<p>Yea, rayj - I don't think you're seeing this right. Marijuana is not a drug that is physically addictive. It's not something that has a high short term toxicity and it's not something that one smokes large quantities of over a long time. It does have higher levels of toxins than cigarette smoke, but it is consumed in significantly smaller quantities. </p>
<p>With regards to the "gateway" concept: think about issues of correlation and causation. Is it that the marijuana makes people move on to "higher" drugs, or that people who are inclined to smoke marijuana are more inclined to do those drugs anyway? Nothing about marijuana use causes people to move on to crystal meth.</p>
<p>I'm not going to call your remarks stupid, but I will say that your statements are more than a little dogmatic.</p>
<p>Look, I'm sorry about that. You're claiming saying that weed is this gateway drug and saying it's the same as crack (a drug that's a highly addictive substance with much harsher legal penalties and resulted in one of the greatest waves of violence in the last 30 years) I mean -- you just can't say they're the same.</p>
<p>Im not saying that their the same. I am commenting on the coorelation between marijuana and harder drugs. There has to be a jumping off point right? You just dont start drinking vodka right out the gate. Most people will say the started drinking beer and MOVED ON to harder stuff. Im saying that wouldnt excessive amounts of a low grade anything decensitize you, and thus causing you to move onto something more potent?</p>
<p>I think it's been shown that's there's a correlation, but I think few people truly believe that there's any kind of causation. You're right that most people who are inclined to use drugs like heroine move up in steps, and that marijuana provides a first step. I'd disagree that marijuana causes one to move up, as it's not a particularly rational conclusion. There are people who drink vodka before beer. Vodka is a "hard" liquor in that is has a higher proof than beer, but the active ingredient - ethanol - is the same. The desensitization you're talking about is probably fictitious. A happy and well-adjusted individual who periodically smokes marijuana is not going to decide to go use heroine or crack cocaine. Heroine and crack are extremely distructive drugs that no rational person would use. People most frequently use them for reasons other than to simply "get high" or "take their mind of things." Most marijuana and alcohol use is not due to self destructive impulses.</p>
<p>I defintely do NOT think that pot is a gateway drug. Drugs all make you feel differently - you make an analogy of going from tea to espresso, but it's all the same drug, not a different, more potent one.
As long as you're not hurting others, do what you want. It's your life. If you're rooming with someone and their drug habbits bother you, they should be respectful of that, but they still have the right to do whatever they wish to themselves.</p>
<p>I started drinking hard alcohol way earlier than I have with beer, the same with most people where I grew up. You have to get used to the taste of beer while with hard stuff you can make it tase the way you want.</p>
<p>I think weed is a gateway drug for one simple fact; its illegal. Once you buy an illegal drug you a)are decensitized to buying illegal substances and b)once you by pot, you know a dealer who can probably get you other kinds of drugs.</p>
<p>My personal opinion is that pot is just as dangerous as ciggerattes and alcohol. The only reason why its illegal is that it came into the mainstream long after alcohol and nicotine.</p>
<p>**We can argue for days and days over what we personally, technically consider dangerous about drugs and what purchasing and using them indicates. The basic fact is that we all know that its illegal, regardless of how you think it affects one's health.</p>
<p>I mentioned how no one wants to think about the MORAL ASPECT. Doesn't anyone think that doing illegal substances is wrong? Will you do anything for the sake of grades or feeling good? </p>
<p>Is that what being a student has come to? Quietly buying someone else's-- who knows who's-- prescription drugs to do well in class, and then buying weed to relax afterwards? Don't we make our parents proud.**</p>
<p>You're being fairly dogmatic too, PEALS-05. There's nothing morally or medically wrong with using marijuana. Most other illegal drugs, yes. I'll agree with you that abuse of prescription medicines and other illegal substances is morally and legally wrong. But even as someone who does not and has not ever used marijuana, I can say that I don't believe it's morally wrong to use it. Laws against its use are based on horribly outdated thinking and likely won't last forever. Throughout history there have been laws against things like interracial dating, sneezing on trains, etc - but is/was breaking them morally wrong? No.</p>
<p>"I mentioned how no one wants to think about the MORAL ASPECT. Doesn't anyone think that doing illegal substances is wrong? Will you do anything for the sake of grades or feeling good? "</p>
<p>No, doing something illegal is not necessarily immoral. Morality is not explicitly tied to laws of the state, though many people seem to see it that way. And people aren't doing anything for the sake of grades. I doubt anyone here would murder for an A, or whatever. General statements like these don't help the discussion at all. People can still smoke weed and have an ovearching moral component. People can not smoke weed and have a moral component (like myself and many others here). Also, please refrain from using bold characters. Your argument is not more important than others here.</p>
<p>No drugs should be illegal - those laws themselves are immoral. Was it immoral for Jews in the Warsaw ghetto to rise up? Blacks that were disenfranchised here? Do you think that it was moral for the fire hoses to be turned on the black marchers because they were doing something "illegal?" No, the state has made and continues to make grave immoral errors.</p>
<p>Let's theoretically say I'm a person who likes to have relations with children. "If I'm careful about it, they won't get physically harmed. I personally don't think there's anything morally wrong with it. It makes me feel good. Laws are outdated anyway, based on old thinking. After all, people used to have laws accepting slavery and laws against sneezing on trains. Ridiculous, obviously. </p>
<p>So what's wrong with what I do if I think its right and it brings me happiness? Why does my decision have to be under scrutiny from society? the state has made gravely wrong laws in the past, and I think they are wrong on my decisions too.</p>
<p>I think the laws forbidding what makes me feel good are stupid. I don't think what I'm doing is dangerous physically or morally. As a matter of fact, I feel better after doing it. It shouldn't be illegal because I don't think it hurts anyone, and it makes ME feel damned good."</p>
<hr>
<p>I just don't think your use of examples like "interracial dating" or "train sneezing" jives with the sentiment you show towards marijuana. </p>
<p>**Where is the disconnect? Where is the point where you need to say: No, this is the law and this IS a moral issue and it IS wrong, and there is no doubt about it? Sometimes, when something is illegal, is it acceptable to think that maybe there actually IS validity in calling it illegal?</p>
<p>I used the sexual abuse example because I want to show you that I could use the weak "Well, there have been past laws that were silly" argument for just about any other law forbidding any other illegal activity.** </p>
<p>And no, don't anyone go ape**** and accuse me of trying to equate smoking weed and abusing kids. I'm not.</p>
<p>Certain drugs should be illegal. Meth, heroine, and others have no place in our society and only serve to harm people. There is no legitimate recreational use for them.</p>
<p>Smoking marijuana is not immoral because it doesn't harm the user or others. It's illegal because of a law imposed by a government says it is illegal, based on reasoning from decades ago. To not smoke marijuana because it's illegal is fairly lame, in my opinion. It's like not drinking because you're not 21. Neither is morally wrong, but there are laws against both.</p>
<p>Oh, and who's going apesh**, bold font man?</p>
<p>It doesn't matter. The government has no business prosecuting crimes where the only "victim" is the perpetrator. The government has no right to tell me what I can or can not put in my mouth and light on fire.</p>
<p>PEALS: Stop the bold ****. Srsly.</p>
<p>Also, sexual abuse violates the rights of others. If I smoke a big ass rock of crack, I'm harming no one but myself.</p>
<p>Smoking that big*** rock of crack will also lead you into a powerful cycle of addiction and related behaviors which strain resources. On a large scale, crack use is costly to the user and to society as a whole. Marijuana is a different story.</p>
<p>"Let's theoretically say I'm a person who likes to have relations with children. "If I'm careful about it, they won't get physically harmed. I personally don't think there's anything morally wrong with it. It makes me feel good. Laws are outdated anyway, based on old thinking. After all, people used to have laws accepting slavery and laws against sneezing on trains. Ridiculous, obviously."</p>
<p>Then, 'theoretically', you are being irrational. Just like right now. Obviously, there are many laws that operate on good cause. And there are some that don't. You gave an example of a law that exemplifies the former, but you still haven't shown how the simple fact of it being a law validates its existence, thus we see that cannabis laws fall in the latter. As I have already stated, 'law' does not equal 'moral', and your example is a false analogy. I fail to understand how you could even think of connecting the two. I'm not saying you're trying to say they are equal offenses, but in the context of the argument this is pointless.</p>
<p>** Why do you insist on using BOLD LETTERS so much? As I said, you are not more important than the next poster, so it would be courteous to stop.**</p>
<p>The addiction is MY problem, not yours. If the government wasn't stealing your money to pay for my rehabilitation, legal crack would harm only crack users.</p>
<p>Gang violence would decrease to almost 0 overnight due to turf wars for selling drugs being made irrelevant. States would have double their money due to 60% of prisoners that are in jail for non violent drug offenses being released.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We can argue for days and days over what we personally, technically consider dangerous about drugs and what purchasing and using them indicates. The basic fact is that we all know that its illegal, regardless of how you think it affects one's health.</p>
<p>I mentioned how no one wants to think about the MORAL ASPECT. Doesn't anyone think that doing illegal substances is wrong? Will you do anything for the sake of grades or feeling good? </p>
<p>Is that what being a student has come to? Quietly buying someone else's-- who knows who's-- prescription drugs to do well in class, and then buying weed to relax afterwards? Don't we make our parents proud.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>George W. Bush tried weed (well, I think he claims it was 2nd hand smoke, w/e) there are plenty of other high level American figures that have admitted to doing it. Bill Clinton claims he did but 'did not inhale' (which is BS). These people have tried 'illegal drugs' but were deemed good enough to run our country.</p>
<p>Plenty of things are 'illegal'. Laws are only made for the current society and the society was a whole, they don't take into account individual exceptions.</p>
<p>neverborn, addiction to crack causes people to develop antisocial behaviors which can lead to rapid depletion of assets and loss of employment. That then leads to crime. There's no way around that. True, crimes related to the distribution of crack would decrease, but crimes committed by addicts would increase. The government has a number of social programs in place to help the needy - including crackheads. These programs cost money. An increase in crackheads would cost you - the taxpayer - more money. Whether or not taxation is "stealing" is another matter.</p>
<p>The toll on society would be even greater if we consider that, given increased ease of access to crack and decreased stigma surrounding it, more people would likely try it. More would become addicted. The productive workforce would fall and the number of people dependent on the state for services would increase. The social cost of the legalization of a drug like crack cocaine would be tremendous.</p>
<p>okay I realise that this is going to sond sketchy, but I am currently drunk (not uber drunk, obviously as I am able to type this, but I've had about 4 shots of vodka and I don't normally drink so I would call mysrlf drunk right now), and I occasionally smoke pot (about 2-3 times a week on average, to a medium highness level), and I can say that at after 4 shots of vodka I feel way more F-ed up than I do when I'm high. So weed is not bad. It's just less socially acceptable than alcohol or ciggarettes. As an occasional pot user, I can say that i wuld never ever use anything else aka, it is absolutly not a gateway drug for me. the thought had never even entered my mind to try anything else because I appreciate the high I get from pot so I don't want anyting else. okay so I don't know if that makes a heck of a lot of sense but i know that I can function much better high than most of my friends can drunk (including people who are 21 and ov legal age). Pot should be legal--woo.</p>
<p>crookedly steps off of soap box and stumbles away.,,..</p>