I think he took his statement quite seriously, thus his rebuttal of eating and drinking and all the necessary things of life. Thus I challenged it.

The bread you eat emits radiation, the oxygen you breathe damages your DNA and the water you drink, well...

Meh, DHMO is going to be in our bodies when we die any way you slice it. (nice trick, my chemistry teacher showed us that at the beginning of the year when I was in that class)

That's a fallacy of some sort, right there. Simply saying that they're good does not mean my statement fails. Provide examples of them being good, just like how I provided examples of them being bad.

Food? Bad, because of all the non-natural things in it. Also, food = obesity.
Drink? See above.
Knowledge? Nuclear weapons.
Growth? Leads to Knowledge. (Again, assuming you meant growth as in maturity, and not just physical enlargement.)

-- Griffinhart

Ok, you're obviously not getting the idiocy of your statement. You said that everything is bad for you. By that principle we shouldn't be breathing. Practice what you preach, or else don't over-generalize.

Yes, we shouldn't be breathing. Consider what's in the air. You're breathing that in.

I never said you shouldn't do what's bad for you. I simply said that everything is bad for you. I do all sorts of things that are bad for me.

-- Griffinhart

I'm just going to interject here.

Everything is bad for you.

In large amounts, anyway. Too much water can cause your kidneys to fail, too much vitamin C can cause plaque buildup in your heart, and too much oxygen concentration can give an increased risk to cancer, etc.

All of these even have supporting documentation.

I would like thusly to see remarks that other people's statements are without merit, because everything I've seen here is at least partially correct.

Also, ChaosR, regarding your link: mad props. A cookie if you can find the origin of the joke.

First post and it won't exactly be a "Hello" one. I actually came to read a bit about onlink but seeing this topic my blood started to boil.

Whoever says smoking marijuana is pointless - well you're damn right it is. I just hope you're not missing the gigantic irony flying right in your face - you're on forums about a computer game. A computer game that is just as pointless, however more demanding intelectually, as smoking marijuana.

Drug tests can be easily circumvented. Usually they just take urine samples, and you won't really have a problem finding a provider of THC-derivative free urine. http://www.cleartest.com/

Though frankly I will NEVER work for a company that demands I pee into a cup and neither should you. Unless it's your high-profile dream job I don't see why should you regress to that level - they're not leasing your body, god damnit. Show some dignity.

As for your mother - if it's your money you're smoking away, then just explain that you felt an urge to smoke, but didn't want to smoke anything harmful or addictive, so you chose pot. If she's still giving you money then she has full right to demand you stop smoking.

At this point I feel it would be moot of me to merely rehash what has been stated prior to mine and as such, in hope it has not been told yet, I shall add only this:

You know it is wrong. You know you do not require it. You are aware that, in the end, it is more trouble and harm than its worth.
Why do you consciously abuse yourself? Decide to cease. Order yourself. Enforce.

At risk of starting a philosophic argument here.

Why is it wrong? I don't think it's wrong. The law says it's wrong, and the law says it's okay, depending on where you are from.

Some would even say they need it. Intelligent, working citizens. Granted, there aren't a lot of them that say this AND are correct, but they do exist.

We need to remember that the "war against drugs" as people like to call it (because really, how can a war with no borders ever end?) started long before Bush Sr. who coined the phrase. It began with panicky and easily manipulated people who believed everything they watched as fact. It's only to be expected that people would defy government rules if they feel their toes were being stepped on.

You need to remember that not everything is black and white. While I agree with the assertion that I like most people should not have it (and in my case in younger years, could not [don't ask]), I disagree with the idea that no one, no where, at no time, should require it. The same can be said for most things in life.

Well Miah for a lot of people any "breaking the law" is wrong.
Which is unfortunate, because laws were originally designed to provide standardized punishments for doing wrong. People (generally) knew what was wrong, the law was just there to stop them from doing it anyway.
But these days the law defines what is right and wrong for most people. They can't even know what is right and wrong without laws or rules telling them what is. Which is unfortunate because a whole lot of laws (like, for instance, most drug laws I'd say) have gotten way off track.

For him, it is wrong. I do believe we are in agreement there.

Indeed, I never meant to delve onto a socio-political debate nor am I a supporter of absolutes (never, ever, always, forever...et cetera) and, while I do promote consistency overall (due to certain merits), I would rather see analysis conducted on a "per case" basis.

From my limited knowledge, laws describe social rules meant to keep order inside society and, as you've put it, standardize the consequences for breaking them.
However, it is my opinion that it is inefficient as a detterat measure and perhaps it never was very effective as such to begin with.
Furthermore, while "justice is blind" and should be impartial my feeling grows that it has also displaced logic somewhere along the process -- a vital component for striking justice and not ending in mere procedure.

I think I missed my point. I was meaning that the Law doesn't even state what's right and wrong, the future society does. Otherwise we in the USA would still find that making the weakest tea on the planet was still a wrong thing to do.

I also that for justice to truly be blind, that we should hang the written rules and focus on preventing the truly awful. Every semi-sentient being down to my yorkie knows the difference between right and wrong.

In Owen's case, of course, he just can't help himself.

1. This discussion was over long ago.

2. You'll never win this debate, you need morals to think it's wrong.

IMHO:

It's only "wrong" if it affects others negatively/in a detrimental manner (and what "negative" and "detrimental" actually mean are also up for debate). If, in doing marijuana, you harm absolutely no one (with only the possible exception of yourself), I see nothing morally wrong with it.

Similarly, I see nothing morally "right" with the consumption of alcohol, which the law (at least, US law) allows. Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, IMO, and has caused far more suffering and death than marijuana.

-- Griffinhart