I double dog dare you to wipe your butt with some poison ivy. It's a plant and so is Marijuana. Go for it.
Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.
I double dog dare you to wipe your butt with some poison ivy. It's a plant and so is Marijuana. Go for it.
For the record: I smoked half a joint, once in my entire life, about 15 years ago. Period.
Now, to your objection: I am not advocating the consumption of marijuana, nor do I argue that - because it is "natural" - it must be healthful. Alcohol is likewise "natural" - but I wouldn't give it to my 3-year-old.
Rather, I am arguing that we should not 1) spend BILLIONS to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of petty minor "users" and that 2) the mere EXISTENCE of the drug-law enforcement organizations is ominous.
The "natural" argument (which is NOT my argument) is, I think, that marijuana is part of the natural world in which we live, like rocks, the air we breathe, trees, and roadside weeds, and is thus (theoretically) omnipresent and "mundane," and that it is therefore intellectually ingenuous to classify it (legally) like some artificial substance created in underground labs and which didn't even EXIST until some Swiss chemist formulated it.
Regards,
His point was not that it is “natural” and therefor “safe”, but that alcohol has similar health risks, yet is legal. Tobacco also has health risks, yet is legal. Glue and spray paint huffing by children is also a health risk, yet the sale of those products is legal.
Free people are expected to evaluate the potential consequences of their actions, and they generally do pretty well at it without a nanny-state eliminating their choices. If individuals make poor choices and eliminate themselves from the gene pool, well, the species will be better off in the long run.
This article is apparently in response to the proposal to let the states decide if they want to legalize marijuana.
In that debate, do you want the criteria to be "is it good for you", or do you want it to be "should this be their decision to make, based on the original intent of the Constitution"?
I know how the nanny state bureaucrats in DC want it to be framed, and why, but I'm not inclined to take that bait.