Marijuana VS Pork

[stovebolts]

Regardless, this is irrelevant. I posted numerous scientific sources citing the addictiveness of cannabis as far lower than other substances that we do not consider sinful. It is absurd, then, to give addictiveness as a reason for sinfulness when other things that are more addictive are not considered sinful. They did not just take "physical" addictiveness into account, by the way.

Addiction is sinful. Participating in a behaviour that has the potential to become addictive is not.

Light, you seem to be making your case on an argument I don't really care about. Not only that, but you seem to link sinful behavior as things that we should not do when in actuality, sinful behavior has more to do with what we should be doing, but aren't. You see, it's easy to NOT do something we shouldn't. But it's harder to do the things that we SHOULD be doing. But more to your point. Dog poop won't kill you either.

Can you provide any reliable evidence that it causes bipolar?

Here is the evidence to which I referred:
http://www.pendulum.org/bpnews/archive/001628.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ukcia.org/research/TheUse...arDisorder.php
http://ehealthforum.com/health/canna...t-t226236.html
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/07...nts/15496.html


Essentially, there is hardly any evidence linking cannabis with bipolar at all. I've just thought about it, though, and I don't understand how that would make a difference to whether or not cannabis use is sinful?

I have read from the American Medical Journal years ago and before bi-polar was the hottest trend of diagnosis, that according to to teens who smoked weed on a regular basis (X times a week) were more inclined to have mental deficiencies and develop mental illness later in life.

But I don't need a medical journal to show me what is visible within my own family thank you.

Non-sequitur, I'm afraid. Firstly, I'm not even 100% sure the correlation is statistically significant and, secondly, it is simply false to infer cause and effect from a correlation only. There could be any number of reasons why there is a link between smoking cannabis and grades.

Well lets see... I think I was in the 10th grade and was getting stoned almost on a daily basis. I did pretty well in school up till lunch time (I'd get high at lunch). Funny, cause I had the hardest time reading. I couldn't drop to the next line and I'd read the same line in my text book over and over until I realized I had already read it and then I'd have to force myself to drop the next line. By the time I read the paragraph, I didn't even know what I just read.

I'm sure that contributed to a failing grade in that class while I did pretty good in my classes prior to lunch and better in my 6th period class where the high was wearing down.

But more to your point. Why is one of the tell tell signs that your kid may be doing drugs a sudden drop in grades?

As I mentioned above, anecdotal evidence is simply not reliable. Two personal cases, in which it appears that ceasing cannabis use makes a person think more clearly, is not anywhere close to justification for the assertion that you know that cannabis use makes people dumb.

Here are some studies that are very relevant to your claim:
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cont...6/6/1252.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70406/abstract
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-510869.html; http://www.newscientist.com/article/...he-brain.html; http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509

Well, I did have a friend Chad who woke up with a bong hit. He couldn't function when he was straight. Actually, he was almost lethargic when he wasn't high. After that bong hit, he was ready to go an he functioned perfectly. Even got good grades in college etc.

Funny though because that was over 25 years ago. Chad's not doing to well anymore. He's just not the same anymore...

Same with my brother in law... but now he's just dumber than a rock. Has little to no short term memory left and his comprehension is out the door.

I was mainly think of vaporisers here, actually, but pills would fit this perfecLighttly well too. I wasn't talking about medicinal use, no; I was simply pointing out that smoke-associated disease is not a valid criticism of cannabis use.

John 1: In him was life; and the life was the light of men.And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Maybe they were high?... You know, some people get high because they like the way it makes them feel. It's all about that feel good for them. That's self centered, not Christ centered. To be Christ centered is to focus outward, not inward. Light shines outward into dark places and it disperses darkness and where light isn't present, darkness consumes.

 

[Jam]

Light, you seem to be making your case on an argument I don't really care about. Not only that, but you seem to link sinful behavior as things that we should not do when in actuality, sinful behavior has more to do with what we should be doing, but aren't. You see, it's easy to NOT do something we shouldn't. But it's harder to do the things that we SHOULD be doing. But more to your point. Dog poop won't kill you either.

I wouldn't say that I was "making a case"; the points to which you replied were just a summary of the two "sides" as I see them.

But okay, you aren't arguing from addiction so we can drop that (:

I have read from the American Medical Journal years ago and before bi-polar was the hottest trend of diagnosis, that according to to teens who smoked weed on a regular basis (X times a week) were more inclined to have mental deficiencies and develop mental illness later in life.

The mental illnesses referred to are almost invariably schizophrenia. It has since been established that cannabis is unlikely to trigger schizophrenia in an individual not already predisposed to the psychopathology, and that, for individuals who would not otherwise be at risk, chronic use merely increases the likelihood of having a psychotic episode (one instance of hallucinations, delusions, catatonia or cognitive impairment).

But I don't need a medical journal to show me what is visible within my own family thank you.

You need a medical journal - or at least a scientific study - to give you results that you can generalise to any extent. It is absurd to conclude that, because these things have happened to people in your family, they are likely to happen to others.

Well lets see... I think I was in the 10th grade and was getting stoned almost on a daily basis. I did pretty well in school up till lunch time (I'd get high at lunch). Funny, cause I had the hardest time reading. I couldn't drop to the next line and I'd read the same line in my text book over and over until I realized I had already read it and then I'd have to force myself to drop the next line. By the time I read the paragraph, I didn't even know what I just read.

I'm sure that contributed to a failing grade in that class while I did pretty good in my classes prior to lunch and better in my 6th period class where the high was wearing down.

Oh, I'm not denying that users will suffer at least some degree of cognitive impairment whilst actually under the influence; I was under the impression that we were talking of serious long-term effects.

Again, though, I'm not denying that chronic or excessive use is "wrong"; only that use is not necessarily wrong.

Well, I did have a friend Chad who woke up with a bong hit. He couldn't function when he was straight. Actually, he was almost lethargic when he wasn't high. After that bong hit, he was ready to go an he functioned perfectly. Even got good grades in college etc.

Funny though because that was over 25 years ago. Chad's not doing to well anymore. He's just not the same anymore...

Same with my brother in law... but now he's just dumber than a rock. Has little to no short term memory left and his comprehension is out the door.

Now that is interesting |: I had heard that cannabis could have virtually opposite effects in different people, but I've not heard of that difference being so pronounced before...

You know, some people get high because they like the way it makes them feel. It's all about that feel good for them. That's self centered, not Christ centered. To be Christ centered is to focus outward, not inward. Light shines outward into dark places and it disperses darkness and where light isn't present, darkness consumes.

I drink orange squash instead of water because it feels good. Does that mean that I am being self-centred?


Could you do me a quick favour, please, and just give a quick summary of your exact stance on the sinful nature of cannabis, and justify why you take that stance? I feel this would be more productive than the backward-and-forward of potentially irrelevant points that we've been engaging in so far.

 

[theLords]

You need a medical journal - or at least a scientific study - to give you results that you can generalise to any extent. It is absurd to conclude that, because these things have happened to people in your family, they are likely to happen to others.

You know, I get proper debate and what not, and the rules for intellectual honesty, but your clinical approach towards sin is truly lacking.

Jeff, is real, honest, and open; while, your approach is clinical, sterile, and "cold". To keep stating that his evidence is "anecdotal" is to dismiss the heart of the true matter, that drug use is rooted in pain and begets pain.

When we share the Gospel we don't give an intellectual understanding of Christ's calculated redeeming gift. We give our testimonies, and you can label it "anecdotal" but it's the most effective, powerful, and meaningful way to reach the lost for Christ.

Are you a user? What is the cause of justification you have to trying to "stand up for" marijuana when it has single handedly destroyed lives at their core? We are not the world, we are Christians, living in Christ, discussing spiritual matters.

I'm truly trying to understand you. Are you advocating it's use or playing devil's advocate for the sake of, rightfully, condemning weed as the garbage it is?

Could you do me a quick favour, please, and just give a quick summary of your exact stance on the sinful nature of cannabis, and justify why you take that stance? I feel this would be more productive than the backward-and-forward of potentially irrelevant points that we've been engaging in so far.

Would you go to church high? Would you share the gospel high? Would you pray high?

 

[stovebolts]

Light,

You go right on ahead and trust your medical journals, I'll trust what I see around me and what I know to be true through experience.

You need a medical journal - or at least a scientific study - to give you results that you can generalise to any extent. It is absurd to conclude that, because these things have happened to people in your family, they are likely to happen to others.

Wait a second... I need a medical journal to tell me that what has occurred in my family, and also to my friends isn't likely to happen to others? You know, I sold dope in Hollywood California when I was 19. I was a street rat sleeping in alley's etc when I couldn't afford a motel. I've been around the block my friend, and I don't need a medical journal to tell me what I know is true.

chronic use merely increases the likelihood of having a psychotic episode

And you think that's ok?...

Oh, I'm not denying that users will suffer at least some degree of cognitive impairment whilst actually under the influence; I was under the impression that we were talking of serious long-term effects.

We are talking about long term effects. People who get bad grades because they are stoned in school usually end up dropping out of school and tapping the system for free resources. Not to mention the burdon they put on the family because they loose their ability to reason and cognite on their errors. You know, it's pretty hard to repent of something when you don't even understand what your doing is wrong...

Now that is interesting |: I had heard that cannabis could have virtually opposite effects in different people, but I've not heard of that difference being so pronounced before...

Interesting huh? I call it tragic. Chad was a good friend of mine.

Could you do me a quick favour, please, and just give a quick summary of your exact stance on the sinful nature of cannabis, and justify why you take that stance? I feel this would be more productive than the backward-and-forward of potentially irrelevant points that we've been engaging in so far.

Sure. When your stoned you loose your ability to reason and many will go to extreme lengths to justify their lifestyle. I suppose it's good for the cookie industry, but it's generally bad on the rest of the families pocket book. Furthermore, weed is a gateway drug that for many opens the door for more destructive drugs. And again, I'm not only talking about the individual, I'm talking also about the people that surround that individual.

 

[Jam]

You know, I get proper debate and what not, and the rules for intellectual honesty, but your clinical approach towards sin is truly lacking.

Jeff, is real, honest, and open; while, your approach is clinical, sterile, and "cold". To keep stating that his evidence is "anecdotal" is to dismiss the heart of the true matter, that drug use is rooted in pain and begets pain.

I genuinely don't understand this. If by saying this you mean that my approach in this thread has been unemotional (perhaps to the point of callousness), then you may be right... but I don't entirely see the problem with this: when discussing truth it is, I think most of us can agree, wise to avoid the bias that can be caused by emotions. If you flick back through my posts, I think you'll find that almost all of my posts have simply been explaining how people's perceptions of the dangers of cannabis are simplified or exaggerated: I've hardly dealt with the nature of sin itself. For this reason I think it unfair for you to accuse me of approaching sin "clinically".

As you'll also see from several of my previous posts, I disagree very strongly that cannabis use necessarily "begets pain" and I have given several reasons and much evidence for this. I realise that StoveBolts feels that is the heart of the issue, but my line of reasoning throughout this thread has been to explain why this is not the case.

When we share the Gospel we don't give an intellectual understanding of Christ's calculated redeeming gift. We give our testimonies, and you can label it "anecdotal" but it's the most effective, powerful, and meaningful way to reach the lost for Christ.

This is true, but anecdotes and personal testimonies simply won't do when we are discussing matters of fact like "is cannabis a stimulant?" or "does cannabis make people dumb?". Statistical analyses and scientific experiments are indisputably better for investigating the truth in these circumstances.

Are you a user? What is the cause of justification you have to trying to "stand up for" marijuana when it has single handedly destroyed lives at their core? We are not the world, we are Christians, living in Christ, discussing spiritual matters.

I'm truly trying to understand you. Are you advocating it's use or playing devil's advocate for the sake of, rightfully, condemning weed as the garbage it is?

I have never used any illicit drugs first-hand, and I would deny that I am "standing up for marijuana": I am standing up for truth. If someone says something that I believe to be false, I feel that I have an honest duty to point out the falsity- particularly when we are discussing issues as important as sin.

Note also that I am not just taking one "side" of this discussion, please:

Having said that,
-it is possible to be addicted to cannabis, and any addiction is sinful
-the majority of users do smoke cannabis, and the harmful effects are as bad as (if not worse than) those associated with the smoking of tobacco
-there is a link between cannabis use and the likelihood of having a psychotic episode in later life, even if it is rather weak

Would you go to church high? Would you share the gospel high? Would you pray high?

Personally, no. Depending upon how an individual is affected by being "high", though, I'm not convinced that it would necessarily be wrong to attend church or pray when in such a state of mind.

Would you go to church after a mug of strong coffee? Would you share the gospel after a half-pint? Would you pray after practising yoga? All of these activities also change our state of mind significantly.

 

[Jam]

Wait a second... I need a medical journal to tell me that what has occurred in my family, and also to my friends isn't likely to happen to others? You know, I sold dope in Hollywood California when I was 19. I was a street rat sleeping in alley's etc when I couldn't afford a motel. I've been around the block my friend, and I don't need a medical journal to tell me what I know is true.

"Need"? Perhaps that was an inappropriate word usage on my part, but I still consider it somewhat unwise to dismiss vast quantities of scientific research simply because it disagrees with your own (comparatively small) sample of drug use. Human beings do have a natural tendency to infer causality from correlation, and of this I think we all should be wary.

And you think that's ok?...

Of course not, but it is a fair way short of a full-blown psychopathology, as you suggested. Psychotic episodes are far more common among the general population than most of us would believe.

We are talking about long term effects. People who get bad grades because they are stoned in school usually end up dropping out of school and tapping the system for free resources. Not to mention the burdon they put on the family because they loose their ability to reason and cognite on their errors. You know, it's pretty hard to repent of something when you don't even understand what your doing is wrong...

And, when it gets to this stage, it clearly has gone too far. But that's still not to say that smoking cannabis directly causes people to become dumber, and this is the point of yours with which I disagreed.

Interesting huh? I call it tragic. Chad was a good friend of mine.

Truly, I am sorry if my response to this came across as callous: I did not intend for it to be so. In honesty, I was attempting to incorporate this into our discussion without offense- I did not want to simply ignore it. Perhaps I would have been better off to do so: I apologise.

weed is a gateway drug that for many opens the door for more destructive drugs. And again, I'm not only talking about the individual, I'm talking also about the people that surround that individual.

This is true to a certain degree. But, as with all such things, it is not that simple. I'm wary of citing more medical and psychological studies due to your apparent aversion to them, but I can think of no other way to show that I do have support for what I'm saying... Most modern research agrees either that cannabis is not a significant gateway drug, or that it only "acts" as a gateway drug for adolescent groups that are already predisposed to drug use in later life. The links are here, if you do wish to check my sources:
http://www.york.ac.uk/res/herc/documents/wp/07_01.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00280.x/full
http://hsb.sagepub.com/content/51/3/244.short
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=97496&RelatedWidgetArticles=true

 

[theLords]

I genuinely don't understand this. If by saying this you mean that my approach in this thread has been unemotional (perhaps to the point of callousness), then you may be right... but I don't entirely see the problem with this: when discussing truth it is, I think most of us can agree, wise to avoid the bias that can be caused by emotions. If you flick back through my posts, I think you'll find that almost all of my posts have simply been explaining how people's perceptions of the dangers of cannabis are simplified or exaggerated: I've hardly dealt with the nature of sin itself. For this reason I think it unfair for you to accuse me of approaching sin "clinically".

As you'll also see from several of my previous posts, I disagree very strongly that cannabis use necessarily "begets pain" and I have given several reasons and much evidence for this. I realise that StoveBolts feels that is the heart of the issue, but my line of reasoning throughout this thread has been to explain why this is not the case.




This is true, but anecdotes and personal testimonies simply won't do when we are discussing matters of fact like "is cannabis a stimulant?" or "does cannabis make people dumb?". Statistical analyses and scientific experiments are indisputably better for investigating the truth in these circumstances.




I have never used any illicit drugs first-hand, and I would deny that I am "standing up for marijuana": I am standing up for truth. If someone says something that I believe to be false, I feel that I have an honest duty to point out the falsity- particularly when we are discussing issues as important as sin.

Note also that I am not just taking one "side" of this discussion, please:





Personally, no. Depending upon how an individual is affected by being "high", though, I'm not convinced that it would necessarily be wrong to attend church or pray when in such a state of mind.

Would you go to church after a mug of strong coffee? Would you share the gospel after a half-pint? Would you pray after practising yoga? All of these activities also change our state of mind significantly.

I don't have time to reply now because I have to go study for a Bio quiz, Spanish test, and Computer Applications final , but I wanted to address the fact that I didn't mean to accuse you of anything or offend you. I am truly trying to understand where you are coming from. I hope you realize that I am critiquing your approach. It's very clinical and "doctorly" and just doesn't fly in the hood where lives have been torn apart by weed. If you spoke this way to someone who lost their family due to drug culture, or who's parents prefer to get high instead of provide a stable, loving family, or food or clothes--you would be utterly rejected. That's the point I am trying to make. The world approaches sin, clinically and sterile-ly, by weighing the pros and cons, but spiritual matters can't be assessed the same way. If there are more pros to cons to adultery, we as Christians, can't say that adultery is no longer immoral.

That's simply the statement, I am trying to make. Intellectual honesty and calculated debate, doesn't fly with the lost, bruised, and broken. Openness, honesty, and keeping it real have one many a soul to Christ, though. The "doctorly" approach doesn't connect with the lost and broken.

 

[jasoncran]

i would say the same with gay rights.

the devil makes sin sound so innocent yet it is not. it kills you then damns you to hell.

 

[stovebolts]

but I still consider it somewhat unwise to simply dismiss vast quantities of scientific research simply because it disagrees with your own (comparatively small) sample of drug use.

First off, you don't know my background, what I've studied nor what I've seen. Honestly, I'm sure I've forgotten more about drugs than you currently know.

I've seen some pretty horrific things in and around my life that were drug related. And yes, I'm lumping weed into that group because yes, weed is a gateway drug to more destructive drugs. And I don't need to argue this with you because simply, your wrong.

I'll be honest, I hate what weed does to people. No paper or study you produce will every change my mind in the matter. I have a strong emotional aversion to weed. Simply put, it's destructive.

While you fight to minimize the effects of weed, know that I'll be on this side of the fence opposing it around every corner.

Perhaps if you saw the damage it causes, you'd change your mind. But I fear your simply trying to justify your habit. Sad thing is, you don't even understand the damage that is being done, so how can you repent of it? But maybe you and I are more alike in this matter, because I'm pretty hard headed as well... I've learned a lot in life from the school of hard knocks.

Go knock yourself out buddy..

Grace and Peace.

 

[stovebolts]

If there are more pros to cons to adultery, we as Christians, can't say that adultery is no longer immoral.

You hit on something here. Did you know that pop psychology actually encourages a spouse that thinks their marriage is stale to go have an affair in an attempt to kindle the marriage?

http://www.alternet.org/sex/147316/...ual_affairs_and_how_they_can_be_good_for_you/

Can Adultery Be Healthy? 6 Kinds of Sexual Affairs and How They Can Be Good for You

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...aving-an-affair-could-save-your-marriage.html

Mira Kirshenbaum, who has over 30 years' experience as a marriage therapist, says the 'right kind' of affair can be a positive thing, acting to "jolt people from their inertia".

Also, if a male is having a hard time in the bedroom, these same psychologist prescribe porn to simulate the male... Thing is, they may ejaculate, but they'll never orgasm.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sexandrelationships/porn.htm

Can porn be part of a normal relationship?
Our answer to that question would be a qualified 'yes'.
There is no doubt that many couples experiment with the use of porn as an aid to perking up their sex lives, for example by sometimes watching an explicit DVD together. And sex education videos are often arousing as well as informative.
Also, a lot of women like erotic stories. Some females prefer to read alone to get themselves turned on. Others like their man to read to them in bed.
So for some couples, using pornography and erotica works well.

Pretty sick science if you ask me. But then again, as Christians we're looking for something better than what the world has to offer.

 

[Jam]

I don't have time to reply now because I have to go study for a Bio quiz, Spanish test, and Computer Applications final , but I wanted to address the fact that I didn't mean to accuse you of anything or offend you. I am truly trying to understand where you are coming from. I hope you realize that I am critiquing your approach.

I understand that, I think, and I am sorry if my "retaliation" seemed somewhat hostile. I can't agree that my factual approach to truth is bad though, I'm afraid.

It's very clinical and "doctorly" and just doesn't fly in the hood where lives have been torn apart by weed. If you spoke this way to someone who lost their family due to drug culture, or who's parents prefer to get high instead of provide a stable, loving family, or food or clothes--you would be utterly rejected. That's the point I am trying to make.

I may well get rejected in such circumstances, but that is the way that it should be. I would consider it somewhat deceitful to change my objective approach to truth just because I thought it would be a better way of convincing people that I am right. That would be dishonest, and potentially even manipulative. I am attempting to establish the facts about cannabis in this thread; not simply assert that what I believe is true wihout truly engaging with the issue with an open mind. Without the facts, we are in no position to assert that cannabis is sinful (or not).

The world approaches sin, clinically and sterile-ly, by weighing the pros and cons, but spiritual matters can't be assessed the same way. If there are more pros to cons to adultery, we as Christians, can't say that adultery is no longer immoral.

I agree with this, but I don't think adultery is a good example: we are explicitly told in scripture that adultery is wrong. Therefore regardless of how we personally perceive adultery, we must maintain that it is wrong.

The case with cannabis is different: the Bible does not mention it. In cases like this we need to establish what is sinful according to scripture and then see whether cannabis use falls into any of these sins. And this is what I have been trying to do here: people have suggested that addiction is sinful, for example, and that cannabis is addictive and therefore cannabis must be sinful. My response to this has simply been to explain how cannabis use does not necessarily cause addiction and so cannot be considered absolutely sinful for this reason.

That's simply the statement, I am trying to make. Intellectual honesty and calculated debate, doesn't fly with the lost, bruised, and broken. Openness, honesty, and keeping it real have one many a soul to Christ, though. The "doctorly" approach doesn't connect with the lost and broken.

Giving facts as objectively as possible is, as I see it, open, honest and "real".

---

Also, I'd just like to point out that I admitted in a previous post that most cannabis usage probably is sinful. My stance throughout has been to explain why I do not believe that it is necessarily sinful.

 

[Jam]

First off, you don't know my background, what I've studied nor what I've seen. Honestly, I'm sure I've forgotten more about drugs than you currently know.

I've seen some pretty horrific things in and around my life that were drug related. And yes, I'm lumping weed into that group because yes, weed is a gateway drug to more destructive drugs. And I don't need to argue this with you because simply, your wrong.

I'll be honest, I hate what weed does to people. No paper or study you produce will every change my mind in the matter. I have a strong emotional aversion to weed. Simply put, it's destructive.

While you fight to minimize the effects of weed, know that I'll be on this side of the fence opposing it around every corner.

Perhaps if you saw the damage it causes, you'd change your mind. But I fear your simply trying to justify your habit. Sad thing is, you don't even understand the damage that is being done, so how can you repent of it? But maybe you and I are more alike in this matter, because I'm pretty hard headed as well... I've learned a lot in life from the school of hard knocks.

Go knock yourself out buddy..

Grace and Peace.

I can understand that personal experience can be very convincing to an individual, but surely you can accept that it is worth next to nothing for those other than said individual when compared to research papers? I'm not denying what you've seen, done and heard: I'm denying the conclusions that you've drawn from this.

You've admitted that no matter what evidence I produce, you will still stick with your personal convictions, and so I suppose we have little more to discuss.

As for your accusation that I am a user, I have already asserted that I am not. Call me a liar if you wish, but know that you will be wrong.

 

[westtexas]

Perhaps if you saw the damage it causes, you'd change your mind.

Jeff, I won't enter y'alls discussion and this will be my only post in this thread but you've hit the heart of the matter right here that no "research" paper will attempt to touch. It has been many years since I have used but if you know what to look for the scars are still on my arms and they are still deep in the hearts of those who love me. I too started in my early teens with marijuana, and virtually any user-regardless of their drug of choice- will tell you the same thing, they started with marijuana. Just as you have- I have known many addicts in my life. Are they (we) dumber than anyone else? Is there something different about them (us)? But the simple fact of the matter is that there is never a success story with drugs and many stories are tragic. Mr. Light and anyone else can post all the "research" papers they care to but none of them will touch on the real heart of the matter. They are simply garbage.

DRUGS SUCK
Ray

 

[Bob Carabbio]

No "Considered sinful" -

"So, cannabis is addictive... but so are many other activies in which we take part that are not considered sinful."

There's an old saying in the church that God doesn't CARE what you've GOT, but He cares a LOT about what's GOT YOU.

Addictive, or habitual activities that CAN'T be simply walked away from, and that you're forced to "Serve" - Sports, Cars, Music, Food, Porn, Booze, Gambling, drugs, whatever - constitute a SPIRITUAL PROBLEM for anybody that's "Hooked" by 'em.

That this or that group doesn't CONSIDER them sinful, doesn't really mean a thing.

And, of course some things that AREN'T addictive, and otherwise neutral for YOU are just fine for YOU to do, but MAY NOT be O.K. for ME.

 

[jasoncran]

Re: No "Considered sinful" -

"So, cannabis is addictive... but so are many other activies in which we take part that are not considered sinful."

There's an old saying in the church that God doesn't CARE what you've GOT, but He cares a LOT about what's GOT YOU.

Addictive, or habitual activities that CAN'T be simply walked away from, and that you're forced to "Serve" - Sports, Cars, Music, Food, Porn, Booze, Gambling, drugs, whatever - constitute a SPIRITUAL PROBLEM for anybody that's "Hooked" by 'em.

That this or that group doesn't CONSIDER them sinful, doesn't really mean a thing.

And, of course some things that AREN'T addictive, and otherwise neutral for YOU are just fine for YOU to do, but MAY NOT be O.K. for ME.

yup that falls under chapter 14 of the book of romans.

secular music to me is of that nature.

the bible was written by people and spoke to people of that time and has to be taken from that and looked at from what the principals behind that.

there wasn't a stock exchange then so i guess we can be bernie maddoffs all day long as that aint a sin.

 

[Jam]

Jeff, I won't enter y'alls discussion and this will be my only post in this thread but you've hit the heart of the matter right here that no "research" paper will attempt to touch. It has been many years since I have used but if you know what to look for the scars are still on my arms and they are still deep in the hearts of those who love me. I too started in my early teens with marijuana, and virtually any user-regardless of their drug of choice- will tell you the same thing, they started with marijuana. Just as you have- I have known many addicts in my life. Are they (we) dumber than anyone else? Is there something different about them (us)? But the simple fact of the matter is that there is never a success story with drugs and many stories are tragic. Mr. Light and anyone else can post all the "research" papers they care to but none of them will touch on the real heart of the matter. They are simply garbage.

DRUGS SUCK
Ray

It may well be the case that virtually all "hard" drug users did start with cannabis, but you can't turn that around and use it to suggest that all cannabis users go on to hard drugs. That would be illogical and simply false.

"there is never a success story with drugs"

If you read any of the papers I posted, you'll notice that there are many "success" (or at least non-failure) stories with regard to cannabis. I think we need to be careful here not to get dragged under the illusion that these scientists are sat in a lab with a box of chemicals and trying to predict whether they are harmful or addictive. This is simply not the case - not a single one of these studies I posted has been like that. The scientists have gone out and interviewed hundreds and thousands (depending on the study) of cannabis users and their families and peers; they've taken huge samples of young teenagers and followed them through their whole lives, noting all of their drug habits, noting all their behavioural traits; they've reviewed thousands of other informal and anecdotal articles as well as more formal papers. They use case studies, natural experiments, field experiments, observations, interviews, questionnaires aswell as chemical knowledge of how their observations fit in with the pharmacology of cannabis. Simply put, they almost indisputably know more about cannabis than those who have grown up around drug dealers, cannabis and its effects. On top of this, they aren't emotionally biased towards it in any way! If I'd lost family members to drug use, then yes I probably would be biased against all drugs, but I would try to remove that bias when discussing facts about a drug: my personal feelings about drugs would simply be irrelevant to the objective truth about them!

Why is it that you guys think these studies are "garbage"? Why is it that you think they don't touch "the heart of the issue"? Why is it that you reject them out of hand? Indeed, what do you even mean by "the heart of the issue"? The issues addressed in the studies I posted are things as straight-forward as: "how addictive is cannabis?" and "how likely is it that a cannabis user will develop psychosis?". I then use the "facts" demonstrated by these studies to explain why I think cannabis is not necessarily sinful. Tell me, what exactly am I missing? I know cannabis can affect lives; I know it can cause psychosis; I know it can lead to harder drugs; I know it can be addictive. My entire point in this thread has been to say that these claims are exaggerated: for an average user, none of these outcomes is likely! It is entirely possible (even probable) to use cannabis and not become addicted, not use harder drugs and not suffer any adverse health effects.

 

[Jam]

Re: No "Considered sinful" -

"So, cannabis is addictive... but so are many other activies in which we take part that are not considered sinful."

There's an old saying in the church that God doesn't CARE what you've GOT, but He cares a LOT about what's GOT YOU.

Addictive, or habitual activities that CAN'T be simply walked away from, and that you're forced to "Serve" - Sports, Cars, Music, Food, Porn, Booze, Gambling, drugs, whatever - constitute a SPIRITUAL PROBLEM for anybody that's "Hooked" by 'em.

That this or that group doesn't CONSIDER them sinful, doesn't really mean a thing.

And, of course some things that AREN'T addictive, and otherwise neutral for YOU are just fine for YOU to do, but MAY NOT be O.K. for ME.

This I absolutely agree with! I've not been saying that addiction is ok- if someone is addicted to caffeine then I believe they sin; if someone is addicted to golf then I believe they sin. Addiction is wrong. What I'm saying is that it is not fair to brand an activity as sinful simply because it is possible (but unlikely) that it will become addictive. If this were the case, then virtually all activities would be sinful for virtually all people.

 

[jasoncran]

It may well be the case that virtually all "hard" drug users did start with cannabis, but you can't turn that around and use it to suggest that all cannabis users go on to hard drugs. That would be illogical and simply false.

"there is never a success story with drugs"

If you read any of the papers I posted, you'll notice that there are many "success" (or at least non-failure) stories with regard to cannabis. I think we need to be careful here not to get dragged under the illusion that these scientists are sat in a lab with a box of chemicals and trying to predict whether they are harmful or addictive. This is simply not the case - every single one of these studies I posted has not been like that. The scientists have gone out and interviewed hundreds and thousands (depending on the study) of cannabis users and their families and peers; they've taken huge samples of young teenagers and followed them through their whole lives, noting all of their drug habits, noting all their behavioural traits; they've reviewed thousands of other informal and anecdotal articles as well as more formal papers. They use case studies, natural experiments, field experiments, observations, interviews, questionnaires aswell as chemical knowledge of how their observations fit in with the pharmacology of cannabis. Simply put, they almost indisputably know more about cannabis than those who have grown up around drug dealers, cannabis and its effects. On top of this, they aren't emotionally biased towards it in any way! If I'd lost family members to drug use, then yes I probably would be biased against all drugs, but I would try to remove that bias when discussing facts about a drug: my personal feelings about drugs would simply be irrelevant to the objective truth about them!

Why is it that you guys think these studies are "garbage"? Why is it that you think they don't touch "the heart of the issue"? Why is it that you reject them out of hand? Indeed, what do you even mean by "the heart of the issue"? The issue the studies I posted are things as straight-forward as: "how addictive is cannabis?" and "how likely is it that a cannabis user will develop psychosis?". I then use the "facts" demonstrated by these studies to explain why I think cannabis is not necessarily sinful. Tell me, what exactly am I missing? I know cannabis can affect lives; I know it can cause psychosis; I know it can lead to harder drugs; I know it can be addictive. My entire point in this thread has been to say that these claims are exaggerated: for an average user, none of these outcomes is likely! It is entirely possible (even probable) to use cannabis and not become addicted, not use harder drugs and not suffer any adverse health effects.

yeah right, i know of a drunk that held a job and worked and retired from several jobs

yup he is father in law. drinks while driving drunk and also never gets in any accidents.

hmm i guess we cant do that too. and he does do while really drunk, he can handle alcohol real well.

yet he is a sinning!

 

[Jam]

yeah right, i know of a drunk that held a job and worked and retired from several jobs

yup he is father in law. drinks while driving drunk and also never gets in any accidents.

hmm i guess we cant do that too. and he does do while really drunk, he can handle alcohol real well.

yet he is a sinning!

I don't deny that- it sounds like he was addicted!

Sorry to be dense, but are you agreeing with, disagreeing with or simply commenting on what I said?

 

[jasoncran]

I don't deny that- it sounds like he was addicted!

Sorry to be dense, but are you agreeing with, disagreeing with or simply commenting on what I said?

making a point, sure some can use drugs and not be broken by it but that doesnt mean we should change laws for that

i mean you wouldnt want the govt to say well because of the few percentages of drunk drivers that can handle beer we will longer consider dui a crime.