Hi. In a few threads that I posted in lately, there have been minor debates about drugs, and in my mind one in particular: Marijuana. I feel as though I've spent some time on either side in my lifetime, so I can provide some semblance of a balanced context for this discussion.
This argument exists in two dimensions: Morality and legality of marijuana use.
From a moral perspective, it's easy to see why a lot of people think marijuana is morally reprehensible. It's pretty inarguable that when you're high, your judgment is worse, your motivation is wrecked, and afterwards you feel like a tired mess. It makes you not function as well as you do sober. There is the notion of marijuana as a "gateway drug," or a substance which causes the user to slowly get into hard drugs such as cocaine or heroin. I personally think it's horse shit, but it's a common concern.
Many people will point to quotes in a variety of religious texts, but unless you're a Rastafarian or Scientologist, I'm guessing the only rules against weed in particular is the "no drugs" rules, as a quick google search has not yielded anything specific.
As for why potsmokers think smoking weed is okay, it's because it's fun and harmless. It doesn't really fuck you up too badly. You can still do most anything high, so long as you can find the motivation within you. It's not that we think smoking weed is "the right thing" necessarily, but that we don't see any problem with on.
On the legislative side, anti-weed people often think of marijuana as a drug in the vein of cocaine and heroin, something addictive that takes over the user's life. The gateway drug idea also comes into play here. Many who believe marijuana should be illegal fear it as a gateway drug more than anything.
Pro-weed guys think "I wanna get high, and the government shouldn't tell me I can't."
Obviously, there's a lot I haven't established or mentioned, but I was just hoping to get the discussion off on the right foot to avoid a lot of the Bitter Bud Battling that so often erupts between stoners and straightedges.
Also, Reefer Madness.
This argument exists in two dimensions: Morality and legality of marijuana use.
From a moral perspective, it's easy to see why a lot of people think marijuana is morally reprehensible. It's pretty inarguable that when you're high, your judgment is worse, your motivation is wrecked, and afterwards you feel like a tired mess. It makes you not function as well as you do sober. There is the notion of marijuana as a "gateway drug," or a substance which causes the user to slowly get into hard drugs such as cocaine or heroin. I personally think it's horse shit, but it's a common concern.
Many people will point to quotes in a variety of religious texts, but unless you're a Rastafarian or Scientologist, I'm guessing the only rules against weed in particular is the "no drugs" rules, as a quick google search has not yielded anything specific.
As for why potsmokers think smoking weed is okay, it's because it's fun and harmless. It doesn't really fuck you up too badly. You can still do most anything high, so long as you can find the motivation within you. It's not that we think smoking weed is "the right thing" necessarily, but that we don't see any problem with on.
On the legislative side, anti-weed people often think of marijuana as a drug in the vein of cocaine and heroin, something addictive that takes over the user's life. The gateway drug idea also comes into play here. Many who believe marijuana should be illegal fear it as a gateway drug more than anything.
Pro-weed guys think "I wanna get high, and the government shouldn't tell me I can't."
Obviously, there's a lot I haven't established or mentioned, but I was just hoping to get the discussion off on the right foot to avoid a lot of the Bitter Bud Battling that so often erupts between stoners and straightedges.
Also, Reefer Madness.















