Pots And Pans

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[RezaMikhaeil]

I didn't vote because you didn't have the option of using it for medical purposes.

Reza

[Maggyie]

I don't have enough experience with the drug to say if it's got an "immediate effect"...

[Mercy me]

Pot is wrong because it is illegal. We are called to be good citizens in our society.

[N/A Gone]

it is wrong that this question has already been discussed recently..


Shouldnt the christian goal be to be as close to holiness as possible; not to get as close to the fire without being burned?

Thats like asking your wife how much flirting you can do before it is considered cheating; rather than asking her the best way you can love her

[dairygirl4u2c]

interesting idea rev. buy as an any analgogy it's not necessary. i might say it's like you're a wife and obviously you should be able to talk to men. you husband is okay with you talking to white men, ie alcohol, but not black men, ie pot. there's recreational substance racism going on here.

i like how you all manfully evade the issues. the best anyone says is that it's immediate effect, which i'm not sure is even true, and if it is, it's not extreme. yet, you guys skip around because i forgot to say in countries where it's illegal, or choose not to choose one ofthe above because i don't have medicinal (i should have made clear that this is a multiple choice poll i guess)

[N/A Gone]

Dairy,

FIne, I will engage in this topic, but my perspective will always be the desire to be moving towards holiness, rather than as close to sin without sinning.

I fully disagree with your analogy. FIrst of all, its racist. The only reason someone would want to "allow" conversation from one race or another is racism. You assume that alcohol and pot are equal, but there is racism involved. That just shows a lack of medical knowledge when it comes to the effects of alcohol and pot.

Second, it is a bad question. I dont "let" my wife talk to some, or another. She is a free person and what binds her decisions is not my control, rather it is her devoition to me. I am the same. I dont flirt, not because she does not let me, but because I have her and I do not want to. What makes my decision is not control, but devotion. This is why God gives us free will. In order to freely love we must not be bound. I have a picture of what it takes to honor my wife, and I strive to achieve that. I dont try to drift away from that as much as I can without trouble. That isnt love. If that is how you view God and sin, your heart is not in the right place.

As far as pot is concerned I would need to ask why. Why would you even wanna bother? Sure, you might be able to self-justify a position. But why? Sanctification is not about justifying to the divine, it is about achieving the divine.

Now, for the sake of your argument

1.) Pot is illegal. Whether or not you think it should be does not matter. It is illegal in this civil society. As a christian you should obey that law. We should always strive to be an example to others in regards to following the law, unless the law breaks the law of God (as with the martyrs) or the nature law (as Martin Luther king Jr argued) I do not feel that pot fits in that loophole

2.) Alcohol in proper moderation has been a commonly used thing since biblical times. This is an unrefutable fact. Where as pot has not been. Even my own people, who first used pot understood that it changed you. It was not something for day-to-day life, but it changed you. Christ drank wine, didnt smoke pot

3.) medical claims; the "drug" term is a loaded jargon and can be used for caffiene even. But the fact is that Pot has THC in it, it has both physiological and psychoactive effects. The sole purpose in pot is for the change. WHy would you want to have something that is designed to effect your control? It just makes no sense

4.) medical usages are a special situation and not the standard one we are speaking of here. Unless that is your situation than cool lets talk. I take vicodin, I have a medical need for it. If I did not have that need then I would be in the wrong for taking it.

satisfied?

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well I'm satisfied that you tried.
You mentioned the health effects thing, which might be good argument, but you didn't justfy it. It seems drinking and smoking in moderation would be worse than smoking pot in moderation. Alcohol and tobacco use always is shown to be bad for you in exess, just like pot. None of them are necessariy in moderation, as shown.
You can't argue legality as we're talking about a theoretical reason why it might be okay. Bassically assuming that it's legal, or you're a Catholic in a country where it's legal. As shown by studies.
Just because something has always been done doesn't mean it's okay. Or, it if is okay as proven by time, that doesn't have anything to do with pot just because it's not been used for long time. You would have a point if you said we should be weary of pot as it hasn't been use for a long time, but all you have is doubt and no proof. I know people who smoke in moderation who are geniuses etc. People can abuse it like alc and tobac
You may have a point with the changing effect thing, but that's what caffiene alcohol and tobacco are used for. Caffiene nd tobacco at any rate. Plus you would have to concede that if someone were to use smoking and caffiene not for the effect someone would not use it for pot, theoretically anyway. ha The idea people use caffiene and cigs not for the effect makes as much sense, note. Using for the effect isn't wrong if it's not for those. in moderation.
I agree medical is really another argument altogether: more obvious that it should be used and allowed, but different argument. I just don't like how people talk about medical and dismiss the point of this thread. other people.

I think which analogy you choose is up to the person. I think you're okay to be weary for the reason I said and because of your analogy makes your position make sense more. You're just conservative. You haven't shown how someone else would necessarily be pushing the evenlope with the loved one, unless you think someone smoking cigarettes back when they were taboo was pushing the envelope. But I don't think you've shown it wrong. I think I've shown being conservative isn't the good position as there's no reason to be, unless you're conservative against caffiene and tobacco etc, but that doesn't say why pot's wrong, just that you're conservative yourself to it.

Edited March 10, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[N/A Gone]

I strongly disagree that drinking in moderation has the same negative physiological or cognical effects as pot. All of them are bad in excess. If you disagree with me I would like to here some medical non-bias proof on it please. Also, an objective understanding of the term "moderation" would help as well.

I can fully argue legality, as a christian, regardless of confessional community, we are to uphold moral conduct. This is included in regards to that of the civil state. If we are discussing the reasons for or against pot then this is a reason against it. No christian should smoke pot simply on the grounds of it being illegal. Same as no one under 21 should drink because it is illegal. I already seen combat mulitple times, with blood on my hands multiple times before I was the age of 21. So I earned my passage as an adult more than most; but I still understood that it is our responsability to respect civil policy to set an example. This is not an argument that you can just throw out. Even if your own epistemology allows pot, then you are dealing with the issue of purposly going against a civil policy.

The argument of history is a weak one, according to Thomas. But we do know that Jesus drank wine, but did not smoke pot. Simple as that. Not to sound fundamentalistic, but that is a way in which we know it is ok to drink in moderation, but we do not know it is ok to smoke pot.

I think you misunderstood the extend of the changing effect argument. Caffiene does not change your cogniative responses. You could argue that tobacco does not change your cognative, just your physiological (Im not arguing for tobacco, just a point) The effect you gain from caffiene, as a phyisological effect, still maintains full cognative control. The lose of cognative control is the danger in pot. It is the danger in abusing alcohol.

Your argument of conservative is wrong. I am not a conservative in this regard, and the term conservative is just a loaded jargon to seperate an argument from the positon. The fact is our body is a temple that we are to take care of, we are to exercise stewardship. There are numerous parts of our life where we do not do this properly. Whether we are overweight, underslept, stressed, etc. But the difference with Pot is that we are losing cognative function. You need to get passed the argument that pot is equal to alcohol/caffiene/etc. It is not, there is no way to use pot in moderation. The only use you can have it an abusive one.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I agree you can argue legality: if it's illegal you can't do it. (I don't personally agree with that, but it makes sense and is arguable) What I was trying to say is I don't know why you're arguing it. If it's just to note it then okay good note. To use it as a reason to say pot is bad isn't qualified enough and is getting past where I intend the argument to be: in countries where it's legal or in theory if it wasn't illegal.
I do make note of your point though that it can't be used when illegal.

I did misunderstand what you were getting at with the psychoactive effects thing. You have a good point there. Caffiene has a certain psychoactive effect, but not the kind of pot, whichs more than just relief. I don't think it's more psychoactive than other drugs when used in moderation, but I may be wrong. Also, tobacco causes dependency in the brain. I'm not sure what is meant by psychoactive effects by you I guess.
I'm not sure if psychoactive is wrong if it's in moderatn, but I admit you have a point that it's different, just not sure if the difference is significant or not. I need more info, and so your conservative stance does seem more legit. (i don't think I was using the words in a jargon sort of way, only in a frame of reference sort of way)

[jeffpugh]

I think Rev's as well as my own point of view is that we want to be completely aware of happenings for practical reasons. Think about it. If you're blasted away from the effects of pot, and you had to suddenly save someones life, or your own life for that matter, how will you go about it? Even if you have 'a little', dexterity will be a mess and reaction time will smell of elderberries. Also... Jesus said to 'keep watch' for his coming. In a broad sense you can keep watch by being aware of Christ within others. That takes patience and clear perception. If you do not have that then how can you see Jesus in others? Same goes with the idea of the 'end of the world' or whatever you people believe in. Not smoking pot is not a 'Conservative' stance, its a choice to be free to make actions. In fact, its a 'liberal' stance. It is freedom.