toldailytopic: Is it immoral to smoke Marijuana?

[Town Heretic]

Hello

Just for the record, the meds for depression/anxiety aren't designed to completely fix the problem, they simply reduce the amount of bad days you have. However, there are some days, even on the meds, where they have little to no effect and you find yourself at the mercy of your illness.

Just sayin'.....

Hiya TM. If you can find support for that with the AMA or any peer reviewed authority I think you make an argument for a particular, medical application under supervision of a physician. And I'm already on record of not being averse to that.

Else, the mind is a powerful instrument and there's a reason why placebos sometimes cure.

:e4e:

 

[Thunder's Muse]

Hiya TM. If you can find support for that with the AMA or any peer reviewed authority I think you make an argument for a particular, medical application under supervision of a physician. And I'm already on record of not being averse to that.

Else, the mind is a powerful instrument and there's a reason why placebos sometimes cure.

:e4e:

Well, that's how my Doctor explained it to me after I had a suicidal episode 5 months after starting them. It's also been my experience with them.


This is the website for the meds I'm on:

http://www.lexapro.com/


I had several side effects when I first started: vomiting, headaches, insomnia, feeling so 'out of it' I couldn't drive for a week. I still get what I call 'itchy legs'... my legs get so restless and they kind of itch on the inside.

 

[kmoney]

Only if you're a sipper, since you undo any benefits once you exceed that one drink maximum. :dead:

I was joking.

Re: ban tobacco?

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.

Are you looking at it from the cigarette-maker side?

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.

I know why you said that. And I agree. If you have it, I imagine you plan to use it. Unless you just sell it.

Yes.

OK, so we can have those for pot too. That's fine.

Since whatever gain comes comes (and this is known to the user) with that high it's an exceedingly thin and practically meaningless distinction.

It's not meaningless when you keep saying that the only purpose of smoking pot is to get high. I will admit that the majority of its use is for that purpose though.

Because a doctor would distinguish between a legitimate medical use and the recreational.

That assumes recreational use is bad. Or something that should be banned by law.

Natural, again, doesn't determine anything. Why can't I serve naturally growing poison mushrooms in my restaurant, officer? lain:

I'm guessing you can't sell any poison for consumption in a restaurant. I don't see how your example is comparable. Marijuana isn't poison.

But you've made your point, it being natural isn't sufficient for determining it's legality.

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.

Perhaps they wouldn't face a great loss. I still don't think drug companies would be in favor of it. Probably, more people would take it medicinally if they could.

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.

You would because distancing yourself from arguments that can be used against other legal substances would behoove you. Unless you are supportive of a ban on those other legal substances, which you aren't (except tobacco).

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.

I don't see why the AMA would favor it, which goes back to what I said before about doctors and drug companies not wanting it. It is good business for people to have to go to you instead of using natural products.

You've given distinctions, some of which I agree with. None of which I believe make a compelling enough argument to legally ban it.

I wrote:

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.​

Because they are unavoidable elements of actual, beneficial and health enhancing activity.

I think I should have been more specific. I meant why taking a substance for no other purpose than to get intoxicated is necessarily immoral. But I see you basically answered sod on that so I'll respond to that post.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, that's how my Doctor explained it to me after I had a suicidal episode 5 months after starting them. It's also been my experience with them.


This is the website for the meds I'm on:

http://www.lexapro.com/


I had several side effects when I first started: vomiting, headaches, insomnia, feeling so 'out of it' I couldn't drive for a week. I still get what I call 'itchy legs'... my legs get so restless and they kind of itch on the inside.

If that's the response you're having to medication then your moral obligation is to your health and well being and I wouldn't stand between you and relief. Again, my objection was not, is not, and will not be in relation to legitimate medicinal application.

As I said to my friend PH in an aside, my general argument is against the larger part of the push to simply add one more recreational drug to the market and with it a host of preventable ills.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

I was joking.

Really? I was deadly serious. Couldn't you tell by the cartoon at the end of my response.

lain:

Are you looking at it from the cigarette-maker side?

No. The impact on human life overwhelms any argument they could make, even before we get to the costs.

I know why you said that. And I agree. If you have it, I imagine you plan to use it. Unless you just sell it.

Right.

OK, so we can have those for pot too. That's fine.

Of course we could. But that's only a part of my objection.

It's not meaningless when you keep saying that the only purpose of smoking pot is to get high. I will admit that the majority of its use is for that purpose though.

It's the unavoidable conclusion to smoking it. Period. Now if that high is a medical necessity it's one thing. Else, it's a reason wrapped around a recreational pursuit that begins with impaired judgment and the objections I've made prior.

That assumes recreational use is bad. Or something that should be banned by law.

It assumes that impairment of judgment is bad; that people with impaired judgment are much more likely to make horrific mistakes with consequences and costs to others.

I'm guessing you can't sell any poison for consumption in a restaurant. I don't see how your example is comparable. Marijuana isn't poison.

You mean it isn't harmful in the same way. The point being that natural, again, isn't determinative of anything substantive.

But you've made your point, it being natural isn't sufficient for determining it's legality.

Happy to set that one aside then. I don't see that we were so much disagreeing here as I get the sense you were looking for my "why".

Perhaps they wouldn't face a great loss. I still don't think drug companies would be in favor of it. Probably, more people would take it medicinally if they could.

Drug companies probably wouldn't. Unless they saw a way to use it to their advantage, provide a superior quality product to consumers. :think: So they might surprise us both, now that I think on it some more.

You would because distancing yourself from arguments that can be used against other legal substances would behoove you. Unless you are supportive of a ban on those other legal substances, which you aren't (except tobacco).

I apply the same measure for any substance, which is why I'm against tobacco and think it will be a black mark against us in the history books. It's madness that we allow the production and sale of a lethal chemical that has not a solitary benefit to go with its disease and death promoting addiction.

I don't see why the AMA could favor it, which goes back to what I said before about doctors and drug companies not wanting it. It is good business for people to have to go to you instead of using natural products.

Too thin, to my mind, given (again) that almost no one uses pot as medicine and those that do aren't subject to my objection.

You've given distinctions, some of which I agree with. None of which I believe make a compelling enough argument to legally ban it.

It's already banned. The compelling argument must be made to legalize it. And aside from narrow use in relation to medical necessity, there simply isn't a case that can't be countered by the potential negative impact on health and the safety of others.

I think I should have been more specific. I meant why taking a substance for no other purpose than to get intoxicated is necessarily immoral.

A general objection would be because it corrupts the thinking process by which you arrive at moral distinctions and invites regrettable error of the sort one might never encounter sober.

But I see you basically answered sod on that so I'll respond to that post.

The more particular, Christian response. Good. But I hope you'll respond to this as well.

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

Really? I was deadly serious. Couldn't you tell by the cartoon at the end of my response.

lain:

I just felt the need to clarify since I know your sense of humor is lacking.

No. The impact on human life overwhelms any argument they could make, even before we get to the costs.

I meant are you basing your moral and fiscal reasons on the companies.

It's the unavoidable conclusion to smoking it. Period.

Never really questioned that.

Now if that high is a medical necessity it's one thing. Else, it's a reason wrapped around a recreational pursuit that begins with impaired judgment and the objections I've made prior.

Which goes to the below, about it being a necessarily bad......

It assumes that impairment of judgment is bad; that people with impaired judgment are much more likely to make horrific mistakes with consequences and costs to others.

But you are only banning certain impairments. Drunkenness is still allowed in some cases, which impairs someone's judgment.

Drug companies probably wouldn't. Unless they saw a way to use it to their advantage, provide a superior quality product to consumers. :think: So they might surprise us both, now that I think on it some more.

I would bet they'd rather keep it illegal than have to formulate ways to provide a better product. :chuckle:

I apply the same measure for any substance, which is why I'm against tobacco and think it will be a black mark against us in the history books. It's madness that we allow the production and sale of a lethal chemical that has not a solitary benefit to go with its disease and death promoting addiction.

At least you are consistent. Even if you're wrong.

Too thin, to my mind, given (again) that almost no one uses pot as medicine and those that do aren't subject to my objection.

The argument stands, though. Why would doctors want a competitor when there is none now? Even if it is a small percentage.

It's already banned. The compelling argument must be made to legalize it.

So change my statement to I don't find your argument compelling enough to maintain it's illegal status. But regardless, it hasn't always been banned. And from what I've seen (need to do some more reading) the laws against marijuana were more based in racism than what you've been offering. So without racism we might be in a completely different situation right now.

And aside from narrow use in relation to medical necessity, there simply isn't a case that can't be countered by the potential negative impact on health and the safety of others.

Both alcohol and marijuana can be used safely. Both can have health benefits. Both can be abused. Both can impair judgment which can lead to harmful behavior. The only difference is that you can drink alcohol without getting intoxicated, which isn't true of marijuana (though I'm not sure on that). So in effect you are making a law against the state of being intoxicated, but it is focused on intoxication by marijuana, as you can be drunk without being arrested.

A general objection would be because it corrupts the thinking process by which you arrive at moral distinctions and invites regrettable error of the sort one might never encounter sober.

Then penalize the errors instead of penalizing an action that doesn't inherently lead to harm.

The more particular, Christian response. Good. But I hope you'll respond to this as well.

:e4e:

The gist of my response is that I believe the bible is more concerned with what you do while drunk rather than being concerned with the state itself. I don't think Paul means only the state of being drunk when he talks about drunkenness. I'm still searching for a verse in the Old Testament though.....

 

[kmoney]

Psa 104:15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.

Pro 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.

I don't think these were exactly what I was looking for but I would imagine that some drunkenness is meant in those verses. :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, no. It isn't like tobacco smoke, flavored toward that purpose. I don't think you'd find a sliver of a fraction of people who would suggest your counter, unless they were high.

Hmm. Tobacco smoke, as in cigars? When I did smoke the stuff I favoured the 'grass' variety as it was actually smoother in taste and effect IMO, but then I also admit I did it for effect overall rather than an 'aesthetic palette' test, but then again not to get "stoned" as some would describe either. As oppose to alcohol I found it actually 'heightened' certain senses which is far from unique...

I think that's exactly right: but not an inherent problem with the substance, only the people ingesting it. And I know of and would suspect there are a great many people who drink wine with meals or have a beer without the least intention of doing more than enjoying that flavor. I'm one of them, now and again.

Well do you think it's immoral to get a 'buzz' off anything per se? Let's scratch the 'discernible' factor and just address that.

An impairment of judgement. And it isn't as though people were particularly rational creatures to begin with on the whole. So here's a great idea: let's dumb them down and then see what happens. :shocked:

Isn't it a rational judgement of yours to decree that people aren't (or weren't) rational on the whole? Bit of an irony there TH... The exact same argument could be made regards alcohol. Many people use drink to get 'sloshed' at weekends which hardly 'boosts' the brain cells...

There isn't any, except that my experience (and I think a few studies) would suggest the drunk is a more dangerous brute.

Indeed....

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

TH, you're not equating 'pharmakeia' with cannabis or drugs in general are you? Sorcery is hardly the same thing. :squint:

 

[Town Heretic]

...But you are only banning certain impairments. Drunkenness is still allowed in some cases, which impairs someone's judgment.

It isn't about banning some impairments. It's about banning a substance that cannot be used without the result of intoxication. I take your point though. A person indulging at home would be doing nothing essentially different from the person drinking to excess at home. I wouldn't advocate either. But again, alcohol isn't legal because you can get drunk in the privacy of your own home. And drinking needn't be intoxicating, etc., previously set out.

I would bet they'd rather keep it illegal than have to formulate ways to provide a better product. :chuckle:

Who knows?

At least you are consistent. Even if you're wrong.

At least you're half right (no, don't).

The argument stands, though. Why would doctors want a competitor when there is none now? Even if it is a small percentage.

Know any doctors scrounging for business? lain:

So change my statement to I don't find your argument compelling enough to maintain it's illegal status.

Good for you, but unless you can find an argument for legalizing it that's not really going to amount to anything but a statement regarding my lack of persuasive power or your intransigence.

But regardless, it hasn't always been banned. And from what I've seen (need to do some more reading) the laws against marijuana were more based in racism than what you've been offering. So without racism we might be in a completely different situation right now.

That's the great thing about vague theories. lain:

Both alcohol and marijuana can be used safely.

Sure.

Both can have health benefits.

Well, depends on how you mean that. There's nothing healthy about smoking pot. There may be some medical benefits related to treatments for various ailments or as a lessening agent for discomfort relating to certain treatments. That would fall under the medical application though and not as a general use. Generally speaking it isn't beneficial or healthy, as alcohol can be.

Both can be abused.

Alcohol can be. Pot is made for the purpose that would make the use of alcohol an abuse.

Both can impair judgment which can lead to harmful behavior.

Yes.

The only difference is that you can drink alcohol without getting intoxicated, which isn't true of marijuana (though I'm not sure on that).

No (supra), but it's a very important difference in its nature. To be effective in any beneficial or detrimental way pot must be taken to the extent it impairs judgment.

So in effect you are making a law against the state of being intoxicated, but it is focused on intoxication by marijuana, as you can be drunk without being arrested.

No. I'm supporting the law prohibiting a drug that can't be taken without inducing a state that, outside of narrow confines, is illegal, one that is almost entirely used for that purpose, and which has no inherent beneficial use outside of certain medical applications (which I'm open to, as established).

Then penalize the errors instead of penalizing an action that doesn't inherently lead to harm.

Again, my argument in favor of the laws restricting the practice don't rest on one leg. If they did I'd say fine, make it another form of public intoxication.

Of course, you could make the same sort of argument for heroin, crack, crystal meth. So obviously there's a larger concern and more than one consideration here. And so my approach.

The gist of my response is that I believe the bible is more concerned with what you do while drunk rather than being concerned with the state itself.

And I think you're wrong. The body is a temple. It is, to the Christian, a thing no longer wholly his. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 And I don't believe a Christian can reconcile drunkenness of any sort with scripture. Colossians 3:17 Ephesians 5:18 We are commanded to retain control of our faculties. 1 Peter 1:13 and to separate ourselves in conduct from the worldly. Romans 12:2 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8

And I've already noted Galatians. :e4e:

 

[PyramidHead]

Town Heretic, do you support the ban of all substances such as plants, mushrooms, and over-the-counter substances that can be used for purposes of intoxication? I don't mean cough syrup, etc. that have other uses, but JWH-018 and "bath salts" are perfectly legal, as well as various legal plants and mushrooms. Except a lot of these things don't get you 'high' so much as they get you to 'trip face'

 

[Town Heretic]

Hmm. Tobacco smoke, as in cigars? When I did smoke the stuff I favoured the 'grass' variety as it was actually smoother in taste and effect IMO, but then I also admit I did it for effect overall rather than an 'aesthetic palette' test, but then again not to get "stoned" as some would describe either. As oppose to alcohol I found it actually 'heightened' certain senses which is far from unique...

It impairs judgment and temporarily distorts and impairs memory, among other things.

Well do you think it's immoral to get a 'buzz' off anything per se? Let's scratch the 'discernible' factor and just address that.

See: my answers prior and latest to kmo. I think I've set that out in full.

Isn't it a rational judgement of yours to decree that people aren't (or weren't) rational on the whole?

I said that people, on the whole, weren't particularly rational creatures. We tend to be ruled by our passions and our carnality more readily than by the disciplined application of reason. Are you disputing that?

Bit of an irony there TH... The exact same argument could be made regards alcohol. Many people use drink to get 'sloshed' at weekends which hardly 'boosts' the brain cells...

No irony. The misuse of one thing is where the other thing begins regardless. Another argument I've met in full within this thread.

TH, you're not equating 'pharmakeia' with cannabis or drugs in general are you? Sorcery is hardly the same thing. :squint:

Actually, sorcery in translation of the Greek I noted needs a bit of fleshing out. It actually does involve the use of drugs. Look it up for yourself. The use of drugs by those practicing magical arts was integral, as were altered states of consciousness and it isn't unknown to the author.

 

[Town Heretic]

Town Heretic, do you support the ban of all substances such as plants, mushrooms, and over-the-counter substances that can be used for purposes of intoxication?

Of course not. I do support the ban of those things whose singular purpose is that end. Pot is made for that end. Any other application is incidental, though I'd argue for its allowance in the case of medicinal application where it can be shown to be beneficial.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It impairs judgment and temporarily distorts and impairs memory, among other things.

Have you ever smoked or ingested the stuff? I'm not arguing that it can't have such effects but I'm interested as to whether you're arguing from experience or conjecture.

See: my answers prior and latest to kmo. I think I've set that out in full.

Ok. I've read through part of your exchanges so I'll carry on wading through...

I said that people, on the whole, weren't particularly rational creatures. We tend to be ruled by our passions and our carnality more readily than by the disciplined application of reason. Are you disputing that?

The irony remains TH. If you venture that the majority of people aren't 'rational' creatures then you're asserting from a position where you're supposedly rational enough to make such a claim....
And I do dispute the latter. Passion/emotion etc does not negate reason and without such investment would likely decry it. Is it 'reasonable' to be disgusted by senseless suffering for example? Those who can't empathize or feel passion are often the most unreasonable of all, in all senses of the term...lain:

No irony. The misuse of one thing is where the other thing begins regardless. Another argument I've met in full within this thread.

Well the irony was in regards to your assertion, not in regards to drink and pot....

Actually, sorcery in translation of the Greek I noted needs a bit of fleshing out. It actually does involve the use of drugs. Look it up for yourself. The use of drugs by those practicing magical arts was integral, as were altered states of consciousness and it isn't unknown to the author.

Neither cannabis, alcohol, caffeine or paracetamol cast 'spells'. Unless my local chemist is a 'sorcery shop' then I suggest you look it up some more yourself because this has been debunked time over as a credible argument....

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Have you ever smoked or ingested the stuff? I'm not arguing that it can't have such effects but I'm interested as to whether you're arguing from experience or conjecture.

As I told PH, my argument doesn't rest on the anecdotal, but on the reasoned rule. So my experience or lack thereof isn't germane.

Ok. I've read through part of your exchanges so I'll carry on wading through...

That's the spirit! :thumb: I think between MD, PH, kmo, and a few others I've run the bases here pretty thoroughly.

The irony remains TH. If you venture that the majority of people aren't 'rational' creatures then you're asserting from a position where you're supposedly rational enough to make such a claim....

It isn't ironic unless you can demonstrate that I'm irrational or you've been listening to too many Alanis Morissette cds. lain: The first isn't going to happen and the latter shouldn't, but there you go.

And I do dispute the latter.

Then I think you grossly overestimate the tendency that people like Barnum learned to value and exploit. Most people are average. The average person, for good or ill, isn't particularly adept at reason.

Passion/emotion etc does not negate reason and without such investment would likely decry it.

I never suggested the two were mutually exclusive. I'm passionate about reason, by way of example.

Is it 'reasonable' to be disgusted by senseless suffering for example?

Of course. Is it reasonable to hate a man because of his skin color or religious background? Is it reasonable to believe that women should hold a lesser place and right? Is it reasonable that I should believe all men equal and own one as chattel?

So much for the reasoned passion of the greater part of humanity in any generation.

Those who can't empathize or feel passion are often the most unreasonable of all, in all senses of the term...lain:

I'd agree that reason without emotion is a sterile and pointless thing.

Neither cannabis, alcohol, caffeine or paracetamol cast 'spells'. Unless my local chemist is a 'sorcery shop' then I suggest you look it up some more yourself because this has been debunked time over as a credible argument....

They never have. But they've been used to alter consciousness and as part of the methodology since the term was coined. You might want to look at the use of that same term in Plato's Republic, by way of illustration.

:e4e:

 

[YahuShuan]

Of course not. I do support the ban of those things whose singular purpose is that end. Pot is made for that end. Any other application is incidental, though I'd argue for its allowance in the case of medicinal application where it can be shown to be beneficial.

No, what you folks support is man's drugs are good, and what God gave us is bad, just because MAN said so. God didn't! And GOD MADE MJ, not men. What boobs. You say you know the reason or that "pot is made for that end"...cheese whiz, first the christians say they are not under God's Law, yet they'll send you to hell for disobeying MANS LAWS?

Again I say, what a bunch of hypocritical boobs. BIG TIME HYPOCRITES!

 

[kmoney]

I took out all but this because it is the gist of our disagreement.....

It isn't about banning some impairments. It's about banning a substance that cannot be used without the result of intoxication. I take your point though. A person indulging at home would be doing nothing essentially different from the person drinking to excess at home. I wouldn't advocate either.

I'm glad we're in agreement on this. :up:

But again, alcohol isn't legal because you can get drunk in the privacy of your own home. And drinking needn't be intoxicating, etc., previously set out.

No, alcohol is legal because prohibition didn't work and there was money to be made.

No. I'm supporting the law prohibiting a drug that can't be taken without inducing a state that, outside of narrow confines, is illegal, one that is almost entirely used for that purpose, and which has no inherent beneficial use outside of certain medical applications (which I'm open to, as established).

And here is the base of where we differ. You support the ban on something that cannot be used without being intoxicated while not serving any greater purpose and I don't think that is sufficient to justify the laws. I'm not sure there is much point in going further as I don't see any movement on either side. :idunno:

I'll try to find some info on the creation of the anti-marijuana laws. I'm sure there is a youtube video or something. :chuckle:

I also note your distinction between the health benefits of alcohol vs. marijuana.

Of course, you could make the same sort of argument for heroin, crack, crystal meth. So obviously there's a larger concern and more than one consideration here. And so my approach.

I'm surprised it took you so long to bring this up. I'm undecided on other drugs. I think for right now I support the laws against them and I base that on the level of destructiveness. Marijuana is significantly less addictive and harmful than some of those other drugs. And of course the medicinal uses that marijuana has that the other drugs don't (outside of LSD maybe? :liberals

And I think you're wrong. The body is a temple. It is, to the Christian, a thing no longer wholly his. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 And I don't believe a Christian can reconcile drunkenness of any sort with scripture. Colossians 3:17 Ephesians 5:18 We are commanded to retain control of our faculties. 1 Peter 1:13 and to separate ourselves in conduct from the worldly. Romans 12:2 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8

And I've already noted Galatians. :e4e:

Quickly...

Temple talk - I think is about sexual sins, not food or smoking, etc. that some people apply it to, if you look at the context of 1 Cor.

Galatians - sorcery and getting intoxicated are not the same thing

Eph 5:18 is probably the strongest verse against a Christian getting drunk/high. But even that, I believe, is about what people tend to do while drunk instead of the actual state of drunkenness. Is it wise to avoid getting drunk so you avoid the other stuff? Sure. But a sin of itself to get drunk? :idunno:



:cheers: Or wait, maybe that smilie isn't appropriate anymore. Must be of sober mind. :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

...And here is the base of where we differ. You support the ban on something that cannot be used without being intoxicated while not serving any greater purpose and I don't think that is sufficient to justify the laws.

Except that's not a full treatment of my objections in this thread, which have included putting the stamp on a thing as permissible that will and must inevitably cause a good bit of harm as you increase the numbers of people who will then act under that impairment to their detriment and/or the detriment of others. And there are inherent dangers and problems with smoking pot, including the tar I mentioned and the lung problems that can attend that. There are others, but they weren't germane to my principle objection as we were discussing it. But that objection wasn't the only offered.

I'm not sure there is much point in going further as I don't see any movement on either side. :idunno:

:idunno:

I'll try to find some info on the creation of the anti-marijuana laws. I'm sure there is a youtube video or something. :chuckle:

Could be interesting. I'll look into the science regarding negative short and long term effects on health.

I also note your distinction between the health benefits of alcohol vs. marijuana.

You mean the absence of a generally health inducing application by the one and the presence of it in the other? Sure.

I'm surprised it took you so long to bring this up. I'm undecided on other drugs. I think for right now I support the laws against them and I base that on the level of destructiveness.

I think there are any number of arguments against these as well, though the principle is the same: no real good and a great deal of harm in generally allowing for it.

Temple talk - I think is about sexual sins, not food or smoking, etc. that some people apply it to, if you look at the context of 1 Cor.

We differ and I set out other supportive tissue from scripture.

Galatians - sorcery and getting intoxicated are not the same thing

But sorcery and the use of altering drugs are mated in this reference. Look into the Greek. And as I noted somewhere, see how Plato does the same thing in his Republic.

And Colossians 3 is a pretty strong bar, unless you want to argue that getting high meets the standard.

Eph 5:18 is probably the strongest verse against a Christian getting drunk/high. But even that, I believe, is about what people tend to do while drunk

Brought about in part or on the whole by that state. We aren't to be as the world is, kmo. And not everything to be avoided is a sin. That which might cause your brother to stumble should similarly be avoided. I'd say this would qualify on that part, reasonably, as well.

:cheers: Or wait, maybe that smilie isn't appropriate anymore. Must be of sober mind. :e4e:

I've been raising cider. :angel: Though your habit might explain a bit of the counter here...

Always a pleasure, kmo. :thumb:

 

[Selaphiel]

It isn't about banning some impairments. It's about banning a substance that cannot be used without the result of intoxication. I take your point though. A person indulging at home would be doing nothing essentially different from the person drinking to excess at home. I wouldn't advocate either. But again, alcohol isn't legal because you can get drunk in the privacy of your own home. And drinking needn't be intoxicating, etc., previously set out.

You are treating the idea of intoxication as it was a completely binary thing. Alcohol is intoxicating in from the get go, a glass of red wine has an intoxicating effect, there is a reason it is illegal to drive after a glass of wine in many countries, at that stage your mind is already intoxicated and most people already show measurable decays in reaction time and lucidness.

Well, depends on how you mean that. There's nothing healthy about smoking pot. There may be some medical benefits related to treatments for various ailments or as a lessening agent for discomfort relating to certain treatments. That would fall under the medical application though and not as a general use. Generally speaking it isn't beneficial or healthy, as alcohol can be.

Whether alcohol is healthy at all is a controversial subject. Most of those effects are a result of the grapes in wine, not the ethanol.


That alcohol is legal and cannabis is only due to tradition. Alcohol is considered one of the most devastating substances in terms of social damage.
I do not buy your argument that cannabis is just for intoxication, it relies on an arbitrary definition of intoxication.
I have never used it myself (due to it being illegal here), but I have been around people who have and trust me, they are not even close to those who have been drinking a lot when it comes to lack of control. It seems more like they have had a couple of beers than someone who have been drinking excessively. You can also vary how much you smoke, just as you can vary how much you drink.

As far as I am concerned, it should be legalized and removed from its criminal environment.

 

[Town Heretic]

You are treating the idea of intoxication as it was a completely binary thing. Alcohol is intoxicating in from the get go, a glass of red wine has an intoxicating effect, there is a reason it is illegal to drive after a glass of wine in many countries, at that stage your mind is already intoxicated and most people already show measurable decays in reaction time and lucidness.

A glass of wine with a meal shouldn't appreciably impair your motor skills or judgment. A glass of wine on an empty stomach is another thing entirely, though both depend on the strength of the substance. We have controls on alcohol per volume here that may differ. So we could be talking past one another on this one.

Whether alcohol is healthy at all is a controversial subject. Most of those effects are a result of the grapes in wine, not the ethanol.

No. In wine that's true. I pointed out a distinction with beer a bit earlier you might find interesting. But, again, the question isn't whether there is another way to obtain the benefit, but whether there is a beneficial thing available in it. There demonstrably is.

That alcohol is legal and cannabis is only due to tradition.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, but it doesn't particularly matter if there are arguments to be made against it from a moral, sociological, and scientific vantage, today.

Alcohol is considered one of the most devastating substances in terms of social damage.

No. You're describing the abuse of it. In the same way a gun can be horrifically damaging. Or it can save your life. But its the use, not the thing, that carries the potential for harm and not harm itself.

I do not buy your argument that cannabis is just for intoxication, it relies on an arbitrary definition of intoxication.

No, again. Intoxication describes a degree of impairment in motor skills and mental ability that isn't arbitrary, but appreciable.

I have never used it myself (due to it being illegal here), but I have been around people who have and trust me, they are not even close to those who have been drinking a lot when it comes to lack of control.

We don't establish rules by anecdote, but that's been my experience as well. I find pot smokers to be generally more pleasant and less prone to violent outbursts. They are as prone to mistakes in judgement and the deadly consequences of that attend, from sexual decisions to whether or not to get in the car and find foodstuffs.

It seems more like they have had a couple of beers than someone who have been drinking excessively.

Again, as with alcohol, it's going to depend on the potency, though unlike alcohol food won't dampen the effect to a level (at low consumption) where judgment is unimpaired. And, as with alcohol, there is an element of the personal in terms of resistance.

You can also vary how much you smoke, just as you can vary how much you drink.

But the effect remains, even on the short end of weed. And that's always the point, short of the medicinal.

As far as I am concerned, it should be legalized and removed from its criminal environment.

And I remain opposed to adding another needless log to that particular fire.

:e4e: