12 which refers back to the 6th through the 10th commandments given by Moses in the Pentateuch. The Golden Rule is merely a summary of the way we ought to interact with fellow man. (It does not address how we ought to act within our own minds or with our Creator.) Rather than 'some' morals deriving from the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule is derived from 'some' morals.

You're correct that Marijuana use doesn't directly injure anyone else (though everything indirectly affects others around us). Just like smoking cigarettes or over-eating. Yet, Marijuana use harms the user far less than either of those two. But one truly has to understand what the very purpose of his existence is in order to understand that Marijuana use is contrary to those purposes.

The big problem I have with this whole "this should be illegal, this shouldn't be illegal" stuff is that I do not see a disparity between the moral code and legal/lawful code. If something can be demonstrated to be immoral using Foundational Law, it is irrelevant if the current governmental powers recognize it as such, in determining it's immorality. The question then is, in structuring our governments to abide by and recognize Foundational Law, should those governments have corporeal punishments for violations of that Law. Each law is different, and carries different punishments. For the case of Marijuana use, I would argue that there is no punishment at all that can be carried out by what most people call the US GOVERNMENT that would be fitting to the 'crime' so committed. That is to say, in common parlance, MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALIZED. And I think that NO ONE should smoke it! If (and when) they do, they have their own reward and punishment in the same instant and they will be ostracized by their own families to the extent of their misbehavior.

I think cigarettes are just fine. Crudely speaking, they kill those stupid enough to use them. The crime isn't in the cigarette. The crime is in the heart and mind of the user. Just as are ALL crimes. Controlling materials is not going to change the heart and minds of men. That requires spiritual powers. To answer you succinctly: CIGARETTES SHOULD NOT BE MADE ILLEGAL.

Once again, drugs ARE morally wrong, but that does not mean the US GOVERNMENT should carry out the punishments for the violations. The US GOVERNMENT and it's subsidiary STATES are HORRIBLE at correcting the mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and moral errors in the hearts and minds of men. Last time I checked, the US GOVERNMENT doesn't even try.

In reply to this comment by brain:
The arguments in the video actually do make sense when you keep in mind what you're talking about. Of course the same arguments don't make any sense for theft. There is an obvious reason for this: The logic of morals. Pretty much all morals come from the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.

Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.

Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?

Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.

Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.

P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

The arguments in the video actually do make sense when you keep in mind what you're talking about. Of course the same arguments don't make any sense for theft. There is an obvious reason for this: The logic of morals. Pretty much all morals come from the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.

Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.

Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?

Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.

Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.

P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

It's almost as though his douchebaggery is satirical; ie, a parody on how the rest of Fox News generally acts - because he actually allows the person being interviewed to speak, and even helps him prove a few points. By "regurgitating mis-information about marijuana use and crimilization," he helps point out how ridiculous such notions are, and to the target audience of Fox News, I think that is a good thing because it may help start to change the minds those who hold more conservative views on the issue.

Show me that the good outweighs the bad and I'll gladly change my stance.

Do you have any facts to back up your statements? I do.

A 2006 study called Monitoring Their Future found that four percent of eighth graders and seven percent of twelfth graders had tried cough medicines to get high.

Contrast that with thirty-two percent of 12th graders admitting to regular marijuana use and thirty pecent admitting to having been "drunk" at least once in the past 30 days.
http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/06drugpr.pdf

Sure, cough syrup abuse is a problem, but I think we can agree that cough syrup serves a valuable purpose and is not one of the larger problems when it comes to substance abuse. I had a cold last week so I can say with added emphasis: Thanks goodness for nyquil!

I considered phoning up and complaining about this. Maybe if a lot of people did it, they'd sort their shit out.

Few things such as:
Many of the "problems" of marijuana you've depicted are factually spurious, there's little and often no real evidence to show that marijuana does these things to people. And in the cases where people do feel that way, they're outliers. You might as well warn people against the addictive and dangerous drug "coca cola" because certain children, when they over indulge in the caffeine and sugar, exhibit manic behaviour.

You also neglected to show that marijuana is a legal drug in a european country, a successful and peaceful european country, showing quite clearly that regulated marijuana use is both possible and (on evidence) doesn't seem to affect a population in a negative way.

Thirdly, the (spurious) negative aspects of marijuana that you depicted are less traumatising than the negative aspects of alcohol. Addiction rate is arguably higher for alcohol than marijuana (though it's hard to tell when marijuana users are forced to keep a low profile). Why not show us a similar advert showing us an alcohol user's many faces? A party attended by liver failure, over-confidence, violent behaviour, hangover, dizzyness and vomiting? Of course not, because these dangers are largely the domain of habitual over-indulgers, as is ALSO the case with marijuana.

Fourthly, perhaps you should add a disclaimer to the end of the advert below the information that "marijuana has been upgraded to a class B drug". Along the lines of "... against the advice of the government-requested inquiry." Because the inquiry found and advised the government that elevating the class of the drug would be a bad idea, and they did it anyway.

Finally, of course, no mention of the medicinal properties and uses of marijuana. No mention that marijuana is a medically endorsed drug for certain illnesses.

Might actually phone in or write in.. this advert is misinformation shown in a biased way.

Cough syrup has medicinal benifits and is not widely abused. Your argument is irrelevant.

..and the governments of Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil are extremely corrupt and not very trustworthy or scientific sources. I wouldn't listen to a country whose GDP would skyrocket by legalizing marijuana. I don't stand to benefit anything by keeping marijuana use illegal. I just think it's the best thing for society as a whole.

I would not describe the effects of marijuana as being minor. That's ridiculous. Marijuana alters your brain and hinders your ability to think straight. That's the point of smoking weed.

You can't fool me, my friend, I've been stoned many times in the past. It's been a long time, but I remember the feeling all too well.


>> ^dag:
I wouldn't drive stoned because pot makes me paranoid and it's an unpleasant experience for me as a driver. I actually don't smoke at all anymore - but I do think it should be legal. It's a very low harm recreational drug.
Deedub and thepinky - your ideology and belief system prevent you from understanding how minor the effects are. Cough syrup is way more dangerous. In your mind do you see dirty, atheist hippies when you think of pot smokers? Not trying to be mean - but sometime our belief system holds us hostage from the truth.
This from CNN in an article on the "War on Drugs"
"Last week, the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil called for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and a change in strategy on the war on drugs at a meeting in Brazil of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy.
"The problem is that current policies are based on prejudices and fears and not on results," former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria said at a news conference, in which the 17-member commission's recommendations were presented."
I feel like you guys kind of embody this conservative viewpoint on pot. Sorry to beat up on you, but it's hard to find a contrary position in this pungent smoking smelling place.
I'm not saying pot is good for you. It's not at all.
- but the effects are so damn minor when compared with starving your brain cells of oxygen through alcohol consumption. What kind of idiot would do that? It's like whoofing gas.

It's as pointless to smoke weed as it is to argue with you intellectual giants.

I hate to have to repeat myself but one study I cited above found that:

While the long term and heavy use of cannabis is not linked to the severe or grossly debilitating cerebral effects associated with chronic heavy alcohol abuse, it has been LINKED to more subtle IMPAIRMENT associated with MEMORY, ATTENTION, AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION.


Long term use does not mean that the effects wear off in 2 hours or 24 hours. These are LONG TERM effects of using the drug. Maybe if you didn't personally suffer any long term side effects you'd have a level of reading comprehension that allowed you to catch that the first time around.


Why do pot heads always bring up alcohol when a marijuana debate arises? The fact that weed is less dangerous than alcohol is not a good arguement. Jumping off a small bridge is less dangerous than jumping off a large one, but neither is a good idea.

I don't think people should drink, but we tried making it illegal and it didn't work. I don't drink and I don't smoke weed - that doesn't mean I didn't when I was a kid. I've concluded through personal experience that marijuana is just a selfish waste of time, resourses, and energy and the use of it should be discouraged and looked down upon by society.

What are the merits of smoking marijuana?
How does it benefit individuals?
How does it effect families?
How does it benifit society?
Are users more productive because of it?
Are there harmful physical side effects?
Are there harmful emotional or mental side effects?
Would marijuana use increase if it were legalized?
Does use of marijuana effect one's judgement?


@pho3n1x: Different tests performed during autopsies can produce conclusive evidence whether the subject was high at the time of death or has simply used marijuana in the recent past.

how many list alcohol as primary cause of death? Yeah, people O.D. on cocaine, too. What's your point? See above.

Phelps had the opportunity to come forward and be a major advocate for marijuana use. Imagine the anti-anti-marijuana PSAs they could've done using his face. Unfortunately, he sold out. Is it because he's a bad person? No, it's just because it's easier...

Poor guy, I hope he doesn't have to suffer through anything else because of this.

Temporary side effects only? Wrong. Research it for yourself.

When the FDA lists something as a secondary cause of death, it means it was a secondary cause of death. They were high and they did something stupid to kill themselves. ...and the majority of medical marijuana users did not have terminal illnesses.

>> ^pho3n1x:
If it doesn't kill you, it will most certainly make you as dumb as a bag of nails.
These are temporary effects that subside within 24hrs of consumption. while there are certainly long-term effects, the ones you listed specifically are constricted to the time period, within which, one is 'high'.
Short-term effects of marijuana, which is illegal, and handled with extreme prejudice. I tried to find a link that is as neutral and factual as possible for this reason. In fact I believe I even favored a link that is slightly leaned in opposition of marijuana use. http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/effects-of-marijuana.htm
Short-term effects of alcohol, which is certainly legal, and seemingly quite promoted by most cultures: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/alcohol/short-term.htm
now tell me which you would rather be 'among the masses' with. especially on the road...

If it doesn't kill you, it will most certainly make you as dumb as a bag of nails.

These are temporary effects that subside within 24hrs of consumption. while there are certainly long-term effects, the ones you listed specifically are constricted to the time period, within which, one is 'high'.

Short-term effects of marijuana, which is illegal, and handled with extreme prejudice. I tried to find a link that is as neutral and factual as possible for this reason. In fact I believe I even favored a link that is slightly leaned in opposition of marijuana use. http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/effects-of-marijuana.htm

Short-term effects of alcohol, which is certainly legal, and seemingly quite promoted by most cultures: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/alcohol/short-term.htm

now tell me which you would rather be 'among the masses' with. especially on the road...

Gorillaman, I wonder if there's any use to taking a moralist instead of a practical slant on this issue.

It's true it doesn't appear to make any sense to prohibit marijuana use, but choosing to use it is still a waste of time, and the people who do so tend to be underachievers. There are certainly exceptions to that rule, but people who desire to contribute meaningfully to society are too busy to purposely cloud their mind / reduce their intelligence.

Upvote.

I like the medical marijuana angle, and I know that it helps a lot of people, but I'm really sick and tired of pretending that recreational marijuana use is anything to be ashamed of.

Wow, everyone is so quick to jump to this guy's defense because he was smoking weed and weed shouldn't be illegal. In most of the other weed related sifts everyone talks about how it should be legal and treated no differently than alcohol. And yet here the guy isn't using it responsibility, he was pulled over for a traffic violation, it's not like the cops have weed radar, 'ooh, ohh two blips on the weed'o'tron he's smokin a roach get him!'

Driving slower does not make you a better driver, old people drive slow that doesn't make them better drivers, some drunk people drive slow, does that make them better drivers? They drive slower in an attempt to compensate for their inability to handle the vehicle at higher speeds. Which means their reaction time is slower. And even assuming they obey all the traffic laws their decreased reaction time still puts them at risk. Being a good driver not only means obeying traffic laws, but also being alert and reactive enough to avoid accidents when other people aren't being responsible drivers, or when shit suddenly happens like a kid or dog suddenly running into the middle of the road. I can't count the number of times where alertness and quick reaction on my part has avoided an accident because of someone else's stupidity.

So I guess to sum things up, defend responsible marijuana use, but don't weaken your position's credibility with a knee jerk, never-admit-someone-smoking-pot-could-be-doing-something-wrong, defense.

Arguing he'll get an unfair sentence, compared to those who drink and drive, is also a fair point to make. But suggesting being high as fuck doesn't impair your ability to drive normally, not so convincing.