do you smoke weed?

[matt22616]

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.

 

[Dakota rube]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

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.

 

[Lel]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

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.

 

[ConcernedParent]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

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.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

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 ****"?

~S

 

[LeadSmall3BetAllIN]

No but I view colorful fractals and random patterns on my computer, iphone, and tweedy coats while listening to euphoria inducing sounds.

 

[word]

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 **** 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 ****. It would be much more relaxing than having beers which I do now.

 

[benlin910]

i have any problem with people who smoke weed.

 

[hgf2010]

buy local

 

[Avocat]

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.