Pot is simply not that harmful to one's body, especially compared to cigarettes or alcohol

Exactly how is getting high "immoral"?

Random Reader,

One is equally as bad as the other (if you look at it from a "can harm the body and can harm others around the intoxicated/stoned person").

That's like saying guns and missiles are equally as bad because both "can harm a person". In study, Alcohol has been shown to account for far more damage than pot does, both to oneself and to others. Pot is simply not harmful to one's body.

So the next issue becomes: should the government be able to ban people from intaking alcohol or pot? That is the issue.

And it shouldn't be one. People have a right to their own body, and they should be free to put whatever they want into it, so long as they do not harm anyone else, regardless of how harmful or beneficial it may be to the person taking it. I see nothing wrong with slapping an legal age limit for purchasing such things, as minors have issues regarding consent.

What's important is informing people what risks drugs entail, and how much damage they will do, and under what circumstances. Generally informing people about the real consequences of making such a choice.

Let's not forget, making drugs illegal doesn't actually help anyone. How exactly is it beneficial to throw a drug user in jail if their only crime is using drugs? How does such a policy fit in line with our rights and freedoms here in the US?

Technically - since both alcohol and pot or other substances of like nature are poisonous (bad for your body) - then either the government should ban all or none.

One is equally as bad as the other (if you look at it from a "can harm the body and can harm others around the intoxicated/stoned person").
So either both should be illegal or both should be allowed for adults so they can choose for themselves whether to use said substances or not.

If you can drink at 21 - you should be able to do pot at 21.

So the next issue becomes: should the government be able to ban people from intaking alcohol or pot? That is the issue.

If doing pot or alcohol can harm others - then yes - there should be some guidlines or safety rules in place to protect both the people doing the substance and those not involved with the substance.

Also - remember - the government is you, me and everybody else who votes on these issues. The majority of people in the U.S. at one time voted to make alcohol o.k. for people the age of 21 and over. We the people could change that.
The over all majority have so far supported making marijuana & etc. illegal. This is what the over all opinion of people equates to. We the people could change that.

The issue is not murderers or theives. That is moving the issue beyond the subject at hand. How we attend to murderes in our country does not necessarily effect or relate to how the general public views substances. It also does not mean murderes are more or less likely to go to jail, be punished or etc.
Leave out the other kinds of "crimes" for the moment and focus on the like issue of substances (alcohol & drugs) and whether or not they should be legal.
That is what this is all about - right?

Also - remember that freedom comes at a price.
To have choices (i.e. freedom) - everyone cannot be allowed complete freedom 24/7 because some of the choices one person makes can effect someone elses ability to make choices.

In a complete free will situation: (examples)

If a person decides they want to drive in their car on the side walk today then anyone choosing to walk on the sidewalk may be run over.
If someone decides they want to walk on the road instead of the sidewalk then anyone choosing do drive a car on it may hit another person.

However - by making it a law that you can only walk on the sidewalk but not drive - the people walking on the side walk are safe. By making it a law that cars drive on the road and there are pedestrian crossing when someone needs to cross the street or by having sidewalks available - there are roads for the car to drive on without the problem of running someone over.

Someone may still choose to break the law - but then they choose the possible consequences. Their choice may hurt someone else - however - not just themselves. Hence - laws also provide punishment to discourage making bad choices that effect not just the person making the choice - but the others that could be effect by said choice.

It is better to have the law - which most people will adhere to - and not have as much of a problem - than to allow anything and everything to go as anyone wants it at any given time - and have quite a few issues at hand.

Therefore - there has to be a law for protecting some choices.
Not all choices work for everyone at all times - so complete freedom could not exist to produce the safest/best/happiest/free-est society.

Most laws are based on the majority. Laws are meant to provide protection typically.
We the people vote on and influence these laws.

Any drug used in excess - (especially concerning if that person is in the general public or in a vehicle that can cause harm) - should have some kind of check/balance system. A line should be drawn. People have to unify to make that happen.

If we the people are the government - then what you're really asking is this: Should everyone be able to decide what anyone else is allowed to do to themselves?

Well - does it effect everyone?

If anyone can drink alcohol as much as they want and when they want - (knowing what we know about it's effects and what it can do to the body - including liver damage - death - vehicle accidents - brain functions - etc.) - then yes - it can effect anyone. Consider - jobs provide income and provide goods for people to buy.
Let's say you work at a McDonalds. If your co-workers all choose to drink (be drunk) except you and you are the only one working and able to do the job - that will effect you and anyone who is wanting to buy or obtain food that day from your work place. If that same problem occured in every work place in the entire U.S. - imainge what would happen. The same can be said for anyone who is high or unable to fully function as they ought to.

So drinking or doing drugs can effect other people - hence why there should be some laws in place.

If young children can do these substances and it can cause death - there could be a higher rate of death and medical expenses. This could effect everyone b/c of over-populated hospitals - not enough number of people to make society function - etc.

This is - granted - in extreme cases - but regardless - everyone should be able to take their own interest into consideration. From that - yes - society should be able to make laws to protect the over all people invovled because these issues can effect others - not just one person.

Then the issue becomes - how much should we limit the use of these substances?

That's where the real issue begins.

"And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food."
—Genesis 1:29 (RSV)

Here - it is saying "God made all plants that make seeds".
It says "God made every tree with fruit that has seeds".
It follows by saying "God made seeds that yeild fruit".
It says God made all these things. It says God made all of these things that are on the face of the earth.

From these things God made, man can have them for food.

So - trees that make seeds that make fruit - man can have for food.
Plants that make seeds - man can have fod food.

What about plants that do not have seeds? What about trees that do not make fruit with seeds? These are not mentioned.

From this - depending on what else that chapter or other parts of the bible (i.e. - context) say - only trees with fruit or plants with seeds (so plants/trees that make food) - are to be eaten from. But anything we assume is assumptions - to some degree.

However - logically - if trees with fruits (that have seeds) and plants with seeds are for men to eat - then most other types of trees were not intended to be eaten.
(Read Genesis and bible - see if it says otherwise).

This verse:

Does not say man must eat all trees for food.

It does not say man is to eat every tree.

It does not say all plants make seeds.

It says God make all the plants that make seeds.

It does not say all trees have seeds or fruit.

It says God made trees that have seeds that make fruit.

Do you follow the logic?

I see a lot of false reasoning or inputting of assumptions from what the mind wants to fit in there as opposed to reading what the said verse actually states.

Check logic & read carefully.

(Please read: Comment by: lost in translation | October 29, 2006, 10:56 pm )

For those of you who argued with this post:

As said individual points out - the bible quote ends with food.
Food implies "edible" plants here. Food is substances we eat that provide sustenance/nutrients (carbohydrates, sugars, proteins) and etc. that our body digests through our digestive tract in order for our body (organs, systems, etc.) to function as it does. Without food, we die. It is a necessity.

Pot, cocaine and opiates are not food. They do not provide our body with any form of substance (check out Biology or even Anatomy 101 on the digestive tract) that we need to function. Food, in essence, is a need.

Also - please note - that substances that are harmful to our body are considered "poisonous" or toxic. Poison oak or poison ivy are plants that, if eaten, would harm our body. They are not edible plants. Neither is pot, cocaine or opiates.
Over time, those "substances" cause harmful effects on the human body.
Pot, opiates and cocaine are poisons. They are not "edible" or "food". Fruits, vegetables, meat - these provide needed nutrients to live and for our bodies to function. Pot is not called a "vegetable" or a "fruit". Not all things that are vegetative (plants) fit into the edible category. Even if something can be literally put into the mouth and chewed and is plant-like does not make it "food".

I have never had pot - and yet I live.
However, if I were to go without any fruits, vegetables or meat - and only used pot - I would eventually die. Even people who give up meat should take "supplemental substances" such as vitamins to get proper nutrition or to truly meet their bodies needs in this arena. Talk to trained professionals (i.e. - doctors) and I'm sure they could give you up-to-date information on what is or is not appropriate for the body - how it functions and what it needs to function properly.

I know people who support these substances will find ways to twist my words or to take the focus off of what the main point is.

Those of you reading - keep in mind - when you only take a sentence out of a book - it can be twisted to mean what you want it to mean. However - if you were to read the entire, say, chapter - it gives clearer meaning and definition. Read the whole book - and you actually understand what it is talking about. Misquoting is amazing in most of the posts I'm reading. Don't believe something just because you read a sentence the bible supposedly says. Read the whole thing - then see what you think.

No matter what you say or prove... I will always have my God for eternity and you will just have your lifetime in the world

At least you are honest about not having an open mind. But, why even ask a question of us if you aren't going to listen?

But, just in case:
What kind of truth, hope, and faith does your view entail? You can't provide evidence that it gives truth, and without evidence how can you call it truth? What hope is there in your view? Going to heaven? Why would this be something to hope for, and why would Xians be scared of death? Why would you want to be alive at all? This view leads to the conclusion that the point of life is to die as quickly as possible in order to be with god. Finally, why is faith important? Why do you need faith in order to have a point to living?

For my part, I am on this planet, alive, and I only get one go around, so my point in living is to enjoy my life and do what I can to make the world a better place for all people. There is no inherent truth, per se, but the truth of this idea comes from not accepting ancient myths as some guidebook to life and natural law that have no evidence to back them up. How can I, or you, possibly assert that "truth" is what is written by some shepherded 2000+ years ago with no verifying evidence? Do I need hope to have a point to life? No, actually, I don't. I don't need to hope for this or that, I simply need to live my life. Does this make my life hopeless? Not in the sense of despair it doesn't. I have no need for despair either. Same with faith. There is no need for faith.