|
|
|
|
Marijuana
| Thought of the day: I
was driving behind a car today and the bumper sticker said "No
pain, No Jane." Now I'm not really a advocate for marijuana or
against it, "for each and their own" if you know what I
mean. But I do believe strongly in being consistent, especially
when it comes to making laws that govern us all. Now by saying
that it is okay for people with a medical excuse to smoke marijuana what
are we as a nation saying? My question is how can it be okay for
one group of people, that meet a certain criteria, to be able to toke up
and not for everyone else in the nation. Furthermore if we say its
all right to smoke marijuana provided that you meet the medical
criteria, then aren't we also saying that it's morally wrong
"unless" (with the unless being a conditional
statement)? When does morality in any religion have an unless
within the statement? For example "thou shall not commit adultery
unless." Does the unless variable seem to be out of place.
Now I mention religion because many of the laws we have today were
founded upon religious morals. In closing how can a nation make
something all right for one and not for all? If the product can
help man kind then why not let it help all of man kind. Do you see
the contradiction?
|
| Response by Fwuego: Now wouldn't this be the same for all kinds of issues such as, in order to drive one must meet a certain criteria i.e. be a certain age and pass the drivers test. To buy alcohol be a certain age, to get naked with high school girls in a locker room, one must be a high school girl also (Rats!! I know!!) But seriously speaking don't you believe that situations and circumstances are paramount in making a moral judgment about an act that in and of itself may be neither right or wrong unless it is placed within a certain context. For instance a surgeon taking a sharp knife and slicing into a person to save their life is much different than a person slicing up someone to rob, rape or kill. etc etc. Doesn't the intention of the act often determine whether the act has moral worth one way or the other. Therefore I conclude that I do not see a inherent logical fallacy in claiming that society has the right to permit something in a certain case and regard it as a *good* and perceive the same act in another context as a *negative*, i.e. as an act not necessarily in the best interest of society when the well being of society is considered as a whole. |
