I do not think the lie is defensible. On the other hand, on its face it's immoral to break the law - of course this is problematic. The real question is what is right for you to do, and runs your "license" up against your duty. Do you know what your duty is, and how did you figure it out?

A moral is a matter of cause and effect. Our laws are supposed to be a matter of nature and cause and effect. This link will affect our understanding of the morality of keeping pot illegal. According to this link, the decision to make pot illegal is based on false beliefs and racism. That makes the law immoral and it is our responsibility to take action to change immoral laws.

https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-illegal

Today, 29 states and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical marijuana, and 8 states plus D.C. have legalized it for recreational use. It’s illegality at the national level has created tension between the federal and state governments. However, growing consensus around the issue suggests that legalization—or rather, re-legalization—could be in America’s future. — History

Here is a link for keeping pot illegal.

https://www.rivermendhealth.com/resources/marijuana-legalization-led-use-addiction-illegal-market-continues-thrive/

I am not sure I can agree with that argument because my grandchildren have consumed a lot of pot since Oregon made it legal but when they wanted jobs that require drug testing, they quit using pot and no one is aware of any addiction problems. That is, they did not experience physical distress. I do not believe it is addiction unless one's body has a bad reaction to not having the addictive substance.

However, I am concerned for younger people, pot could interfere with maturation. Video games might also interfere with maturation? When we do something to avoid negative feelings that does not resolve the cause of the negative feelings, we can become dependent on any substance- pot, carbs, sugar, or behavior- isolation, reading, playing computer games that changes how we feel. This would be a negative habit, not exactly an addiction that can lead to death.

Because pot has been linked to improving bone strength, I wish we would go beyond making it legal to making it a medicine that a doctor can prescribe and our medical insurance would pay. We are half way there and this really stupid! We can pay a doctor $100 to prescribe us pot, but this is not one of the doctors our medical insurance will pay and even though the pot is used for a medical purpose, the insurance doesn't pay for it, but medical insurance pays for some really, really awful drugs and the one given to make our bones stronger can destroy our bones. How many legal drugs do we have that can destroy our livers or kidneys? We are still in the dark ages when it comes to sane medical care.

Would it be more immoral to lie to people that "it makes them crazy, rapists, and killers?" — Drek

It does ;) But seriously morality considers your action with regards to others before yourself. If your pot smoking negatively effects others then there is a case that it may be 'immoral'. If you are only smoking a bit then don't confuse illegal with immoral. Legality is a question of geography in this instance (I know that morality is also a matter of geography but if you are in the states the moral code doesn't vary from state to state like the legality of Mj).

Smoking or eating cannabis may be illegal (or not, depending). Some people enjoy it; others don't. Most people don't use it at all. Casual use does not strike me as a moral issue. What makes any drug-use moral or immoral is the consequence. I would apply that principle to many other casual activities whose effects on self or others are trivial and transitory. An occasional modest use of heroin or meth strikes me as the same (but definitely involving more risk).

Where any activity, be it smoking or eating cannabis, playing video games, or watching shopping channels on television, or anything else begins to dominate one's life it becomes morally problematic.

Yesterday, for the first time in about 30 years, I got high (on edible cannabis). I was definitely impaired, but since I stayed inside listening to music, I put neither myself nor others at risk. Using cannabis is illegal where I used it, but not where I bought it. I find it difficult to judge the event as any more morally significant than having a couple of beers or taking the dog out for her daily walk.

Because pot has been linked to improving bone strength — Athena

Pot has been linked to improving just about every ailment from which people suffer. Clearly some or many of the claimed benefits are not valid. Cannabis makes many people "feel better". Nothing wrong with feeling good or feeling better, but that feeling may not be the same as being cured or having a significant improvement.

The trouble with pot as medicine is that formal research into cannabis benefits was banned for a long time. Now, amateurs can gather real evidence, and some claims of benefit made by amateur researchers and users are probably true. [During the early years of AIDS amateur researchers gathered very useful information about various pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical medications. They tracked research, the conducted some experimental therapy, and published results. They provided something definite where there was nothing much.]

Hmm, depends on what drug we're talking about and to what purpose. Those that create dependency and addiction are rightfully banned and shouldn't be taken. Those that have no medicinal use and promote the aforementioned, would be immoral to take. Drugs that have medicinal use, are being cleared for use for differing purposes, like MDMA for PTSD or Cannabis for psoriasis or Psilocybin for death-anxiety for terminally ill patients.

Anyway, I usually try and take a step back and ask the question, why are people taking these drugs for recreational purposes? Is it because they are curious or lack a meaningful life? Perhaps, the answer is psychological, and thus that needs to be addressed through the proper channels instead of self-inducing psychotic states or bliss. Fortunately, we don't live in a Brave New World, and don't need 'soma' to cope with the mundane and boredom that life may have.

My two pennies.

and don't need 'soma' to cope with the mundane and boredom that life may have — Wallows

Oh?

Oh? — Bitter Crank

Do you beg to differ? Ketamine is going to become the new "soma", mark my words. It really is crazy that we prescribe Ritalin or amphetamine salts to kids. I have ADHD, so I would know...

I was asking as an adult for adult. I don't condone under that legally. It's not harmless.

Totally worth the wait.

"OH?" because I wasn't clear on whether you thought we did or did not need Soma. A gram saves a damn.

I would argue that law is dictated by morality, and not the dicator there of.

I would argue that law is dictated by morality, and not the dicator there of. — LuckilyDefinitive

This ignores the accepted distinction between malum prohibitum (wrongs by virtue of statute) and malum in se (wrongs in themselves). The former might be that the tax rate is 28% or the speed limit is 45. The latter would be that murder is illegal. Should a legislature decide the speed limit is to be 46, the law would be just as moral as before. If murder is declared legal, though, the law would be immoral.

I should have made it clear. My statement was made solely from my perspective opinion. I am no scholar it just seems to me that is the way it works. Thanks for the information I will have to check out that theory, it sounds interesting.

No, it's not immoral in and of itself. And it's not immoral, even at first blush, just because it would be breaking the law - Tim is simply wrong about that. I am not duty bound to adhere to any law unless it is justified. The lie is much worse on this comparison.

However, there are ethical issues related to illegal drugs, such as addiction, risk of harm, and the black market. And those issues are problematic. In contexts such as these, the answer can change.

Hmm, depends on what drug we're talking about and to what purpose. Those that create dependency and addiction are rightfully banned and shouldn't be taken. Those that have no medicinal use and promote the aforementioned, would be immoral to take. — Wallows

No, that wouldn't be immoral, and they can be taken if one accepts the risks. My life, my choice.

Anyway, I usually try and take a step back and ask the question, why are people taking these drugs for recreational purposes? Is it because they are curious or lack a meaningful life? Perhaps, the answer is psychological, and thus that needs to be addressed through the proper channels instead of self-inducing psychotic states or bliss. Fortunately, we don't live in a Brave New World, and don't need 'soma' to cope with the mundane and boredom that life may have.

My two pennies. — Wallows

Maybe a lot of drug takers lack a meaningful life, but it only reveals your prejudice to ponder that question specifically of drug takers. Would you question the meaningfulness of the lives of those who pursue other recreational activities - skiing, sailing, horse riding, and so on?

Maybe a lot of drug takers lack a meaningful life, but it only reveals your prejudice to ponder that question specifically of drug takers. — S

What prejudice? I merely am asking what is the reason one has to resort to XYZ to have a fun time?

What prejudice? I merely am asking what is the reason one has to resort to XYZ to have a fun time? — Wallows

There it is again. Resort?

There it is again. Resort? — S

I don't know, there really isn't anything meaningful about taking meth or indulging in crack. Please keep in mind that I live in California, where weed has only recently been legalized, so I'm pretty open-minded with regards to smoking weed. I don't smoke it because I value what my psyche has to tell me at night when I dream, and weed interferes with that. I also get weed anxiety, so the high from THC is unpleasant for me. I'm all for CBD though.

The harder stuff is iffy in my book.

Resort? — S

Well, yeah, "resort". What else do you think I mean or ought to say?

I don't know, there really isn't anything meaningful about taking meth or indulging in crack. — Wallows

In your opinion.

Please keep in mind that I live in California, where weed has only recently been legalized, and I'm pretty open-minded with regards to smoking weed. The harder stuff is iffy in my book. — Wallows

The harder stuff is more risky. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's worse. Is skiing more iffy than bowling? The former is more adventurous, the experience more exhilarating. These things are about what risks you're willing to take for recreational purposes and about personal preference. Maybe you're just more of a bowler.

Well, yeah, "resort". What else do you think I mean or ought to say? — Wallows

It's an example of loaded language. It has a negative connotation. You could have chosen a more neutral term.

In your opinion. — S

I think, there is a consensus among people, and even users themselves, that smoking crack, doing meth or doing heroin does one no amount of good.

The harder stuff is more risky. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's worse. Is skiing more iffy than bowling? The former is more adventurous, the experience more exhilarating. These things are about what risks you're willing to take for recreational purposes. — S

No, I don't think it's a matter of preference if that's something you're trying to imply. There's nothing good in doing any of the substances I mentioned in the above. Not even once.

It's an example of loaded language. — S

It's loaded for good reason, though.

I think, there is a consensus among people, and even users themselves, that smoking crack, doing meth or doing heroin does one no amount of good. — Wallows

That it's a popular opinion doesn't mean that it's anything more than that. I'm entirely on board with those who would urge extreme caution with those kind of drugs because of that risk. But that's all it is: a risk. Not a prophecy, guarantee, or foregone conclusion.

No, I don't think it's a matter of preference if that's something you're trying to imply. There's nothing good in doing any of the substances I mentioned in the above. Not even once. — Wallows

You're confusing your own opinion for something more than that. You are not sufficiently equipped to determine that no one can get anything good out of it. You would have to know details about the lives and circumstances of so many people in so many situations that it's just not possible.

That it's a popular opinion doesn't mean that it's anything more than that. I'm entirely on board with those who would urge extreme caution with those kind of drugs because of that risk. But that's all it is: a risk. Not a prophecy, guarantee, or foregone conclusion. — S

But, what's the point, again? To fill a hole in one's soul? To escape from reality for a brief while? Again, it's a psychological and sociological issue here.

You're confusing your own opinion for something more than that. You are not sufficiently equipped to determine that no one can get anything good out of it. You would have to know details about the lives and circumstances of so many people in so many situations that it's just not possible. — S

What medical application does snorting cocaine or doing meth have? None. So, let it be prohibited is what I think is the best option.

But, what's the point, again? To fill a hole in one's soul? To escape from reality for a brief while? Again, it's a psychological and sociological issue here. — Wallows

That has nothing to do with drugs, specifically. You could ask the same questions about any other recreational activity. The clue is in the name. You're just revealing your bias again.

What medical application does snorting cocaine or doing meth have? — Wallows

What medical application does skiing or sailing have?

None. So, let it be prohibited is what I think is the best option. — Wallows

Yes, and for that same reason, let's ban skiing, sailing, abseiling, skydiving, rock climbing, scuba diving, racing, rugby, bowling, reading, sewing, playing video games, going to the cinema, discussing philosophy...

Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?

No.

Is it immoral for any drugs to be illegal?

Yes.

If you're going to say it's immoral to do drugs or immoral to illegalize drugs or assert any position on morality, you have to first assert what criteria you use to determine what is moral and then explain how those criteria are or aren't satisfied.

Yes, and for that same reason, let's ban skiing, sailing, abseiling, skydiving, rock climbing, scuba diving, racing, rugby, bowling, reading, sewing, playing video games, going to the cinema, discussing philosophy... — S

This isn't even comparable. Doing heroin, meth, cocaine, and other drugs doesn't even fall in the same category as "skiing, sailing, abseiling, skydiving, rock climbing, scuba diving, racing, rugby, bowling, reading, sewing, playing video games, going to the cinema, discussing philosophy..."

If you're going to say it's immoral to do drugs or immoral to illegalize drugs or assert any position on morality, you have to first assert what criteria you use to determine what is moral and then explain how those criteria are or aren't satisfied. — Hanover

Moral stances are personal dispositions/"feelings" about the acceptability of interpersonal behavior that one considers more significant than etiquette.