Socrates Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='tgoldson' timestamp='1296157724' post='2205169'] That being said, I think [b]everything[/b] should be legal and very highly regulated. Why not turn criminals into tax-payers? [/quote] Yeah - prostitution, even child prostitution, abortion, all murder . . . After all, the enrichment of the state is a much more worthy goal than petty concerns like morality.
Sternhauser Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1296162400' post='2205232'] Yeah - prostitution, even child prostitution, abortion, all murder . . . After all, the enrichment of the state is a much more worthy goal than petty concerns like morality. [/quote] By "everything," I'm sure he meant "drugs." The context was "drugs." ~Sternhauser
Sternhauser Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1296161449' post='2205215'] it used to be militantly opposed even here on phatmass. just in the years i've been here, those who are opposed to it are now the ones who dn't speak up as much, caue the majority who says 'legalize' speaks up. that's even on a conservative board and people like here. but what about that bottomline arguement that those conservatives always made that the catechism says recreational drug use is a mortal sin? [/quote] Alcohol is a drug. Recreational drug [i]abuse[/i] is and always will be wrong. Deliberately using any drug (without serious reason, such as morphine for an injured person) in a way that greatly diminishes or destroys the use of reason is and always will be gravely immoral. ~Sternhauser
AudreyGrace Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1296162671' post='2205236'] Alcohol is a drug. Recreational drug [i]abuse[/i] is and always will be wrong. Deliberately using any drug (without serious reason, such as morphine for an injured person) in a way that greatly diminishes or destroys the use of reason is and always will be gravely immoral. ~Sternhauser [/quote] Well said. It's the abuse of the drug that is the sin. Jesus drank wine at Cana. Heck, he MADE wine at Cana. But, I'm sure he was responsible himself. I hope. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img]
Nihil Obstat Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1296163165' post='2205241'] Well said. It's the abuse of the drug that is the sin. Jesus drank wine at Cana. Heck, he MADE wine at Cana. But, I'm sure he was responsible himself. I hope. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img] [/quote] It is necessarily impossible for Jesus to have sinned, so yea, pretty sure He was responsible.
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1296162671' post='2205236'] Alcohol is a drug. Recreational drug [i]abuse[/i] is and always will be wrong. Deliberately using any drug (without serious reason, such as morphine for an injured person) in a way that greatly diminishes or destroys the use of reason is and always will be gravely immoral. ~Sternhauser [/quote] you're good at this.
Sternhauser Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1296163408' post='2205246'] you're good at this. [/quote] Thanks. I've had practice. ~Sternhauser
rkwright Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I don't have much of an opinion on whether it should be legalized or not - I've seen plently of people whose lives MJ has ruined; but I've seen more people whose lives have been ruined by alcohol. I will say this: given the drug war, that is fueled by the fact that the drug is illegal, I would find it highly immoral, at this time, to buy or sell MJ. IMO, those that do buy or sell are directly funding the murders in Mexico. I understand those who wish to have it legalized, but for now it is illegal - for now the Cartels are the real "supply" and the money is going towards them. Of course the morality could be very different if people were buying at wal-mart vs. the street corner. I just don't like comments like "I'm not hurting anyone by my MJ use..."
kujo Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1296162400' post='2205232'] Yeah - prostitution, even child prostitution, abortion, all murder . . . After all, the enrichment of the state is a much more worthy goal than petty concerns like morality. [/quote] [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1296162447' post='2205234'] By "everything," I'm sure he meant "drugs." The context was "drugs." ~Sternhauser [/quote] Context never gets in the way of a Socrates (Socratic?) argument.
Nihil Obstat Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 It should also be considered that in legalizing drugs, the people harmed most are going to be the drug dealers. They only get by because of artificially high prices due to government restrictions. Remove those restrictions and we have corner stores run by small business owners selling cheaper, high quality marijuana. Guess who goes out of business? Yea, drug dealers and drug cartels. Nobody sells $100 bottles of crappy wine out of the back of their cars in dark alleys. Guess why.
Sternhauser Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1296163729' post='2205252'] I don't have much of an opinion on whether it should be legalized or not - I've seen plently of people whose lives MJ has ruined; but I've seen more people whose lives have been ruined by alcohol. I will say this: given the drug war, that is fueled by the fact that the drug is illegal, I would find it highly immoral, at this time, to buy or sell MJ. IMO, those that do buy or sell are directly funding the murders in Mexico. [/quote] The State that prohibits the production and importation of a substance makes it so lucrative that such violence is "worth it" to those doing the production and distribution. People who used alcohol during prohibition weren't responsible for the violence that was so prevalent. You don't see manufacturers of Jim Beam doing a drive-by on a liquor store that sells Jack Daniels. There's a reason for that. ~Sternhauser Edited January 27, 2011 by Sternhauser
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1296163981' post='2205258'] You don't see manufacturers of Jim Beam doing a drive-by on a liquor store that sells Jack Daniels. There's a reason for that. ~Sternhauser [/quote] lol Edited January 27, 2011 by Guest
rkwright Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1296163981' post='2205258'] The State that prohibits the production and importation of a substance makes it so lucrative that such violence is "worth it" to those doing the production and distribution. People who used alcohol during prohibition weren't responsible for the violence that was so prevalent. You don't see manufacturers of Jim Beam doing a drive-by on a liquor store that sells Jack Daniels. There's a reason for that. ~Sternhauser [/quote] I understand the state is making it "worth it" - but the user is funding it. Perhaps the "state" is at fault (although not sure how any moral culpabilty can be assiged to an entity), but I can't see how the user, especially given the news coverage and general knowledge of where their money is going, is not in some way responsible.
Nihil Obstat Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1296164278' post='2205261'] Perhaps the "state" is at fault ([b]although not sure how any moral culpabilty can be assiged to an entity[/b]), but I can't see how the user, especially given the news coverage and general knowledge of where their money is going, is not in some way responsible. [/quote] Good call. The guilty are the ones who formally support The State, and especially the ones who support the violence of The State.
Sternhauser Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1296164278' post='2205261'] I understand the state is making it "worth it" - but the user is funding it. Perhaps the "state" is at fault (although not sure how any moral culpabilty can be assiged to an entity), but I can't see how the user, especially given the news coverage and general knowledge of where their money is going, is not in some way responsible. [/quote] And if they arbitrarily outlawed the manufacture and distribution of chickens, leading to chicken cartel wars, would you feel the same way? ~Sternhauser Edited January 27, 2011 by Sternhauser
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1296164278' post='2205261'] I understand the state is making it "worth it" - but the user is funding it. Perhaps the "state" is at fault (although not sure how any moral culpabilty can be assiged to an entity), but I can't see how the user, especially given the news coverage and general knowledge of where their money is going, is not in some way responsible. [/quote] I'm glad you make this point and I agree with you. You should either get a medical card or don't smoke.
rkwright Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1296164419' post='2205263'] And if they arbitrarily outlawed the manufacture and distribution of chickens, leading to chicken cartel wars, would you feel the same way? ~Sternhauser [/quote] Yes. I understand the state is creating the circumstances for the violence, but again the user is the one funding it. Thats where I place a portion of the blame. Flip the tables - if the user stopped buying, prices would decrease as well. How can we say the user is not in some way making the drive bys "worth it". Economics works on both the supply and demand side.
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1296164766' post='2205267'] Yes. I understand the state is creating the circumstances for the violence, but again the user is the one funding it. Thats where I place a portion of the blame. Flip the tables - if the user stopped buying, prices would decrease as well. How can we say the user is not in some way making the drive bys "worth it". Economics works on both the supply and demand side. [/quote] But that is not even logical. The user will never stop smoking pot. There to many users.
Sternhauser Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1296164766' post='2205267'] Yes. I understand the state is creating the circumstances for the violence, but again the user is the one funding it. Thats where I place a portion of the blame. Flip the tables - if the user stopped buying, prices would decrease as well. How can we say the user is not in some way making the drive bys "worth it". Economics works on both the supply and demand side. [/quote] Hmmm. It would be remote material cooperation, at worst. But it would formal cooperation on the part of those who support the State, as Nihil Obstat pointed out. "Certified violence-free drugs." I see a market opportunity for hippies. ~Sternhauser
MIKolbe Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1296164766' post='2205267'] Flip the tables - if the user stopped buying, prices would decrease as well. How can we say the user is not in some way making the drive bys "worth it". Economics works on both the supply and demand side. [/quote] you are assuming regular price elasticity...which is a mistake for items such as these.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now