he smokes, i dont.

[BertrandRussell]

IMHO, anyone who believes that laws written by the current US congress have anything to do with moral behavior has been using too many drugs.

 

[TheRealFATANG]

I ended up with a smoker, it was really annoying because he kept going outside to smoke so I bought him an ashtray. Now he smokes inside.

That is beautiful. Endearing. Epic even. Tell your friends to do the same.

 

[Mobri]

a long time ago i promised myself i would never date someone that smokes weed or does any kind of drug. i have never smoked and will never.
long story short - i dated a guy who smoked a lot and did all kinds of pills. i ended that after 3 years of violance and scars inside and out.

well i've been dating this guy for a few months, and he's been honest with me about it from the beginning. I dont like it, and i dont want to date someone that smokes. But at the same time i want to be with him. He's a complete sweetheart to me. Do i just accept the fact that he smokes? and in the long term if we do get really serious, how do i raise my son with someone that smokes and keep my kid away from it? I dont want to be around it, i dont want to be around him when he's high, i dont want any part of it. I know that sounds extremely selfish but i cant help it.
He was raised that its completely normal part of life. He says its his only outlet to relax and it helps him sleep. I dont understand that - i dont smoke, and i very rarely drink, i dont go out and hang out with my friends all the time like he does.
He lives with his best friends, he has a good job, no kids, hardly any bills, and only sees his family once or twice a week. What would he need an outlet from and why not find something else? something actually legal. His life is - work / video games / sleep / work / video games / sleep. i only see him 1 maybe 2 nights a week.
sorry if this sounds like i'm being a drama queen. in pain and trying to figure things out isnt a good mix. i dont know any other way of wording this right now so i'll just post and add / edit later if i missed anything or misworded something.
thanks for the help ladies n gents.

The choice is simple: He quits smoking or you quit caring. If neither occurs, you warmly and respectfully part ways.

If it's the smoke, it isn't necessary to smoke it to enjoy the side effects. If it's the pot, you're SOL. But neither of you should EXPECT the other to change if you aren't willing to, especially if you've both been honest up to this point.

And for the record, it's perfectly viable to live a great lifestyle, raise children, and still use marijuana. Does everybody manage to do so? 'Course not. However, that's true of EVERYTHING.

 

[culloden]

i disagree. most people would think that a deliberate statement of falsehood is not a moral decision, at least barring some kind of situation-dependent, ameliorating factor. yet i don't believe there's a single jurisdiction in the US where lying is actually against the law. adultery, which a number of people think a less than moral decision, is very rarely a criminal offense. if i make a sacrilegous statement, that's actually constitutionally-protected speech, however much it may offend someone.

it's entirely possible to view criminal code as a means of ensuring the smooth, continuous operation of a community or society without necessarily assigning moral values to it.

ed

I didn't say that everything immoral is also illegal, or should be. Again, if a, then b isn't the same as, if b, then a. I just said law is based in morality. Whether a person agrees with morality is another question entirely.

 

[Cattypuss]

If a = b, that doesn't mean that b = a. You are quite right.

All rabbits are mammals = true
All mammals are rabbits - false

QED.

However, I maintain that saying that immoral = illegal happens to be equally ridiculous as saying that illegal = immoral. In this case, a does not equal b.

 

[silverwhisper]

culloden quoth:
i just said law is based in morality. whether a person agrees with morality is another question entirely.

i understand that, my point, with those three examples, is to refute the assertion. :>

ed

 

[culloden]

i understand that, my point, with those three examples, is to refute the assertion. :>

ed

Which part of the assertion? That law is based in morality?

If so, I don't think the fact that not all that's immoral is also illegal, which is what I took from your examples, refutes my point.

Clearly, there gray areas where there is not broad enough societal agreement on the morality of an act for it to be illegal. There are even acts which are broadly agreed to be immoral, but which are not illegal. Lying is a good example, although there are times when that rises to the level of a crime (It's illegal to lie to the police in most places, or under oath).

I think your point that one reason for law is to foster a smoothly running society is well taken. But I'd argue the same way for the purpose of morality. At the most basic level, there is near universal agreement that things like stealing, assault, or murder are both immoral and illegal. I'd argue that they have always been immoral, and that the consequences of these acts were severe enough that laws were created to formalize the definitions and punishment for them.

I'd be curious if anyone can think of a law that doesn't have some moral basis.

Or do I not understand your point?

 

[culloden]

IMHO, anyone who believes that laws written by the current US congress have anything to do with moral behavior has been using too many drugs.

Well, okay. But as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day (except on the Continent, or in the military).

 

[subwannabe]

There are some differences between morals and the law. Perhaps I should not have compared the two. I'm just saying that if there is a law against something and you do it anyway, you should know that you are doing something wrong. That is non-negotiable.

 

[Cattypuss]

There are some differences between morals and the law. Perhaps I should not have compared the two. I'm just saying that if there is a law against something and you do it anyway, you should know that you are doing something wrong. That is non-negotiable.

Sorry but I disagree, for the same reasons as I have set out above. Just because there's a law against something, that doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Mac98]

Sorry but I disagree, for the same reasons as I have set out above. Just because there's a law against something, that doesn't make it wrong.

Perfect example of this statement are the laws against gay marriage... although some would try to say that too is immoral.

 

[cryforme1v]

I have a MAJOR problem with the assertion that illegal = immoral. What happens when a law changes? Do morals change overnight?

Or, if I smoke a joint in Amsterdam, it's not an immoral act, but if I smoke one in London, it is an immoral act?

Morals have nothing to do with laws.

morals vary by person to person. They're opinions that people stick by.
I agree that he was a bit off when "illegal = immoral."

 

[subwannabe]

I just think that people should admit that they are doing something wrong when they break the law. That's why it's a law. The laws weren't made by "Big Brother", they were made my people. If you don't follow the law then you are doing something wrong and may have to pay the price. For example, if I were to drive 65 miles per hour on a highway where the speed limit is only 55 then I am doing something wrong and breaking the law. I acknowledge that I am doing something wrong by purposely violating a law that I may not want to comply with. If I get caught I pay the price. I still say that deep down inside pot smokers in the US realize that they are doing something wrong. If they don't realize they are doing something wrong then I challenge them to buy their weed in front of a police station and smoke it in front of policemen (or women). If they can't do that then that proves they know they are doing something wrong. I'm not actually trying to make a moral statement or judgement of anyone here but it seems crazy to me when people try to defend their pot use by trying to make us believe that they aren't really doing anything wrong. At least fess up and admit that you speed on the roads because you don't want to follow the law and that you know it is wrong but you are going to do it anyway.

 

[Cattypuss]

Oh for fuck's sake.

Doing 65mph in a 55mph zone is dangerous (the 55 limit is there for reasons of safety - it is considered unsafe to exceeed it on that road)- you are putting others' lives at risk. Yes, you are breaking the law by doing it, but the thing that makes it wrong is not that it's illegal - the thing that makes it wrong is that it's dangerous to others - i.e. immoral.

Can you truly not see that smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home, and sitting quietly and watching TV while stoned, harms nobody and therefore is not wrong? It is illegal. That does NOT make it wrong.

You are hung up on a "fact" that makes no sense - you say that if something is against the law it must be wrong. This is idiocy. If something is wrong, it may or may not be against the law. If something is against the law, it may or may not be wrong.

Some examples -

(1) Murdering someone - this is both illegal and wrong
(2) Driving drunk - this is both illegal and wrong (wrong because it puts others' safety at risk)
(3) Eating plum pudding on Christmas Day in England - this is illegal but is not wrong (who gets hurt?) and is a law flouted by 95% of the population.
(4) Cheating on your faithful wife with her sister - this is not illegal, but it is wrong.

Until 1967 gay sex was illegal in the UK. Did that make it wrong? On the day in 1967 that it became legal, did gay sex suddenly go from being wrong to being right? What if a pair of men were mid-fuck at the moment that the new law came into being? Did they start an immoral act and finish a moral one?


Pot-smoking per se is not wrong. That doesn't mean a pot-smoker wants to buy weed in front of a police station. Why would I want to be arrested or pay a fine? I prefer to do something that is NOT wrong, but IS illegal, and avoid any negative consequences (for me or for anyone esle). You seem to have a complete mental blind-spot here.

 

[silverwhisper]

culloden quoth:
which part of the assertion? that law is based in morality? if so, i don't think the fact that not all that's immoral is also illegal, which is what i took from your examples, refutes my point.

yes, that was indeed my intended meaning, thank you. :>

culloden quoth:
i think your point that one reason for law is to foster a smoothly running society is well taken. but i'd argue the same way for the purpose of morality. at the most basic level, there is near universal agreement that things like stealing, assault, or murder are both immoral and illegal. i'd argue that they have always been immoral, and that the consequences of these acts were severe enough that laws were created to formalize the definitions and punishment for them.

in another of my online haunts, i created a thread exploring the interaction b/n law vs morals. a common response there is that the law in some fashion informs lawmaking, which dovetails nicely IMHO with the last sentence.

culloden quoth:
i'd be curious if anyone can think of a law that doesn't have some moral basis.

off the top of my head, i'd argue that minimum age requirements for [x], whether driving, voting, serving in the military, etc., aren't strictly speaking arising from a moral basis, so much as from a "you're too young to know what you're doing" basis. i'll think on this a bit more: perhaps someone else will save me the trouble. :>

ed

 

[subwannabe]

I guess you are right. I am hung up on the fact that all things which are against the law are wrong. I can see you now being taken away in handcuffs to jail while at the same time trying to explain that you didn't really do anything wrong. I think the problem is I believe that if you know you are doing something against the law then you know you are doing something wrong whereas you want to make your own laws from your own perspective.

I could try to say that if I were the only car on the road at the time while breaking the speed limit then my actions aren't really wrong because I would not be putting other people's lives at risk. But, I would be wrong because I could have an accident and future cars coming up the road may crash into me or crash trying to avoid me.

I could also say that smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home, and sitting quietly and watching TV while stoned, harms nobody. But, what if I buy my joints from someone who sells to others and my business keeps him in business? Then, what if he sells some joints to someone who smokes and then drives a car, killing people? What if this guy also sells hard core drugs to others and my business helped him stay in business?

 

[Mac98]

I guess you are right. I am hung up on the fact that all things which are against the law are wrong. I can see you now being taken away in handcuffs to jail while at the same time trying to explain that you didn't really do anything wrong. I think the problem is I believe that if you know you are doing something against the law then you know you are doing something wrong whereas you want to make your own laws from your own perspective.

I could try to say that if I were the only car on the road at the time while breaking the speed limit then my actions aren't really wrong because I would not be putting other people's lives at risk. But, I would be wrong because I could have an accident and future cars coming up the road may crash into me or crash trying to avoid me.

I could also say that smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home, and sitting quietly and watching TV while stoned, harms nobody. But, what if I buy my joints from someone who sells to others and my business keeps him in business. Then, what if he sells some joints to someone who smokes and then drives a car, killing people. What if this guy also sells hard core drugs to others and my business helped him stay in business?

There is such a thing as smoking your own stash, meaning the cannabis belongs to you in the first place.

Besides, morals are relative to everyone. What you see as immoral, one might see as absolutely fine. Neither of you are wrong, you just have different opinions on what's right and what's wrong. It's like trying to lecture Hitler on the fact that what he's doing is wrong. If Hitler truely believed what he was doing was for the better sake of humanity, I'm sure he would've defended his opinion to the death (well, maybe not to the death, because he WAS a coward, but to YOUR death, no doubt...)

 

[HoHoBomb]

There is such a thing as smoking your own stash, meaning the cannabis belongs to you in the first place.

Slowly marijuana is being decriminalized in the United States.
Breckenridge, Co and Denver, it is legal to own about an Ounce at a time.

 

[Cattypuss]

I guess you are right. I am hung up on the fact that all things which are against the law are wrong. I can see you now being taken away in handcuffs to jail while at the same time trying to explain that you didn't really do anything wrong. I think the problem is I believe that if you know you are doing something against the law then you know you are doing something wrong whereas you want to make your own laws from your own perspective.

NO. I accept that smoking pot is illegal. I take the risk of getting caught if I smoke it. And if I do get caught I will not explain anything to anyone - it will be a fair cop - if I break the law, I accept the consequences if I get caught. This does NOT make breaking the law wrong.

I could try to say that if I were the only car on the road at the time while breaking the speed limit then my actions aren't really wrong because I would not be putting other people's lives at risk. But, I would be wrong because I could have an accident and future cars coming up the road may crash into me or crash trying to avoid me.

At 65 mph you cannot judge whether you are going to be the only car on the road from one second to the next. An empty road can become a non-empty road very quickly at speed.

I could also say that smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home, and sitting quietly and watching TV while stoned, harms nobody.

Well done!

But, what if I buy my joints from someone who sells to others and my business keeps him in business?

So what if it does? Where's the harm in that?

Then, what if he sells some joints to someone who smokes and then drives a car, killing people?

What if he has a kitchen provisions shop and he sells a 6 inch chef's knife to someone who later murders his wife with it? Does that make me wrong for buying a knife from him and making my dinner with it?

Or - a closer analogy - is it wrong of me to buy a beer in a bar that also sells beer to other people, one of whom may drink and then drive, killing someone?

What if this guy also sells hard core drugs to others and my business helped him stay in business?

What if he doesn't?

That's a hell of a lot of "ifs". All of them are imaginary situations that have no bearing on whether smoking pot - per se - is wrong.

Take me. From 1999 to 2007 my pot dealer was a friend who liked smoking pot and who grew it under lamps in his attic and sold it to his friends. He never touched other drugs.

All your "what ifs" are basically trying to justify your saying pot-smoking per se is wrong without being able to defend the simple position that pot-smoking - without your contrived "what ifs" - is wrong.

 

[Cattypuss]

There is such a thing as smoking your own stash, meaning the cannabis belongs to you in the first place.

Besides, morals are relative to everyone. What you see as immoral, one might see as absolutely fine. Neither of you are wrong, you just have different opinions on what's right and what's wrong. It's like trying to lecture Hitler on the fact that what he's doing is wrong. If Hitler truely believed what he was doing was for the better sake of humanity, I'm sure he would've defended his opinion to the death (well, maybe not to the death, because he WAS a coward, but to YOUR death, no doubt...)

I appreciate the sentiment, Mac, but I'm not sure I enjoy being likened to Hitler

 

[Mac98]

I appreciate the sentiment, Mac, but I'm not sure I enjoy being likened to Hitler

You're missing the point I'm trying to get across

 

[Arym1ss]

Pot

Ive been smoking pot for years (20?) I have a house, a professional job, Ive had successful relationships etc etc.
I find if I go out and get some Ill smoke 3-4 times a week, usually late at night when Im on the computer until its all gone. Then Im quite happy to be without it for months until I feel the urge to get some more. Having said that I havent smoked in about a year since I suggested a few of my friends had serious issues with moderation eg spending more time being stoned than straight.

There are direct links with pot use and mental health, memory loss and of course the lung cancer.

If he was drinking alcohol as frequently would that be an issue? If thats a yes then he's smoking too much as well. If its once or twice a week then let him know your uncomfortable with it and he'll cut down or hide it from you

 

[your_vice]

There are ways around this guy's smoking, as others have suggested. There is no reason why the OP's child should ever have to see him with a joint in his hand or incapacitated through pot. Kids often see their parents incapacitated through drink though, the only real difference is that drink is legal and socially acceptable. Bad breath can be eliminated with mints and mouthwash. His stash can be kept out of her child's reach. All this is about workable compromise and once this guy has no illusions about how strongly you dislike his habit, he should happily agree to a few reasonable limits.

I think the real question here is how much does he smoke and how often? There is also the question of how much it affects his social circle. Are all his friends pot smokers? Do you like his friends or are they people you disapprove of? If this guy smokes the occasional joint, that's one thing. If he smokes heavily and it's a major hobby of his, that would be cause for concern. Drinking occasionally and responsibly is one thing, having vodka for breakfast is quite another. If this guy feels that he needs to smoke or becomes irritable and aggressive if he doesn't smoke, that's when you should worry.

If he works and drives, my guess is that he's a light or social smoker and that can be worked around. In the future, you'll also have to consider whether you want to accept the risk of having an illegal substance in your home if you eventually live together. Check what the local laws are regarding marijuana and make sure you know what might happen if he gets caught in possession someday. If he has any involvement with acquiring drugs for friends or dealing in any way, that should absolutely stop. Lots of drug users will act as a liaison between friends and their dealer without really thinking about it but this is legally very dubious territory. If he's got any sense, he should only ever have a small quantity at any one time but if he's the kind to buy in bulk and eke it out, this habit should be broken. In some places, possessing more than a very small quantity of a drug can be viewed as an intent to supply others. Get clued up and make an informed choice about what you do and do not view as an acceptable risk here.

 

[HowMayIPleaseU]

For me, smoking was a deal breaker, even for dating someone. Doesn't matter if it was cigarettes or pot or something else. If they smoked, I wouldn't date them. It actually had nothing to do with the legalities involved (though that wouldn't help). It had to do with a whole range of things for me - that I don't like a loss of control, that I don't like the smell on my or their clothes, burn marks, the taste when I kiss them, etc.

The bottom line though is that if something is a deal breaker for you, you don't owe any explanations to anyone else. If your dealbreaker is that you won't date a redhead or you won't date someone that doesn't speak Latin, then that's your dealbreaker. You have a right to choose who you date or don't date. You particularly have a right (and a responsibility) to choose who you expose your children to. That doesn't make you selfish (despite the jackass earlier in the thread who said it did). That makes you someone who has identified what is important to them. There's nothing wrong with standing up for yourself.

 

[JollyMeatMan]

Never compromise, ever. If he's doing something you don't approve of yourself then why try to change him. Just get a new one. lol