You keep trying to put me in a light I'm not standing near, PH. That's your problem. I'm just being rational in approach. You're describing uses that go back to the medical, though there are medicines that will probably do a better job at any and they're perfectly legal.
Too broad. In relation to the ingesting of chemicals for no other purpose? Yes. That is, I distinguish between being put under before surgery with simply getting high, or drunk. And between that and a runner's high, or an exhaustive physical effort which might diminish capacity in the moment.
A rabbit hole, but there are examples of fatal car crashes and other crimes being committed by people under the influence of pot, frequently in combination with other drugs, all of which impair judgment. But the point, again, is that this impairment is the point (medical uses aside) of smoking.
To begin with I already noted I didn't object necessarily to doctor supervised use for a medical purpose. The rest is hand waiving psychologically sponsored nonsense. You don't need pot to be creative or to meditate. And there are no unique uses, only unique applications, which are no more arguments than "Because I really enjoy getting high" would be.
Not uneducated? Are you uneducated in the law unless you violate it? Of course not. That's a silly non qualification. Else, only pedophiles could intelligently discuss the problem of pedophilia. I doubt you'd advance that as an argument.
Unlike some, who from sobriety or abstinence of one sort or another, almost proudly recount their experience with moral failure, I'm disinclined. Which is another way of saying, politely, none of your business.
I think there's evidence to support that and where it can be applied in that fashion I'm unopposed.
The difference, PH, is that a computer helps anyone who wants to write. It is demonstrably causal in connection to the desired and beneficial end. The things some attribute to pot aren't universal. They're psychological manifestations tied to the belief of the person using.
Actually, a single beer or glass of wine with a meal won't significantly impair your judgment. I can point you to studies if you like.
No. It isn't. No one smokes for the joy of that burning sensation in their lungs or the smoke flavor.
If you have potent pot a hit or two will get you that buzz without difficulty. And if you don't get that you haven't gotten anything from the pot smoke that you can't get by self hypnosis. So you aren't helped by this line of argument.
You and Paulos have been noting problems with alcohol. But I'm distinguishing between the abuse of alcohol, which can impair judgment and lead to horrific consequences, with the use that doesn't. So the problem with car fatalities isn't the car, but the use. With alcohol, impairment of judgment is possible, but not the legal point or inescapable result of use. With pot that impairment is the point and is inescapably the conclusion of its use.
That's just not true, PH. I can't remember the last time I was tipsy. I can tell you the last few times I've had alcohol though. And many people could do the same who don't abuse the product.
You don't make a million rules about where you can't drink excessively because it's impractical and invites abuse. You make the law against intoxication and the rest takes care of itself. Problem for you is that your product is all about intoxication.
I already have: it's safely usable with appreciable, demonstrable health benefits for those who do. That is, you can drink alcohol and be healthier for it without ever becoming intoxicated.
Sure you did. You said I was uneducated and the only point you raised to attempt to prove this involved an inquiry into my consumption of lack thereof. The argument I countered with parallels the failure of that attempt logically. You simply wouldn't advance the the notion that you can't be educated on addiction unless you're an addict or crime unless you were a criminal participant. Of course not.
Nothing in my argument rests on an appeal to the anecdotal. To do so would be to advance a less, not more educated approach.
That's why I called anything past the point of noting the inescapable impairment in judgement as a rabbit hole. Maybe the pot led to the bright idea of drinking before they climbed into the car and headed out for food to answer the munchies. Who knows? Which is why I noted that the point remains impaired judgement, from which nothing particularly good will ever come and which raises the probability of an unfortunate outcome for all involved.
They demonstrably do nothing of the sort.
No. You need a better dictionary. I'm not holding a different standard.
Which, given the substance is legal and widely consumed, comes as no surprise to anyone.
It's incredible to me too, since I didn't do it. I noted that it was a rabbit hole. And so my particular answer.
Well, no. Alcohol doesn't necessarily lead to impaired judgment, as previously noted. It does justify laws against intoxication though.
I don't remember the dangerous part...but anything that requires fine motor skills and response times would be my answer. Any activity where impairment poses a danger.
Which doesn't make a point to help you, since I can give you any number of activities where the consumption of alcohol in moderation isn't problematic. That isn't the case for pot. Again, that's because of the distinction regarding the point previously noted about the very point of pot.
No. It doesn't. Rather, it shows your willingness to "determine" that pot wasn't the culprit in the one, off hand example. We don't know that. We do know that impaired reflexes and mental acuity is what leads to wrecks and bad judgment calls.
Brownies? :think: No, brownies get their great flavor from chocolate and vanilla - maybe even a bit of Malibu rum
but I'm guessing that the only thing that pot would add to a brownie is a buzz...
Fantastic. It's good to know that all my time at happy hour is doing my heart good. :thumb:
Moral? And actually, fiscal?
I still think it is relevant.
Wouldn't, and didn't, try to argue otherwise.
Are you referring to laws against public intoxication?
You get intoxicated but it has been noted several times that people use it with other aims, even if intoxication is present. So it isn't true that the sole purpose is to get high. And you've noted several times that you are supportive of medicinal use of marijuana. You must put medicinal use in a box of being prescribed and obtained from doctors. Why should someone have to obtain a natural product from a doctor?
Yes. The Bible is clear about drunkards and Galatians 5:19-21 would seem to take exception to mind altering drugs, since sorcery is, in the Greek pharmakeia. And there are any number of warnings pertaining to the impaired mind in relation to the Holy. 1 Timothy 3:2-3 speaks to addiction to wine, but the point is the addiction and what that notes. Similarly, Romans 13:13 puts drunkenness on par with sexual immorality.
Yes. You might as well ask if it's immoral to steal if the after effect is an enormous surge of creative activity.
Only if you're a sipper, since you undo any benefits once you exceed that one drink maximum. :dead:
Yes. Moral because it works a demonstrated harm and is designed to addict and fiscal because of the death and destruction and the costs associated/impact on health care.
Can't wait for you to demonstrate how then. :thumb:
My response was in relation to your saying that you didn't see why it should be illegal to possess it. If the only reason to possess it would be to use it at some point you rather have your answer.
Yes.
Since whatever gain comes comes (and this is known to the user) with that high it's an exceedingly thin and practically meaningless distinction.
Because a doctor would distinguish between a legitimate medical use and the recreational. Natural, again, doesn't determine anything. Why can't I serve naturally growing poison mushrooms in my restaurant, officer?
lain:I don't see where doctors would pay any real penalty. Drug companies? :idunno: I doubt they'ed lose much business since we both know the vast majority of users aren't doing it to write the next great American novel, or because of a less psychological and more clinical medical need.
Why would I? The law of diminishing returns plays in...and it's scientific fact that if you are a regular user you'll have to increase potency or amount to reach the same high. Over time that's an invitation to other drugs. That said, I only mentioned the gateway aspect once and without particular emphasis, though it remains a legitimate criticism of engaging in the activity.
I've given you a number of distinctions between them. Alcohol can be used beneficially and objectively to promote physical, measurable health. Alcohol is not necessarily intoxicating. Alcohol has, as NM has pointed out, other legitimate uses that are also not involved in the impairment of judgment. None of that can be said of pot. Even the medicinal uses are, at best, controversial. No widely respected, peer reviewed, medical periodical has come out with a study that demonstrates pot has medicinal benefits that can't be met by legal means. And I don't believe the AMA has come out in favor of legalization.
Because they are unavoidable elements of actual, beneficial and health enhancing activity.