Would you date...

[Touma]

Zilam, this verse may interest you. It tells of an angel rescuing Peter from imprisonment by Herod. Would you say what the angel did was wrong? Of course not

Acts 12:11 >>

New International Version (©1984)
Then Peter came to himself and said, "Now I know without a doubt that the Lord sent his angel and rescued me from Herod's clutches and from everything the Jewish people were anticipating."

No, because it was a direct command from the angel of the Lord. There was another instance where there was an earth quake which opened the jail cells and Paul and Silas could have fled, but they were not commanded to do so by the Lord, so they remained. There is a clear difference. =)

 

[MacFall]

Not a chance. That person needs the Lord before you even contemplate dating them if they use drugs. It's just asking for trouble.

So you would not date anyone who uses caffeine, nicotine, or alcohol without making sure they get "fixed" first? Or is it only the fact of a substance's illegality which matters?

 

[Reneemo4]

Nope. Never again. I did it twice. Actually the father of my kids is still a pot user to this day, and all it's done to him is make him over 40, no job, father to 7 (yes I said SEVEN, lol) kids that he does NOT support. He has gotten to the point where he cannot function even one day in a normal state without it. He claims that he has this explosive anger/reactive anger disability (and yes, our government pays him a disability) that he cannot control without using pot. Unreal eh? All because he has no inclination to actually work on himself and deal with his life.

My other relationship was the same way. Both of these guys need weed to try and forget about how crappy their lives are (self-inflicted mind you) and neither wants to get their heads out of their rears and get back to having a great life, or know the Lord.

My opinion is this - if someone becomes dependent on an illegal substance and uses it to cope with their lives, thereby not growing or moving in a positive manner to better their lives - it's wrong. That's why people abuse. I would say most of them have some kind of self-loathing problem, or self-worth issues, and they would just rather get high then work on themselves. And IMO, even recreational use is asking for trouble.

Edited to add - some of you may view marijuana as a recreational, harmless drug, but let me tell you - IT IS NOT. It is addictive, and not physically, but emotionally, psychologically. It may not physically put you through h-e-double hockey sticks to get off of, but it can direct your life no differently than any other.

 

[Niels]

Social drinking is fine, but I'd rather not deal with cigarette smoke.

 

[MacFall]

@Renee: Marijuana is addictive in the same way that tasty food is addictive.

 

[Blank123]

Mac, do you smoke weed?

 

[MacFall]

Mac, do you smoke weed?

Nope. I've never gotten high and have no interest in doing so. But I do know a lot of people who do - including some close friends. I've known people who use weed and are total self-destructive losers, and I also know some who are among the most successful people I know, in their professional, academic, social, and personal lives. Like I said before, I'm not promoting drug use. I'm only promoting factual and fair examination of the issue. Most anti-drug sentiment runs on pure propaganda with very little factual basis. What little fact there is is sufficient to proscribe the use of some drugs - but not all.

The only reason weed was ever prohibited in the first place was because William Hearst wanted to kill the hemp paper industry, which was undercutting the price of his newspapers, and DuPont wanted to kill the burgeoning hemp plastic industry which was the only threat to the material known as "nylon" which they had just developed. They found an ally in J. Edgar Hoover, who wanted a reason to throw lots and lots of black people and Hispanics in jail.

The propaganda created from that agenda persists to this day, mainly because marijuana prohibition is more profitable to the government (and the pharmaceutical industry) as the plant itself is to growers and sellers. There's got to be a reason why big pharma funds DARE programs and contributes to anti-cannabis politicians. Same reason, I think, why bootleggers and the mob lobbied for Prohibition to continue after it had begun.

 

[Gym]

Nope. I've never gotten high and have no interest in doing so. But I do know a lot of people who do - including some close friends. I've known people who use weed and are total self-destructive losers, and I also know some who are among the most successful people I know, in their professional, academic, social, and personal lives. Like I said before, I'm not promoting drug use. I'm only promoting factual and fair examination of the issue. Most anti-drug sentiment runs on pure propaganda with very little factual basis. What little fact there is is sufficient to proscribe the use of some drugs - but not all.

The only reason weed was ever prohibited in the first place was because William Hearst wanted to kill the hemp paper industry, which was undercutting the price of his newspapers, and DuPont wanted to kill the burgeoning hemp plastic industry which was the only threat to the material known as "nylon" which they had just developed. They found an ally in J. Edgar Hoover, who wanted a reason to throw lots and lots of black people and Hispanics in jail.

The propaganda created from that agenda persists to this day, mainly because marijuana prohibition is more profitable to the government (and the pharmaceutical industry) as the plant itself is to growers and sellers. There's got to be a reason why big pharma funds DARE programs and contributes to anti-cannabis politicians. Same reason, I think, why bootleggers and the mob lobbied for Prohibition to continue after it had begun.

I think you've spent a little too much time talking to conspiracy theorists

 

[Oddish]

I myself, do not know. I always had a strong stance against drugs, even pot and nicotine. However, now I realise that we all have our vices, even fast food and sugar can be a drug. Anything in excess is bad for you and it is all about moderation so I suppose if someone smokes pot once in a blue moon that I could tolerate it although it is not ideal. I would not date someone who uses hard drugs.

 

[Stravinsk]

As an ex-doper I think I can weigh in a little on weed use.

It's not physically addictive. I went through no withdrawls stopping it. It *can* be psychologically addictive - just like favourite "naughty" foods can be addictive. It *can* have serious life consequences - just like eating a lot of sugar and animal fat and fried foods can have life consequences.

It's a psychoactive drug. But so is caffeine. And nicotine. And, of course, alcohol. Refined sugar, believe it or not - is a drug - it's robs the body and is addictive too. Anyway - all these things can, if abused - have serious life consequences.

People who smoke pot/eat it regularly are going to be a bit slower and have less motivation overall. After smoking it a few years, I was easily able to quit it because 1) I hated feeling burned out all the time and 2) I was, at the time, still using other drugs (amphetimines, mostly).

My addiction, at the time - was to escape my life - after so many years even the drugs stopped working to this end and I had to face the consequences of my refusal to deal with my choices. Using drugs to escape are dangerous(some much more than others) - for sure. But so are other things people use to escape - such as treating food as a drug - and over-consuming the unhealthy kinds.

Outside of personal use, which people can argue about till times end - Hemp has ALOT of other uses that would greatly benefit alot of mankind.

 

[K9_Trainer]

I think you've spent a little too much time talking to conspiracy theorists

I doubt that.

I just saw an article in my local newspaper that said the Feds rejected legalizing marijuana (even for medical use) because apparently they "find no medical benefits" and "the potential for abuse is too high" and "There are no proposed guidelines for taking it for medicinal purposes".

There is clearly political motivation for the Fed to want to keep weed use criminalized because those reasons are based in nothing but the same crap propaganda they've been using for years, with absolutely no logic or scientific studies for support.

 

[MacFall]

I think you've spent a little too much time talking to conspiracy theorists

And I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I can't stand conspiracy theories. I do not accept any version of history without proof - not just speculation. The proof is there for anyone else who cares to look into the matter themselves rather than just imbibing whatever their government school teachers say without question - original source documents, correspondences between the parties involved, newspaper articles quoting politicians... it's hardly a secret.

A couple decades ago, the idea that the Federal Reserve was a cartel of private banks was a "conspiracy theory". The Creature from Jekyll Island was regarded as pure fiction. Now, nobody - not even Federal Reserve governors - denies it. If I were you, I would be less inclined to believe whatever your government teachers who teach out of government-approved textbooks written by government-worshiping intellectuals have to say about the government.

It might be of particular interest to you to take a look at http://leap.cc - the website of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. If historical/empirical evidence is what you need, those guys have done their homework along those lines.

 

[Blueforest]

I myself, do not know. I always had a strong stance against drugs, even pot and nicotine. However, now I realise that we all have our vices, even fast food and sugar can be a drug. Anything in excess is bad for you and it is all about moderation so I suppose if someone smokes pot once in a blue moon that I could tolerate it although it is not ideal. I would not date someone who uses hard drugs.

I'm all for people taking good care of themselves, but sugar and food are not drugs. Anything can become an addiction, which I suppose, could be your point.

Moderation is key, when it comes to drinking, but for me, no drugs. If someone likes the wacky tobacci that is their business. Just not someone I'd ever consider getting involved it. I don't need that stuff, so why would I want someone else who does, right?

 

[Gwendolyn]

blind post: no, I wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't date a smoker or a regular drinker.

 

[white dove]

...someone who uses recreational drugs on an irregular basis and only at social parties?

I'm in my 30's, so my age has a lot to do with my response. No, I would not. Although I am behind the legalization of marijuana, I don't think at this age.. to be using it recreationally sounds very mature. It's just not. All other recreational drugs, hell no. Same for over-consumption of alcohol. I do also have my son to think about, as well. I intend to keep a "dry house," which includes banning any cigarette or marijuana/various other rec. drug usage at my house. That's not a lifestyle I want anything to do with anymore.

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm all for people taking good care of themselves, but sugar and food are not drugs. Anything can become an addiction, which I suppose, could be your point.

Moderation is key, when it comes to drinking, but for me, no drugs. If someone likes the wacky tobacci that is their business. Just not someone I'd ever consider getting involved it. I don't need that stuff, so why would I want someone else who does, right?

What, in your opinion, makes marijuana *not* a food?

Hemp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is coffee a food? It has a psycho-active effect.

Is refined sugar a food? It provides nothing but calories and robs your body of B vitamins and minerals.

How about artficial flavors and sweetners? Are they foods?

Deep fried things provide no EFA benefit and the damaged oils must be eliminated by the body. They can also, over time, cause neurological problems if consumed in excess. How can they be classified as food?

I don't personally use marijuana - but from purely a nutritional standpoint - they are much more of a food than what is commonly thought of as "food".

 

[Blueforest]

What, in your opinion, makes marijuana *not* a food?

Hemp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is coffee a food? It has a psycho-active effect.

Is refined sugar a food? It provides nothing but calories and robs your body of B vitamins and minerals.

How about artficial flavors and sweetners? Are they foods?

Deep fried things provide no EFA benefit and the damaged oils must be eliminated by the body. They can also, over time, cause neurological problems if consumed in excess. How can they be classified as food?

I don't personally use marijuana - but from purely a nutritional standpoint - they are much more of a food than what is commonly thought of as "food".

Well, your FDA (assuming you're american) says those things are not drugs, so I'ma hafta go with what they say on that over anything else.

 

[MacFall]

Because the government never lies or gets anything wrong, right?

The FDA exists to protect big pharmaceutical and agricultural business interests against smaller competition. And FDA-approved drugs have killed FAR more people than illegal ones. They've been telling lies about marijuana and other drugs for decades - lies that medical and other scientific studies unaffiliated with them or big pharma uniformly disprove.

 

[Blueforest]

Because the government never lies or gets anything wrong, right?

The FDA exists to protect big pharmaceutical and agricultural business interests against smaller competition. And FDA-approved drugs have killed FAR more people than illegal ones. They've been telling lies about marijuana and other drugs for decades - lies that medical and other scientific studies unaffiliated with them or big pharma uniformly disprove.

I agree with your resentment against big pharma. I'm not an advocate of ANY type of drugs, for the most part. The only thing worse than illegal drugs are the "legal" kind.

Of course, I couldn't care less what happens in the U.S. of A. since I don't live there and never will.

 

[Im_A]

...someone who uses recreational drugs on an irregular basis and only at social parties?

By the way, no I do not take drugs before anyone thinks that lol.

No. From my own experience, women who use drugs in a recreational manner(with the exception of caffeine and controlled alcohol intake and acetaminophens being used for the purposes they are typically used for, same as cough medication and nicotine) are just too much for me to handle...iow, part of Im_A's definition of whack jobs. I don't have a high tolerance with things like this.