toldailytopic: Is it immoral to smoke Marijuana?

[Selaphiel]

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.

One pint of beer puts you over the top, even if it is with food. At that point the average male will exhibit measurable reduction in judgment, concentration and reaction time. That level of intoxication makes it illegal to drive in Norway. The point is, even after only one or two beers we are speaking of intoxication.

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.

No, we are talking about whether alcohol is healthy. Alcohol is ethanol, red wine or beer merely contains it. I could stuff a carrot with cannabis and eat it and claim it was healthy if we allowed such definitions of each of the substances.

Then again, neither of the substances are toxic enough in moderate usage to warrant any prohibition.

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.

Any worthwhile discussion about the effects something has must include its abuses. Fact is, alcohol is being abused and thus abuse must be taken into account when considering the effect that the substance has on society.
I would say there is a difference between abusing cannabis and using it with responsibility. If you smoke it all the time and you are constantly under heavy influence, then you are abusing it. If you have a puff now and then on your free time, then it is responsible.

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

The only way to define it in a non-arbitrary manner is through careful scientific analysis. My point is that after only 2 beers the average male (less for the average woman) is intoxicated, which again means that when people consume alcohol with meals they on average almost always reach a level that must be described as intoxicating.

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

Which is also the case of alcohol. People may not feel very intoxicated when they have only had a couple of glasses of wine, but they are if we define intoxication as a measurable reduction in judgment, reaction time and concentration.

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.

Whether one should be allowed to drive under the influence of cannabis is another debate. I would say no.

I'm in no way anti-alcohol. I simply see no reason for cannabis to be illegal if alcohol is legal, especially not considering how alcohol is used by many in today's society. Weekend binge drinking is pretty much the norm where I come from, and that can't be anything but unhealthy

 

[Town Heretic]

One pint of beer puts you over the top, even if it is with food.

Which would be over two times the amount I noted in a glass of wine or a bottle of beer a day. And at that point you lose the benefit as well, which is why I wouldn't argue in favor of a pint, or quart, or a beer helmet.

The point is, even after only one or two beers we are speaking of intoxication.

Except there's a notable difference between one and two beers. The latter not falling into my argument, but outside of it.

No, we are talking about whether alcohol is healthy.

No, we're talking about the consumption of alcoholic beverages, from beer to wine. And, again, I noted that beer has appreciable health benefits as well. And there's the added benefit of thinning blood, nutritional value, etc. But any appreciable health benefit, in moderation, distinguishes it from pot.

Any worthwhile discussion about the effects something has must include its abuses.

Not as an argument against the thing, no. It's like blaming a shovel for someone going about the place whacking people with it. The effect of an abuse of a thing is relevant to the sorts of restrictions and laws passed in relation to it, to be sure, but not as an argument against the use of it by law abiding and non abusive citizens, who can derive enjoyment and benefit from it without abuse.

Fact is, alcohol is being abused and thus abuse must be taken into account when considering the effect that the substance has on society.

No, except as set out above, or we'd be outlawing all but public transportation on the same guiding principle.

I would say there is a difference between abusing cannabis and using it with responsibility.

And I'd counter that absent medically supervised use there's no such animal as responsible intoxication.

If you smoke it all the time and you are constantly under heavy influence, then you are abusing it. If you have a puff now and then on your free time, then it is responsible.

Nothing like. You're suggesting that willfully impairing your judgement now and then is responsible? Egad man. And on your free time? Like a smoke break at work? :squint:

The only way to define it in a non-arbitrary manner is through careful scientific analysis.

Which is the basis for most of the laws that note and penalize consumption beyond that established point.

My point is that after only 2 beers the average male (less for the average woman) is intoxicated,

I'd absolutely agree and have not advanced, here or elsewhere, more than the notion of a single glass of wine or a single bottle of beer with a meal. And in that context sobriety and healthful advantages abound. Else, it's another argument and not one I'd make.

which again means that when people consume alcohol with meals they on average almost always reach a level that must be described as intoxicating.

I don't know if that's true. It isn't for me, but perhaps it is the rule. I'd hope they're at least responsible enough to have someone else driving them home who does understand the appropriate level of consumption. Else, they've cheated themselves of the benefits by robbing themselves of nutrients that take the positive into the negative and they've impaired themselves sufficiently to risk harm to themselves and others.

Which is also the case of alcohol. People may not feel very intoxicated when they have only had a couple of glasses of wine, but they are if we define intoxication as a measurable reduction in judgment, reaction time and concentration.

Again, I'm not arguing for that volume, as either a healthful or responsible practice.

Whether one should be allowed to drive under the influence of cannabis is another debate. I would say no.

And you'd be right. Nor should they be allowed to drive impaired by any other substance. And here at least they aren't. You can be ticketed for driving under the influence of legally obtained drugs that come with a warning regarding their use and an impairment of the ability to operate machinery.

I'm in no way anti-alcohol. I simply see no reason for cannabis to be illegal if alcohol is legal,

I've given you more than one that you've had to raise the consumption level of alcohol beyond my margin and the AMA's holding to equate. But there it is...

especially not considering how alcohol is used by many in today's society.

Same argument could be advanced for guns, or automobiles. And it would be just as errant in relation to those of a reasoned and responsible timber.

Weekend binge drinking is pretty much the norm where I come from, and that can't be anything but unhealthy

Abusive behavior tends to be entirely that. :e4e:

 

[kmoney]

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.

Yes, you have other arguments but as I said before, I'm not focusing on any argument that can be levied against alcohol because I find it irrelevant since you aren't in favor of banning it. The important arguments are what separates alcohol from marijuana.

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

ok.

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

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.

Right.

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

ok, but the context goes against you.

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.

I'm not arguing with the Greek. I'm saying that using drugs for sorcery and using drugs for pleasure aren't the same thing. You can argue that using drugs for pleasure is still wrong, but I don't see using anything related to sorcery as valid.

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

Most times, no.

Brought about in part or on the whole by that state.

Didn't question that. And I believe I even implied as much in the part of this quote that you cut off. :mmph:

We aren't to be as the world is, kmo. And not everything to be avoided is a sin.

I agree.

That which might cause your brother to stumble should similarly be avoided. I'd say this would qualify on that part, reasonably, as well.

I agree with not causing your brother to stumble, but that can go both ways in this case.

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

Perhaps.

Always a pleasure, kmo. :thumb:

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, you have other arguments but as I said before, I'm not focusing on any argument that can be levied against alcohol because I find it irrelevant since you aren't in favor of banning it. The important arguments are what separates alcohol from marijuana.

Except those arguments can't be made against alcohol absent abuse, not regular consumption. So you're set aside isn't equitable, even if it is convenient.

You're high, aren't you...

Right.

:shocked:

ok, but the context goes against you.

The principle doesn't. oly:

I'm not arguing with the Greek. I'm saying that using drugs for sorcery and using drugs for pleasure aren't the same thing.

I'm saying the language carries an understanding and intent that isn't satisfied, today, with a simple "sorcery"...that it was a part of that context. Something you only just admitted a fondness for else. :think:

Most times, no.

Most? Find one aside from the medical that honors Christ.

Didn't question that. And I believe I even implied as much in...

In what? :angel:

I agree with not causing your brother to stumble, but that can go both ways in this case.

Say what? :squint: You think my brother may find cause to stumble in my refraining from intoxicating myself?

Where do you live? It's in the woods, isn't it.

Perhaps.

:shocked:

I really hope people are following the context here...

Of course, the notion that anyone else is reading this might be a mark against my own sobriety...heck, I'm not altogether confident that we are. :think:

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

What do you mean by 'the reasoned rule' exactly? Articles you've read which support your assertion? Else what?

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

I've read through and it seems as though you consider any form of 'discernible' intoxication to be wrong, correct? What if that form actually heightens the senses instead of 'dulling' them?

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.

It's up to you to demonstrate that most people aren't rational when making such a claim, else you're just part of our shared race who asserts such, and expects to be taken seriously because of what? Why are you the arbiter of how the human species generally 'works', and being part of such why should your assertion be given any particular credit? You're just a human being yourself TH. There lies the irony unless you can prove why your generalization holds merit. It's not up to me to prove your own position in regards to how you judge people and why it should be taken seriously.

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.

Ah. Then you are superior to most in the 'reason dept' in order to make such a claim apparently. Why exactly? What gives you the authority to make such a sweeping generalization as to the majority of mankind?

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

Fair enough.

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?

Nope. All of the above negate reason, and the common denominators are ignorance and prejudice which are often intertwined without emotion even present...

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

The passion wasn't reasoned so the point is moot. Well, as much as my 'average' opinion counts for anything it is anyway....

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

Indeed. :thumb:

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.

So what? Drug use and actual sorcery are two different animals TH. Do you suppose everyone who practices 'magic arts' do a few spliffs beforehand? Or get 'wrecked' on Stella Artois? It's an erroneous connection you're making and I'm surprised you've persisted with it...lain:

:e4e:

each:

What the...? Sorry:

:e4e:

 

[Selaphiel]

Except there's a notable difference between one and two beers. The latter not falling into my argument, but outside of it.

So you think having more than a pint of beer should be illegal then?

Not as an argument against the thing, no. It's like blaming a shovel for someone going about the place whacking people with it. The effect of an abuse of a thing is relevant to the sorts of restrictions and laws passed in relation to it, to be sure, but not as an argument against the use of it by law abiding and non abusive citizens, who can derive enjoyment and benefit from it without abuse.

You cannot be serious in comparing alcohol abuse to someone abusing a shovel for murder. If it was as arbitrary as that then the damage caused by alcohol in pretty much all societies would not be so consistent.
Alcohol is a potentially addictive substance that can cause violent behavior in people, it impairs judgment. In short, ethanol is poison. The minor positive health effects it may have is completely outweighed by all the negative effects it has. When you measure the effect a substance has on society, you cannot assume that everyone is a responsible user, because that simply is not the case. There is a reason that alcohol has been named like the 5th most destructive substance out there, it causes tremendous social damage. In terms of the individual it is not that dangerous, but on the level of society it is up there with heroin and cocaine. That is a simple fact, cannabis isn't even on the top 10 list.

And I'd counter that absent medically supervised use there's no such animal as responsible intoxication.

Maybe not, but let us be realistic. Mankind uses intoxicants, as a custom it is as old as mankind itself. So there are more or less responsible ways of doing that, someone having a puff of cannabis in the privacy of their home when they have no present responsibilities is hardly very destructive.

Nothing like. You're suggesting that willfully impairing your judgement now and then is responsible? Egad man. And on your free time? Like a smoke break at work?

Is that what you read in my statement or are you willfully twisting my words? Of course it is not responsible doing such a thing during a break at work, you would still be intoxicated when going back to work. Then again, in Denmark it was customary (still is I believe) to have a pint during lunchbreak, they are not exactly on the verge of collapse.

I don't know if that's true. It isn't for me, but perhaps it is the rule. I'd hope they're at least responsible enough to have someone else driving them home who does understand the appropriate level of consumption. Else, they've cheated themselves of the benefits by robbing themselves of nutrients that take the positive into the negative and they've impaired themselves sufficiently to risk harm to themselves and others.

Having more than one beer (or equivalent) with a good meal is as common as it gets. I would not even dream of calling it immoral either, and it certainly is not illegal. It is how alcohol is used by many and yet it remains perfectly legal to do so and I'm glad it is. I do not even think it is unbiblical to get intoxicated, not if we go by the scientific definition of intoxication at least. I can pretty much guarantee you that the guests at the wedding at Cana were above that limit BEFORE the miracle :chuckle:. There is nothing wrong with having a good time every now and then as long you are not getting intoxicated for its own sake all the time or as form of escapism.
That aside, gotta face the fact that neither of us are living in a theocracy, what the Bible says is not sufficient reasoning for secular laws.

I've given you more than one that you've had to raise the consumption level of alcohol beyond my margin and the AMA's holding to equate. But there it is...

Except that going beyond your margin is not illegal, yet you argue that consuming cannabis should be illegal. Your standard is hardly the standard followed by the society, the alcohol stats clearly show that and that is why alcohol is considered a destructive substance on the societal level.

Same argument could be advanced for guns, or automobiles. And it would be just as errant in relation to those of a reasoned and responsible timber.

You cannot compare it to automobiles, the deaths from automobiles are due to accidents not abuse of cars. Guns on the other hand, I think the effects of guns on society is a valid argument against them, then again I have no need for guns and it 99% of the population here do not have guns so I have a real problem seeing the fascination or the need for them.
Fact remains, drinking more than a pint of beer is not illegal by any stretch of the imagination, so why should cannabis be illegal?

 

[Town Heretic]

So you think having more than a pint of beer should be illegal then?

No. I think you sell a product that can be used for a beneficial purpose, like a car or gun or beer and make laws relating to conduct under the influence, which is what we've done.

You cannot be serious in comparing alcohol abuse to someone abusing a shovel for murder.

And yet it works as an illustration of the principle that the thing (a shovel or a beer) can be good (for digging a hole or lowering the chances of you dropping dead from a heart attack) and still be abused (by whacking people with it or overindulging).

If it was as arbitrary as that then the damage caused by alcohol in pretty much all societies would not be so consistent.

Shovel whacking is remarkably consistent too. It's all about the leverage.

Alcohol is a potentially addictive substance that can cause violent behavior in people, it impairs judgment.

The key word being potentially and not inherently. Now pot causes damage with the first inhalation and degrading your judgment is its function.

In short, ethanol is poison. The minor positive health effects it may have is completely outweighed by all the negative effects it has.

No. There aren't any negative effects in moderation and quantifiable benefits. You're conflating abuse with responsible use. That's not reasonable.

When you measure the effect a substance has on society, you cannot assume that everyone is a responsible user, because that simply is not the case.

I don't assume that everyone is responsible, though most people who drink don't end up arrested or as alcoholics or with health issues related to abuse. In any event, that's not a discussion about the substance, but about some of the people who use it.

There is a reason that alcohol has been named like the 5th most destructive substance out there, it causes tremendous social damage.

You mean the misuse of it by some people causes tremendous social damage. Not true with most.

In terms of the individual it is not that dangerous, but on the level of society it is up there with heroin and cocaine. That is a simple fact, cannabis isn't even on the top 10 list.

Which you'd expect given, among other factors, that it's illegal and doesn't have the immediate effect of stopping your heart, that you can't overdose on it once your judgment is significantly impaired. That sort of thing.

Maybe not, but let us be realistic. Mankind uses intoxicants, as a custom it is as old as mankind itself.

Sure. So are a number of very unpleasant human tendencies expressed through culture. We've weeded many of those out. We can make an impact on responsible decision making. We actually already have by opening bars to civil suits related to their sale of intoxicants to people who are observably impaired. That's saved lives, though it's not enough. MADD has done a bit of good work, along with other groups, aimed at raising awareness among statistically more problematic groups.

Is that what you read in my statement or are you willfully twisting my words?

No, just asking. It was one implication that didn't require any malformation of your prose...when someone tells me they're willing to legalize a thing that mostly works no good and any number of harms, absent some fairly narrow circumstances, it's not unreasonable to seek that sort of clarification as to what you find reasonable in terms of conduct and exposure.

Of course it is not responsible doing such a thing during a break at work, you would still be intoxicated when going back to work. Then again, in Denmark it was customary (still is I believe) to have a pint during lunchbreak, they are not exactly on the verge of collapse.

Alcohol isn't collapsing our society either, but that's not an argument for a custom that invites the tragic, yes?

Having more than one beer (or equivalent) with a good meal is as common as it gets.

Then they're robbing themselves of the health benefit, sobriety, and a good bit of the taste of that meal. Not particularly rational and more than a bit self defeating.

I would not even dream of calling it immoral either,

Then I think you're running afoul of scripture and common sense. It might not be particularly destructive, depending, but it is immoral.

and it certainly is not illegal.

Neither is prostitution in some places.

It is how alcohol is used by many and yet it remains perfectly legal to do so and I'm glad it is.

So am I, because it allows me the freedom to use it responsibly and to some benefit. :cheers:

I do not even think it is unbiblical to get intoxicated,

Then you have an interesting Bible. And by interesting I mean, of course, with pages missing.

not if we go by the scientific definition of intoxication at least. I can pretty much guarantee you that the guests at the wedding at Cana were above that limit BEFORE the miracle :chuckle:.

Actually, they were surprised by the taste of the wine, which they found of superior quality. Normally you bring out the worst later when taste buds are dimmed by the alcohol. But the Bible is clear in its prohibition against drunkenness. So was the last wine better or were their heads and palates suddenly clearer?

I don't think Christ would entertain sin. Do you?

There is nothing wrong with having a good time every now and then as long you are not getting intoxicated for its own sake all the time or as form of escapism.

We differ if your idea of a good time involves drinking to excess or taking in the odd prostitute in Vegas. There's the thing we should do and that which we should refrain from doing and the wisdom to tell the difference.

By the way, I have a blast most days and entirely sober. There's nothing that altered state can give you that is meaningful. And food that's bad for you isn't really a reward...just thought I'd throw that last bit in while I was at it.

That aside, gotta face the fact that neither of us are living in a theocracy, what the Bible says is not sufficient reasoning for secular laws.

Which is why I've been willing to discuss it with those interested, but haven't relied on it for my argument.

Have to go read to my unborn. See you with the rest in a bit. :e4e:

Except that going beyond your margin is not illegal, yet you argue that consuming cannabis should be illegal. Your standard is hardly the standard followed by the society, the alcohol stats clearly show that and that is why alcohol is considered a destructive substance on the societal level.

Actually, technically it is. You can be arrested for public intoxication if your blood alcohol level exceeds the limit. Now if my father in law has two beers with his meal over an hour or so long gathering he may or may not appear intoxicated given his size and tolerance. But if he does and is he is subject to prosecution. And, again, that state is the beginning point for the pot smoker. A hard sell.

You cannot compare it to automobiles, the deaths from automobiles are due to accidents not abuse of cars.

Simply not the case. Most "accidents" are preventable, and stem from irresponsible and illegal acts on the part of the driver. Speeding, driving distracted, driving aggressively, drinking and driving.

Guns on the other hand, I think the effects of guns on society is a valid argument against them, then again I have no need for guns and it 99% of the population here do not have guns so I have a real problem seeing the fascination or the need for them.

Live in a place where hunting is a fact of life and the country is plentiful as is the game and you'd feel differently. Live in a place where the police aren't likely to arrive in time to help you and the crime rate is sufficiently high and you might feel differently. I use and respect guns. It's a tool and an instrument of recreation. It isn't for everyone. I've given up hunting, but I still enjoy target practice.

Fact remains, drinking more than a pint of beer is not illegal by any stretch of the imagination, so why should cannabis be illegal?

Just isn't the case. Enforcement is another matter and that does go to conduct, since the police aren't going to randomly run down people outside of eateries and bars and run sobriety tests. Now if you evidence intoxication it's another matter. So sure, conduct is the focus, as you'd expect. And intoxication remains one part of my objection, though not the entire argument.

:e4e:

 

[Ktoyou]

I do not think it is a moral issue in itself, breaking the law may be construed as a moral issue.

 

[Town Heretic]

What do you mean by 'the reasoned rule' exactly? Articles you've read which support your assertion? Else what?

Study and, literally, reason. I've set out both along the way.

I've read through and it seems as though you consider any form of 'discernible' intoxication to be wrong, correct? What if that form actually heightens the senses instead of 'dulling' them?

I think I set it out more that a willful impairment of your faculties, which is intoxication. Intoxication, by definition, doesn't heighten mental acuity, though it may present the illusion of it to the person under the influence. I recall a famous poet who, waking from a dream partly the result of the grape penned what he believed was an answer to man's greatest struggle. Reading it the next morning he discovered: higgamous, hoggamus, woman's monogamous; hoggamus, higgamous, man is polygamous.

It's up to you to demonstrate that most people aren't rational when making such a claim, else you're just part of our shared race who asserts such, and expects to be taken seriously because of what? Why are you the arbiter of how the human species generally 'works',

I set out examples of the collective rationality of man. If you're convinced to the contrary more power to you. I like optimism and it doesn't affect my argument, so I'm happy to avoid a few hours of side bar.

You're just a human being yourself TH. There lies the irony

No, since I'm not average in relation to the measure being applied in my consideration. But again, suit yourself on the point. It isn't worth arguing over.

Ah. Then you are superior to most in the 'reason dept' in order to make such a claim apparently.

Well, yes. Both in terms of measurable intelligence and development through extensive education. Sure. And basketball players tend to be tall. lain:

Why exactly? What gives you the authority to make such a sweeping generalization as to the majority of mankind?

You mean how dare I hold an opinion? Because that's the extent of anyone's authority here. Else, the same answer as above.

Re: illustrations of commonly held opinion over the course of history...some of it not altogether distant.

Nope. All of the above negate reason, and the common denominators are ignorance and prejudice which are often intertwined without emotion even present...

And there you have the rational nature of the mean. :thumb:

The passion wasn't reasoned so the point is moot. Well, as much as my 'average' opinion counts for anything it is anyway....

Noooo, since my point wasn't that people reason poorly as much as it was to note the lack of reason as a directing force in the general sense.

So what? Drug use and actual sorcery are two different animals TH. Do you suppose everyone who practices 'magic arts' do a few spliffs beforehand?

Again, if you look at the Greek and at the implication of the usage you'll run into the problem with a modern reading of the translation. It doesn't convey the entire context. That's why I think I suggested to you or someone that they look at the phrase in context and added a reference to Plato on that point.

 

[Granite]

I do not think it is a moral issue in itself, breaking the law may be construed as a moral issue.

What's interesting is the corrupting power the war on drugs gives to the police enforcing it. And I'm not talking about a dirty cop ripping off a drug dealer; I'm talking about stealing from citizens who haven't been charged with a crime, selling their belongings, and funneling those funds right back to the PD. This happens all the time.

 

[nicholsmom]

What's interesting is the corrupting power the war on drugs gives to the police enforcing it. And I'm not talking about a dirty cop ripping off a drug dealer; I'm talking about stealing from citizens who haven't been charged with a crime, selling their belongings, and funneling those funds right back to the PD. This happens all the time.

The power-hungry and greedy will use any tool at their disposal. Removing this one wouldn't change anything.

 

[Granite]

The power-hungry and greedy will use any tool at their disposal. Removing this one wouldn't change anything.

It'd eliminate an entire criminal class who doesn't belong in prison, reduce civil liberties abuse, and end the practice of robbing citizens who haven't been charged with a crime. That's a heck of an improvement, I'd say.

 

[Selaphiel]

No. There aren't any negative effects in moderation and quantifiable benefits. You're conflating abuse with responsible use. That's not reasonable.

The only thing that is not reasonable is your refusal to acknowledge the effects alcohol has on society, they are as real as the effects it has on the individual. And on the societal level, alcohol is one of the most destructive substances mankind ever came up with. I believe those effects FAR outweigh any minor positive health effects it may have on a singular individual who follows your rather narrow and lets face it personal prescriptions of what is correct use of alcohol.
Having 2 beers is not abuse of alcohol, having a bottle of wine for a festive occassion is not abuse of alcohol either. Alcoholism is abuse of alcohol, which is when alcohol controls and interferes with your life.

I don't assume that everyone is responsible, though most people who drink don't end up arrested or as alcoholics or with health issues related to abuse. In any event, that's not a discussion about the substance, but about some of the people who use it.

Most people don't get arrested, that is true. But the second you get arrested for being drinking you are so drunk that you barely know who you are or you are driving under the influence. Most people drink more than your one beer though which means they are intoxicated by the scientific definition of the word.
Actually we are discussing the substance, the societal effects the substance has is a part of it, these effects would not be there if there was no alcohol or they would be severely reduced.

Then they're robbing themselves of the health benefit, sobriety, and a good bit of the taste of that meal. Not particularly rational and more than a bit self defeating.

All of which is your opinion, not objective fact. If you are interested in health effects I can think of better things to drink.

Then you have an interesting Bible. And by interesting I mean, of course, with pages missing.

You are notorious at quoting only parts of sentences.

Actually, they were surprised by the taste of the wine, which they found of superior quality. Normally you bring out the worst later when taste buds are dimmed by the alcohol. But the Bible is clear in its prohibition against drunkenness. So was the last wine better or were their heads and palates suddenly clearer?

You have no bound yourself to a definition of intoxication that pretty much say that anything more than 1 pint of beer or a similar unit of alcohol is intoxication. Do you really think that your palate is destroyed after 2 beers? I think people can have 4-5 glasses of wine and still be able to tell that the second wine is better.

I don't think Christ would entertain sin. Do you?

Enjoying more than one or two glasses of wine at a festive occasion is a sin? When the Bible talks about drunkeness it talks about those who chase strong drink from the second they wake up in the morning, also known as alcoholism, then they are slaves to the drink. That is always a sin, slavery to something is sin in a nutshell whether it is to money, power or intoxicants.

We differ if your idea of a good time involves drinking to excess or taking in the odd prostitute in Vegas

You add to my words, which in many ways indicate that you see a need to do that in order to make your point. Prostitution is treating another person as a mere object and I have not in any way condoned such a thing.

Actually, technically it is. You can be arrested for public intoxication if your blood alcohol level exceeds the limit. Now if my father in law has two beers with his meal over an hour or so long gathering he may or may not appear intoxicated given his size and tolerance. But if he does and is he is subject to prosecution. And, again, that state is the beginning point for the pot smoker. A hard sell.

But it is not illegal in the privacy of your home, Cannabis is.

Live in a place where hunting is a fact of life and the country is plentiful as is the game and you'd feel differently. Live in a place where the police aren't likely to arrive in time to help you and the crime rate is sufficiently high and you might feel differently. I use and respect guns. It's a tool and an instrument of recreation. It isn't for everyone. I've given up hunting, but I still enjoy target practice.

I must admit it is a bit funny to hear "Live in a place where hunting is a fact of life and live in a place where Police might be far away" when I live in Norway, a country with rich hunting traditions and loads of small and remote towns and farmland... Hunters have rifles or shotguns, and the rules for being able to own a gun are extremely strict and carrying it in public with the exception of hunting is illegal. You arm your offenders as well as your defenders, only thing you have accomplished is upping the game.

And intoxication remains one part of my objection, though not the entire argument.

What are the other reasons?

 

[Yazichestvo]

It looks like this discussion is already well underway. In college, I've known dealers, and people who get up in the morning to partake of cannabis on a regular basis. I've also known ordinary people, science majors, hard-working people who do it. In short, just about the entire spectrum of society. I think there should be restrictions on age, and on doing it in public areas, but there's no reason it should be illegal. As far as I can tell, its primary effects when used at home include snacking, watching tv, or reading a book and going to bed early. I do have a suspicion that many of the more responsible people will never touch the stuff once they're older though, which may be for the best.

 

[kmoney]

Except those arguments can't be made against alcohol absent abuse, not regular consumption. So you're set aside isn't equitable, even if it is convenient.

I would question your definition of abuse.

You're high, aren't you...

On life. lain:

:shocked:

Did I make you spill your "cider"?

The principle doesn't. oly:

I'm saying the language carries an understanding and intent that isn't satisfied, today, with a simple "sorcery"...that it was a part of that context. Something you only just admitted a fondness for else. :think:

Sure. Feel free to keep stretching scripture to places it doesn't belong. lain:

Most? Find one aside from the medical that honors Christ.

I might say that there could be cases where it is neutral. But when I said that I mostly had alcohol intoxication in mind, not getting high.

In what? :angel:

:IA:

Say what? :squint: You think my brother may find cause to stumble in my refraining from intoxicating myself?

No. In your calling it a sin.

Where do you live? It's in the woods, isn't it.

Farm, haven't you heard? :cow: :mario: :cow:

:shocked:

I really hope people are following the context here...

Of course, the notion that anyone else is reading this might be a mark against my own sobriety...heck, I'm not altogether confident that we are. :think:

:e4e:

I hope as well. :noid:

 

[kmoney]

And good work, Sela. :e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Study and, literally, reason. I've set out both along the way.

You're establishing a position as if it's fact. I can only presume you're referring to cases of prolonged and intense use of the drug which as with most would result in unpleasant side effects. (Btw, you don't know how tempting it was to say "reefer-ing" but I resisted it!)

lain:

I think I set it out more that a willful impairment of your faculties, which is intoxication. Intoxication, by definition, doesn't heighten mental acuity, though it may present the illusion of it to the person under the influence. I recall a famous poet who, waking from a dream partly the result of the grape penned what he believed was an answer to man's greatest struggle. Reading it the next morning he discovered: higgamous, hoggamus, woman's monogamous; hoggamus, higgamous, man is polygamous.

Then you have a somewhat ambiguous yardstick for what constitutes 'intoxication'. I won't drink and drive whatsoever because I know that even one pint with a meal will dull my senses and reactions, even if not to any discernible effect which I can notice. By your above reasoning I have wilfully impaired my faculties even if it's to a very small degree. Therefore the same applies to yourself when you have even just the one pint or glass of wine with a meal, driving or not. You're wilfully becoming intoxicated.

It's also relevant to point out that becoming 'intoxicated' on cannabis is a completely different experience to drink. Drink always dulls the senses whereas cannabis does not. Whilst I can't think of any great works coming about through drink, I can think of several where recreational drugs played their part in the process.

I set out examples of the collective rationality of man. If you're convinced to the contrary more power to you. I like optimism and it doesn't affect my argument, so I'm happy to avoid a few hours of side bar.

It was your assertion that most people aren't adept at reason which I disagree with. There's no doubting your abilities in such regard but I see no 'reason' to accept that the majority aren't capable. We can leave this there as I doubt we'll agree, and I've snipped the points relevant to this argument in that regard.

And there you have the rational nature of the mean. :thumb:

Well....no, ignorance and prejudice are the antithesis of reason.

Noooo, since my point wasn't that people reason poorly as much as it was to note the lack of reason as a directing force in the general sense.

How so?

Again, if you look at the Greek and at the implication of the usage you'll run into the problem with a modern reading of the translation. It doesn't convey the entire context. That's why I think I suggested to you or someone that they look at the phrase in context and added a reference to Plato on that point.

I've tried referencing this through the ancient Greek and I'm not getting very far at this point, so I'll have to get back to you.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

You're establishing a position as if it's fact.

Rather, I'm arguing a position that is supported in law and, I believe, by a fairly unassailable logic.

Then you have a somewhat ambiguous yardstick for what constitutes 'intoxication'.

No. The law is pretty clear and I'm defending that yardstick.

I won't drink and drive whatsoever because I know that even one pint with a meal will dull my senses and reactions, even if not to any discernible effect which I can notice.

Good. A pint is, of course, about 2.3 times more than the amount of alcohol found in my illustration of healthy consumption.

By your above reasoning I have wilfully impaired my faculties even if it's to a very small degree.

Not if your judgment is unaffected, no.

It's also relevant to point out that becoming 'intoxicated' on cannabis is a completely different experience to drink. Drink always dulls the senses whereas cannabis does not.

Senses? Your judgment is impaired. Every time you smoke it.

Whilst I can't think of any great works coming about through drink, I can think of several where recreational drugs played their part in the process.

You're conflating psychology with biology. Else, every pot head would be an artist.

It was your assertion that most people aren't adept at reason which I disagree with.

And you're wrong. Or you don't understand the word adept.

There's no doubting your abilities in such regard but I see no 'reason' to accept that the majority aren't capable.

Of what and to what extent, which still isn't the same thing as actually doing. That is, most people could walk a marathon. Most won't. Innate capacity is like coal in the ground.

Well....no, ignorance and prejudice are the antithesis of reason.

And that's what controls great sweeps of history. Exactly my point about capacity and application.

How so?

We only just noticed a few important examples of how so. I think the response to the Islamic mosque in New York was a largely unreasoned one. How many examples do you need?

Re: pharmekia

I've tried referencing this through the ancient Greek and I'm not getting very far at this point, so I'll have to get back to you.

:thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Rather, I'm arguing a position that is supported in law and, I believe, by a fairly unassailable logic.

We weren't discussing the law in regards to your assertion on this point anyway TH...:squint:

No. The law is pretty clear and I'm defending that yardstick.

We're not talking about 'the law'. We're talking about your definition of intoxication, and as such even a small amount of alcohol intoxicates.

Good. A pint is, of course, about 2.3 times more than the amount of alcohol found in my illustration of healthy consumption.

What, a glass of wine? Depends on volume and amount ingested, and frankly so what were that even the case? You're still intoxicated, just to a lesser degree so you're still wilfully impairing your judgement to some degree no matter how 'small' or discernible. We don't have adverts in the UK saying 'responsible drinking and driving' or that 'it's ok to drink a small glass of wine and get behind the wheel'. We have Don't drink and drive. Why? Because it intoxicates and impairs judgement. You're simply sliding a scale where one form is more acceptable than another...

Not if your judgment is unaffected, no.

And how do you determine that exactly? Even a small glass of wine will have impaired your judgement to an extent even if you don't consciously notice it. Why do you think drink/drive laws came into being in the first place, and for zero alcohol consumption being the standard? If we were to rely on personal recognition regarding impairment then people could get behind the wheels after three + pints...lain:

Senses? Your judgment is impaired. Every time you smoke it.

Well the same goes for drink no matter what the quantity then, else you're simply back to degrees of intoxication.

You're conflating psychology with biology. Else, every pot head would be an artist.

And every drunkard staggers about with a brown bag in his hand then? This is lame TH. Of course every 'pot head' is not going to be an artist, for the simple reason that it's not simply smoked for any creative purposes in mind. Some smoke it just for the high as others drink just to get mashed. The difference is that the former doesn't necessarily dull mental acuity, and this has been borne out through many who have been inspired to create works which are still recognized now.

And you're wrong. Or you don't understand the word adept.

I understand it well enough. I think you're applying your own subjective standard as to what 'most' people are capable of regarding reason is all.

Of what and to what extent, which still isn't the same thing as actually doing. That is, most people could walk a marathon. Most won't. Innate capacity is like coal in the ground.

Well I could walk a marathon. I'm not gonna unless there's good 'reason' so I can appreciate why most wouldn't as well if there were no actual point to it....:squint:

And that's what controls great sweeps of history. Exactly my point about capacity and application.

Yet how many would reason away Hitler's persecution of the Jews or Stalin's gulags? Do you think the majority would condone or condemn such?

We only just noticed a few important examples of how so. I think the response to the Islamic mosque in New York was a largely unreasoned one. How many examples do you need?

Well more than that frankly.

Re: pharmekia

:thumb:

I'm not coming up with anything particular that supports your position TH. I think Kmo's right in that you're 'stretching' this somewhat, and I've had previous convos on this before elsewhere. However, I'll continue to research...

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

We weren't discussing the law in regards to your assertion on this point anyway TH...:squint:

I was...it does go hand in hand, if you want a standard to gauge impairment.

We're not talking about 'the law'. We're talking about your definition of intoxication, and as such even a small amount of alcohol intoxicates.

Wait, so you get to tell me what my definition of intoxication is? :squint: That's a great gig. What do I get to determine for you?

What, a glass of wine?

Right. Or a beer. The AMA is pretty clear about healthy consumption.

Depends on volume and amount ingested,

No. Now you're talking about effect and intoxication, which can be impacted by the size of the person and even tolerances, but the rule of thumb is still pretty accurate.

and frankly so what were that even the case? You're still intoxicated, just to a lesser degree so you're still wilfully impairing your judgement to some degree no matter how 'small' or discernible.

No. Impaired judgment is a discernible thing. You're attempting to conflate any alteration with impairment and that's simply not a sustainable position.

We don't have adverts in the UK saying 'responsible drinking and driving' or that 'it's ok to drink a small glass of wine and get behind the wheel'.

Nor here either. Doesn't impact the fact that a glass of wine or a beer with a meal isn't going to find you blowing legally impaired/intoxicated by a State Trooper.

And how do you determine that exactly? Even a small glass of wine will have impaired your judgement to an extent even if you don't consciously notice it.

Just not the case (see: supra/impact as opposed to impairment conflation).

Why do you think drink/drive laws came into being in the first place, and for zero alcohol consumption being the standard? If we were to rely on personal recognition regarding impairment then people could get behind the wheels after three + pints...lain:

Which will be a point for you if I ever take the opposite side of that coin...which I haven't.

And every drunkard staggers about with a brown bag in his hand then?

That's not making your point though, which was to attempt to ascribe some property to pot that increased creativity. My response is that it doesn't appear to be the case, that what you're describing isn't a biological response but a psychological one, in the mind of the person justifying the use or investing his belief in its impact in that particular.

Some smoke it just for the high as others drink just to get mashed. The difference is that the former doesn't necessarily dull mental acuity, and this has been borne out through many who have been inspired to create works which are still recognized now.

No. There isn't a study you can cite in any respectable periodical that will advance the notion that pot doesn't impair mental process.

I understand it well enough. I think you're applying your own subjective standard as to what 'most' people are capable of regarding reason is all.

No, AB, I'm really not. That's what we measure with IQ, essentially. Most people are average and below. People who are adept at reasoning fall in a narrower and rarer band. That's just how it is...not saying people are idiotic, just that they don't tend to be particularly rational and history reflects it.

Well I could walk a marathon. I'm not gonna unless there's good 'reason' so I can appreciate why most wouldn't as well if there were no actual point to it....:squint:

And the average fellow likely feels the same way about philosophy or logic. And with good reason: we tend to pursue what we're good at and avoid what we aren't particularly good at/lack a natural talent for.

Yet how many would reason away Hitler's persecution of the Jews or Stalin's gulags? Do you think the majority would condone or condemn such?

I'd say the objections would fall more along the lines of moral objections, wouldn't you?

Well more than that frankly.

If that handful of examples isn't going to do it I don't think pointing out the belief that women were less intelligent and capable and deserved second tier status, or similar notes are going to move you. You're entrenched. :idunno: Okay. We'll differ.

I'm not coming up with anything particular that supports your position TH.

Try here and here. And here is a consideration of the application in line with my understanding.

Or, from

Pharmakeia, Sorcery and Drugs
By James Ong

"Many Christians are not aware that the words pharmaceutical, pharmacist and pharmacy all come from the root Greek word, pharmakeia, which may be translated sorceries, witchcraft, magic and secret arts. It includes the concoction of magic spells, drugs and potions used with such practices. This is easily verifiable by checking any good lexicon of Biblical Greek. The Louw-Nida Lexicon defines pharmakeia as follows:
“the use of magic, often involving drugs and the casting of spells upon people – ‘to practice magic, to cast spells upon, to engage in sorcery, magic, sorcery.”

Here it is in full.