My thoughts are inline with the Dawg and that I think it's not morally acceptable behavior but I'm not going to judge what you choose to do in the privacy of your own home.
What exactly is not morally acceptable with smoking pot? When one considers the reason for the legal status of marijuana it is fairly clear morals have nothing to do with this situation please see my first post in the thread
here for a short background.
The same moral failure/decline argument should be then transposed to alcohol and tobacco use as well as the generally lazy (physically and mentally), gluttonous lifestyle of the majority of American's. Personally, I see the lazy attitude a larger moral decline than anything else, but most would probably call me a heathen because I fall more into the category of secular humanist than one of religion.
As far as the pot ruining lives debate goes this is a hard one to find a true answer to. The question is does pot cause the negative effects in life or is it the illegal subculture created by the legal status of pot. Most current research points towards the latter rather than the former. Now take into context the social, political and economic effect of the most losing war in American history, the 'drug war', and you will see that it costs the nation billions in a variety of ways:
1) Policing of the drug
2) Prison, court and legal costs of those caught breaking the law
3) The social cost on ones life when they are jailed and then released or have a charge put on their record
4) The large amounts of time spent by the political elite dealing with these issues.
Certainly, using MJ is a personal choice and because it is illegal if you are caught there are repercussions that must be faced, but the law's original intent was not for moral reasons and the social circles/stigmatization that such laws have created are doing far more harm then good.
In fact, the only reason prohibition did not work was primarily because, at the time, alcohol was a predominantly white man drug before the laws were set into place. In contrast, when pot was made illegal it was specifically to target and marginalize an ethnicity - if it had already been established as socially acceptable for whites this debate would not be occuring.
If you want to get all philosophical about it, I'd suggest reading up on Socrates and the "social contract". Socrates taught (and I'm totally paraphrasing since I haven't read Socrates since 1999) that it was the duty of a citizen to fight against the laws of the state that they may disagree with. However, if you're unable to change the law and you choose to remain living in that state (Socrates would make the argument that if laws were so disagreeable a citizen should choose to live elsewhere), that by making such a choice you are knowingly agreeing to live by those laws and if you violate them you will willingly acknowledge the consequences. [/Philosophy Lesson].
Very true, Socrates was even an exemplar of this belief when he was executed for his breaking a law believed unjust.
Wasn't Emile Durkheim the biggest believer in the need for crime and deviation to bring us better laws? For if no one ever committed a crime, no laws would ever change. I'm sure that's a two edged sword, but an argument with merit.
Not necessarily better laws, but crime and deviance are what in effect creates laws.
“An act is criminal when it offends the strong, well-defined states of the collective conscience” (Divisions of Labor in Society P. 39)
