Lutheran view on Marijuana

[QuiltAngel]

Anti-smoking laws do vary by state. Around here, you can smoke anywhere except public buildings such as schools, restaurants, government buildings and such. You can smoke in your home, in your car, outside most paces and our hotels still have smoking rooms. I also believe that it is available in a pill form.

The thing is, it is illegal in many places right now, but it is permissible in several states for medical purposes and there are states looking at legalizing it right now. So, if states legalize it, would it be okay for God's people to use it?

 

[Studeclunker]

Are God's people allowed to smoke tobacco? Are they allowed to imbibe alcolholic beverages? Are God's people to abstain from fatty, sugary, treats? As I recall, the answer to the questions posed is; yes they are. M.J. hasn't been proven to be any worse (in due moderation) than any of the above. So why the question? Of course it wouldn't be a problem for God's people to smoke grass. The problem is when Marijuana becomes the sole focus of one's life, such as in alcoholism, gluttony, etc... Thus, the question isn't weather we can use Marijuana, so much as will it cause a problem with our walk in the Lord's Kingdom? If it does, then like alcolhol, cigarettes, and all other things, it must be avoided. Certainly, all things are permitted. Not all things are helpful for all people though. Thus, one should practice care and discernment in all things without wearing the Government's blinders.

I am quite aware that the pietists have been unable to make tobacco illegal. Hence, they are going through the back door. The inconsiderate behaviour of the smokers themselves has made this considerably easier too. All the same, these liberal pietists have gone much too far when they are telling me what I may or may not do in my own home, car, or property. Our civil rights are being eroded by these people to a remarkable degree without the public even objecting.

As to the percieved 'dangers' of Marijuana; Please! Mary Jane is no more dangerous than alcolhol. Obnoxious as Cigarettes, to be sure, but not a serious health or safety threat. Also, many people 'roll their own' with tobacco as well. Not to mention the Pipe smokers who use loose tobacco customized to their use. There is no unbiased medical study, or any other kind for that matter, that produces any evidence that Marijuana smoking is any more injurious than tobacco. I don't need to hear the parroting of government propaganda, thank you. Thus, the argument of 'laced' Marijuana being sold on the market is silly, to say the least. LSD, PCP, et all, are very expensive. Why throw good money after bad in sneaking it into someone's purchase, when they don't want it, at no extra cost? Thus the argument for the 'doctoring' of Weed is rediculous as well. Drug dealers are very aware of the value of the Dollar. They, of all people, aren't going to waste money in that way. A legitimate dealer isn't going to take the risk of having everything they own impounded. Thus, please retire this silly argument. It has never had any real foundation anywhere except a bar, where one can find any number of questionable practices, with or without Weed.

As to weather M.J. alters one's body chemistry, what of it? The compound isn't used for that purpose in the first place. Also, many real drugs that are FDA approved, are not at all for the altering of the body's chemistry either. So, what's the point on this? Again, M.J. is no worse than that pitcher of beer at the Pizza Parlour. Give it a rest and drink your beer whilst my friends smoke their pot. What is it to you?

Lastly, when this passes, as it likely will, then the Tobacco companies are poised to start producing it. Once the government gets involved and starts taxing the herb, there will be a considerable change in the character of the market. It will likely drive the price down, considerably, for the raw product as well. Since one will have to carry the stamp involved with one's M.J. then the illegal stuff, with it's attendant danger of incarceration, will become undesirable. Thus, Marijuana will become vastly different on the open market than it now is on the Blackmarket.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Okay, I just looked it up in my drug guide I have for school. It is listed as a pill and is used for the treatment of nausea in cancer patients and to increase appetite in AIDS patients. In states that have approved marijuana for medical purposes have this as a treatment option for these reasons. It is prescribed under the name of dronabinol.

Upon further research, I see that there are 16 states that have approved the use for medical purposes.

 

[Tangible]

On a side note, my dad just showed me a newspaper clipping telling about a drug bust about a quarter mile from his house. The neighbor's pot-growing was well-known in the rural community for years. (He incidentally dated my sister for a while much to my parent's dismay.) He and a HS classmate of mine and a couple of others were nabbed in possession a pretty good crop.

 

[Zecryphon]

Are God's people allowed to smoke tobacco? Are they allowed to imbibe alcolholic beverages? Are God's people to abstain from fatty, sugary, treats? As I recall, the answer to the questions posed is; yes they are. M.J. hasn't been proven to be any worse (in due moderation) than any of the above.

The fact that it's currently illegal to own and use outside of medicinal use, is proof that it is worse to own and use than all of the legal products you mentioned above, as doing so, if you're caught doing so by the authorities will land your butt in jail.

So why the question? Of course it wouldn't be a problem for God's people to smoke grass. The problem is when Marijuana becomes the sole focus of one's life, such as in alcoholism, gluttony, etc... Thus, the question isn't weather we can use Marijuana, so much as will it cause a problem with our walk in the Lord's Kingdom? If it does, then like alcolhol, cigarettes, and all other things, it must be avoided. Certainly, all things are permitted. Not all things are helpful for all people though. Thus, one should practice care and discernment in all things without wearing the Government's blinders.

So anyone who speaks out against Marijuana use is "wearing the Government's blinders"?

I am quite aware that the pietists have been unable to make tobacco illegal. Hence, they are going through the back door. The inconsiderate behaviour of the smokers themselves has made this considerably easier too. All the same, these liberal pietists have gone much too far when they are telling me what I may or may not do in my own home, car, or property. Our civil rights are being eroded by these people to a remarkable degree without the public even objecting.

So all pietists are liberals now? I thought liberals were all about freedom and living how YOU want to live? That's what they all say. Plus in my experience it's liberals who are the ones really pushing for the legalization of Marijuana. You always see at least one at any rally with a big sign saying "Legalize pot now" while wearing their tye-dye shirt with a huge peace symbol on it.

As to the percieved 'dangers' of Marijuana; Please!

Mary Jane is no more dangerous than alcolhol. Obnoxious as Cigarettes, to be sure, but not a serious health or safety threat.

Mere opinion. Quilty is the only one to produce any solid facts on this. Got any of your own you'd care to add to the discussion?

Also, many people 'roll their own' with tobacco as well. Not to mention the Pipe smokers who use loose tobacco customized to their use. There is no unbiased medical study, or any other kind for that matter, that produces any evidence that Marijuana smoking is any more injurious than tobacco. I don't need to hear the parroting of government propaganda, thank you.

Again, all we hear from you is that any objection to the use of Marijuana means someone is buying into what the government says simply cuz they dare disagree with you.

Thus, the argument of 'laced' Marijuana being sold on the market is silly, to say the least. LSD, PCP, et all, are very expensive. Why throw good money after bad in sneaking it into someone's purchase, when they don't want it, at no extra cost?

More opinion without proof. Do you know for a fact that the local drug dealer isn't charging more for a joint laced with LSD or PCP? My guess is no, you don't. The reason you would lace a joint with these drugs is that one, you could charge a higher price for a "better" product and then take the buyer to the next level of drug use by just selling them LSD or PCP.

Thus the argument for the 'doctoring' of Weed is rediculous as well.

Just saying it's ridiculous without proving it to be so with facts, is what's ridiculous here.

Drug dealers are very aware of the value of the Dollar. They, of all people, aren't going to waste money in that way. A legitimate dealer isn't going to take the risk of having everything they own impounded. Thus, please retire this silly argument. It has never had any real foundation anywhere except a bar, where one can find any number of questionable practices, with or without Weed.

How about you retire your practice of giving this forum lectures or rather your mere opinion on how great weed is without any facts backing it up?

As to weather M.J. alters one's body chemistry, what of it?

What of it? Are you serious with this? If it alters the chemistry of the body of one of your brothers or sisters in Christ, thus possibly compromising their health, this should be of great concern to you. It's sad it isn't.

The compound isn't used for that purpose in the first place. Also, many real drugs that are FDA approved, are not at all for the altering of the body's chemistry either. So, what's the point on this?

The point on that is that there are drugs that are FDA approved that are designed to alter a person's chemistry to take them from a non-functioning state, into a functioning state. People who suffer from depression, are often immobilized and house bound. Anti-Depressants that are FDA approved for the treatment of this condition, can get people up and moving and functioning again. That is the point on that.

Again, M.J. is no worse than that pitcher of beer at the Pizza Parlour. Give it a rest and drink your beer whilst my friends smoke their pot. What is it to you?

This is not true and I know from personal experience. The second hand smoke from Marijuana triggers my anxiety disorder and can cause me to have a panic attack, where as a beer from a pitcher or bottle, or a glass of wine or a shot of liquor, will have the opposite effect. I've been to enough rock and heavy metal concerts to know this. Also, what's it to you if I or anybody else objects to using Marijuana? You don't like people objecting to the use of illegal drugs, then you don't need to read a thread where it's occurring, do you?

Lastly, when this passes, as it likely will,

Proof please.

then the Tobacco companies are poised to start producing it.

And your proof for this is where?

Once the government gets involved and starts taxing the herb, there will be a considerable change in the character of the market. It will likely drive the price down, considerably, for the raw product as well. Since one will have to carry the stamp involved with one's M.J. then the illegal stuff, with it's attendant danger of incarceration, will become undesirable. Thus, Marijuana will become vastly different on the open market than it now is on the Blackmarket.

Explain how taxing a product drives the price down. Any time I've seen something taxed, the price goes up.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

the only problem I have with people using marijuana is that it's currently illegal.

I drink occasionally. I used to smoke. These were not sins. It's the motivation behind them that can be sinful. Drinking to escape life? That's sinful. Smoking to excess? That's sinful. The same logic can and does apply to marijuana. Gateway drug? No more than alcohol or tobacco are gateway drugs.

 

[Zecryphon]

They're not non-criminals if they're using an illegal substance.

 

[Studeclunker]

The fact that it's currently illegal to own and use outside of medicinal use, is proof that it is worse to own and use than all of the legal products you mentioned above, as doing so, if you're caught doing so by the authorities will land your butt in jail.

The question wasn't weather the product is legal or not. The question is weather or not we, as people of God would be allowed to use the product. Yes, the law disallows the use of M.J. So, what's your point? I believe the OP's intent was to inquire if it was legal, could or should we use it. If it is illegal, of course we shouldn't use it. If M.J. is legal, we have the option to enjoy it, like everything else.

So anyone who speaks out against Marijuana use is "wearing the Government's blinders"?
[\quote]

I don't recall saying any such thing. However, we are seeing a lot of the Government propaganda spouted here. As P.W. has remarked, M.J. is no more of a gateway drug than Cigarettes or alcolhol. Contrary to the nonsense the Government is teaching.

So all pietists are liberals now? I thought liberals were all about freedom and living how YOU want to live? That's what they all say. Plus in my experience it's liberals who are the ones really pushing for the legalization of Marijuana. You always see at least one at any rally with a big sign saying "Legalize pot now" while wearing their tye-dye shirt with a huge peace symbol on it.

Once again, I don't recall saying any such thing. Yes, most of the Liberals are pushing for the legalization of M.J. Others are pushing for the restriction of alcolhol, tobacco, saturated fats, sugar, etc... The latter group are the type that feel we should not have the right to eat, smoke, or live as we please. There are conservative Pietists of this type and they're not always tied to any particular religion.

Mere opinion. Quilty is the only one to produce any solid facts on this. Got any of your own you'd care to add to the discussion?

As if you've offered anything more substantial. It's common knowledge that the 'lacing' drugs I mentioned are not cheap. Hence, there's no need to verify anything.

Again, all we hear from you is that any objection to the use of Marijuana means someone is buying into what the government says simply cuz they dare disagree with you.

This might be your 'spin' on what I've said, however it isn't supported by anything I've said.

More opinion without proof. Do you know for a fact that the local drug dealer isn't charging more for a joint laced with LSD or PCP? My guess is no, you don't. The reason you would lace a joint with these drugs is that one, you could charge a higher price for a "better" product and then take the buyer to the next level of drug use by just selling them LSD or PCP.

This is not how you presented the argument in the first place. Hence this current argument is specious in the extreme. Nonetheless, this is done, however the product is therefore known to the buyer. This kind of 'lacing' can also be done with alcoholic drinks and cigarettes as well with or without the knowledge of the user, so again, what's your point?

Just saying it's ridiculous without proving it to be so with facts, is what's ridiculous here.

Yes, I must commend you for providing a great example of that.

How about you retire your practice of giving this forum lectures or rather your mere opinion on how great weed is without any facts backing it up?

Once again a usually specious and circular argument, as well as a personal attack. True to your usual practice. I believe this is the first time, in four years of logging into this forum, of my even discussing this subject in detail.

What of it? Are you serious with this? If it alters the chemistry of the body of one of your brothers or sisters in Christ, thus possibly compromising their health, this should be of great concern to you. It's sad it isn't.

TCP does not alter the body chemistry apreciatively. It affects the nervous system, certainly.
You seem to have this fixation on body chemistry. Even a spoonful of sugar would alter the body's chemistry. Every time you eat you alter the body's chemistry. Thus, M.J. is no more harmful than any other legal compound available on the market.

The point on that is that there are drugs that are FDA approved that are designed to alter a person's chemistry to take them from a non-functioning state, into a functioning state. People who suffer from depression, are often immobilized and house bound. Anti-Depressants that are FDA approved for the treatment of this condition, can get people up and moving and functioning again. That is the point on that.

Yes, and many of these FDA approved drugs are very harmful to the body's systems and functions. Prolonged use of anti-depressants can cause harm to the liver, and heart, for example. Same with FDA approved pain relievers. Tylenol for instance, available over the counter, is suspected of causing harm to the liver. This is one reason many doctors are perscribing M.J. as an alternative. Comparitively speaking, it's much easier on the body.

This is not true and I know from personal experience. The second hand smoke from Marijuana triggers my anxiety disorder and can cause me to have a panic attack, where as a beer from a pitcher or bottle, or a glass of wine or a shot of liquor, will have the opposite effect. I've been to enough rock and heavy metal concerts to know this. Also, what's it to you if I or anybody else objects to using Marijuana? You don't like people objecting to the use of illegal drugs, then you don't need to read a thread where it's occurring, do you?

Ah... now I understand you a bit better. Yes, I would see how you would feel this way. I am very seriously affected by Cigarette smoke. It causes an extreme allergic reaction to me. Yet, even with the rife rudeness of many smokers, I wouldn't ascribe to denying them the right to their habit. I don't go to concerts for a similar reason to yours. M.J. smoke makes me very ill, having many of the same properties as cigarette smoke with the added irritation of TCP (which induces vomiting with me). Thus, I can sympathise. However, I still wouldn't deprive someone else of their rights because I have a problem. Besides, the new law would have disallowed the use of M.J. in such a public gathering. So, once again, your argument is invalid.

Proof please.

And your proof for this is where?

You are very good at demanding that others provide proof for you. Why don't you provide something of substance to reproof my claims? Please do, I have yet to hear or see anything of substance (on the subject of M.J.) from the government yet, let alone you.

One thing you forget, my friend, I live in Lewiston, CA. Trinity County, Humboldt County, and I forget the third are referred to as the 'Emerald Triangle.' This area produces the majority of the M.J. sold in the country. Also, the Tobacco companies are buying large tracts of farm land in the area. What do you think they're going to do with the land? Build condos, perhaps?

Explain how taxing a product drives the price down. Any time I've seen something taxed, the price goes up.

Why should I provide proof for a claim I've never made? I never said the retail price would go up or down. My position on this is that once the product is legal, the wholesale price paid to the growers and shippers, would drop dramatically. This would be precipitated by considerably less risk involved in the production of the product, it's subsequent distribution, and marketing. Since the Feds are against the use of M.J. the cheaper labour markets of Mexico and South America won't be able to adequately compete. Hence, the growers of California worked hard to see the initiative defeated. If you have read any of the news accounts on the California Initiative that prompted this thread, you would have heard the same from the media.

Peace Zec. You have a right to believe and feel the way you do. Conversely, I also have the right to disagree with you. I do not find that the facts support the government's position of Marijuana being more dangerous than alcoholic beverages, tobacco, or even (Dolly Madison's) HoHo's.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

someone may have linked this already, but this site has a great myth/fact section about marijuana.

and HERE's a link to just one of the studies that concluded marijuana is not a gateway drug.

Correlation does not always equal causation.

 

[Zecryphon]

The question wasn't weather the product is legal or not. The question is weather or not we, as people of God would be allowed to use the product. Yes, the law disallows the use of M.J. So, what's your point?

With your final sentence, you have stated part of my point and that point is since it is illegal, we as the people of God are not to be using it.

I believe the OP's intent was to inquire if it was legal, could or should we use it. If it is illegal, of course we shouldn't use it. If M.J. is legal, we have the option to enjoy it, like everything else.

But since it's not legal, this is a moot point.

So anyone who speaks out against Marijuana use is "wearing the Government's blinders"?

I don't recall saying any such thing.

I asked you the above question in response to this statement you made:

Thus, one should practice care and discernment in all things without wearing the Government's blinders.

However, we are seeing a lot of the Government propaganda spouted here. As P.W. has remarked, M.J. is no more of a gateway drug than Cigarettes or alcolhol. Contrary to the nonsense the Government is teaching.

Since when is P.W. or anybody else on this forum or more to the point involved in this discussion an authority on what constitutes a gateway drug? It's widely known that people who start using marijuana often move on to other drugs because Marijuana no longer gives them the high it used to and since the high is what they're after, they'll move on to other drugs that deliver that.

Here's an article on Drew Barrymore that seems to disprove the statement offered by both you and P.W.

Childhood Drug Addiction Drew Barrymore | The Rehab Blog

According to this blog, Drew was drinking and smoking at 9. When she was 10, smoking and drinking apparently didn't do it for her anymore and she moved on to Marijuana. At age 12, she was using Cocaine. People who want to get high will use whatever substance they can that delivers that. Looking at Drew's progression I think a fair case can be made that tobacco and alcohol were gateway drugs to Marijuana, and when Marijuana didn't work for her anymore, Cocaine was her next drug of choice.

So all pietists are liberals now? I thought liberals were all about freedom and living how YOU want to live? That's what they all say. Plus in my experience it's liberals who are the ones really pushing for the legalization of Marijuana. You always see at least one at any rally with a big sign saying "Legalize pot now" while wearing their tye-dye shirt with a huge peace symbol on it.

Once again, I don't recall saying any such thing.

Once again, you didn't. I asked you that question because of this statement:

I am quite aware that the pietists have been unable to make tobacco illegal. Hence, they are going through the back door. The inconsiderate behaviour of the smokers themselves has made this considerably easier too. All the same, these liberal pietists have gone much too far when they are telling me what I may or may not do in my own home, car, or property. Our civil rights are being eroded by these people to a remarkable degree without the public even objecting.

Yes, most of the Liberals are pushing for the legalization of M.J. Others are pushing for the restriction of alcolhol, tobacco, saturated fats, sugar, etc... The latter group are the type that feel we should not have the right to eat, smoke, or live as we please. There are conservative Pietists of this type and they're not always tied to any particular religion.

It's a bit of a generalization to say that most liberals are pushing for Marijuana to become legal. Because if that were the case, wouldn't Proposition 19 have passed in this most recent mid-term election? When California voters say "no" to legalizing Marijuana for recreational use, maybe the liberals aren't as for it as we thinkthey are.

As to the percieved 'dangers' of Marijuana; Please!

Mary Jane is no more dangerous than alcolhol. Obnoxious as Cigarettes, to be sure, but not a serious health or safety threat.

Mere opinion. Quilty is the only one to produce any solid facts on this. Got any of your own you'd care to add to the discussion?[/quote]

As if you've offered anything more substantial. It's common knowledge that the 'lacing' drugs I mentioned are not cheap. Hence, there's no need to verify anything.

I have offered personal experiences from rock concerts and how Marijuana smoke affected my Anxiety and Panic disorders. So, let's see, Quilty's offered text-book information, I've offered personal experiences. What have you offered? If you don't want to or can't verify what you say, then perhaps you shouldn't be saying it and stick to facts and arguments relevant to this discussion that you can verify. Your posts lose credibility if the statements you make in them can not, or in your case will not be supported by you.

Also, many people 'roll their own' with tobacco as well. Not to mention the Pipe smokers who use loose tobacco customized to their use. There is no unbiased medical study, or any other kind for that matter, that produces any evidence that Marijuana smoking is any more injurious than tobacco. I don't need to hear the parroting of government propaganda, thank you.
​

Again, all we hear from you is that any objection to the use of Marijuana means someone is buying into what the government says simply cuz they dare disagree with you.

This might be your 'spin' on what I've said, however it isn't supported by anything I've said.

Ah personal accusations of spinning what you write. Of course what I said can't be supported by what you've written, because you haven't bothered to support anything you write. You've spouted nothing but opinion on this matter. You haven't produced any facts or personal experiences.

Now, if you want to present a solid case for Marijuana not being harmful, stop lumping it in with Tobacco use and saying it's no more harmful than Tobacco which is currently legal. See, when Tobacco is used as intended, it will kill you. So when a person says Marijuana is as safe as Tobacco, they're actually hurting their case. Because anyone who uses tobacco knows it harms them and if used long enough will kill them through a heart attack or Cancer or Emphysema or other diseases that will greatly shorten a person's lifespan.

Thus, the argument of 'laced' Marijuana being sold on the market is silly, to say the least. LSD, PCP, et all, are very expensive. Why throw good money after bad in sneaking it into someone's purchase, when they don't want it, at no extra cost?
​

More opinion without proof. Do you know for a fact that the local drug dealer isn't charging more for a joint laced with LSD or PCP? My guess is no, you don't. The reason you would lace a joint with these drugs is that one, you could charge a higher price for a "better" product and then take the buyer to the next level of drug use by just selling them LSD or PCP.

This is not how you presented the argument in the first place. Hence this current argument is specious in the extreme. Nonetheless, this is done, however the product is therefore known to the buyer. This kind of 'lacing' can also be done with alcoholic drinks and cigarettes as well with or without the knowledge of the user, so again, what's your point?

The point is that a joint can be laced with these other drugs to move the buyer from a cheap bag of weed on to other higher priced drugs, which in the end, means more money for the dealer and the dealer's supplier. In any type of business you've gotta spend money to make money. So if the dealer laces the joints he sells to a particular customer that he wants to move up the drug use ladder, it would make sense for him to doctor the joints he sells to this particular customer.

Plus, the person who is a drug addict, is usually not going to stick with one drug for their entire career. The high they get from Marijuana will eventually go away, as their body becomes used to it. So to get that high they're chasing they'll need something stronger and move on from Marijuana to something else. I did not mean for my post to say that drug dealers will lace every joint they sell with some other drug, because then yes, that would be stupid. They'd end up losing profits.

How about you retire your practice of giving this forum lectures or rather your mere opinion on how great weed is without any facts backing it up?

Once again a usually specious and circular argument, as well as a personal attack. True to your usual practice. I believe this is the first time, in four years of logging into this forum, of my even discussing this subject in detail.

Please show how it's circular and show me where the personal attack is. Once you do both, I will then direct you to the Member Services Center, where you can file a complaint against me or you can just report me.

TCP does not alter the body chemistry apreciatively. It affects the nervous system, certainly.
You seem to have this fixation on body chemistry. Even a spoonful of sugar would alter the body's chemistry. Every time you eat you alter the body's chemistry. Thus, M.J. is no more harmful than any other legal compound available on the market.

I made a comment in a past post about certain drugs like anti-depressants altering the body's chemistry and I suddenly have a fixation on body chemistry? How does that work? But getting back to the topic at hand, and not me personally, if what you say above about Marijuana is indeed true, why isn't it legal?

Yes, and many of these FDA approved drugs are very harmful to the body's systems and functions. Prolonged use of anti-depressants can cause harm to the liver, and heart, for example. Same with FDA approved pain relievers. Tylenol for instance, available over the counter, is suspected of causing harm to the liver. This is one reason many doctors are perscribing M.J. as an alternative. Comparitively speaking, it's much easier on the body.

This is true, which is why people should not take drugs like that for years on end, but deal with the root issues behind the depression by seeing either a Psychologist or a Psychiatrist and working through these issues in therapy. If they do need a drug to help control their depression, then the duration of it's use should be very closely monitored. In my case, anti-depressants don't affect me for some weird reason. Plus I'm not depressed every single day of my life like some others who are on these drugs are. I have days that are bad, but not enough to warrant going on any of these drugs ever again.

Ah... now I understand you a bit better. Yes, I would see how you would feel this way. I am very seriously affected by Cigarette smoke. It causes an extreme allergic reaction to me. Yet, even with the rife rudeness of many smokers, I wouldn't ascribe to denying them the right to their habit. I don't go to concerts for a similar reason to yours. M.J. smoke makes me very ill, having many of the same properties as cigarette smoke with the added irritation of TCP (which induces vomiting with me). Thus, I can sympathise. However, I still wouldn't deprive someone else of their rights because I have a problem. Besides, the new law would have disallowed the use of M.J. in such a public gathering. So, once again, your argument is invalid.

It's not invalid. I'm not for denying a smoker their right to smoke in a designated smoking area. Since I know how cigarette smoke and pot smoke affect me, I avoid those areas, to the best of my ability. But why should I have to miss concerts by my favorite groups because people want to smoke pot illegally at these gatherings? The pot smoker has no right to smoke pot in this country. So why do their criminal activities trump my wanting to go to what should be a Marijuana free event? If people wanna smoke tobacco during concerts, that I'm fine with. If my anxiety acts up, I'll just go to a smoke free area for a while or if that's not possible due to where I'm standing, then I battle the anxiety with deep breathing exercises and positive self-talk. I have ways to deal with a tobacco smoker. I shouldn't have to deal with a pot smoker because they can't even follow the law of the land.

You are very good at demanding that others provide proof for you. Why don't you provide something of substance to reproof my claims? Please do, I have yet to hear or see anything of substance (on the subject of M.J.) from the government yet, let alone you.

You'll find some evidence in this post and in my previous post I provided personal experience. You haven't provided either in any post you've made in this thread. If you're not willing to support what you say with evidence, there's absolutely no point in responding to your posts. If you don't consider your points worthy of support by you, that really says it all.

One thing you forget, my friend, I live in Lewiston, CA. Trinity County, Humboldt County, and I forget the third are referred to as the 'Emerald Triangle.' This area produces the majority of the M.J. sold in the country. Also, the Tobacco companies are buying large tracts of farm land in the area. What do you think they're going to do with the land? Build condos, perhaps?[/quote

]

I never knew where you lived, so it's not possible for me to forget something I never knew. I don't know why they're buying tracts of farm land in that area. Since Proposition 19 did not pass in the last election, they're certainly not going to be growing Marijuana on those tracts of land. Maybe they want more land to produce Tobacco. I don't work for the Tobacco companies so I have no idea what their intentions are.

Why should I provide proof for a claim I've never made? I never said the retail price would go up or down.

You never said it? Then what's this statement here from post # 22, that I've highlighted in red?

Once the government gets involved and starts taxing the herb, there will be a considerable change in the character of the market. It will likely drive the price down, considerably, for the raw product as well. Since one will have to carry the stamp involved with one's M.J. then the illegal stuff, with it's attendant danger of incarceration, will become undesirable. Thus, Marijuana will become vastly different on the open market than it now is on the Blackmarket.

My position on this is that once the product is legal, the wholesale price paid to the growers and shippers, would drop dramatically. This would be precipitated by considerably less risk involved in the production of the product, it's subsequent distribution, and marketing. Since the Feds are against the use of M.J. the cheaper labour markets of Mexico and South America won't be able to adequately compete. Hence, the growers of California worked hard to see the initiative defeated. If you have read any of the news accounts on the California Initiative that prompted this thread, you would have heard the same from the media.

Peace Zec. You have a right to believe and feel the way you do. Conversely, I also have the right to disagree with you. I do not find that the facts support the government's position of Marijuana being more dangerous than alcoholic beverages, tobacco, or even (Dolly Madison's) HoHo's.

Yeah I don't follow news on Marijuana becoming legal, because it doesn't directly affect me in my day-to-day life. And don't wish me "peace" in parting when your posts towards me are anything but peaceful.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Thanks for those links PW, they look like they will be useful in my research for my paper.

Marijuana has a wide variety of CNS effects (ah, Central Nervous System). What are some of these effects? anxiety, concentration difficulty, confusion, dizziness, drowsiness, mood change, abnormal thinking, depression, disorientation, hallucinations, headache, impaired judgment, memory lapse, paranoia.

Alcohol has all those too. Maybe not hallucinations, but, other medications have that as a side effect.

I got this out of the drug reference guide I have for school.

As far as a gateway drug, people like Drew Barrymore will have become addictive to anything. I mean, she was how old when she started drinking and using drugs? There are people who are going to go on and use other drugs. Yet, there are many who don't. Using the example given, one would have to say that alcohol was the gateway drug. How many people who drink alcoholic beverages go on to become drug users/abusers?

 

[Zecryphon]

Thanks for those links PW, they look like they will be useful in my research for my paper.

Marijuana has a wide variety of CNS effects (ah, Central Nervous System). What are some of these effects? anxiety, concentration difficulty, confusion, dizziness, drowsiness, mood change, abnormal thinking, depression, disorientation, hallucinations, headache, impaired judgment, memory lapse, paranoia.

Alcohol has all those too. Maybe not hallucinations, but, other medications have that as a side effect.

I got this out of the drug reference guide I have for school.

As far as a gateway drug, people like Drew Barrymore will have become addictive to anything. I mean, she was how old when she started drinking and using drugs? There are people who are going to go on and use other drugs. Yet, there are many who don't. Using the example given, one would have to say that alcohol was the gateway drug. How many people who drink alcoholic beverages go on to become drug users/abusers?

I have heard that if you drink enough alcohol, that you can hallucinate. It doesn't happen to everybody, but the interesting thing about alcohol and hallucinations is that most hallucinations happen when alcoholics stop drinking.

I used Drew Barrymore because to use someone like Ozzy Osbourne is so cliche. I also chose her because in that blog article I posted a link to, it shows that she started drinking at age 9, smoking Marijuana at 10 and using Cocaine at 12. So an argument could be made that alcohol was a gateway drug to Marijuana and that Marijuana was a gateway drug to Cocaine in order to counter the argument that says Marijuana is not a gateway drug. Drew always had a higher chance of being a drug addict because of the addictions of her past family members.

Two of Ozzy's kids, Jack and Kelly, went on to have issues with drug addiction as well. Jack was addicted to Oxycontin and I forget what Kelly's drug of choice was, but she too had drug problems. But nothing to compare to what Ozzy did to himself. An interesting side note, Ozzy is now being studied by the scientific community to find out why he is still alive after all the drug abuse he subjected himself to over the last 30-40 years. Doctors have told him that he absolutely should not be alive right now.

 

[Till]

I believe the OP's intent was to inquire if it was legal, could or should we use it.

But since it's not legal, this is a moot point.

Hmm, actually it is not a moot point for me. I can hop onto a boat to Amsterdam tommorow and visit a there perfectly legal coffee shop.

I am not intending to but I am still not convinced I definitely should not. Many made good, valid arguments against using drugs but all these arguments could be made just as well and indeed are made against using alcohol and nicotine. Why is use of Marijuana per definitionem abuse and therefore sinful whilst non-abusive use of alcohol is not?

 

[QuiltAngel]

Hmm, actually it is not a moot point for me. I can hop onto a boat to Amsterdam tommorow and visit a there perfectly legal coffee shop.

I am not intending to but I am still not convinced I definitely should not. Many made good, valid arguments against using drugs but all these arguments could be made just as well and indeed are made against using alcohol and nicotine. Why is use of Marijuana per definitionem abuse and therefore sinful whilst non-abusive use of alcohol is not?

I think it comes to whether it is legal or not. Do those in Amsterdam consider using it sinful? I am going to guess they don't.

 

[Zecryphon]

Hmm, actually it is not a moot point for me. I can hop onto a boat to Amsterdam tommorow and visit a there perfectly legal coffee shop.

I am not intending to but I am still not convinced I definitely should not. Many made good, valid arguments against using drugs but all these arguments could be made just as well and indeed are made against using alcohol and nicotine. Why is use of Marijuana per definitionem abuse and therefore sinful whilst non-abusive use of alcohol is not?

I have never said that using Marijuana automatically equates to abusing the drug. At what point abuse of any drug occurs depends on the person. For some people a two or three alcoholic beverages may make them drunk while for others the number is higher. But abuse of a drug really happens when a person has a drug that they're supposed to use to treat an ailment and instead use it for pleasure or for recreation. Like if you're prescribed Marijuana for M.S. and you use it to get high, then that's abuse.

 

[QuiltAngel]

But abuse of a drug really happens when a person has a drug that they're supposed to use to treat an ailment and instead use it for pleasure or for recreation.

Okay, now you have me confused. So if one uses drugs that are illegal, such as MJ, cocaine and heroin, among others, it is not drug abuse?

 

[Zecryphon]

Well Marijuana has medicinal uses. So any use of that drug other than what it is prescribed for would be abuse of that drug. I'm not aware of any medicinal uses for either Cocaine or Heroin, so any use of those drugs is automatically abuse because there is no medical reason to use it. People use those drugs solely for the purpose of getting high. It's no different than the person who drinks in excess for the sole purpose of getting drunk.

 

[Studeclunker]

Okay, now you have me confused. So if one uses drugs that are illegal, such as MJ, cocaine and heroin, among others, it is not drug abuse?

Yes, quite. I believe that has been his thesis all along. One that I largely agree with. My difference of opinion has to do with the severity of the influence of M.J. and the government's heavy-handed approach that has obviously failed. ...Not to mention of course, their slanted and exagerated claims as to the detrimental effects of M.J.

Well Marijuana has medicinal uses. So any use of that drug other than what it is prescribed for would be abuse of that drug. I'm not aware of any medicinal uses for either Cocaine or Heroin, so any use of those drugs is automatically abuse because there is no medical reason to use it. People use those drugs solely for the purpose of getting high. It's no different than the person who drinks in excess for the sole purpose of getting drunk.

I quite agree with the above statement. I would add to the mentioned abuse of Alcohol, chain smoking, gluttony, etc...

Heroin is a somewhat less refined version of Morphine and Codene. They are all based on Opium, sap of the Poppy seedpod. Hence why Morphine and Heroin are both listed as, 'Opiates.' Your proof is here:

Opiates--Heroin Morphine and Codeine

Cocaine, is a slightly different story. It was largely used originally as a topical or local sedative, a genuine medical usage. Cocaine was also used for patent medicines, a spurious medical use. Coca Cola used it in their formula for many years (common knowledge, I think). However, the addictive qualities of it put the drug in disfavour. Also, it was no longer necessary for such a strong drug with the advent of such drugs as Novacaine, and Benzocane (which came later), that didn't display such addictive qualities. Due to the obvious addictive charateristics, the government restricted Cocaine's access to perscription only in 1914. Documentation:

History Of Cocaine, Medical Use

Also Zec, I have known six 'Drug Dealers' in my lifetime. Through them I've known of over a dozen suppliers. It comes from the area of Orange County I spent my teenage years and twenties in. Poverty has one rubbing shoulders with strange bedfellows sometimes. Most of these people dealt solely in M.J. Two of these 'Drug Dealers' are now legal suppliers of 'Medical Marijuana.' Three ended up in prison, so I've been told. The influence of these people, and their customers, solidified in my mind to stay away from these 'highs,' as the price was far higher than the monetary expense. Many of my classmates and my eldest brother weren't so lucky. So, yes... I've had a bit of exposure to the seedier side of Southern California and direct exposure to the 'Drug Culture.'

Lastly, when I went to school for my Data Processing degree, it was at a Medical College. They were trying to produce personel to serve as front office workers and as Hospital Information Services. We were required to learn Latin, Medical Terminology, and Drug (Pharmaceutical) Classifications. I served in this aspect of the medical services field for nine years. So, I've had just a touch of real-life experiance in this area to base my opinions on. I didn't mention all of this earlier in the interest of berevity and the risk of perhaps being accused of bragging.

Hopefully, this wasn't too boring of a lecture.

 

[porterross]

Hmm, actually it is not a moot point for me. I can hop onto a boat to Amsterdam tommorow and visit a there perfectly legal coffee shop.

I am not intending to but I am still not convinced I definitely should not. Many made good, valid arguments against using drugs but all these arguments could be made just as well and indeed are made against using alcohol and nicotine. Why is use of Marijuana per definitionem abuse and therefore sinful whilst non-abusive use of alcohol is not?

Again, I believe overindulging in anything that affects us physically and functionally in a negative manner is surely not pleasing to God. Alcohol and nicotine can be pretty damaging and many of us would benefit from not having access to them, but many people abuse food,too. Should the government control what and when we eat?

Some people are determined to soothe themselves in self-destructive ways. If they do it legally, does that make it OK?

My biggest issue with places like Amsterdam that place few restrictions on drug use are the other aspects that go along with it. Queue pornography, prostitution and all manner of deviant behavior. You know as well as I do, Till, that the sex industry is just as big a draw in Amsterdam as the unrestricted highs and that it's not harmless.

Of course, I believe that the open, government run sex industry in parts of Europe has degraded a great many aspects of society, but that's another discussion. The point is, can we be trusted to know when to stop and how much escapism is enough once we're on that path?

Human nature leads us astray and away from God and those indulgences that lead us down that path should be avoided. Temptation is one of the devil's greatest tools, right? Why make it so easy for him?

 

[Studeclunker]

Just so, well said Porter. However, the 'Moral Majority' in the U.S. (even if these people aren't a real majority) and the liberals have decided to encode morality into legal code. It's a delicate balance between protecting the public from dangerous practices and becoming a totalitarian monster. The government is not the panacea to society's ills.