Phelps proven human after all.

[Rawedge Rim]

What makes the law against pot immoral?

As I said before, the government has no right to legislate states of consciousness. I have no idea where they got the idea that they can reach inside your brain with their laws.

Prohibition is immoral because the war on drugs creates more problems than the drug itself. All the logic which was used to end the prohibition on alcohol applies here, too. It is a horrific crime against our citizens to wage war upon them for their free choices, which harm no one.

Screw Kellogs. Boycott those cowards.

Phelps is an AMAZING role model. After what he's accomplished, he deserves a little mellow herb. I would be proud if my children accomplished a fraction of what he's accomplished, or turn out having a fraction of his ambition and fortitude. And I hope (once they are adults) they will be able to enjoy a pleasant buzz responsibly.

Still haven't told me what makes the law immoral. Silly perhaps, but immoral?

[Waddley]

Still haven't told me what makes the law immoral. Silly perhaps, but immoral?

As I said before, the government has no right to legislate states of consciousness.

They're deciding for us what we can and can't do with our own minds, eliminating our option of choice. And I think that any Donaldson reader can understand the immorality of eliminating an individual's right to choose.

[Rawedge Rim]

Still haven't told me what makes the law immoral. Silly perhaps, but immoral?

As I said before, the government has no right to legislate states of consciousness.

They're deciding for us what we can and can't do with our own minds, eliminating our option of choice. And I think that any Donaldson reader can understand the immorality of eliminating an individual's right to choose.

They are not regulating states of consciousness, they are regulating a substance. It is not illegal for you to assume the lotus position and stare at a candle until your mind takes it's flight of fancy, it's only illegal to ingest this substance, and a good many others.

Still waiting on why it's immoral. As I said, I personally think it's a silly law, but I can't find a reason to say it's immoral.

[The Dreaming]

I certainly wouldn't call prohibition laws evil. Unjust yes. They clog up the justice system with people who have harmed no one, and the very illegality of drugs ensures that people who profit from selling it are people who play fast and lose with the laws.

What are the criterion for judging laws? Well, there isn't usually an easy one, there are so many different schools of thought on what constitutes justice. To me, sending someone to jail to interact with violent criminals for doing something with very dubious social consequence is ludicrous. Whatever study you can find talking about how pot causes damage to a person's life, isn't a drug conviction and jail time going to have a much more serious detrimental effect on your life?

The way we are waging the war on drugs is fighting fire with fucking napalm. It is the opposite of justice to punish someone for abusing themselves by destroying their life. To me, to my principles, that is abundantly clear. I don't even smoke pot!

Just because justice is a pretty slippery concept doesn't mean that injustice can't be perfectly clear. When Ghandi made salt, he was breaking the law. When Rosa Parks sat her ass down, she was breaking a law. When abolitionists freed slaves through the underground railroad, they were breaking the law. They were unjust laws. They were injustice so plain that any thinking person can see it, no matter how rational the reasoning behind them.

I'm not saying that Micheal Phelps is Ghandi. But breaking the law doesn't really diminish your character if the law isn't guided by any rational principle.

.... But won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

[Auleliel]

Whatever happened to parents being role models for their children? I would respect anyones decision to smoke, or not to smoke, but I have no respect for anyone who depends on an athlete, media person, entertainer, or politician to provide the outline for their childs growth as a person. Parents have all the power in the world to influence their children, and yet they complain when their child is misled by one of these false gods. In the end parents still bear the responsibility. So smoke it up Phelps, dont let them make you responsible for raising their children.

You arent being realistic on the role model thing. If your kid watches any TV, news, reads a newspaper or has friends, he or she is going to have someone famous that he or she looks up to. They may still look up to their parents as role models but that doesnt mean that they dont have someone like Phelps or Michael Jordon or (insert person here) that they look up to as a role model and someone to emulate.

In regards to role models and parental responsibility:
I heard someone say the other day that a good response for parents to kids wanting to smoke pot because of Phelps would be "go ahead and smoke pot--after you win 8 gold medals in the Olympics."

[Zarathustra]

RR, they are regulating this substance because of the state of consciousness it produces. That's the entire reason it's illegal, and hemp is not. If pot didn't get you high, it would be legal. So yes, our government thinks it has the right to deny its citizens certain states of consciousness. That's the whole rationale behind the drug war.

I think anytime a government limits the freedom of its citizens it's immoral (except in cases when it is protecting the freedom of others by limiting your ability to violate their freedoms--such as laws against killing, stealing, etc.).

When the government sends guys with guns out to hunt you down and apprehend you simply because you wish to alter your consciousness, this is an immoral violation of your freedom as a sentient being to experience and choose whatever you wish.

For the government to assume more authority than is necessary to ensure our freedoms don't get violated by each other, then it is immoral and committing a crime against humanity. Oppression is immoral.

[Avatar]

Good post.

--A

[Blackhawk]

everyone needs to relax after a stress load of your boss on your back or in athletes positions the constant push to WIN WIN WIN!! or even you business tycoon stockbrokers/holders who just lost a bundle.

Alot of people are now realizing that you can relax by smoking marijuana instead of having to deal with a hangover or that shitty feeling you get from alcohol if you dont like to drink.
(good for you Phelps) that works both ways though.... Just like alcohol isnt for everyone neither is Pot. you have to make your choice and so far only one choice is available legally for everyday use, and the amazing part of that is that as of 1:00pm today the legal one has caused 1408 drunk driving deaths in the USA, (and those are only the ones that died, not arrests or injuries.) ... that sounds like alot to me but apparently its not a concern to those who drink and make law.

www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html

when it comes to immorality I dont know..but i would call it irresponsibility of our govt to allow a drug (alcohol) that is so damaging and destructive to so many relationships and peoples health, to just continue on the path it is... while they pursue the hunt for people who are doing nothing more than growing a garden, or trying to calm down after a long day without drinking something that would run your cars engine, if undiluted.

the closest you can get to immorality on this subject is by denying those patients who truly receive relief from Marijuana, which isnt being done if you go to the right state.

[Ki]

In regards to role models and parental responsibility:
I heard someone say the other day that a good response for parents to kids wanting to smoke pot because of Phelps would be "go ahead and smoke pot--after you win 8 gold medals in the Olympics."

I heard that too! Too funny.

[SoulBiter]

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490612,00.html

Eight people connected to a South Carolina party where Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps was photographed smoking pot from a bong have been arrested, WIS-TV reported.

Officers from the Richland County Sheriff's Department arrested seven of the suspects for possession of marijuana and the eighth for dealing, according to the station.

One arrest included the suspected owner of the bong — who wasn't even at the University of South Carolina party in Columbia but was allegedly trying to sell the pipe on eBay for $100,000, WIS reported.

[Avatar]

$100,000 for the bong? Man...the spirit f entrepeneurship just lives on huh?

--A

[Zarathustra]

Man...the spirit f entrepeneurship just lives on huh?

Exactly. Who could blame him in this economy?

Legalizing pot would probably stimulate the economy more than Obama's stimulus package. It would help all kinds of secondary businesses, too, like Little Debbie's snack cakes, Frito-Lay, Haagen-daaz, . . .

Not to mention all our tax dollars being thrown away for enforcement. Did anyone hear they are going to release 57,000 criminals in California because the prisons are too crowded to provide them adequate health care? Just stop arresting people for smoking/growing/dealing pot!!

[sindatur]

Man...the spirit f entrepeneurship just lives on huh?

Exactly. Who could blame him in this economy?

Legalizing pot would probably stimulate the economy more than Obama's stimulus package. It would help all kinds of secondary businesses, too, like Little Debbie's snack cakes, Frito-Lay, Haagen-daaz, . . .

Not to mention all our tax dollars being thrown away for enforcement. Did anyone hear they are going to release 57,000 criminals in California because the prisons are too crowded to provide them adequate health care? Just stop arresting people for smoking/growing/dealing pot!!

Also would take money out f the hands of big criminals if it was legal

[Cybrweez]

Well, not sure about big criminals in regards to pot. For other drugs I think they get their millions. But it would certainly reduce our taxes a little bit, and like cigs and alchohol, could generate quite a bit of tax revenue instead.

[Mr. Broken]

Legalization would eliminate the need for how many Federal employee's ?
(hmmm?) I wonder why they dont?

[Avatar]

Sure...fighting the "war on drugs" has become an industry...they don't want to downsize it even a little.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Sure...fighting the "war on drugs" has become an industry...they don't want to downsize it even a little.

--A

True. And I'm actually for the legalization of all drugs. But, I'd settle for a compromise (incremental success) of legalizing pot. Even if we didn't downsize the number of federal employees fighting other drugs, we'd still save money because we could finance the drug war with pot tax, and by focusing those fed employees on other drugs, maybe they'd have a better chance at actually stemming the tide. In addition, we'd have fewer harmless people being locked up in prison for pot, saving room for the serious criminals. Even this incremental success would be a huge move forward.

[SoulBiter]

I would be fine with legalization of pot. (in my opinion its less harmful that alchohol or cigarettes which are both legal) However there are plenty of drugs that are incredibly harmful and should be illegal.

[Zarathustra]

I would be fine with legalization of pot. (in my opinion its less harmful that alchohol or cigarettes which are both legal) However there are plenty of drugs that are incredibly harmful and should be illegal.

Hamburgers can be incredibly harmful. Sunshine can be incredibly harmful. Why does the government have the right to keep you from doing yourself incremental harm?

The drugs aren't illegal because they are harmful. They are illegal because some people don't want other people altering their consciousness. It's about morality, dominance of Christianity in our culture, and a historical Christian fear for shamanistic or mystical traditions. Christianity has a long history of violently stamping out indigenous religions and cultures, anything that might offer an alternative to its brand of spirituality . . . and the drug war is one of the last "legitimate" expressions of this prejudice. People raised in Western, Christian cultures don't even take seriously the idea that psychedelics, for instance, have anything spiritual about them at all. They think it's a hallucination (without even ever trying it).

And the government uses this popular prejudice to increase its power and control.

[SoulBiter]

I would be fine with legalization of pot. (in my opinion its less harmful that alchohol or cigarettes which are both legal) However there are plenty of drugs that are incredibly harmful and should be illegal.

Hamburgers can be incredibly harmful. Sunshine can be incredibly harmful. Why does the government have the right to keep you from doing yourself incremental harm?

Hamburgers dont cause someone to not pay attention to driving details and run someone off the road because they were concentrating on the raindrops and how they hit the windsheild. They dont cause someone to 'zone' and run stop signs. Hamburgers dont cause birth defects, stillborns, and addictions at birth (yes, think of the children! ) Sunshine doesnt cause long term (or short term) pyschological problems.. I dont think hamburgers do either.