Marijuana: Another Senseless Overdose

[orange]

Originally posted by loinburger
People usually don't chain-smoke half a pack of blunts every day.

Damn, you beat me to it

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Willem


Nothing is totally harmless. Even the air we breath has pollution in it that can affect our health. But of the known mind/mood altering substances, marijuana is about the least harmful.

Since we're on the physical note (considering cancers, bodily function etc), let me point out that:

-LSD is less harmful than marijuana
-Psiclocybin mushrooms are less harmful
-Even HEROIN used in responsible doses is less harmful

Of course in practise, the consistent use of these drugs lend more problems than one another in infinitely subjective areas. LSD can and will often screw with your head if you have serious mental issues. Mushrooms run the same risk less occasionally, but there is always the issue of eating say - a nice amanita phalloides by accident and dying bleeding out of your ass over the next few days (rare, though). Heroin, of course - is a drug which is rarely used
occasionally, and is abused by the majority who start it. Yet premeasured and responsible use even on the same consistence and cycle as marijuana is less of a physical health hazard. I know that's a tough one to accept, but if you're shooting pure smack twice a day at a level to just get you considerably buzzed and happy, you're going to lead a way healthier life than any wake & bake pothead.

*Note - yep, pure smack is difficult to come by unless you're connected decently. Yet if government regulation of commericially legalized heroin/morphine etc were put through, that's pretty much what you'd get.

The simple phrase "of the known mind/mood altering substances, marijuana is about the least harmful" is one of the more ignorantly vague assumptions I've yet read for the argument. Again, since we've been centering around the bodily harm constant inhalation does on oneself, you might as well be arguing for the legalization of the drugs I've just listed (to be fair). Let it be known that I sure as hell don't think any of these substances should see the grocery shelves, despite my own occasional use - and I pride myself on that common sense.

Know what it is you're f*cking your perceptions with every waking hour, buddy. This plant isn't some wonderful, harmless personal aid without serious consequences for society.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

This begs the question, if Paul really approves of slavery why does he modify his expression to 'earthly masters?'

Whether or not he approves of slavery is another matter, condoning slavery discredits him.

Paul answers your very question in 1 Corinthians 17-23.

Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

The bold is why I reject Paul as a spokesman for Jesus. This notion that a slave is a slave because God assigned him that role is worthy of condemnation - that justifies slavery! Think about it, slavery was abolished in the USA mainly by Christians, but Paul would have told slaves to remain as slaves. If we are to practice the Golden Rule, how does that allow for enslaving others when we clearly would not want others to enslave us? I see a contradiction between Jesus and Paul there...

[Zylka]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I have only one comment. Someone who wishes to punish me for a voluntary act that is non-coercive and harmless to anyone except myself out of a sense of superiority, moralism, religion, or anything else can **** themselves.

That's wonderful. Although in reality I'm quite sure they'd rather f*ck you, by the hands of 250 lb prison inmates. What a rebel!

[Zylka]

...and the argument paralells with tobacco and alcohol are old, ineffictive, and needlessly trite. I agree that tobacco should become illegal (idealistically only), and often wonder if alcohol should at least be pushed back in accessibility. Both of these substances cause harm to society, in like & seperate areas, in more & less a degree. Then again, I have a problem with putting everything on the same scale so that the example of certain laws may push for one's own agenda.

"Carrying around a loaded handgun so I might possibly shoot some irritating f*ckhead in the face makes me feel good and secure! ...and anyway, what kills more people annually - loaded guns or car crashes? SHOULD WE THEN MAKE CARS ILLEGAL!?!?"

Whatever you say of the current drugs available today, legalizing everything that does harm in sight just because it's not quite as bad as (whatever else) and it makes you feel good isn't a step in the right direction.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berzerker:

Sloppy language. Paul does not condone slavery nor does he approve of slavery. To condone, is to allow for tacit approval.

I'll bring in a few more quotes to defend Paul.

This is from Philemon 1:10-17, a letter to a slave owner who owns an escaped slave Onesimus.

The key point is his advice to Philemon, to treat Onesimus as a brother in Christ, and that he exhorts Philemon, that if you consider me as a brother, you will release Onesimus. To keep him a slave is to reject me as a brother and to reject Christ. How is this condoning slavery?

Yes, Paul did not destroy the entire foundation of slavery, but this was not what he was called to do.

You also ignored the part where Paul says that if you can get free, to do so. Why say that if you are condoning the institution?

"
I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me. I am sending him--who is my very heart--back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good-- no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.

So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back--not to mention that you owe me your very self.
"

This notion that a slave is a slave because God assigned him that role is worthy of condemnation - that justifies slavery!

Then you also have to reject many instances of slavery within the OT as well. Why does God allow things that fall short of the moral law?

The answer lies here, in the words of Christ.

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Paul is destroying this entire notion of slavery- that one can be a slave to men who are no different then you. Paul argues consistently that all men are sinners, and thus equal in the eyes of God. They cannot be slaves to men because they already have a Master, who is the Master of all.

Paul wants to convert the slaveowners as well as the slaves, and can only do so if the slaves live exemplary lives. If one were to force the slaves to revolt, in order to join the church, you have just set the church up against the entire structure of Roman society.

Paul could not confront slavery head on, not without the complete destruction of the church. He was left to encourage slaves to leave their masters in whatever way he could.

[Berzerker]

Zylka -

...and the argument paralells with tobacco and alcohol are old, ineffictive, and needlessly trite.

In other words, that argument exposes hypocrisy and we shouldn't be concerned with consistency.

I agree that tobacco should become illegal (idealistically only)

Why isn't freedom an ideal?

Both of these substances cause harm to society

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

These substances don't harm "society", SOME people using these substances harm others.

Then again, I have a problem with putting everything on the same scale so that the example of certain laws may push for one's own agenda.

To "justify" a ban on pot, the banners try to claim pot is worse than alcohol and tobacco. By what criterion do they make such an absurd argument? Certainly not annual deaths.

and anyway, what kills more people annually - loaded guns or car crashes? SHOULD WE THEN MAKE CARS ILLEGAL!?!?"

That is a question for those who want to ban loaded guns, true?

Whatever you say of the current drugs available today, legalizing everything that does harm in sight just because it's not quite as bad as (whatever else) and it makes you feel good isn't a step in the right direction.

Hmm...feeling good is the wrong direction? Reminds me of the guys in Monty Python walking around smacking themselves in the head with wood planks.

[Zylka]

C'mon Berz... I don't argue by dusting off one liners on the issue for play. I'm sure you can do better

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Prozac?

OK, let me further clarify. Mind/mood altering recreational drugs. Prozac is used under doctor's orders for a specific purpose, it doesn't quite count. Although it would be interesting to compare the deterimental effects of Prosac with marijuana. I suspect my original statement would still hold true. I just don't have any info at the moment.

And I stand corrected. After a bit of research, I discovered that some marijuana users do indeed experience adverse withdrawal symptoms, though most people only experience very mild ones. And in typical bell curve fashion, there's people like me who experience none at all.

Overall however, marijuana is much less addictive than any of the other drugs currently in use, to the point that it's a minor issue.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Sloppy language. Paul does not condone slavery nor does he approve of slavery. To condone, is to allow for tacit approval.

Then what would you call it? I can condone the use of alcohol without approving of it.

The key point is his advice to Philemon, to treat Onesimus as a brother in Christ, and that he exhorts Philemon, that if you consider me as a brother, you will release Onesimus. To keep him a slave is to reject me as a brother and to reject Christ. How is this condoning slavery?

The passages conflict. Did Paul condemn slavery and call for abolishing it? No. Did he ask that a friend be freed? Apparently.

Yes, Paul did not destroy the entire foundation of slavery, but this was not what he was called to do.

It's not that he didn't destroy slavery, at best, he sent mixed signals about slavery. What exactly was he called to do if not lay (or relay) the foundations of a religion?

You also ignored the part where Paul says that if you can get free, to do so. Why say that if you are condoning the institution?

I didn't ignore it, his advice is irrelevant. How was a slave to "get free" while being a good slave and doing your master's bidding? By being freed by the master only.

I appeal to you for my son Onesimus... you do will be spontaneous and not forced.

Sounds like Paul was asking for the freedom of someone close to him. That doesn't explain away the general advice he had for slaves and their owners.

Then you also have to reject many instances of slavery within the OT as well.

I do.

Why does God allow things that fall short of the moral law?

Is God allowing this or commanding it? The God of the OT commanded many evil acts including genocide.

The answer lies here, in the words of Christ.

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

An explanation I never found satisfactory. He is basicly saying they were allowed to commit a wrong because they were bad people.

Paul is destroying this entire notion of slavery- that one can be a slave to men who are no different then you.

No, he said men should be slaves to Jesus instead of slaves to men, but for those who were slaves to men, they should be good slaves.

Paul wants to convert the slaveowners as well as the slaves, and can only do so if the slaves live exemplary lives. If one were to force the slaves to revolt, in order to join the church, you have just set the church up against the entire structure of Roman society.

Yes, pragmatism won out over morality. So just how long did it take for Christianity and Christians to abolish slavery within their domain because of this pragmatism? How long would it have taken if Paul came out and directly and unambiguously condemned slavery?

Paul could not confront slavery head on, not without the complete destruction of the church. He was left to encourage slaves to leave their masters in whatever way he could.

How could a slave leave their master and still be a good slave?

Obiwan, you can quote passages where Paul asked for a friend to be freed all you want, that cannot justify what he told slaves and slaveowners...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zylka

-LSD is less harmful than marijuana

Having once been an acid head, I can speak from personal experience that it can be harmful to a person's cognitive abilities. I would never consider dropping a hit daily, and yes I've done that before, although I have no qualms about smoking pot regularly. My mental functioning would turn to mush in no time with acid.

-Psiclocybin mushrooms are less harmful

Ditto. And I believe mushrooms contain small amounts of strychnine. They're certainly not very pleasant on the digestive system in large quantities.

-Even HEROIN used in responsible doses is less harmful

I don't even know why you would even include this one, it's one of the most addictive substances known to man, with very severe withdrawal symptoms.

You seem to have strange notion of what constitutes a harmless drug.

[Berzerker]

Zylka -

C'mon Berz... I don't argue by dusting off one liners on the issue for play. I'm sure you can do better

Hmm...I suspect if I did worse, you'd take advantage to promote your position.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Willem
Having once been an acid head, I can speak from personal experience that it can be harmful to a person's cognitive abilities. I would never consider dropping a hit daily, and yes I've done that before, although I have no qualms about smoking pot regularly.

Define "acid head" for this skeptical poster. Acid does not work daily, by chemical composition. Temporary tolerance assures that you won't have a trip even of miniscule severity of the one the day before, and it becomes worse after that - with non-existant effects eventually (until you give it a good week long break). So there's no such thing as a continual addiction that can be properly fed with acid - such is not the same with weed. Acid, in the sense of performance shaving multiplied by consistent addiction - can not affect your day to day life as severely as pot, and is mild in comparison.

You have no qualms of smoking daily in comparison - but have you asked those around you who by sobriety would know how it's lessened your abilities and dulled any the edges you once had? (In that assumption - sorry I pegged you as the norm) Do you know that the majority of daily pot users have that happen to them without noticing? We'll probably hit a dead end on that statement, but by common sense you must agree that it's bad to be known as a pothead partially because of social stigma, but in large part due to the truth that THE AVERAGE POTHEAD IS A F*CKING ******

(Not aimed at you, you've definitely got a brain. I'm sure you'd draw more respect with increased abilities, though...)

Ditto. And I believe mushrooms contain small amounts of strychnine. They're certainly not very pleasant on the digestive system in large quantities.

Strychnine in mushrooms is a comical urban legend at best - Trust me, drop that assumption before you start waiving canes at people while screaming how the moon landing was faked

I agree they're not very pleasant on the digestive system in large quantities, but what does that have to do with anything at all? Are they more harmful than pot because of that? Pot sure as hell doesn't make my chest and upper throat feel too wonderful, so what's the point? Are you assuming they're lethally poisonous because of this intestinal distaste? Look up the LD-50 of mushrooms if this is the case. Since you're eating a bunch of exotic stale dried fungus, gas could be expected. Eat a jar of hot peppers and tell me how you feel after that

I don't even know why you would even include this one, it's one of the most addictive substances known to man, with very severe withdrawal symptoms.

Note how I said that the minority who manage to use it responsibly? I'm talking about the physical harms of pure heroin on the human body, which is less than that of marijuana when used just as often - withdrawal is harsher, but obviously not a physical symptom you live with while using. In terms of society, heroin is much more dangerous for misuse, but that's not all you've been arguing over. Note that there are subjective harms of every drug, and pot does not simply fall into the "least harmful" category when applied in simplicity.

You seem to have strange notion of what constitutes a harmless drug.

I think I've just taken care of that notion - THERE ARE NO HARMLESS DRUGS. To further, even on seperation and combination scales - pot isn't the least dangerous.

[Gatekeeper]

Berzerker:

You win. You're more tenacious than I am patient.

Gatekeeper

[Berzerker]

I'm both.