pot, shouild it be leagal????

[Guest 420GSXR1000]

rane.....thanks soooooo much for separating church and state.....something ppl here cant seem to do sumtimes...Bush uses religious phrases too much to be pres...but as always thats my opinion, and im sure the apostle will tear me apart for contradicting my self with whats below too....but its the separation thing, you HAVE to be able to separate job/church/state

 

the 10 commandments....yea baby....thats the law to me baby...even though we have ALL broken a few here n there

 

THE APOSTLE....well dude your right...we are wasting each others time in here because YOU will never turn my opinion, and i will NEVER turn yours, no matter what "fact" or www sites that are posted(i really hate the www sites sumtime cause there written by slobs like us with out really knowing of the writter education level or professional background)...but that www site that you posted sucked man, it didnt answer its own questions, i followed some of the links that asked q's but they would just start to talk about other facts instead of answering the q that the link was supposed to answer "will pot leaad to other drugs".....but in my OPINION that site was below average, it was aimed at the parent who has never smoked(not that it makes a diff)ive seen better antipot liturature that does a better job...no offense intended although im sure ull take it that way..

 

i DO lOVE the fact on how passionate you are about debating...seriously....get into politics man, try and make the world a better place from like murder, war, intollerance ect...but pls let the things that dont affect others' rights or religious views (im lutheran, what r u?? you never said b4)...although im not saying that human sacrifices due to religious practice is ok, get serious ya know??

 

apostle...yu also seem to base morality on a GENERAL human level..i dont believe this to be true, we wrestle with capital punishment from state to state all the time, morality TO ME seems to be based on the religious background and the overall rearing used in that persons life (also the country-community living in), i believe in cap punish, but it still has holes, ppl can be convicted wrongly and we have killed inoccent (i hope this # has been kept low)..the proccess needs to be looked @......

 

i dont know man...the world is one meesed up place...ppl NEVER seem to have tolerance or understanding for the other, i cant wait till the time when we realize that the earth is ONE HUGE COMMUNITY, and its us against the milky way man(god didnt have to have just this experiemnt)....it just seems that there are many bigger, more problematic, and more harmfull things going on then a bunch of peacefull pot smokers getting together for a "circle" smile.gif

 

 

hey man (aposlte)...just voicing my opinion, and i hope you doont take this shit too personal....oh and BTW....this is DJS KITCHEN, not a formal "debate" forumn, you may be better than i when it comes to typing but

 

IM STILL RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG!!!!! roflmao

 

just kiddin man, had to put that at the end for comical value (had to explain the funny or sum1 could misinterperate it, like those with NO sense of humor)..

 

later dudes/dudettes

 

[ 28. May 2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: 420GSXR1000 ]

[Drunkendubber]

"And you yourself seem to be of the persuasion that becoming a habitual user has negative consequences, implying that you in some way acknowledge the fact that marijuana is a detrimental substance to one’s health. “…and if I smoked often or anywhere else but at a party I’d begin to feel shitty.” By your own admission you are able to discern the fact that marijuana has deleterious consequences upon a body. Why then would you defend it? Certainly you might take the stance that, “well, eating too much is bad for you too. Are you going to condemn that?” Well, yes, but eating, particularly healthy foods, is something natural and what our bodies were designed to do. There are no harmful effects from eating a pear or an apple, whereas the toxic chemical ingestion from marijuana is scientifically quantifiable. "

 

this is retarded, I've said far too many times and you know this also as truth, ANYTHING and I mean anything in excess is detrimental to ones health. You drink too much water, and die. To much food, become fat and die. To much exercise, long term health problems and probably death. EVERTHING at a high enough frequency can hurt you. So as an answer to your Why do you defend it if it hurts you, Shut the fuck up. and your bible shit is killing me its immoral only because its illegal there is no other basis for your immorality argument. Give that up too, or just chant "its illegal" cause thats all you got on it.

 

 

also Weed does not need to be altered for consumption. You can walk right up to a plant, pick off a stalk, chew it up, swallow, and guess what you're going to get fucked up. Your basis on the alcohol piece of this argument is a little skewed. Are you saying its ok to alter the process to make alcohol but not ok to consume MJ? Since you brought it up, what is the stance on alcohol as a whole. One would hope that we all know the importance of the beverage in the creation and development of the world and society. Yet its ok to harness the process and make drinks that even in the smallest amounts add a strain to your system yet alcohol is accepted on a global level. Simply because of its history its accepted? Alcohol helped destroy the native americans yet MJ and other psychotropics played a part in their religion and exhistance. The stigma of this being right and this being wrong is a cultural issue versus this universal right and wrong that you continue to refernce.

 

why is this post still going. how many times do we really have to type the same fucking thing.

[Guest 420GSXR1000]

Originally posted by CaptainTerrific:

why is this post still going. how many times do we really have to type the same fucking thing.

great counterpoints, but as for your last q...shit man...this argument will go on forever somewhere smile.gif ...and the "other side" will never come over smile.gif

 

and you get great STYLE points!!!!!! graemlins/thumb.gif

[Miller]

If I find some more time I'll do some research for you and try to find some informative sites on the "addictive nature of weed" I personally don't believe it is existent at all but I will do what I can.

As for the belief in brain wave activity increasing with weed, I'll look for that too. I think anyone who has tried the stuff before will vouch that when high you have tons of random thoughts and impressions to do things bouncing around your head, which would be a perfectly proprietress reason to believe that brain wave activity is increasing considerably.

And I do believe that weed can be over used. I use it within reason because as I said I would feel shitty with my circumstances right now. I am studying for my act to get a scholarship I’m in the run for and my mom passed away literally yesterday, things are not easy right now.

And Captain terrific put everything into good perspective. Weed would not have any question against its use had it not been made illegal by authority over us. We are under the authority of those who God has ordained.

Originally posted by Eidolon:

<font color ="midnightblue">

Therefore murder, in a round about way, was also created by God (the capacity for it, at least).

I'd love to take that debate further, because, while God gave us the nature to make our own decisions, he never instilled the idea of murder or any other immoral action. That all came after we screwed up His intended purpose for us.

[Guest Rane]

Doesn't the bible say you should follow the laws of your government or some shit along those lines somewhere??

[Miller]

I could be wrong but I think I just said that.

[Guest Rane]

I haven't read anyones post I just skim them probably overlooked it :-p.

[Guest Crankshaft]

Originally posted by CaptainTerrific:

why is this post still going. how many times do we really have to type the same fucking thing.

<font color ="midnightblue"> I wholeheartedly agree, so read these posts. I think they will answer some of your questions. For the second time. The rest, I'll answer further below.

 

Yes—and I think you’ll agree with me on this one—that smoking pot would still be wrong if made legal because I can safely say that I think murder would still be wrong if it were made legal. I think I’ve said this twice now, but I’ll say it again: the government is not a proper arbitrator of moral actions. The last presidency should have told you that. There are higher codes of ethics that the government does not adhere to, nor subscribe to. If we wish to be ethically and morally sound, we need to examine the social mores around us to discover if they are, in fact, the best thing for us.

 

Underage drinking is made only worse than drinking at or after 21 by the fact that it is illegal. So doing something that is wrong, that you know to be wrong, is certainly immoral. And I’m not sure exactly what you mean by underage drinking at church. Does this refer to communion? If so, then that is a totally different situation. Taking less than a shot glass’ worth of alcohol into your system for the purpose of observing a holy sacrament is not immoral. If the sacrament demanded that one become intoxicated, however, that would be (though if this were the case, I doubt Christianity would be the same as we know it today).

 

And I fail to see how allowing someone “at the bottom of the barrel”, so to speak, take a lifestyle of further degenerating habits upon themselves’ is a moral thing to do. If a husband lost a family member, let’s say, and he takes up drinking and becomes an alcoholic, and then loses his wife in divorce and his kids to custody, you can’t tell me it’s not due to the drinking. “Yeah, but that’s alcohol. We’re talking about weed.” That’s true, but you did say, “I just don’t buy people blaming the substance for their problems.” Ok, now we’ve all been over the psychotropic and physically negative effects one experiences from marijuana. Taking in an alien toxin into your body when you’re at a low point in your life is certainly not going to help matters. In fact, if anything, it is only going to worsen the situation, costing you your time, money, and mental constitution.

 

I should stick to facts? See, this is where we have the problem—people are all moral relativists today. There are moral facts, it’s just more difficult to find them because, when you come to a “solution”, there is no definitive “answer”, as it were. As in mathematics, when you solve an equation there are methods of checking it that can, without a doubt, prove your answer right or wrong. This is not the case in philosophy, which is why some people seem to devaluate it. If you say there are no moral facts, you sir are a nihilistic anarchist. Period.

 

What about someone who smokes in Amsterdam? What about someone who kills someone else in Antarctica, with no one around for hundreds of thousands of miles—where there are no rules? Is it not still wrong?

 

And about that medicinal marijuana…that’s a good question. I’m not entirely sure about my position on this one, I’ll be honest. Because on the one hand, we can, without a doubt, say that they are not smoking it for immoral purposes. Relieving their pain would not be considered an immoral endeavor. However, it still comes down to how they are doing it. If we say that a man is legally permitted to be wasted on alcohol 24 hours a day because it is one of the only ways for him to relieve his physical pain, then I don’t doubt many of you would consider that to be a fallacious line of reasoning. Yet when it comes to pot, we somehow think that it’s ok, because the negative effects of marijuana are much less visible in nature. The medical effects of other pain relieving drugs, such as morphine, can also be called into question. For example, morphine, “Morphine, a narcotic , directly effects the central nervous system. Besides relieving pain, Morphine impairs mental and physical performance, relieves fear and anxiety, and produces euphoria. Morphine's effects also decrease hunger, inhibit the cough reflex, produce constipation, and usually reduces the sex drive. In women, Morphine can even interfere with the menstrual cycle. Morphine's euphoric effects can be highly addictive. Tolerance (the need for higher and higher doses to maintain the same effect), as well as physical and psychological dependence develop quickly.” ( Source Here ) Such drastically negative effects for the purpose pain relief can and should have their legitimacy called into question. We cannot go into a discussion which considers all of the pain relieving drugs out there, but I will say that when such a drug has a tendency to produce such seriously negative effects within the body, it should not be used, even for pain relief. Pain is a natural function of the body; inhibiting it with an alien substance is not. Therefore, I would venture to say that I do not agree with those using marijuana for medicinal purposes. The only scenario I could possibly see in which marijuana’s medicinal uses might be condonable would be in cases of severe injury resulting in eventual fatality. Yet even then, I do not think it is wholly permissible for a person to abandon their higher functions of reasoning to relieve a pain that will be naturally relieved before too long anyways.

 

And I’m sorry if you think you’ve seen both of us make better arguments. I cannot speak for Mowgli, but I can say that an argument, in my opinion, is good if it is consistent with what the speaker has been saying before, it is true (to the point that it can be debated legitimately), and is well thought out. And, per these criteria, my arguments have remained the same, in spite of your perception of them. Your arguments, however, have gotten better and better, and I must commend you (please excuse any condescension, it isn’t intended) on your efforts.

 

You obviously haven't taken an ethics class. Or if you have, either you or the professor was lacking in their understanding of the concepts.

 

Yes, I "seriously" just compared murder to smoking marijuana. No, my back is up against no such proverbial wall. In theory, if something is immoral, it should not be done for any reason, no matter the degree of harm resulting as a consequence. There is no negative consequence morality scale equalizer to determine the viability of actions. Stealing a cookie after you've been told not to, for any reason, is actually immoral. What harm comes from it? Little, if any. Immoral. Murdering someone in cold blood, even if you believe it is the right thing to do, or you will never be caught, is still immoral. What do we have as a result of both situations? Something immoral. There is no varying degree of immorality. It is, or it isn't. This is too black and white, however. We say things are "grey" because of the extent of undesirious effects which result from them, not because one thing is "more" immoral than another. It is, or it isn't. It is our perception of the consequences which decides our willingness to do a thing.

 

And when, in all of the arguments that we've had, did you honestly come to the conclusion that I support drinking in any way? When did I say it was "moral"? I didn't. The only difference between drinking and smoking is one is legal, the other is not. The government is an arbitrary judge, and should not be trusted to make our moral decisions.

 

"I know it's crushing to you that you can't prove a valid point" ... I think what you meant to say was "make a valid point". I don't need to "prove" a valid point, as its validity would already have been proven......which makes this whole debate seem a little silly, but tally-ho. And if that doesn't work for ya, then consider the structure of that sentence seems to indicate your opinion that my position is valid, thereby making yours invalid. Ahh, semantics.

 

"(since debating, masturbating, posting unfunny videos on the internet, and learning dead languages seems to be all that you do with your life)"

 

debating is self-obvious, but where did masturbating come into it? If you don't like the videos, that's fine. Don't watch 'em. Dead languages? Since when is a language that over a hundred and fifty million people speak considered dead? You left out playing computer games, traveling all over the world, working construction, and going to college.

 

 

<font color ="midnightblue"> Now, my above reposted posts should cover the topic of immorality vs. legality. However, you have perhaps unconsciously equated my endorsement of moral behavior with the teachings of the bible. Unless I am mistaken, I have not, thus far, mentioned the bible or God even once. Morality exists outside of religion, but it is interesting that you have seemingly subconsciously intertwined the two.

 

And I assume you know what you're talking about when you say that marijuana does not need to be altered to experience its effects. I admit my ignorance in the necessary preparation of this drug, for what I would hope to be obvious reasons. However, that doesn't demand a retraction of my previous assertion, which, at this point, isn't necessary to delve into (unless you would request it to once again validate my claims). To answer your question, no: I am not "saying its ok to alter the process to make alcohol but not ok to consume MJ". I really don't believe in either, but as I've said before, fighting beer is an absolutely hopeless battle at this point (and conceivably, any point). And my stance on alcohol "as a whole", is that, although it must add immeasurably to what would otherwise be mundane and uninteresting social meetings between narrow minded people convinced alcohol is an important component in the relaxation process and let's them "loosen up" (as many have told me it does), it is, in fact, a drug. And, like all drugs, there are consequences for its consumption--some being quite extensive in nature. Even one drink kills brain cells; the trouble is, we have billions of them, so a few hundred here and there go seemingly unnoticed. So, to make the best of a bad situation, I would say my stance on alcohol is this: drink, but don't get drunk. I cannot stand the thought of loosing control of my own body, and am not able to understand those who can.

 

And yes, I do understand alcohol's "importance" in the creation and development of the world. Although I would call it "influence", rather than importance. I cannot believe that the world would be in a worse condition than it is today had the advent of alcohol never taken place, and do not think many would disagree with me. Your next statement is so laughable I find difficulty believing it possible you think it to be true. "Alcohol helped destroy the native americans..." So did the shipwrights who built the ships the colonists sailed over on, but what's your point? Native Americans were destroyed by their inferior technology, tactics, and numbers, plain and simple. It's no more complicated than that, my friend. If you're referring to the fact that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol, then I still disagree with you, because no one is making them drink. It's a choice. And what if marijuana played a part in their religion? It actually played a very, very small part of their religious practices, and was predominantly found among the Tepecano Indians in north west Mexico, who only use it when Peyote is not available. In the Mexican states of Vercrux, Hidlago and Puebla, Indians would use Cannabis during communal curing ceremonies, which were not very frequent in occurrence. The ceremony is predominantly based on Christian elements; however, due to superstition and folk tradition, marijuana has been elevated to represent a portion of the heart of God. That said, the participants also believe the plant is dangerous and that it "can assume the form of a man's soul, make him ill, enrage him, and even cause death." They are obviously aware of the negative effects of the drug.

 

And, though I covered it in my reposted posts for you, I'll say it again: this is not a stigma, and it is not (should not) be viewed as a strictly cultural issue. I'm sure you'll agree murder on a whim is not simply a culture issue. These are both issues of morality, which has a much wider scope than simply a given society's perception of it.

 

 

Rane: this is not an issue of Church and State. I'm still intrigued that we continue to irrevocably associate morality with the Bible. I'm sure this is a subconscious knee-jerk reaction, however it is still interesting. I would say the same thing to you, "Baked".

 

And, as amazing as it might seem, I actually agree with everything you've said. I mean it. I read your post, and I agree with everything. With the exception I mentioned above of this not being a church/state/God issue, I agree with you.

 

Mackzilla - if all you're trying to prove is that marijuana alters or increases our brainwave activity, I won't argue with you. But that doesn't mean it's altering them for the better. Marijuana is a foreign chemical, it has many toxins, and it isn't healthy for the brain to operate under its influence. Just ask the Boeing test pilots who participated in a study where they smoked mj, then proceeded to fly their planes on a normal routine in a simulated practice run. When finished, they were asked how they thought they did, and they unanimously reported to have flown better while smoking pot than they did without it. However, if it had been an actual flight, every single one of them would have crashed their planes. The brain was not designed to function with the assistance of marijuana. Period.

 

And your final point, I think we both agree on. From a strictly non-secular standpoint, we can agree that man was not intended to murder. However, from that same standpoint, we can also divine that, just as man cannot fly, if God had not made provisions in our mind for that free will to take charge, we would not be able to commit murder. It's as simple as that, and I think you'll agree with me.

 

Originally Posted by Rane:I haven't read anyones post I just skim them probably overlooked it :-p.

<font color ="midnightblue"> I'm so glad we have informed posters here. Read up, or don't waste our time.

[Guest 420GSXR1000]

giave rane abreak man... graemlins/chillpill.gif

 

apostle...well morality doesw have something to do with it and shit, havent religions had "sacrifices" for thier god??? what about cannibals???? i think it has everthing to do with it...now whats the definition of morality??

maybe i just need too get out websters but that will be later its late im tired but i had to chime iin 4 a bit

 

\and as for the native americans references, i believe the original intent was that alchol is leagal(was then too) and its MORE phisically addictave than MJ (thats info off you site about MJ being "MENTALLY addictive" not alwaqys phisically)... and hey if you agree with all isaid except god/.state church thing then??? cetainly it would have cause more problems doing mass arrests right? do u agree??

 

and hey what religion ru??? i think this does play a part, i think catholic??? but thats a personal guess... smile.gif

 

: have fun all this post will last forever smile.gifgraemlins/eek2.gifgraemlins/popcorn.gif : graemlins/chillpill.gifgraemlins/grin2.gif

[Guest DagoRcR]

I think ill put my foot in the door here:

 

 

Firstly, this entire debate is one of morals and beliefs, I choose to stay third party to I will use the opinions of other persons that have already posted for examples. The apostle is, or wants to believe he is, a Spartan in thought and beliefs. He holds his moral standards higher most other people. To him, smoking (tobacco and marijuana) and drinking are morally wrong. Inducing a state of inhibited or influenced consciousness, for no particular reason except pleasure, will always be wrong in his mind. In addition to this, other morally questionable practices like premarital sex will be also unfavorable in his mind.

On the other end of the spectrum lie the hedonist ideals. Where life’s purpose is the pursuit of pleasure, and in doing all of the things that make you feel good- you are living life to it’s fullest. This could be interpreted another way, but in essence, it opens the door to morally “right” drug abuse, sex, and even more extreme acts.

 

Of course, the country is run neither by Spartans nor by hedonists, but a combination of the ideas, with several others. In the formation of this country, we have allowed coke, alcohol, and tobacco. Eventually coke was made illegal. Plenty of sites out there say that marijuana has a lesser degree of inhibition on the human body than alcohol. This may be perfectly correct, but statistics should not sway your opinion in any way. The 2 drugs (mj and alcohol) are close enough in effect that stats of death will prove nothing.

 

Basically, what it comes down to is a semi-binary belief that either both are good, or both are bad. Of course, you may also take the stand that because one is legal it is good, while the illegal is not.

 

The third choice is the simplest, it doesn’t make the person, consider the “why”. For example- I hypothesize that alcohol is thoroughly imbedded in our society for 1 major reason. It did allow the formation of Europe. After the fall of rome and complex aquifer systems, the people of Europe had very little access to pure water. They did know, however, how to ferment alcohol. Thus- the drink of early->later medieval Europe was beer, water was actually more expensive than beer. ( Source, http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/History/larson/welcome.htm)

 

Since we are a European offspring, and in a sence, by now, most of the world is influenced by “Europe”- beer is readily accepted.

 

The debate is frivolous on the basis of moral grounds. After all, debating morals is a ridiculous concept. A better, more decisive direction for this debate would be in terms of monetary issues. Would it be profitable for the U.S to allow Mj, not just trading taxes, but control of the drug vs current money spend keeping it out? Many people would find that it’s cheaper to allow it.

BUT, do we want the rise of the “pot smoking” culture in our country? Do we need another “alcoholics anonymous” like spin off?

Do we want the side effects that another legal inhibitory drug would induce on our country?

 

 

Authors note:

 

I am against MJ legalization. I will not smoke mj, mostly on the basis of illegalness, however it is also a personal abstaining choice (Thus I am a combination of 1 and 3 from above). I feel like now, people who want to smoke-- can. It IS illegal, and because of that it cuts the number of smokers down, but if a person wants to, he can.

Leave it like that. I’m not going to stop you from smoking, I just don’t want to see/smell it everywhere, like I would if it were legal.

[Guest 420GSXR1000]

d........very well thought out and coveyed...

 

thanks for chining in!!!!!!and putting anew aspect into it also

 

l8rs

[copperhead]

Originally posted by D:

The third choice is the simplest, it doesn’t make the person, consider the “why”. For example- I hypothesize that alcohol is thoroughly imbedded in our society for 1 major reason. It did allow the formation of Europe. After the fall of rome and complex aquifer systems, the people of Europe had very little access to pure water. They did know, however, how to ferment alcohol. Thus- the drink of early->later medieval Europe was beer, water was actually more expensive than beer. ( Source, http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/History/larson/welcome.htm)

I'm reasonably sure that colonial America was the same way. That's why Tea was such a big deal back then, it was a way to make water not taste like shit, and make it safe to drink at the same time.

 

Alcohol is more restricted here in modern day than it ever has been before in our history, and more restricted than anywhere in Europe.

[mjeosu27]

Well, since this has been discussed now for the 18th time here on CR, I'm not going to read the last 5 pages. I apologize if this has already been said.

 

The apostle: Isn't it kind of a slap in God's face to portray yourself as an apostle? I dunno, maybe you can walk on water, but you sound a little more like "Jacob" from the movie RoadTrip to me. Although I do think you are doing a great job of not directly judging anyone. That's uncommon with people that are devout these days.

 

I still want to see Garrett and Kyle debate this in person. I'll bring the doritos!

 

 

EDIT: Oh and I have a portable EEG machine used to measure brainwaves. We'll hook Kyle up to it and see if he can make it down to Delta

[Guest Crankshaft]

<font color ="midnightblue">

Apostle: noun

 

1. strong believer in something: somebody who believes strongly in an idea or cause and tries to persuade others to share it.

 

So the answer to your question, is no.

 

 

Joel- we already talked about it earlier, but something I thought pertinent to add was a quote by Edmund Burke (which I have perhaps already quoted at an earlier time, but your post brings it back to mind): "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...Men and women become accomplices to those evils they fail to oppose." So, while I can appreciate your stance that smoking marijuana is not an imminently perilous threat to our nation, I must also say that as an immoral activity, it should be opposed, not treated with indifference. A man's sovereignty over himself is drawn at a point when he lives in a society governed and held together by rules and boundaries created by perceptions of what is moral and immoral behavior. If he cannot adhere to those directives then his sense of self-government is skewed towards his own menial pursuits, rather than to those of his country, his God (as it pertains to his religion), and himself, and his rights in this instance are forfeit to the better judgment of those in power (be it of a moral authority or public authority). A man cannot find greivous fault in an action, thus preventing him on personal ethical grounds from indulging in the activity, and then concede to condone it in others. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, so to speak. I think this also answers your question, "baked", pertaining to the relevance of actions based on morality, and why the police actually should have broken up the gathering. Sacrificing morality to convenience is not an appropriate solution. And to answer your last question, I am not religious at all, in the sense that you speak of. I am a Protestant Christian, but I observe my own practices towards God, not the church's.

[Guest DagoRcR]

Originally posted by the Apostle:

 

 

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...Men and women become accomplices to those evils they fail to oppose."

 

 

So, while I can appreciate your stance that smoking marijuana is not an imminently perilous threat to our nation, I must also say that as an immoral activity, it should be opposed, not treated with indifference.

You must have misinterperated my statement. My issue had nothing to do with the morality of the act. Morals are reletive. You for one are a prime example for this point.

 

Can we assume that you are more fervently against MJ than alcohol because it is illegal by the laws of the US?

 

But, and this goes for most all of the people on this board, what about speeding?

 

It is a law of the US to observe the maximum/minimum speed limits, yet this is broken quite frequently by many citizens. Why is this "allowed"? The individual rationalizes it because he thinks he can safely control the vehicle, while decreasing the amount of time taken to travel. When in reality this isn't the case- speeding increases the

risk of injury or death

Source.GOV

 

Blah, blah blah, we all knew that, and however we try to rationalize it, it is true. But I still speed, so does Garrett, so does *insert your name*

 

Granted, in my mind this is not the same league as taking drugs, however it is Still a law of the U.S. which equates it in at least one department.

 

 

Is speeding morally wrong to you? You may anwser No, however, is it morally wrong to put others lives in danger, for your own benefit?

Yes?

According to the Source, then you should be morally against speeding.

 

 

To tie up my argument-

 

I speed, so do you. And we keep doing it. When we get caught, we pay- thus, there are preventative measures against speeding.

 

The people who smoke pot. Get caught, and pay- this is the preventative measure.

 

 

Thus, it should stay illegal, I don't want people speeding in mass, everywhere. However, it is not my job to put my moral beliefs on others (not in this minor case), considering that my morals have contradictions and flaws.

[Guest Crankshaft]

<font color ="midnightblue"> Haha, Joel- you should've been here from the beginning of the argument. Speeding was discussed, and I did make the assertion that it is immoral. And anytime this belief put to practice and I break it (with this thought in mind or not), I am guilty of my own convictions on the matter (which may or may not be brought to justice by a third party...*ahemsaturdaynightahem* )

 

So anyways, yes, I agree with you. Speeding (endangering yours and other's lives for recreation) is immoral; so is pot smoking. Moral relativism is a dangerous clause to endorse, however. Its consequences can be quite dire.

[Guest DagoRcR]

Yeah, i figured that speeding has probably been opened up before. Though I just wanted to bank on it again.

[Guest 420GSXR1000]

i think we have a conclusion coming!!...(again!!!!))

thanks too all for making this a great post...i think if at the very least we know where each other stands , thats fer sure....and remember this if fun right????? have fun then!!!

 

graemlins/popcorn.gif

[Guest Crankshaft]

<font color ="midnightblue"> If anyone's listening to Sean Hannity on the radio right now, his show is all about marijuana. It's pretty interesting.

[Guest 420GSXR1000]

damn....just saw this added post today...i missed the show!!!! And YES I would have listened to it!!! I am set in my ways at this point but never close minded.

 

damn i thought this post was dead, it is, but at least its not nearly as bad as the "callin out the newest member...." damn thats @ like 11 pages, die post die!!!!!

[Dr. Pomade]

Cannabis should be legalized.

 

There, /thread.

[Guest 420GSXR1000]

Originally posted by Dr. Z06:

Cannabis should be legalized.

 

There, /thread.

well i agree but...the fed now has the right to overide states on the issue of medical MJ use, in other words, all the medical MJ users can be jailed by the fed no matter what the state says....i feel sorry for those that use it for need and not recreation....looks like the jails will be full of cancer patients now!!!!

[Dr. Pomade]

I said:

 

Originally posted by Dr. Z06:

Cannabis should be legalized.

 

There, /thread.

Why are you still talking?

[Guest 420GSXR1000]

oppsss...i get it now...my bad....forgot basic code for a sec smile.gif

 

let it die now!!!!!

[Orion]

Originally posted by Dr. Z06:

Cannabis should be legalized.

 

There, /thread.

which is wrong, and therefore, this thread is over.