toldailytopic: Is it immoral to smoke Marijuana?

[Arthur Brain]

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

Well you didn't establish such in your former posit at all. You asserted that cannabis results in such consequences with nary a mention regarding legality but rather effect as you've 'reasoned' it. I asked you to provide why, not give me the law which we're all aware of anyway I would think? It's legal to get mashed on drink in your own home, so as far as 'impairment' goes and the morality of such the 'law' is irrelevant to your point.

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?

Er, no. You determined it. I'm just going with your own reasoning on the matter and pointing out the discrepancy. If you drink even a small amount of alcohol it will impair. Surely I don't have to emphasize why we have a don't drink don't drive policy again? You may think you're not impaired by a small glass of wine with a meal to any extent but frankly, so what? :squint:

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

Again, so what? You're imbibing a substance which even in small quantities will impair judgement, no matter how small that degree may be. By your yardstick that is intoxication. It's not mine, at least in an immoral sense it isn't. lain:

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.

No. I've got a pretty decent tolerance level with alcohol but it's irrelevant to what I may deem (and the law) acceptable to what I can drink before sitting behind a steering wheel. People don't get breath tested based on their weight or tolerance to drink TH. I could be 20 stone and drink most people 'under the table' but if I'm over the limit after being pulled over then that's it. You have a very arbitrary definition of 'intoxication' as far as I'm concerned....

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

Why isn't it sustainable? One of the very reasons the drink/drive laws came into being is because people couldn't discern their judgement was impaired...even after low levels of consumption. lain:

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.

I see how you're emphasizing the aspect of 'legality' now as oppose to the supposed morality of the topic. lain: So what if you're allowed a glass of wine or a beer with a meal before driving a car? Does that impact on the fact you'll be 'more intoxicated' with drink than without? I won't drink at all if I were to be driving. For reasons outlined previous. Even a glass of wine or one beer would have impaired my judgement/reaction to even a small extent and as such I'm intoxicated and it would be irresponsible to drive. You disagree?

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

Oh well tell me when alcohol consumption actually reaches the level of what you class as 'intoxication' then. Two thirds of a pint? Two and a half? Maybe it's that final 'downing' of the third stout that just pushes one over into the 'intoxication' margin? :doh:

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

Oh. You stated earlier that 'impaired judgement' is a "discernible thing" ...Frankly that's quite ironic really as I'd hope you appreciate...:chuckle:

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.

It heightens awareness and senses which is in no way comparable with the dulling overall effect of alcohol. It's not just 'psychological' but also physical in that regard. Auditory perception and acuteness was one such effect in my experience. Obviously it's not going to apply to everyone, but it doesn't require a great leap of the imagination as to why several of those who are already creatively minded would find a spur in such. There's plenty examples of this whereas you ain't gonna find much with drink as the denominator.

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.

Depends on how you define 'impair' and 'respectable' IMO. Your definition of 'intoxication' is somewhat open to question as it is...

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.

IQ only reflects a certain limited spectrum of intelligence which has little to do with 'reasoning' as we're discussing here. I disagree with your latter and I think it's pretty presumptuous of you to assert such.
'History' reflects all manner of things. One being the fact that much blood spilled is the act of a powerful minority...so do we compare the majority of human reasoning to tyrannies and oppressive dictatorships?

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.

I'm not big into philosophy or logic as passionate endeavours but I do value and see the importance of reason, which certainly contains the latter obviously but I'm not gonna dance a jig over it... My assertion is that reason itself isn't a hobby for most but a practicality of life....

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

Yes, through reason. Something prejudice and blind ignorance do not afford.

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.

Rather, I'm not inclined to accept that the majority of our species is beyond capable reason, especially in the present where such ignorance has for the most part been undermined. If you want to keep playing the 'history card' then have at it, and feel free to assert the above if you like. I've made my positions clear regarding such several times as it is in separate threads so ho hum...

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.

Well there again you've provided the definition of "sorceries, witchcraft, magic and secret arts". You're not exposing something hitherto unknown in the debate TH. Drugs themselves are not part of the translation or an inherent evil, else throw your coffee away....and your antacids...and your Ibuprofen etc. You're stretching this to fit in and it doesn't work.

 

[Town Heretic]

...I asked you to provide why, not give me the law which we're all aware of anyway I would think? It's legal to get mashed on drink in your own home, so as far as 'impairment' goes and the morality of such the 'law' is irrelevant to your point.

That the law notes and punishes intoxication itself establishes the one leg of my objection. That there is a blind spot in it regarding a man's castle speaks, I'd think, to a recognition of traditional use, wherein (as you've noted) a great section of our society imbibe sufficiently to violate the law technically but to no real effect given their location. Now if they take that outside...as to why pot shouldn't be afforded the same consideration, there's a great deal of the other argument, from degree of impairment and nature of the use to the morality and potential negative consequences to health.

I don't think there isn't an argument for it or one that doesn't find at least some support in the example above, only that on nearly any level it fails to overcome the harm, having (aside and arguably from the medicinal) no real benefit and inviting a host of negative consequences.

...If you drink even a small amount of alcohol it will impair.

You aren't using the word in conjunction with the standard and you can make the same claim for Thanksgiving dinner. Impairment sufficient to impact judgment and motor skills is the legal and rational point of objection and the moral objection follows as well.

Here's a link to a virtual bar that will give you an idea of where you are over time drinking with or without food. It's entertaining and informative.

Surely I don't have to emphasize why we have a don't drink don't drive policy again?

And surely I don't have to point out, again, that if I have a glass of wine with my meal I'm not going to blow an intoxicated blood alcohol level or fail a field sobriety test. But if I have two? And you've already noted the practice of the majority of less reasoned partakers (also helping me on that other point ) drink more than the one. So for most, drinking and driving would be a violation of law. Of course.

By your yardstick that is intoxication. It's not mine, at least in an immoral sense it isn't. lain:

By my yardstick (and by science's) intoxication is a measurable thing, where impairment of judgment (and to make you happy I'll amend to significant impairment) is such that you cannot be relied on to make reasoned decisions regarding practices with serious consequences for failure...say, driving a car.

Now morally, seeking that state is objectionable as well.

People don't get breath tested based on their weight or tolerance to drink TH.

They also don't have that particular in a vacuum (see: field sobriety testing and BAC confirmation).

Re: why you can't conflate alteration and impairment, reasonably.

Why isn't it sustainable?

Because I can drink that glass of wine with my meal and remain sober, capable of making informed decisions, and operating my car in traffic where motor skills and decision making are rather to the point.

So what if you're allowed a glass of wine or a beer with a meal before driving a car? Does that impact on the fact you'll be 'more intoxicated' with drink than without?

Actually, I wouldn't be intoxicated. That's just you continuing to attempt to blur a line the law and science and I have no real trouble making.

Re: silly notions you have about pot.

It heightens awareness and senses which is in no way comparable with the dulling overall effect of alcohol.

Baloney. Here's a bit from Harvard.edu with links you might find worth perusal:

In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder.

In addition, marijuana use has many indirect effects on health. Its effect on coordination, perception, and judgment means that it causes a number of accidents, vehicular and otherwise."​

Linked here.

It's not just 'psychological' but also physical in that regard. Auditory perception and acuteness was one such effect in my experience.

Hoggimous/higgimous. People believe all sorts of things about being high that is an illusion/distortion created by the experience.

IQ only reflects a certain limited spectrum of intelligence which has little to do with 'reasoning' as we're discussing here.

Problem solving, recognition, judgment...which has everything to do with what we're discussing here, but we can leave off and I'm fine with it.

Re: drug use and the Bible.

Well there again you've provided the definition of "sorceries, witchcraft, magic and secret arts". You're not exposing something hitherto unknown in the debate TH.

I did more than that if you read the last and followed the link.

Drugs themselves are not part of the translation or an inherent evil, else throw your coffee away....and your antacids...and your Ibuprofen etc. You're stretching this to fit in and it doesn't work.

No, I'm showing a link between the misuse of drugs and Biblical prohibition. And that's all I aimed to do.

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

Townie's just the man trying to bring us down. lain:

Get off us, man. :IA:

 

[Lon]

Townie's just the man trying to bring us down. lain:

Get off us, man. :IA:

Arguing with a lawyer about the law is simply hilarious to me. It is like watching a race with a marathoner.....and amputees




.....with hurdles...


...while they are illegally intoxicated....

 

[nicholsmom]

Arguing with a lawyer about the law is simply hilarious to me. It is like watching a race with a marathoner.....and amputees




.....with hurdles...


...while they are illegally intoxicated....

Yep opcorn: :rotfl:

 

[Arthur Brain]

That the law notes and punishes intoxication itself establishes the one leg of my objection. That there is a blind spot in it regarding a man's castle speaks, I'd think, to a recognition of traditional use, wherein (as you've noted) a great section of our society imbibe sufficiently to violate the law technically but to no real effect given their location. Now if they take that outside...as to why pot shouldn't be afforded the same consideration, there's a great deal of the other argument, from degree of impairment and nature of the use to the morality and potential negative consequences to health.

Why is it a "blind spot"? It's absolutely legal to get drunk to excess in your own house and no 'technical violation' of the law has occurred as long as the results have no effect on others. The hypocrisy regarding getting 'high' in regards to pot in such circumstances is frankly abhorrent IMO. In regards to 'negative consequences to health' then compare alcohol/tobacco and pot and see which comes up "trumps"...lain:

Cigarettes and tobacco have absolutely no benefits to those who smoke it or those surrounded by it but hey, it's legal so the morality of the substance tends to get swept under the carpet. lain:

I don't think there isn't an argument for it or one that doesn't find at least some support in the example above, only that on nearly any level it fails to overcome the harm, having (aside and arguably from the medicinal) no real benefit and inviting a host of negative consequences.

Is it immoral to smoke a cigar? Even if you don't 'inhale'?

You aren't using the word in conjunction with the standard and you can make the same claim for Thanksgiving dinner. Impairment sufficient to impact judgment and motor skills is the legal and rational point of objection and the moral objection follows as well.

What 'standard'? I won't drink and drive at all TH. Even the slightest imperceptible change in coordination could be what it takes to cause an accident. Your argument is simply revolving around "sufficient impairment" which is a result of what exactly? Oh yes...intoxication. One small glass of wine would be enough to constitute that be it with a bagel or a three course meal...

Here's a link to a virtual bar that will give you an idea of where you are over time drinking with or without food. It's entertaining and informative.

I know how it works already. It's better to drink later in the day as the liver works more efficiently as well btw, but it doesn't reduce the fact that even the slightest drink is impairing. If you wanna drive after a glass then your call. I won't....

And surely I don't have to point out, again, that if I have a glass of wine with my meal I'm not going to blow an intoxicated blood alcohol level or fail a field sobriety test. But if I have two? And you've already noted the practice of the majority of less reasoned partakers (also helping me on that other point ) drink more than the one. So for most, drinking and driving would be a violation of law. Of course.

Uh huh. So two glasses of wine counts as intoxication but the one is 'ok' then. You're not intoxicated to even a small degree with the one glass until you double it? :squint:

By my yardstick (and by science's) intoxication is a measurable thing, where impairment of judgment (and to make you happy I'll amend to significant impairment) is such that you cannot be relied on to make reasoned decisions regarding practices with serious consequences for failure...say, driving a car.

Which is why we have stresses on zero alcohol consumption before getting behind the wheel!!! Again, why do you think that such is promoted, for a laugh? NO, it's because alcohol itself is an intoxicating substance, and even a small amount can cause 'sufficient impairment' to make driving a car more dangerous than without

Now morally, seeking that state is objectionable as well.

Morally speaking you wouldn't have a glass of wine if you're gonna be driving...

They also don't have that particular in a vacuum (see: field sobriety testing and BAC confirmation).

Re: why you can't conflate alteration and impairment, reasonably.

Because I can drink that glass of wine with my meal and remain sober, capable of making informed decisions, and operating my car in traffic where motor skills and decision making are rather to the point.

Unless you have two glasses of wine as oppose to the one...because the first has no effect whatsoever right? How do you know that first glass hasn't impaired your reaction/judgement to even the slightest degree where it could make a difference? Is it only conscious recognition of dulled reaction that counts? The law regarding DUI doesn't say so and your argument lacks again in that regard. We're not talking about being completely mashed and driving in zig zags along a congested road here....lain:

Actually, I wouldn't be intoxicated. That's just you continuing to attempt to blur a line the law and science and I have no real trouble making.

As above. If your judgement is impaired whether consciously recognized or not then you're intoxicated. I didn't create the yardstick you brought up TH. Once again, why do you think the notion of NO drinking and driving is so prominent?

Re: silly notions you have about pot.

I don't have "silly notions" about the stuff. I've smoked it and your patronizing and ignorant condescension is duly noted. lain:

Baloney. Here's a bit from Harvard.edu with links you might find worth perusal:

In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder.​

Oh ok. I'm lying then, and this source is irrefutable proof as if a 'rule of thumb'. lain:

In addition, marijuana use has many indirect effects on health. Its effect on coordination, perception, and judgment means that it causes a number of accidents, vehicular and otherwise."

If it's smoked constantly then indeed, the same as any other 'drug fixation'. If I drink too much coffee I find I'm actually tired and limit myself to four cups a day because of it. some people have no tolerance to alcohol etc.

Hoggimous/higgimous. People believe all sorts of things about being high that is an illusion/distortion created by the experience.

Oh ok. So taking morphine to reduce the sensation of pain and the result of such is simply a belief in the effect of the drug then? lain:

It's funny how many bands and artists etc have utilized such where the result was far from 'the grape' and 'Hoggimous' then isn't it?

Problem solving, recognition, judgment...which has everything to do with what we're discussing here, but we can leave off and I'm fine with it.

No it isn't. I'm yet to take an IQ test where social adaptability and emotional awareness were incorporated as part. It's basically a test of literacy, numeracy and logic with some some poxy 'graphic puzzles' thrown in. That's its purpose which is fair enough in itself...

Re: drug use and the Bible.

I did more than that if you read the last and followed the link.


No, I'm showing a link between the misuse of drugs and Biblical prohibition. And that's all I aimed to do.

:e4e:

TH, if I'm to believe that drugs have some direct link to actual sorcery/magic etc then I may as well give up the coffee and drink. I've been through this plenty times before and it's no more convincing now as it was back then because it's a stretch to compare and translate as such I think.

:e4e:

 

[Ktoyou]

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:



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 willfully....
yes willfully and on and on.........

:idea:
The main point here is it may, or may not be a matter of morality for you, while it is never moral or immoral for me. You figure that out and you will see it from the Kat view. :wave2:

 

[Town Heretic]

Great. I take pains to shrink an ever growing dialog and...:mmph: :chuckle:

Why is it a "blind spot"? It's absolutely legal to get drunk to excess in your own house and no 'technical violation' of the law has occurred as long as the results have no effect on others.

Because the moment you walk out of that door you can be arrested. Being drunk in public is sufficient. Usually it's triggered by some sort of disorderly conduct, which tends to go with being drunk out of doors, but public intoxication is sufficient. The state is sufficient. The blind spot, protection is found in the home and most likely for the habit you noted.

In regards to 'negative consequences to health' then compare alcohol/tobacco and pot and see which comes up "trumps"...lain:

I've already stated my objection to tobacco in this thread. It's hypocritical of us to allow it on any appreciable level. History will be unkind to us over our unwillingness to address it more forcibly.

What 'standard'?

I referenced that already. I even gave you an entertaining link to see how your drinking habits would relate to it.

I won't drink and drive at all TH.

Given the quantity you consume at a go I'd say that's a prudent decision. :thumb:

Even the slightest imperceptible change in coordination could be what it takes to cause an accident.

No. That's not really true. You're either impaired so that you can't operate a vehicle safely or you aren't. The minute distinctions you're attempting to overstate...well, I've answered on this point in my last.

Your argument is simply revolving around "sufficient impairment" which is a result of what exactly? Oh yes...intoxication. One small glass of wine would be enough to constitute that be it with a bagel or a three course meal...

Simply not the case. I can drink a beer with my favorite meal and I will not register a blood alcohol level that indicates impairment of judgment. I will take and pass a field sobriety examination to test my motor skills and I will be fit to operate a motor vehicle.

Uh huh. So two glasses of wine counts as intoxication but the one is 'ok' then.

Right. You apparently haven't done much reading on the topic. You should probably do that.

You're not intoxicated to even a small degree with the one glass until you double it? :squint:

You keep missing that boat. Intoxication is a line on the bar. It's like being pregnant. You may be further along but you either are or you aren't.

Which is why we have stresses on zero alcohol consumption before getting behind the wheel!!!

We don't actually have campaigns here relating to how much or how little. And given the rule with people tends to be, as you noted, more than a drink with a meal, our commercials are trying to drive home the point to the overwhelming audience in need of hearing it. It would muddy the waters to no good end to attempt to distinguish as I have, but if you're informed on the subject and the law that's the way it actually plays out.

Morally speaking you wouldn't have a glass of wine if you're gonna be driving...

Pure, unsupportable nonsense, not remotely backed by objective data and, in fact, as I've indicated above, errant.

Unless you have two glasses of wine as oppose to the one...because the first has no effect whatsoever right?

No. Because the first doesn't end with your judgment impaired to the point where you pose a danger to yourself or others, depending on your body mass and...you really should go to that virtual bar and try it out. It will show you times and amounts and the impact relative to your sobriety.

I don't have "silly notions" about the stuff. I've smoked it and your patronizing and ignorant condescension is duly noted. lain:

Rather, your unsupported notions of a benefit contraindicated by actual studies and referenced in the Harvard bit I linked and quoted, are self apparently mistaken. And that's an informed position, not an ignorant clinging to a mistaken anecdotal.

Oh ok. I'm lying then, and this source is irrefutable proof as if a 'rule of thumb'. lain:

If you say so...I just thought you were mistaken. As for the link, it is a reflection of the scientific/medical opinion and observations relating to the subject and has helpful notations and links...if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Oh ok. So taking morphine to reduce the sensation of pain and the result of such is simply a belief in the effect of the drug then? lain:

Nope. But that's biological fact. Yours simply isn't.

It's funny how many bands and artists etc have utilized such where the result was far from 'the grape' and 'Hoggimous' then isn't it?

No. I don't find it remotely amusing when people promote unhealthy ideas. People invest in all sorts of activity, find justification for any number of harmful practices. Many people claim drinking helps them relax and reduces their stress. It doesn't though. A simple google on effects of alcohol and the AMA would clear that up for them if they were interested. And people once believed smoking calmed the throat. I'm sure any number of them would have argued as adamantly about the helpful nature of their particular habit.

An IQ test is really about analytical ability and spatial recognition. But why are we still discussing it again?

TH, if I'm to believe that drugs have some direct link to actual sorcery/magic etc then I may as well give up the coffee and drink.

It did in the passage noted and the point wasn't to demonize every chemical or the medical profession that employs them routinely, but to reference the connection to their use as mind altering materials aimed at that purpose and understood by the author.

:e4e:

 

[Ktoyou]

Well goodnight you debaters.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Great. I take pains to shrink an ever growing dialog and...:mmph: :chuckle:

By snipping out a lot of response. I had noticed....

Because the moment you walk out of that door you can be arrested. Being drunk in public is sufficient. Usually it's triggered by some sort of disorderly conduct, which tends to go with being drunk out of doors, but public intoxication is sufficient. The state is sufficient. The blind spot, protection is found in the home and most likely for the habit you noted.

Yup. Drunken intoxication counts for soooo many more problems than cannabis overall but then the former is legal as long as it ain't public...so hey ho...lain:

I've already stated my objection to tobacco in this thread. It's hypocritical of us to allow it on any appreciable level. History will be unkind to us over our unwillingness to address it more forcibly.

Would you prohibit it? Or support such?

I referenced that already. I even gave you an entertaining link to see how your drinking habits would relate to it.

Remind me....

Given the quantity you consume at a go I'd say that's a prudent decision. :thumb:

What? lain:

No. That's not really true. You're either impaired so that you can't operate a vehicle safely or you aren't. The minute distinctions you're attempting to overstate...well, I've answered on this point in my last.

And where is that 'line' of impairment drawn exactly? I'm not trying to overstate anything TH. Your 'line' allows a certain amount of alcohol consumption whereas mine doesn't because of its dulling factors whether "discernible" or not, hence the law regarding such.

Simply not the case. I can drink a beer with my favorite meal and I will not register a blood alcohol level that indicates impairment of judgment. I will take and pass a field sobriety examination to test my motor skills and I will be fit to operate a motor vehicle.

You could drink an orange juice and not risk impairing your judgement to either a discernible or indiscernible degree, regardless of what the law allows. Which would be the more moral?

Right. You apparently haven't done much reading on the topic. You should probably do that.

Oh. Thanks for the patronizing soundbite response. lain:

You keep missing that boat. Intoxication is a line on the bar. It's like being pregnant. You may be further along but you either are or you aren't.

Indeed. So that one glass of wine has impaired your senses, and so whether it's the smallest 'discernible' degree, or full blown binge it's intoxication....

We don't actually have campaigns here relating to how much or how little. And given the rule with people tends to be, as you noted, more than a drink with a meal, our commercials are trying to drive home the point to the overwhelming audience in need of hearing it. It would muddy the waters to no good end to attempt to distinguish as I have, but if you're informed on the subject and the law that's the way it actually plays out.

Well we do here, and it's nothing. Zero, zilch, de nada alcohol is what's promoted with driving and rightly so IMO. Not even a small glass of wine with a sunday roast....I'm not interested in 'muddying the waters' myself and this topic has to do with morality, not legality.

Pure, unsupportable nonsense, not remotely backed by objective data and, in fact, as I've indicated above, errant.

What? So suppose the law allowed you two to three glasses of wine with a meal then? Would it only be your 'discernible' notice of impairment which would make drink/driving immoral in your opinion then? Nice soundbite though lain:

No. Because the first doesn't end with your judgment impaired to the point where you pose a danger to yourself or others, depending on your body mass and...you really should go to that virtual bar and try it out. It will show you times and amounts and the impact relative to your sobriety.

As soon as you take an alcoholic drink you've affected your sobriety. 'Body mass' is hardly some 'chalkboard' where you can 'get away' with a glass of wine/beer over someone of lesser 'girth'. It does not work that way TH!

If one glass of wine reduces your reactions/judgement to even the slightest extent then you have posed a danger to others behind the wheel of a car TH. Whether you discern it or not.

Rather, your unsupported notions of a benefit contraindicated by actual studies and referenced in the Harvard bit I linked and quoted, are self apparently mistaken. And that's an informed position, not an ignorant clinging to a mistaken anecdotal.

So my own actual experiences amount to a 'mistaken anecdotal'? It's hardly an "unsupported notion", as a bit of objective research on your part would bear out if you're willing to see 'both sides of the coin'.

If you say so...I just thought you were mistaken. As for the link, it is a reflection of the scientific/medical opinion and observations relating to the subject and has helpful notations and links...if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Then do some more research instead of patronizing folk who have actual experience of the drug in question. It kinda helps to further constructive discourse and if you're objective you'll see the flip side regarding. I'm not ignorant of both sides of the argument here.

Nope. But that's biological fact. Yours simply isn't.

As 'biological fact' it wasn't even intended to be....lain:

No. I don't find it remotely amusing when people promote unhealthy ideas. People invest in all sorts of activity, find justification for any number of harmful practices. Many people claim drinking helps them relax and reduces their stress. It doesn't though. A simple google on effects of alcohol and the AMA would clear that up for them if they were interested. And people once believed smoking calmed the throat. I'm sure any number of them would have argued as adamantly about the helpful nature of their particular habit.

Well I think drinking any alcohol while intending to drive is irresponsible and unhealthy, yet you don't. So it goes....

An IQ test is really about analytical ability and spatial recognition. But why are we still discussing it again?

Who knows? I think it had something to do with reason....lain:

It did in the passage noted and the point wasn't to demonize every chemical or the medical profession that employs them routinely, but to reference the connection to their use as mind altering materials aimed at that purpose and understood by the author.

:e4e:

Which is rather vague and has no direct connection with actual 'sorcery' as I see. It's a stretch to interpret it to such an extent IMO.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

By snipping out a lot of response. I had noticed....

Sure, but all of it was either repeating a point made within the post.

Yup. Drunken intoxication counts for soooo many more problems than cannabis overall but then the former is legal as long as it ain't public...so hey ho...lain:

Don't know about blithe, but yeah, when a thing is legal you're going to have a great many more participation and the potential for ill judged consequence. Not surprising. So hey, let's add another thing that absolutely guarantees intoxication. lain:

Would you prohibit it? Or support such?

Did that really seem ambiguous...It shouldn't be legal. I set out a bit on this inside this thread, must have been with one of the others then.

Remind me....

No. Jump back a post or two where the link stands out. How could that slip you mind? :think: Are you high?

What? lain:

You did say you drink more than a single beer/glass of wine a time, no?

And where is that 'line' of impairment drawn exactly? I'm not trying to overstate anything TH. Your 'line' allows a certain amount of alcohol consumption whereas mine doesn't because of its dulling factors whether "discernible" or not, hence the law regarding such.

And Thanksgiving dinner after effects impairs you incrementally, as does any meal. Do you eat and drive? Just goofy. That line has been drawn by scientific observation and is supported in law.

You could drink an orange juice and not risk impairing your judgement to either a discernible or indiscernible degree, regardless of what the law allows. Which would be the more moral?

Not if I'm my judgement with a beer and a meal isn't problematic. Neither.

Oh. Thanks for the patronizing soundbite response. lain:

Thanks for not being familiar enough with the subject of intoxication and the law? :idunno: Sorry, but you're the one insisting on pushing an under informed perspective on this one. So yeah, it was a little...and it should be.

Indeed. So that one glass of wine has impaired your senses, and so whether it's the smallest 'discernible' degree, or full blown binge it's intoxication....

Keep trying, but it just points out your mistake. Either your judgment is sound enough to operate a vehicle or it isn't.

Well we do here, and it's nothing.

Great. And that's a good idea given, again, how people tend to drink. But it doesn't change the science.

....I'm not interested in 'muddying the waters' myself and this topic has to do with morality, not legality.

They're a bit bound together here, since drunkenness...oops. Off to the doctor's appointment for Jack and Co.

To Be Continued.... :e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure, but all of it was either repeating a point made within the post.

I'd still rather you quoted than snip even if that's the case which I don't agree with anyway. I don't mind the odd bit here and there but you're cutting out whole paragraphs.

Don't know about blithe, but yeah, when a thing is legal you're going to have a great many more participation and the potential for ill judged consequence. Not surprising. So hey, let's add another thing that absolutely guarantees intoxication. lain:

It's going to be there whether it's legalized or not. Surveys in the UK alone estimate that millions of people use the drug regardless of current status within the law.

Did that really seem ambiguous...It shouldn't be legal. I set out a bit on this inside this thread, must have been with one of the others then.

Ok, but why? Why shouldn't people be allowed to smoke cigarettes and cigars etc?

No. Jump back a post or two where the link stands out. How could that slip you mind? :think: Are you high?

The last time I felt 'high' was back in 2005 so no...lain: :allsmile:

You did say you drink more than a single beer/glass of wine a time, no?

Yes, and I'm gradually increasing intoxication with each one...

And Thanksgiving dinner after effects impairs you incrementally, as does any meal. Do you eat and drive? Just goofy. That line has been drawn by scientific observation and is supported in law.

Food doesn't intoxicate unless someone's cooking with arsenic etc.

Not if I'm my judgement with a beer and a meal isn't problematic. Neither.

Which is not something you're completely able to judge. Plenty folk think their judgement isn't problematic after four or five pints so hey...

Thanks for not being familiar enough with the subject of intoxication and the law? :idunno: Sorry, but you're the one insisting on pushing an under informed perspective on this one. So yeah, it was a little...and it should be.

What makes you think I'm not? I know the legal status regarding drink and driving in the UK thanks, and your presumption now matches your condescension. There's no call for it and I don't appreciate it either. I've been out of line with accusations of pomposity towards yourself in the past and I'd prefer you don't continue with this crap frankly.

Furthermore, this was as much (if not primarily) regarding morality, and there's plenty support for a complete ban on alcohol before driving. It would surprise me more if this doesn't actually take place before too much longer from a legal perspective.

Keep trying, but it just points out your mistake. Either your judgment is sound enough to operate a vehicle or it isn't.

So what will you say if the law enforces a complete ban on alcohol before driving? That just the one glass impairs judgement even if it's only to a very minor extent?

Great. And that's a good idea given, again, how people tend to drink. But it doesn't change the science.

Nor does it change the fact that alcohol is an intoxicant...

They're a bit bound together here, since drunkenness...oops. Off to the doctor's appointment for Jack and Co.

To Be Continued.... :e4e:

Hope it went well...

:e4e:

 

[Lighthouse]

Even if you believe it is medicinal you should still believe it is a sin to abuse [which includes use without a prescription, especially if you don't have an ailment for which it would be prescribed].

 

[Town Heretic]

I'd still rather you quoted than snip even if that's the case which I don't agree with anyway. I don't mind the odd bit here and there but you're cutting out whole paragraphs.

Sorry AB, but you there was a great deal of overlap/repetition in that suddenly terribly long answer and I'd made a concerted effort to move us toward the other end of that...

It's going to be there whether it's legalized or not. Surveys in the UK alone estimate that millions of people use the drug regardless of current status within the law.

Didn't say it wouldn't, but not at that volume. You legalize a thing you maximize the potential for damage to no good end.

Ok, but why? Why shouldn't people be allowed to smoke cigarettes and cigars etc?

A number of reasons, including: that smoking is an aggressively harmful act in relation to others (see: second hand smoke damage), it causes serious injury and fatality, incurring tremendous and needless medical costs that negatively impact our health care system; it's an inherently unsafe drug without any appreciable benefit; it's morally indefensible as a product. That's the overview.

Yes, and I'm gradually increasing intoxication with each one...

See, until you get that part right there isn't much of a point in continuing. You can absolutely experience degrees of intoxication, but until you reach the level of impairment you haven't arrived at that word. Intoxication is the line where, when crossed, your judgment and reflexes are sufficiently impaired so as to make the safe operation of a vehicle and exercise of good judgement impossible.

Here's a little information that might clear up my position regarding minor consumption of alcohol:

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), these are the typical effects felt at the .02 BAC level, or after one drink for women and two drinks for men:

• Some loss of judgment
• Relaxation
• Slight body warmth
• Altered mood
• Decline in visual functions (rapid tracking of a moving target)
• Decline in ability to perform two tasks at the same time (divided attention)

Now that's at twice my intake and it's still only a third of the way to legal intoxication of .08, wherein motor reflex and judgment is so impaired that you are judged unsafe as the operator of an automobile. Now there's NO argument that you aren't better off driving without alcohol, but there's no argument that you're not better off driving fully rested, or without chatting on your cell phone, or without day dreaming, etc.

Food doesn't intoxicate unless someone's cooking with arsenic etc.

Sugar can alter your brain chemistry. A heavy meal can slow your mental processes. Both are incremental but impairments. We don't worry about their negligible impact and we shouldn't. And that's what we're talking about with alcohol until we reach the threshold of intoxication.

Which is not something you're completely able to judge. Plenty folk think their judgement isn't problematic after four or five pints so hey...

Again, this is why you need to be better informed and inarguably aren't at this point or you wouldn't make the mistake of thinking I'm winging it. I'm not guessing. You need to look at the data on alcohol consumption and impairment, the legal limits and why and how they're established and get back to me. It's a literal, scientific fact that I can drink a beer with a meal and not be in any danger of suffering the penalty phase of the local constabulary.

...this was as much (if not primarily) regarding morality, and there's plenty support for a complete ban on alcohol before driving.

You do realize the argument here isn't about alcohol...Else, make the argument. I disagree. There's nothing inherently immoral about drinking nor anything immoral about drinking and driving within the parameters I noted, where your judgement isn't impaired so as to constitute a danger to yourself or others. And we're back to the science.

So what will you say if the law enforces a complete ban on alcohol before driving?

That they wouldn't be doing it for the reason the current laws are in place, that it would be a policy decision unbacked by scientific support in relation to the former standard and my observation.

:e4e:

 

[YahuShuan]

"Prescription". Doctors. And a man who spit in and made mud to cure a blind man. Boy, I must be crazy eh. I believe the man who spit and made mud way more than a doctor who would give me a prescription to hide the symptoms and make me FEEL better. Doctors are for stitches, they have NEVER "cured" ANYTHING. I wonder if Luke chose to use his so called medical skills after knowing of Yahu'Shua and finding out that all we had to do was get together and to lay hands on our brothers? If he did, he sure didn't believe in the Messiah that is in the Bible. Just like most Christians who think Greek ways are the ways of the Jewish Messiah. The Greek don't have any sense to it without the Jewish train of thought. It's cubicle man, it's cubicle, and "paths of righteousness" are really "cycles of righteousness", kind of like a wheel with a card on it, and a pin that goes around...How many times are we going to get slapped by the pin before we get it and jump onto the wheel? Only Yah knows. But since we haven't, Our Father must adjust US, before the wheel gets wrecked by us not getting on it to keep the equalibrium going. WE, throughout the centuries, have done nothing but slow it down to nearly a stop. And all by disobeying the Torah of Yah. Not a wonder He must cut this time short. You folks seem to worry about abusing your bodies, and have cared nothing about your abuse of the Universe. It is the way it is now, because WE said "we do not listen", "refused Torah", and have traded the belief once given for a belief made up by men. Time to clean the INSIDE and stop boulderdashing people about the outside which is way less important. And you folks don't seem to know the bar of soap when you see it anyway, because you don't think you are dirty. Worry about how you do not obey HIM first. Look to see what YOU have done! "SEEK THE OLD PATHS" and your way will be made straight and you can ride the cycle of righteousness! You have been riding on a bike that is turning and you want to go your own way, if you want to stay on Yah's cycles, you have to go the way He goes, YOU AIN'T THE DRIVER! That was the devils problem...he don't have a licence to drive either!

It has nothing to do with smoking pot, it has all to do with obeying Yahuweh. Do THAT, then you will see clearly to take the splinters out of a brothers eye! Worry about what YOU do. Then you can HELP your brother, and realize it ain't your jobs to convert them nor send them to hell. And maybe you can realize that when you send another to hell, you have judged your own selves by your own words which will come back and bite you where it really hurts. If you don't judge yourself FIRST, you can NEVER judge another for your judgment will not be a righteous one. We are to judge righteously, and that means BY THE TORAH OF YAH. Not men.

Sin is disobeying the Torah of Yah, so if you say your sins have been forgiven by grace, why in the world would you keep on disobeying that Torah on purpose? That just don't make any sense to me. It used to when I was calling myself a Chrisitan, but it sure don't now that I know they lied to me. If they would lie about His Name, they would lie about anything. Even and especially what is good for me, or bad for me, or anything for me...they don;t want anyone else having what they can't seem to get for themselves. They say faith this and faith that, but have no belief which "brings forth fruits meet for repentance" do they. After all, how can one bring forth a fruit meet for repentance of disobeying Torah when they say "we are not under the Law"? So much for that eh. How then can they really be born again as they claim, but have not died to this world to be brought to life, IN HIS?

Simple...they can't. We must obey the Torah to receive the promises thereof. If we don't, we are cursed. Y'Shua came to obey Torah, show us how it is done, what it IS, and said "follow Me". He told us that is what HE expects from you in order for HIM to consider you a brother or sister. He said "do the Father's desires"...HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

The Father's Desires IS for us to OBEY HIS TORAH! And now, in this day which is that day, the latters days, WE are to be the "repairers of the breach". Well then, if any of you want in on that, you best obey Torah. IT IS GOOD FOR YOU SO YOU CAN BE GOOD FOR OTHERS. So you can be blessed and not cursed, BY YAHUWEH.

RENEW YOUR MINDS!
Shabbat Shalom on this 7th Day, it is "sanctified" as you folks say. Not tomorrow. Sunday is sanctified by the devil. The Seventh Day is santified as the "Sabbath of Yahuweh", and set apart BY YAHUWEH. "Choose you this day whom you will serve!"

Choose wisely! Do not profane it anymore.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sorry AB, but you there was a great deal of overlap/repetition in that suddenly terribly long answer and I'd made a concerted effort to move us toward the other end of that...

I just prefer my posts to be quoted in full. It's rare that I cut anyone's responses myself because I know it's annoying having to scroll down to see what's been snipped...

Didn't say it wouldn't, but not at that volume. You legalize a thing you maximize the potential for damage to no good end.

It's already second to alcohol as the recreational drug of choice so why not regulate it? Personal use usually has a blind eye turned towards it because of it's widespread use and its lower class on the drug scale.

A number of reasons, including: that smoking is an aggressively harmful act in relation to others (see: second hand smoke damage), it causes serious injury and fatality, incurring tremendous and needless medical costs that negatively impact our health care system; it's an inherently unsafe drug without any appreciable benefit; it's morally indefensible as a product. That's the overview.

Fair enough. Unlike several of those who get up in arms over cannabis there's no hypocrisy with your stance on tobacco. Then, considering how many deaths and disease and accidents are alcohol related shouldn't there be a complete ban on that as well? Any appreciable benefit is surely outweighed by the cost?

See, until you get that part right there isn't much of a point in continuing. You can absolutely experience degrees of intoxication, but until you reach the level of impairment you haven't arrived at that word. Intoxication is the line where, when crossed, your judgment and reflexes are sufficiently impaired so as to make the safe operation of a vehicle and exercise of good judgement impossible.

I'm already aware of the scale and where the law stands on it regarding driving. I don't know why you seem to want to insist that I'm not. 0.5 equals possible death due to the level of intoxication all the way down the scale to obviously much more minor effects. Frankly the limit should be zero IMO because even the referenced 0.02 is reflective of impairment through intoxication which is all well and good in most situations, but not when behind the wheel of a car...

And if you cast your mind back, this discussion wasn't solely to do with drink and driving but rather whether any form of intoxication itself is moral or not. Both cannabis and drink intoxicate from the smallest amount and it's simply a case of the degree of the intoxication after that. Some people think it's sinful to get even a small 'buzz' off alcohol which even the one drink can do as established. Do you? :think:

Here's a little information that might clear up my position regarding minor consumption of alcohol:

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), these are the typical effects felt at the .02 BAC level, or after one drink for women and two drinks for men:

• Some loss of judgment
• Relaxation
• Slight body warmth
• Altered mood
• Decline in visual functions (rapid tracking of a moving target)
• Decline in ability to perform two tasks at the same time (divided attention)

Now that's at twice my intake and it's still only a third of the way to legal intoxication of .08, wherein motor reflex and judgment is so impaired that you are judged unsafe as the operator of an automobile. Now there's NO argument that you aren't better off driving without alcohol, but there's no argument that you're not better off driving fully rested, or without chatting on your cell phone, or without day dreaming, etc.

Answered above.

Sugar can alter your brain chemistry. A heavy meal can slow your mental processes. Both are incremental but impairments. We don't worry about their negligible impact and we shouldn't. And that's what we're talking about with alcohol until we reach the threshold of intoxication.

Well apart from the fact I wouldn't drive after a family Christmas meal due to drink, I'd not have plans without because I know I just want to pass out afterwards...and as earlier, this isn't just about drink/driving but intoxication itself. If you aren't driving a car then what do you think is an 'acceptable' amount?

Again, this is why you need to be better informed and inarguably aren't at this point or you wouldn't make the mistake of thinking I'm winging it. I'm not guessing. You need to look at the data on alcohol consumption and impairment, the legal limits and why and how they're established and get back to me. It's a literal, scientific fact that I can drink a beer with a meal and not be in any danger of suffering the penalty phase of the local constabulary.

This has all been addressed above. Nobody was saying you would have been in any danger of legal penalty with one beer anyway. I believe the laws should change regarding drink and driving but that never equated to being ignorant as to how it currently stands in such regard. Please don't attribute that level of ignorance at me again TH.

:e4e:

You do realize the argument here isn't about alcohol...Else, make the argument. I disagree. There's nothing inherently immoral about drinking nor anything immoral about drinking and driving within the parameters I noted, where your judgement isn't impaired so as to constitute a danger to yourself or others. And we're back to the science.

I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about drinking either, then I've also made the case with cannabis which is still awaiting your response btw Where it comes to drink and driving then I think even the slightest intoxication is a no no.

That they wouldn't be doing it for the reason the current laws are in place, that it would be a policy decision unbacked by scientific support in relation to the former standard and my observation.

:e4e:

Scientific support registers appreciable effects after a small amount and the current rate is too high. Many are campaigning for it to be lowered and I think they're right. You don't, we differ.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

I just prefer my posts to be quoted in full. It's rare that I cut anyone's responses myself because I know it's annoying having to scroll down to see what's been snipped...

I don't think we're obligated to repeat points, though I suppose I could have referenced the reason for omissions. :think: I did that in the old days, but I figured anyone who is following should understand or can easily navigate the links.

It's already second to alcohol as the recreational drug of choice so why not regulate it?

I literally answered that in the bit that sponsored your above. :idunno: What else is there to add to it?

Fair enough. Unlike several of those who get up in arms over cannabis there's no hypocrisy with your stance on tobacco.

Thanks. I try to keep consistent standards.

Then, considering how many deaths and disease and accidents are alcohol related shouldn't there be a complete ban on that as well?

No. As I've noted, we don't eliminate cars because a great many people drive them irresponsibly. Tobacco can't be used responsibly. It is the harm itself.

I'm already aware of the scale and where the law stands on it regarding driving. I don't know why you seem to want to insist that I'm not.

Because you continually misuse the word intoxication as a standard in the argument.

0.5 equals possible death due to the level of intoxication all the way down the scale to obviously much more minor effects.

The legal limit in the states is .08. At that point significant enough impairment is indicated so that the operation of a motor vehicle is prohibited. Now the level I experience with my beer is less than that two beer .02, which itself is a point where the operation of your car isn't remotely problematic and no prohibition exists.

Frankly the limit should be zero IMO because even the referenced 0.02 is reflective of impairment through intoxication which is all well and good in most situations, but not when behind the wheel of a car...

You aren't intoxicated even at that TWO drink level, but again, at least we've buried the point of my one drink rule. So that's something.

And if you cast your mind back, this discussion wasn't solely to do with drink and driving but rather whether any form of intoxication itself is moral or not.

Right. And I hold that willfully intoxicating yourself is immoral. Sure.

Both cannabis and drink intoxicate from the smallest amount

No, they don't. And that's the problem here, again and again. Alcohol may impair you negligibly in any amount shy of the standard, but it takes a bit of it to intoxicate you. Pot? That's the whole ballgame from beginning to end. And it's inherently immoral for that reason alone.

I think that answers your inquiry on amounts in relation to my standard. Now have I ever broken that? Sure. I've had more than one on a holiday or with friends and felt that gentle fuzzy warmth. I don't equate it with axe murdering a classroom filled with school children, but I recognize it as a failing on the rare occasions when it has happened. As to the future? I don't know. It feels like I'm outgrowing a number of old habits that failed to contribute to my well being. But I don't want to get proud about it or invest in that way. It's just that many a bad habit, one by one, have become silly to me and wasteful.

:idunno:

If you aren't driving a car then what do you think is an 'acceptable' amount?

Supra.

This has all been addressed above. Nobody was saying you would have been in any danger of legal penalty with one beer anyway. I believe the laws should change regarding drink and driving but that never equated to being ignorant as to how it currently stands in such regard.

Please don't attribute that level of ignorance at me again TH.

Stop calling a thing intoxication that isn't and stop conflating a drug singularly meant to bring on that state with one that can be used after a different fashion. Otherwise, you aren't being insulted but I can't control how you feel about it, only tell you what I mean by it.

I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about drinking either, then I've also made the case with cannabis which is still awaiting your response btw

What did I miss on that count that isn't covered by my above? Smoking pot, apart from medical applications, is a willful intoxication. It's made to do that very thing. I've answered on those points. What else is there?

Where it comes to drink and driving then I think even the slightest intoxication is a no no.

Same here, but that's not what we're talking about. lain:

Scientific support registers appreciable effects after a small amount and the current rate is too high.

Appreciable just means measurable and no one is arguing that. A cold is measurably impairing, but not prohibitive of any number of tasks. Same with alcohol.

Many are campaigning for it to be lowered and I think they're right. You don't, we differ.

Rather, you differ with every substantive study I've ever read on the subject. That some people want to lower the standard is interesting and unsurprising, but equally uncontrolling and without substantive science behind it.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't think we're obligated to repeat points, though I suppose I could have referenced the reason for omissions. :think: I did that in the old days, but I figured anyone who is following should understand or can easily navigate the links.

The referencing would be helpful because I'm not in the habit of expending time and effort simply in order to repeat something for the sake of it, and it's not like I write in huge blocks of text so quoting the full hardly requires any effort on your part I would say.

I literally answered that in the bit that sponsored your above. :idunno: What else is there to add to it?

Not in regards to already widespread use/general police apathy and the pros of regulation you didn't. Something you'd snipped from my reply which is entirely relevant so an on point reply to this would be appreciated.

Thanks. I try to keep consistent standards.

That's not under dispute, but do you always succeed?

No. As I've noted, we don't eliminate cars because a great many people drive them irresponsibly. Tobacco can't be used responsibly. It is the harm itself.

Transportation in general is essential for people to commute to work or visit family etc. Drink is simply a luxury and it's abuse often leads to 'second hand' victims in the wake of such as well as the toll on lives and health in general. The abolition of such would lead to a lot less death per year don't you think? Not worth the same? :idunno:

Because you continually misuse the word intoxication as a standard in the argument.

Is there such a thing as 'mild intoxication' in your view? If we're going by the legal standards applied to drink/driving then 0.08 upwards is 'intoxication' correct? Else what margin are we using? If you want me to replace 'intoxication' with 'impairment of function' before this point then....ok, but it smacks of semantics.

The legal limit in the states is .08. At that point significant enough impairment is indicated so that the operation of a motor vehicle is prohibited. Now the level I experience with my beer is less than that two beer .02, which itself is a point where the operation of your car isn't remotely problematic and no prohibition exists.

The legal limits have been lowered before and in regards to 0.08 should be lowered further. 0.05 is enough to 'impair' sufficiently at the least. If your reactions are in any way affected due to wilful use of an intoxicating substance then is it only the present legal laws that render it acceptable in your opinion? Or moral? You've already conceded that it's better to drink NO alcohol before driving...

You aren't intoxicated even at that TWO drink level, but again, at least we've buried the point of my one drink rule. So that's something.

You're 'affected' at that level TH, but it's best to address this further in else I will be repeating myself....

Right. And I hold that willfully intoxicating yourself is immoral. Sure.

As above

No, they don't. And that's the problem here, again and again. Alcohol may impair you negligibly in any amount shy of the standard, but it takes a bit of it to intoxicate you. Pot? That's the whole ballgame from beginning to end. And it's inherently immoral for that reason alone.

Then this is the crux as far as I'm concerned. You'll admit that alcohol can impair, shy of the (supposedly legal drink/drive) standard. It's a semantic way of describing a mild form of intoxication. One could take a single toke off a spliff and feel no discernible effect. Your definition of 'immoral' would seem to correlate to actual noticeable difference which is something else altogether as you go on to describe:

I think that answers your inquiry on amounts in relation to my standard. Now have I ever broken that? Sure. I've had more than one on a holiday or with friends and felt that gentle fuzzy warmth. I don't equate it with axe murdering a classroom filled with school children, but I recognize it as a failing on the rare occasions when it has happened. As to the future? I don't know. It feels like I'm outgrowing a number of old habits that failed to contribute to my well being. But I don't want to get proud about it or invest in that way. It's just that many a bad habit, one by one, have become silly to me and wasteful.

Why is it immoral to have a 'gentle fuzzy warmth'? What's wrong with that? Do you apply this as immoral to yourself or is it for anyone who purposely or has no moral qualms with drinking for the same? Several get that without even reaching the 0.08 BAL level so is this just a subjective application of morality in regards to yourself? Fair enough if so but if not then why should your own measure extend as a yardstick in itself?

Supra.

I reckon that'll be on your epitaph....

Stop calling a thing intoxication that isn't and stop conflating a drug singularly meant to bring on that state with one that can be used after a different fashion. Otherwise, you aren't being insulted but I can't control how you feel about it, only tell you what I mean by it.

Then stop being so semantical regarding the subject and accept that they don't call it 'intoxicating liquor' for nothing in return Though if it suits better then I'll use 'impairment' in regards to low alcohol consumption.

What did I miss on that count that isn't covered by my above? Smoking pot, apart from medical applications, is a willful intoxication. It's made to do that very thing. I've answered on those points. What else is there?

Well, if you perceive a 'warm buzz' with alcohol as immoral then it's your call I guess. I'd sooner you didn't assert ignorance in regards to the differences between alcohol and cannabis when you've not apparently experienced the latter though. I addressed this in depth earlier, which was completely cut and it's up to you to reply on point or not. I hope you do.

Same here, but that's not what we're talking about. lain:

"Impairment"! :shocked: Actually that could catch on.... lain:

Appreciable just means measurable and no one is arguing that. A cold is measurably impairing, but not prohibitive of any number of tasks. Same with alcohol.

Well a cold certainly increases sneeze capacity, whereas even slight impairment through willful use of an intoxicating drug reduces reaction/senses, even if within the current legal guidelines for driving.

Rather, you differ with every substantive study I've ever read on the subject. That some people want to lower the standard is interesting and unsurprising, but equally uncontrolling and without substantive science behind it.

:e4e:

Well the studies I've read didn't crop up in the 'Daily mail' TH. Shall we have a 'link war' to decide it? lain: You differ equally with the counter as I do with yourself.

:e4e:

 

[faramir77]

Science so-called supporting vain philosophy, teaching for doctrine the dictates of men. Arguing perfectly from an erroneous foundation, persuasive, reasonable.

Durrr... why can't i handle Uranium 238? it's so pretty with its enchanting glow.
Supporting evidance: it radiates light, therefore, consider it Green Technology, commission a bogus 'study' supporting your claims, pass a law, mandate its enforcement, then print it up in the school books to delude the children to accept politicised Imperial Science fiction as fact.
Then let us not forget the slick media 'awareness' blitz glamorizing, contemporizing and extolling it virtue.

Perhaps if one learned to dicipline ones thoughts and emotions, one wouldn't allow external forces to influence internal feelings negatively thus negating the need for pleasure to nullify the pain.

 

[Town Heretic]

The referencing would be helpful because I'm not in the habit of expending time and effort simply in order to repeat something for the sake of it, and it's not like I write in huge blocks of text so quoting the full hardly requires any effort on your part I would say.

See, I could have snipped that after helpful. The rest doesn't make a contrary point and, because you wrote and I've read it, I could reply to it without the unnecessary addition. And if I had included the full text before answering in the post in question it would be prohibitively long and no exchange of substance based on that practice would survive a rules violation within two or three posts.

Not in regards to already widespread use/general police apathy and the pros of regulation you didn't.

Yeah, I really did. My point is offered in the face of that assertion (which I'm disinclined to accept except as an anecdotal observation from your particular or maybe California else). Legalizing will, as with any substance previously banned, increase all the harm and offer no good in return.

Re: standards.

That's not under dispute, but do you always succeed?

Depends on who you ask. But the ones running contrary tend to confuse declaration with support.

Transportation in general is essential for people to commute to work or visit family etc. Drink is simply a luxury and it's abuse often leads to 'second hand' victims in the wake of such as well as the toll on lives and health in general. The abolition of such would lead to a lot less death per year don't you think? Not worth the same?

You're stepping around my counter to note what isn't being argued. The problem and parallel is found in the conduct of people and not the thing itself. We could ban them and substitute mass transit and emergency vehicles only. We don't. We don't blame the instrument for the hand behind it. We rightly blame the hand. Now if you want to make the case that the hand designs an instrument to exceed reasonably speeds that's an argument I can get behind. :thumb:

Is there such a thing as 'mild intoxication' in your view?

I've never thought of it that way. Mostly I think we tend to scale from tipsy to hammered. And all of those are levels of intoxication and not states leading to it. Again, I wouldn't argue that a person at .01 is more impaired than a person who hasn't had anything to drink. But the impairment simply isn't sufficient to constitute a danger. It at best indicates the person impaired isn't as keen as they would be else. Now a professional race car driver might be better at avoiding an accident at .06 than you or me at zero, but would be less capable than himself without a few drinks.

If we're going by the legal standards applied to drink/driving then 0.08 upwards is 'intoxication' correct? Else what margin are we using? If you want me to replace 'intoxication' with 'impairment of function' before this point then....ok, but it smacks of semantics.

That's the point where we can say with authority that the person should not be operating machinery of any kind and their judgement is inarguably impaired to the point where using it would be asking for the wrong answer. And it isn't semantics to distinguish between a lesser degree of ability and inability, which is what that line represents.

The legal limits have been lowered before and in regards to 0.08 should be lowered further. 0.05 is enough to 'impair' sufficiently at the least.

By what study conducted by what group and found where? I've seen arguments against the eight, but nothing substantive relating to lowering that number.

If your reactions are in any way affected due to wilful use of an intoxicating substance then is it only the present legal laws that render it acceptable in your opinion?

Sure. A does of cough syrup might fit that description. A thimble full of beer would as well. That's why we have standards, to determine when you have no business doing a thing.

Or moral? You've already conceded that it's better to drink NO alcohol before driving...

Better? No. If I said that (and where did I?) it was only in the comparative, one that doesn't control the reasonableness of the thimble set against the abstention approach.

You're 'affected' at that level TH, but it's best to address this further in else I will be repeating myself....

The question has always been of impact. Or, again, we should shut down fast food drive-through lanes given the alteration/impact of their product on the general public.

Then this is the crux as far as I'm concerned. You'll admit that alcohol can impair, shy of the (supposedly legal drink/drive) standard.

No one is arguing alcohol can and does impair ability. The question that must be satisfied for any rational prohibition involves degree. And that's what the law addresses. It distinguishes between the sip and the glass, the glass and the pint, the reasoned prohibition and the needless interference.

It's a semantic way of describing a mild form of intoxication. One could take a single toke off a spliff and feel no discernible effect.

In order: no and I've taken pains to establish the no...and you could take pot into your mouth and hold it there too or run around through it without breathing, but that's not the use its designed for or the thing it will do if used as meant. It will intoxicate you if you use it.

Your definition of 'immoral' would seem to correlate to actual noticeable difference which is something else altogether as you go on to describe:

My definition of immoral could be perhaps most clearly summed up: to willfully intoxicate oneself, inviting poor judgment and the moral decisions that flow from it.

Why is it immoral to have a 'gentle fuzzy warmth'?

It isn't if you're describing the effect of a good blanket. Else, answered above...though I could couple that with the argument of example and the Christian duty...or the temple example and what is done with it...or a number of other, similar complaints. The first seems sufficient though.

Do you apply this as immoral to yourself or is it for anyone who purposely or has no moral qualms with drinking for the same?

Not sure what you're asking beyond the: is murder or idolatry or sexual immorality something you only hold as a standard for yourself? I don't go around slapping pints out of people's hands, if that's your interest. :chuckle:

Several get that without even reaching the 0.08 BAL level so is this just a subjective application of morality in regards to yourself? Fair enough if so but if not then why should your own measure extend as a yardstick in itself?

I'm sure some people will reach a general state of intoxication in advance of that standard. I'm equally sure no one will (absent a medical condition or some interaction with other drugs) having a beer or glass of wine with a meal.

I reckon that'll be on your epitaph....

I considered it, but went with "Ergo" instead.

Then stop being so semantical regarding the subject and accept that they don't call it 'intoxicating liquor' for nothing in return Though if it suits better then I'll use 'impairment' in regards to low alcohol consumption.

That would be delightful. My finger and cheeks were starting to hurt from the over use.

Well, if you perceive a 'warm buzz' with alcohol as immoral then it's your call I guess.

Depends on what you see as the obligation to God in how we use the bodies we no longer rightly own. And I think we have a similar obligation to keep them reasonably fit. If I go about morbidly obese absent a thyroid or other medical condition then I'm being a poor steward as well. Doesn't mean I can't have a beer or a slice of key lime pie now and again.

I'd sooner you didn't assert ignorance in regards to the differences between alcohol and cannabis when you've not apparently experienced the latter though.

I'd sooner you stop assuming anything and stick with the known. Anecdotes are good for Reader's Digest, but they make lousy arguments.

Well a cold certainly increases sneeze capacity

It can do a great deal more, making reaction times sluggish and judgment cloudy with fever. Chances are you're safe to drive though. lain:

whereas even slight impairment through willful use of an intoxicating drug reduces reaction/senses, even if within the current legal guidelines for driving.

So can a cold/fever. But absent a very, very high fever and a few drinks, again, you should be fine to drive to the drug store for your Nyquil.

Well the studies I've read didn't crop up in the 'Daily mail' TH. Shall we have a 'link war' to decide it? lain: You differ equally with the counter as I do with yourself.

I've already provided a couple that have supportive links and one that would even have been fun for you and eliminated our earlier one drink back and forth, but you weren't interested, apparently...which is a funny way to spell entrenched. And any google on state standards for intoxication (U.S.) will turn up similar support. The law wasn't based on guesses.

:e4e: