jwats100: Why is it a threat to families? You really can't understand that prohibition isworse? Someone who smokes weed can go to jail, ruining their path in life in the process.Explain to me what would happen to the responsible cannabis user, who doesn't go to jail, that justifies prohibition.
me: because the family will have to take care of the person who damaged their health. evenresponsible users on the long term, especially when they get old, are damaged by it. (don't tellme that young ppl are responsible since they get drunk so often, and it is absurd to say that it is possible for them to be responsible in all countries.)
jwats100: I do think there should be an age minimum. (although I currently would be under that age, My unbiased opinion says there should be one.) Without getting into how the damagesof cannabis use is relatively small, I think that if someone has a drug problem, their familiesshould take care of them. We will always have drug problems; but it should be a health issue,not a criminal justice issue. Jail does not fix their drug problem or health problems.
me: Well an age minimum is something that hardly works - just like with alcohol, kids haveit bought for them anyway. But the issue is that a person who has health issues because of having taken pleasure in smoking, knowing that it may cause damage, that person is selfish...
jwats100: But a minimum age works better. If I want weed, its one text away at any time.But alcohol? Sure I could raid my parents stuff, but I could never take too much, or enough toget really drunk for that matter. They would notice. Other than that, I would have to be at afriends house. Again, it really isn't that damaging, but in the circumstances that it is, I agree that person is selfish if they continue to smoke. So put them in the cage? You do realize medievaltimes have ended right?
me: You can always get it from your friends who are 18 or above. I am not as decided aboutalcohol prohibition as about weed, as weed is more easily abused.As to the Middle ages - people do crime and are nuisance to society and/or their family, but not put them in jail? You do realize modern times are far from ideal, even far from good, comparedto Middle ages, where there was less crime, ppl weren't manipulated by silly ads, and no need of "liberation" from fictional things.
jwats100: is that I want to put criminals, including those on booze and weed in jail, andkeep as many law abiding citizens, including those who drink and smoke weed out of jail. Youwant to put criminals in jail as well as law abiding, pot smoking citizens, and keep everyoneelse out. If I break no law, work, pay taxes, and smoke weed when I deem it appropriate. Whyshould I go to jail, knowing all the implications that jail has? Even if it harms my health. if itdid, its a health issue. not criminal.
me: Being law abiding AND pot smoking is incompatible. Smoking pot is law-breaking, por-smokers are criminals. Now, laws are not always moral and sometimes even violate naturallaw. But here it is not the case. The West became such a great civilization since Roman times because of its moral virtue. Pot damages you and someone else'll have to take care of you oneday. Doing that is immoral and should be punished. You can drink when it's appropriate, but being high or (really) drunk is immoral.