h3h.net provides mostly valuable and insightful commentary on a wide range of contemporary subjects, including business, philosophy, software, and responsibility.
written by brad fults
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Admittedly I wasn’t clever enough to come up with the title, but rather I’m just mirroring it from the source: Noah Diamond: Don’t Fear The Reefer.
Noah gives a well-written overview of the history and current state of marijuana in the US. I think it’s high time (!) we look at our laws and make some changes that make sense. Of course this doesn’t only apply to marijuana, but many other backwards laws. Honestly, the ignorance has to end some time. I vote for now.
Archived at: http://h3h.net/2005/08/dont-fear-the-reefer/
Comments are posted at the discretion of the site owner. Please try to be respectful, insightful and otherwise useful to society as a whole.
(X)HTML is allowed. You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <dfn> <em> <kbd> <q cite=""> <samp> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <var>
What is legal?
Any federal law on marijuana should be illegal just because of the fact that the constitution makes no mention of the federal government having any authority over substances and their distribution. This fellow also doesn’t seem to understand that the Supreme Court could have declared the law unconstitutional and ruled that medical marijuana was legal. I’m pretty sure everyone who reads this site knows what powers they have so I won’t repeat them but, man he was doing so well right up until the end there.
Let’s get high yall…. POT IS BAD, BUT DRINKING IS OK!!!
Marijuana = bad for brains + federal govt. responsibility to public health and safety = ban. It doesn’t seem like too much of a leap into totalitarianism to me. Of course, unless you reject science’s findings about the drug…
That political subtext only obfuscates the issue, I think.
I’d like to see this conclusive evidence about marijuana’s permanent negative effects on the human brain.
How is it bad for the federal government? The article I linked illustrates a few ways in which it could be highly beneficial if it were legalized.
Do you mean “unless you accept science’s findings about the drug”? Namely that it has no permanent negative effects but rather several possible short-term positive effects. That would make the ban seem more illogical as I originally implied.
I don’t see the political aspect as subordinate at all, but rather as the central issue at hand and the only reason there is a ban in the first place. I guess I don’t really understand where you’re coming from. Are you disputing the claims of the argument made in Noah’s article? If so, where’s the evidence?