Maybe it’s just me, but it seems very few people ever get killed in marijuana related car accidents, or many who get arrested for domestic abuse due to being under the influence of pot. Neither are there many cancer deaths from smoking marijuana, or liver problems, or anything like that. So maybe it is just me, but if something doesn’t hurt you, and in many cases actually helps people, why on Earth would it be illegal?

Some may make the argument that, because of all the drug cartels making a fortune on it, the government couldn’t support legalizing it. But isn’t the very fact of it being illegal give rise to these profits from shady groups? Certainly none of the shops in California where medical marijuana is legal go to these cartels for their supplies, do they?

In fact it stands to reason, if marijuana was fully legalized, new farm businesses could open up and put these shady characters on the run. People could start growing their own supplies, sure, but that wouldn’t cut into tax revenue any more than the people who make their own beer in their bathtub.

Another argument against legalizing marijuana might be, if you legalize pot, then you’ll be on a slippery slope to legalizing the real, harmful drugs. However, there’s one important difference here. Marijuana is actually an herb, not a drug. It’s only called a drug by those seeking to keep it evil. For centuries it was an herb, and it remains so regardless of its legal classification.

So simply declassify it and let it take its rightful place among all the other helpful herbs we know of. All the other substances known as drugs are created or modified in a lab. Marijuana is grown in a garden or field and is harvested just as it is with no modification. Even alcohol, a far more damaging substance, is processed. Thus its not a real long shot risk to merely call marijuana what it really is, and be done with all that slope talk.

After all, if it doesn’t hurt anybody, and there’s documented medicinal benefits to it, with the worst it might do is contribute to obesity because of the “munchies” that come with it, then why keep marijuana illegal? Just doesn’t seem right, does it?

Technorati Tags: legalization, marijuana, medicinal value, pot, Society

When Christopher Columbus landed in the New World, his most important discovery was that the people he met were, in his words “in dios,” or like God. They had no tenets or moral codes to follow, but rather were naturally inclined to living a peaceful, hospitable life. When explorers go into the Amazon region, they too meet up with indigenous people who have no inclinations towards hostility or savagery in any way. So we need to ask ourselves, have indoctrinated morals replaced the natural inclination of humans, and is this a good thing?

It may be interesting to note, while Columbus and his crew came from a society with a strict moral code imposed by the Church, they had no problem taking advantage of these so called savages. These peaceful people were almost immediately subjected to brutal treatment like slavery, rape, murder, their homes were claimed for the crown, their resources exhausted, and were left for dead when Columbus finally decided to leave.

It seems then, the concept of living by a moral code, imposed and enforced, becomes an inclusive entity that demands comparison to other moral codes, or a lack of one. The level of authority that set a moral code in place also tends to imply class distinction and a greater abhorrence to anything “other” a different group may be governed by.

Columbus noted the indigenous people had no moral code when it came to nudity, thus they were “lesser” in his eyes. They had no army, and thus were weaker. Had no currency, and so were poverty-stricken, helpless creatures.
All of this, observed through his own moral code gave him the impression of “sub-human” when he viewed the habits of these people. His perception of superiority was a direct result of his having a code of morality instilled in him from the society he lived in. It gave him the authority and justification to act harshly.

On the other hand, the indigenous people certainly must have seen these visitors as strange and very uptight people. Hostility was a foreign concept to them, and history shows that it took quite some time before they even realized they should be protecting themselves from it. Their natural inclination was to share, claiming no ownership to anything. So in their eyes, Columbus and his crew must have had a great need, otherwise why else would they be taking everything?

So while it would be a natural thing to have two people, separated by an enormous ocean, find themselves with totally different lifestyles, an established moral code proved to be the most divisive element between them. And we can clearly see how different moral standards among the people of the Earth remains an extremely divisive force. More than 95% of all wars fought throughout history have been caused for religious and moral reasons.

But could we as a society live without imposed morals now? Would we be better off to just let our natural inclinations take over? Or would that, as some suggest, create chaos and anarchy?

Perhaps we’re all too far gone to go back. Or perhaps the world is slowly beginning to see the artificial aspects of a morality written down in a book, yet rarely lived.

Technorati Tags: morality, morals, morals vs. natural inclination, natural inclination, Religion, Society