1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

do you smoke weed?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by lennon420, Sep 13, 2008.

  1. matt22616

    matt22616 Senior member

    Messages:
    500
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Contingent to this question is whether or not our legislators feel any sort of moral approbation for perpetuating a trade system predicated on violence. At least, this is what my mind turns to whenever I ask a question similar to yours. As members of a democratic republic, we are entitled to vote for the election of our legislators. To the extent that, as a culture, Americans are willing (and, in some cases, more than happy) to elect officials who continue to write and enforce laws that perpetuate this violence, to what extent should we feel a similar guilt? Of course, as consumers, we also 'vote w/ our dollars' (which I gather is the focus of your question). I would have to guess that the reason we allow this violence is because it does not affect us into action. Slightly syllogistic, I suppose, but such is my want. The victims of drug-related violence are by in large the impoverished minorities of our country. Most voting Americans are unaffected by the laws perpetuating their misery for two reasons: 1) they don't know anyone who has been murdered as a result of these laws; and 2) they don't buy drugs. So, should those voters who buy drugs feel the same, or a slightly greater, moral approbation for perpetuating a trade of violence than otherwise similarly situated voting taxpayers (given that, theoretically, these individuals perpetuate the system in a comparatively larger way)? Perhaps. If you were to answer affirmatively, I suppose I'd have to ask you: "Why?" I'm not quite sure myself.
     
  2. Dakota rube

    Dakota rube Senior member

    Messages:
    14,501
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    A bit better than yesterday, all day vomiting for
    Honest question: Is no-one who smokes bothered by participating in a trade that damages a lot of people's lives? Weed is weed, ok, but it seems that a lot of the people who are running marijuana across the border are also involved in coke/heroin, etc.

    I'm really interested in honest answers to this -- a question that has NOTHING to do with whether or not marijuana should be legal or no. The fact that it isn't embroils it with drugs and a drug trade that is not as benign.

    ~ H


    In my experience, the weed business has changed dramatically with the advent of medicinal pot. All of mine comes from "legitimate" sources.
     
  3. Lel

    Lel Senior member

    Messages:
    3,386
    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Honest question: Is no-one who smokes bothered by participating in a trade that damages a lot of people's lives? Weed is weed, ok, but it seems that a lot of the people who are running marijuana across the border are also involved in coke/heroin, etc.

    I'm really interested in honest answers to this -- a question that has NOTHING to do with whether or not marijuana should be legal or no. The fact that it isn't embroils it with drugs and a drug trade that is not as benign.

    ~ H


    The vast vast majority of the weed I smoke is grown locally, I've probably never even seen Mexican dirt weed.
     
  4. ConcernedParent

    ConcernedParent Senior member

    Messages:
    4,234
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Location:
    West Coast is back for all you suckas
    Really, I was looking for answers with a little thought behind them. Meat isn't benign --to chickens, but it hardly results in the level of violence associated with drug trafficking. Kids don't get involved (that often) with the illegal pork trade. Or unpasteurized cheese. Sweatshops? A better example, at least -- some of the Taiwanese facilities where they make RAM are pretty oppressive, but again, I doubt if there is the level of violence associated with drug trafficking. Correct me if I'm wrong. Oil? Very dirty, environmentally, I admit. And certainly there's enough money in it for people to get killed over, many would say the Iraqi wars were just about the oil...but.... Most of the above allow people to make choices and pit how much they want to spend against the harm, if you will, of their choices. I'm looking for commentary that stands up to a little bit of reason, not incredibly sweeping generalizations that bend analogy beyond its limits. Unless you have some concreteness to your comments. ~H
    Your entire premise is a sweeping generalization. You assume marijuana trade is inextricably and almost always linked to drug wars, killings and what not. There are lot of hippies up in Norcal that have made pot growing a multi-million dollar industry that is legitimate and as far as I know as "benign" as it gets. I'm sure similar operations run in many different parts of the country. Secondly, I cannot provide a completely analogous example to the effect of the drug trade on people; but when you say "not as benign" I assumed you mean it causes unnecessary (and perhaps unjust) suffering. If you consider animals as morally relevant beings, then yes, the meat industry is not very benign. If you consider appalling work conditions to be in any way oppressive, then yes, sweatshop labor is not very benign. And if we start with the assumption that the Iraq War was about oil, then I really just fail to see how the majority of 30+ million people in Iraq had a choice in the matter. A lot of them are collateral damage in the same way.
     
  5. Superfluous Man

    Superfluous Man Senior member

    Messages:
    515
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Really, I was looking for answers with a little thought behind them.

    Meat isn't benign --to chickens, but it hardly results in the level of violence associated with drug trafficking. Kids don't get involved (that often) with the illegal pork trade. Or unpasteurized cheese.

    Sweatshops? A better example, at least -- some of the Taiwanese facilities where they make RAM are pretty oppressive, but again, I doubt if there is the level of violence associated with drug trafficking. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Oil? Very dirty, environmentally, I admit. And certainly there's enough money in it for people to get killed over, many would say the Iraqi wars were just about the oil...but....

    Most of the above allow people to make choices and pit how much they want to spend against the harm, if you will, of their choices.

    I'm looking for commentary that stands up to a little bit of reason, not incredibly sweeping generalizations that bend analogy beyond its limits. Unless you have some concreteness to your comments.

    ~H


    How about "I don't give a fuck"?

    ~S
     
  6. LeadSmall3BetAllIN

    LeadSmall3BetAllIN Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    No but I view colorful fractals and random patterns on my computer, iphone, and tweedy coats while listening to euphoria inducing sounds.
     
  7. word

    word Senior member

    Messages:
    755
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I kinda want to start smoking again but I ditched all my college connections who would get it from canada. Everybody I see smoking it now is using nasty ass shit from the ghetto.

    Seriously there are some nights after work where I just want to sit in my den with a few albums blasting and being baked to shit. It would be much more relaxing than having beers which I do now.
     
  8. benlin910

    benlin910 New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    i have any problem with people who smoke weed.
     
  9. hgf2010

    hgf2010 New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
  10. Avocat

    Avocat Senior member

    Messages:
    346
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    I don't smoke weed. That said, marijuana is prohibited not because it is bad per se, but rather because it is simply prohibited. The reasoning behind the original prohibition has been proven to be faulty, or so many "experts" say, insisting that weed isn't deserving of the same treatment as are heroine or cocaine--i.e., hard drugs.

    At the same time, weed has been accepted in many places as having medicinal properties. I am uncertain as to the mechanics of the "medicinal marijuana exemption" where present. I've heard that medicinal users get their weed either by growing it for personal use from approved seeds or by buying it in some other form--like baked goods--from an approved seller.

    Regardless of how one feels about the law as to the prohibition, I do not believe anyone has a right to deny any one their medicine, be it medicinal marijuana or some other prescription drug (all prescription drugs are regulated). If the "experts" are right as to reasoning behind the street ban being faulty, then it seems illogical to me to continue handing out criminal penalties to recreational users--i.e., those who smoke weed to get high for non-medicinal purposes. Just because the government can, doesn't mean that it should: prohibitions should be based on real science as it is known today, and not on what was believed to be the case from the past. Does this mean the government will change its mind any time soon? Probably not. This is all.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by