Marijuana VS Pork

[Jam]

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.

Okay I'm with you. No, I'm not sure where I stand on drug laws at the moment. I think they're wrong, but I'm not convinced that we should make any drugs legal that are currently illegal. My stance in this thread has been to explain how cannabis use can be ok; not that it is always ok.

 

[jasoncran]

well lets see you claim that only a few studies show that its ok.

you are aware of the bias problem in science and given the push by society to legalise it. do you think that might me the case?

and also caffeine /mj ?

come on. i can drink caffeine all day long it wont affect my judgment one cant say that about pot. have you actually smoked pot? i havent but i know from first hand observations of the munchies/paranoia and also silliness that is a tad stronger the caffiene. my wife smoked it for years and also my brother did the same. both were die hard pot heads.

i have yet to meet a one a day functional job holding pot user.wait one but he has to have it for his stressful job. yeah right. why not switch jobs or learn to cope better.

 

[stovebolts]

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.

You mention two items here. Let me address the first one.
The Bible didn't mention weed because they didn't have a problem with weed. The problem doesn't mention LSD either, so I don't see using an argument of silence in the Bible as a very good argument.

Lets look at some facts. Mainly, I want to concentrate on the fact that weed can and does alter ones thought process. I believe this is well documented.

What does the Bible say about being sober minded? Much. A simple word search produces 12 results on the word sober. It is apparent that to the NT writers, being sober is important.

When one has too much to drink, he is called drunk. Being drunk is not being sober. Why? Because your thought process has been altered.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.

Does this make wine off limits? Certainly not.

1 Ti. 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

It's pretty straight forward. Don't use wine for the reason of getting drunk, but use it responsibly fir medicinal purposes. And if you want to talk about that, then fine, lets talk about that. But in most cases, there are better drugs out there than weed.

In this way, we can compare weed to wine. It's ok to use it for medicinal purposes, but it's not ok to smoke it, or bake it in brownies so you can get high. Also, most average weed can get you stoned in about 2, maybe three hits and the really good stuff can get you stoned in just one hit. It's that concentrated now. So we've left the realm of wine, and we've traversed into the territory of Vodka. And Vodka isn't going to cure a tummy ache.

 

[Jam]

well lets see you claim that only a few studies show that its ok.

you are aware of the bias problem in science and given the push by society to legalise it. do you think that might me the case?

To which "bias problem" are you referring? I am aware that psychology in general has many methodlogical issues - yes - but in what ways do you believe that any of these confound any of the aforementioned results? Note that in published papers and articles, the authors refer to any biases and possible confounding variables and discuss the effects that these are thought to have. The conclusions are only then drawn, and after this the articles are reviewed by other experts in the area, and any appropriate modifications or alterations are made.

These guys are good at their stats and (for the most part) know enough about their own methodological issues not to simply ignore them.

Are you suggesting that the scientific papers themselves are biased towards the legalisation of cannabis? If so, I disagree, and I challenge you to find anything from the previously posted articles that suggests that this is the case. In the UK, at least, the public in general are definitely more against the legalisation of cannabis than for it.

and also caffeine /mj ?

come on. i can drink caffeine all day long it wont affect my judgment one cant say that about pot. have you actually smoked pot? i havent but i know from first hand observations of the munchies/paranoia and also silliness that is a tad stronger the caffiene. my wife smoked it for years and also my brother did the same. both were die hard pot heads.

i have yet to meet a one a day functional job holding pot user.wait one but he has to have it for his stressful job. yeah right. why not switch jobs or learn to cope better.

I fear you misunderstand me, Jason: I don't deny that the effects of cannabis are stronger (albeit very different) from those of caffeine. My references to caffeine have been refutations of very specific arguments: if cannabis use is sinful because of its addictive properties, then caffeine use must also be sinful. If cannabis use is sinful because it alters thought patterns, then caffeine use must also be sinful.

With respect to the alteration of thought processes, you could indeed make the case that cannabis has more of an effect that caffeine, but we cannot state that all activies that alter our state of mind are sinful whilst maintaining that caffeine use is not. To claim such would be a self-contradicting claim.


For the reference, I have never smoked cannabis first-hand, but I have a few times passively smoked it simply because peers were around me. I wouldn't say that I've ever been stoned.

 

[jasoncran]

To which "bias problem" are you referring? I am aware that psychology in general has many methodlogical issues - yes - but in what ways do you believe that any of these confound any of the aforementioned results? Note that in published papers and articles, the authors refer to any biases and possible confounding variables and discuss the effects that these are thought to have. The conclusions are only then drawn, and after this the articles are reviewed by other experts in the area, and any appropriate modifications or alterations are made.

These guys are good at their stats and (for the most part) know enough about their own methodological issues not to simply ignore them.

Are you suggesting that the scientific papers themselves are biased towards the legalisation of cannabis? If so, I disagree, and I challenge you to find anything from the previously posted articles that suggests that this is the case. In the UK, at least, the public in general are definitely more against the legalisation of cannabis than for it.




I fear you misunderstand me, Jason: I don't deny that the effects of cannabis are stronger (albeit very different) from those of caffeine. My references to caffeine have been refutations of very specific arguments: if cannabis use is sinful because of its addictive properties, then caffeine use must also be sinful. If cannabis use is sinful because it alters thought patterns, then caffeine use must also be sinful.

With respect to the alteration of thought processes, you could indeed make the case that cannabis has more of an effect that caffeine, but we cannot state that all activies that alter our state of mind are sinful whilst maintaining that caffeine use is not. To claim such would be a self-contradicting claim.


For the reference, I have never smoked cannabis first-hand, but I have a few times passively smoked it simply because peers were around me. I wouldn't say that I've ever been stoned.

ok would you based on your observation on your buddies being high:

allow one doctor while stoned to perform a surgery on you
allow a pilot to fly while high
allow a cop to smoke one while on his beat.

with caffeine is there any impairment of soberness?

nope i can and do drink that all day long and i dont get silly nor exicted so that i cant make any judgments

sober per the 1828 websters

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,sober

 

[Jam]

You mention two items here. Let me address the first one.
The Bible didn't mention weed because they didn't have a problem with weed. The problem doesn't mention LSD either, so I don't see using an argument of silence in the Bible as a very good argument.

If you just quickly skim over that post again, you'll see that I didn't use the Bible's silence as an argument. I simply explained that our approach to identifying sin must be different when looking at things not mentioned in the Bible to our approach when looking at things specifically prohibited by/in the Bible.

Lets look at some facts. Mainly, I want to concentrate on the fact that weed can and does alter ones thought process. I believe this is well documented.

What does the Bible say about being sober minded? Much. A simple word search produces 12 results on the word sober. It is apparent that to the NT writers, being sober is important.

When one has too much to drink, he is called drunk. Being drunk is not being sober. Why? Because your thought process has been altered.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.

Does this make wine off limits? Certainly not.

1 Ti. 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

It's pretty straight forward. Don't use wine for the reason of getting drunk, but use it responsibly fir medicinal purposes. And if you want to talk about that, then fine, lets talk about that. But in most cases, there are better drugs out there than weed.

In this way, we can compare weed to wine. It's ok to use it for medicinal purposes, but it's not ok to smoke it, or bake it in brownies so you can get high. Also, most average weed can get you stoned in about 2, maybe three hits and the really good stuff can get you stoned in just one hit. It's that concentrated now. So we've left the realm of wine, and we've traversed into the territory of Vodka. And Vodka isn't going to cure a tummy ache.

Firstly, I just wanna say that I disagree with the emboldened text in that being drunk is not simply a state of altered thought processes. Or rather, that we cannot consider any altered state of mind to be a "drunken" or "non-sober" state of mind: our thought patterns are altered when we meditate, when we pray, when we sing, when we dance, when we sleep, when we read, when we partake in sport, when we study. Now, I'm not equating these to cannabis. What I'm saying is simply that the alteration of thought processes itself does not constitute sin: there are numerous other activies which are not sinful and which also alter thought processes. Perhaps a certain degree or type of alteration does, but mere alteration does.


Anyway, let's take a closer look at this issue of sobriety, shall we? When the Bible talks of sobriety and drunkenness, it is not referring to cannabis (by your own admission). We know that the "high" cause by cannabis is very different to that caused by alcohol. So, is it fair to use these verses in this context as blanket prohibitions? Probably not.

What we need to establish, then, is what constitutes Biblical "sobriety". What is it about the high of cannabis that leads you to believe that a person in this state of mind cannot give glory to God?



I'm unsure how relevant this is, but, having heard some of your background, I'm sure you've been around many people who are high on cannabis. Is it not the case that people often take part in philosophical-come-theoligical discussions? Does this lend no length of defence to usage? People can still focus (and, indeed, are perhaps caused to focus) on the bigger uses in life after smoking.

Also, out of curiosity, why do you accept medicinal use? It still has exactly the same effects... are you saying that the pros outweigh the cons in this case, or just that motive is important, or something else entirely?

 

[jasoncran]

sorry.,i have been around my wife, bro and brother in law while high. i wouldnt want any of them doing those things and my wife used pot to the point well i wont go too much into why her own daughter who did try it. now hates pot with a passion.

im sure if i dug..

let see cocaine

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0211/drugs.html

so i could bend that statment and say see its not that addictive.

i will go back and see if that is the case with your studies.

 

[Jam]

ok would you based on your observation on your buddies being high:

allow one doctor while stoned to perform a surgery on you
allow a pilot to fly while high
allow a cop to smoke one while on his beat.

No. But I fail to see the relevance...

with caffeine is there any impairment of soberness?

nope i can and do drink that all day long and i dont get silly nor exicted so that i cant make any judgments

sober per the 1828 websters

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,sober

Yes. Caffeine intoxication leads to nervousness, irritability, restlessness and often mild cognitive impairment. It's not normal to consume enough caffeine to cause this, though. Even higher doses can cause dizziness, confusion, delusions, hallucination and more.

If an individual doesn't notice caffeine having any effects at all, it is likely that they have become physically dependent.


Again, though, I don't really get the relevance. I've admitted that the effects of cannabis are different to and stronger than those of caffeine.

 

[Jam]

sorry.,i have been around my wife, bro and brother in law while high. i wouldnt want any of them doing those things and my wife used pot to the point well i wont go too much into why her own daughter who did try it. now hates pot with a passion.

im sure if i dug..

let see cocaine

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0211/drugs.html

so i could bend that statment and say see its not that addictive.

i will go back and see if that is the case with your studies.

That is a news article claiming that cocaine users don't think cocaine is addictive. It is completely different to scientific papers demonstrating the actual addictiveness of the substance.

Go ahead.

 

[jasoncran]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-05-marijuana_x.htm

un no. you didnt post any links so i am googling your findings and it aint looking good.

and after page 5 on google they aint showing up.

post the links so that we can read them. i smell a rat. if it was that easy we would have heard about that now given the push for legalistation here.

 

[Jam]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-05-marijuana_x.htm

un no. you didnt post any links so i am googling your findings and it aint looking good.

and after page 5 on google they aint showing up.

post the links so that we can read them. i smell a rat. if it was that easy we would have heard about that now given the push for legalistation here.

The only thing in that article with which I disagree is this:

All of the studies clearly show the earlier someone starts taking marijuana, the greater their vulnerability to addiction disorders and psychiatric disorders.

I don't think his use of "clearly" or the mention of "addiction disorders" is correct.

Try google scholar for scholarly articles (such as the ones I've posted). Which would you like? I'll try and find all the links for the files or abstracts that you request and that are publicly available free of charge.

 

[jasoncran]

a link to the study them selves or a quote its best to show them not just say they say that.

and also who does one do studies on marijuan where subjects smoke that only? its unetthical here.

 

[Jam]

a link to the study them selves or a quote its best to show them not just say they say that.

Which articles that I posted would you like me to go back and find? I'm not sure it's worth my time to find all of them, as I'm sure you don't deny the findings of all of them. Which are you disputing?

and also who does one do studies on marijuan where subjects smoke that only? its unetthical here.

I don't understand your question.

 

[jasoncran]

ok, the studies, thats want i want.

i want to read them for myself.i have my doubts as that would be on the news all over here.

 

[theLords]

What is it about the high of cannabis that leads you to believe that a person in this state of mind cannot give glory to God?

We can begin with getting high and seeking God is called divination and is a form of witchcraft.

 

[theLords]

\Is it not the case that people often take part in philosophical-come-theoligical discussions? Does this lend no length of defence to usage? People can still focus (and, indeed, are perhaps caused to focus) on the bigger uses in life after smoking.

One does not need to get high to have these discussions. A dude in my art class draws better when he's robotrippin. Does that mean such an activity that can cause liver damage should be encouraged?

 

[Jam]

We can begin with getting high and seeking God is called divination and is a form of witchcraft.

1. what is it about getting "high" that you think constitutes divination?
2. divination is simply attempting to understand the future through supernatural means, is it not? Why would it be divination to ask God about the future (not that I even mentioned this idea) when using cannabis but not when not using cannabis?
3. divination is not necessarily witchcraft, depending upon how you define it. If I pray to God and simply ask about the future, this is divination by the definition I posted. Is it sinful?

In short, I fail to see the relevance of cannabis to divination.

One does not need to get high to have these discussions. A dude in my art class draws better when he's robotrippin. Does that mean such an activity that can cause liver damage should be encouraged?

I know one doesn't need to: my point was simply that smoking cannabis does not cause a state of mind in which an individual is disinclined to give glory to God or contemplate His sovereignty. Those that are high often become very thoughtful about such issues.

Can you provide any justification that all (or even most) cannabis use causes liver damage? No doubt it does if used regularly or in large amounts, but I'm not denying that excessive use is sinful.

 

[Jam]

ok, the studies, thats want i want.

But which studies, Jason? There are only a few of those that I posted for which I did not provide links. Which of those (the ones currently missing links) would you like me to dig out for you?

I've gone back through and here are all the studies for which I have already provided links:

Bipolar:
http://www.pendulum.org/bpnews/archive/001628.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888515?dopt=Abstract
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02791072.1998.10399687
http://ehealthforum.com/health/cannabis-for-bipolar-treatment-t226236.html (anecdotal)
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/0...bipolar-and-schizophrenic-patients/15496.html (informal)

Brain cells and cognitive abilities:
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/126/6/1252.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cne.903270406/abstract
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...es-growth-of-brain-cells-in-rats-510869.html; (informal)- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html; (informal; same study) - http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509 (formal; same study)

Gateway Hypothesis:
http://www.york.ac.uk/res/herc/documents/wp/07_01.pdf (see page 2 for abstract)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00280.x/abstract
http://hsb.sagepub.com/content/51/3/244.short
(http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=97496&RelatedWidgetArticles=true)

You may only be able to view the abstract for a few of these. If you really want to read more of any particular article, I may be able to get hold of the full pdf from an acquaintance of mine. I'll need to think there's real reason to, though: this articles cost money to access.

i want to read them for myself.i have my doubts as that would be on the news all over here.

Very wise to read them for yourself; I agree.

I don't think they'd suddenly be in the news though... if you look at the dates of the studies I don't think any of them are particularly recent. I thought it was pretty widely known (in this country for sure, not sure about the US or wherever you live) that laws relating to substance abuse and distribution were determined more by public opinion and the media than by scientific evidence. If I recall correctly, the UK government reclassified cannabis as a Class B drug a couple of years back, against the express advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The media would think twice before publishing something that could be considered promotion of illicit drugs: they print what they think the public want to be printed.

 

[jasoncran]

here that would be in the news.

bipolars on mj? really that makes it worse or doesnt help it

my wife has bipolar 2 AND HER PSYCHATRIST said to stop it as it doesnt help her condition.

 

[Jam]

here that would be in the news.

I'm not convinced it would... but then I don't know where "here" is so I can't really comment I guess!

bipolars on mj? really that makes it worse or doesnt help it

Debatable. As the articles I posted noted, there has been hardly any research on bipolar and cannabis. Some bipolars find it helps them, others find it induces or increases mania. Upon what basis are you saying that it always makes it worse and never helps?

my wife has bipolar 2 AND HER PSYCHATRIST said to stop it as it doesnt help her condition.

As her psychiatrist should: without any analytical research on the effects of cannabis, it would be grossly irresponsible to recommend it to anyone. That, of course, isn't to say that cannabis is bad for bipolar. Don't make the mistake of thinking that psychiatrists know more than research psychologists, though... especially if they're psychoanalysts.