|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pot and Church
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But that's equally true of alcohol use in teenagers which is leading to major liver damage in their 20s and 30s. There are huge issues with teenagers who are using any drugs because their bodies haven't fully developed and drugs cause problems in that development.
The 18 age limit is there for a reason.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
You're right about the alcohol links, but this is a thread about the curious action legalising marijuana; hence my limited comments.
[ 26. January 2014, 09:54: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
My point was that making policy on what happens to teenagers isn't necessarily a way to make policy for everyone. And that applies equally to drugs of any kind.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Except, as you say, there are positive causative links known between smoking and cancer.
Indeed. I'm shouldn't try to pretend it is as cut and dried for schizophrenia as for smoking, but there was a period of time when the causative links for smoking weren't worked out, yet the scientific consensus regarded the link as well enough proved to influence public health policy and publicize the dangers.
They turned out to be right, there must have been a small chance that they wouldn't have been.
I think with schizophrenia given how difficult it is to understand the causation of any altered mental state requiring a causative link to be worked out is setting the bar impossibly high.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
One difference is that alcohol in moderation actually promotes health. People live longer. That can't be said for any level of cannabis use.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Correction: that hasn't been shown for cannabis use. Big difference. You don't know it's not the case; you're guessing.
Actually it has been studied, and although we can't rule out small effects it is unlikely that there is a large effect by cannabis on mortality.
Here and here, for instance.
This contrasts data for tobacco, where the increased mortality is dramatic.
It is curious really that we have tobacco which has a substantial proven detrimental public health harm but little in the way of anti-social behaviour resulting from it (legal), alcohol which has both harm and benefit depending on the pattern of use but can result in very anti-social behaviour (legal), and cannabis which probably has some slight risk attached (i.e. a modest increase in schizophrenia risk but no overall mortality risk) and maybe some slight anti-social behaviour but is illegal.
Not at all logical.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The most recent major study pretty much debunks the pot-schizophrenia nexus. Which is no great surprise to those of us who inhaled enthusiastically and went on to graduate with honors and have productive lives.
I read that study and it seemed to be saying that in most of the cases they looked at, they were able to find an ancestor with schizophrenia so that must be what caused it.
From the first, researchers who suspect a link have said that marijuana seems to trigger schizophrenia in young people who were at risk meaning they had schizophrenia in the family somewhere or a previous concussion, etc. -- that sort of thing. So to this new study I say -- duh.
The trouble is lots, if not most, of the people who are at risk don't know that they are. Families have historically been very good at hiding the real reason Uncle Elmer didn't go out much.
My family has no known history of schizophrenia and yet, the first time my son tried marijuana -- when he was a straight "A", Dean's List, pre-med student -- he tells me he "felt his brain break," and the next day he had his first visual hallucinations, with voices soon to follow. His life was pretty much ruined from that day on.
Now that's just an anecdote, like the many anecdotes where Timothy and friends never had anything but a real good time. But we ought to ask ourselves: Do we feel lucky with our teenagers' fragile, growing brains?
Of course it isn't legal for teens but just like with alcohol, if their slightly older friends can buy it they will probably be willing to share.
Why legalize something that can harm some people and doesn't really do anyone much good? (Not talking about medical use.)
The comparison with alcohol seems irrelevant to me. Alcohol is deeply imbedded in the culture and has almost always been legal --- that's why prohibition didn't work. There's no such social history with cannabis so why start? Alcohol and cannabis aren't siblings that we have to treat fairly, we do not have to legalize one because the other is better/worse/the same.
The race question seems equally silly to me. Unfortunately African Americans are unfairly, disproportionately profiled, arrested and convicted at a higher rate for most crimes. Making those crimes legal is not the answer. Making something legal that may harm the brains of more black kids than white kids is not a good thing either.
I don't like to see anyone go to prison for small amounts of drugs so why not fine people for possession, like traffic tickets?
Taking something that's not very good for us and has long been illegal and making it legal just seems like a step backwards to me.
No Prophet seems to think we should just let these young people get schizophrenia and then "get help" for them like AA meetings for alcoholics. There is no cure for schizophrenia, there's no going back.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think with schizophrenia given how difficult it is to understand the causation of any altered mental state requiring a causative link to be worked out is setting the bar impossibly high.
Sure, but the corollary of this is that we then have to ban marijuana based on the cautionary principle alone, because it is never in principle possible to prove that it has little or no harm.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
My family has no known history of schizophrenia and yet, the first time my son tried marijuana -- when he was a straight "A", Dean's List, pre-med student -- he tells me he "felt his brain break," and the next day he had his first visual hallucinations, with voices soon to follow. His life was pretty much ruined from that day on.
That's incredible. I am so sorry.
I know that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily valid, but many studies have shown how convincing stories are.
quote:
"Evidence from social psychology research suggests that narratives, when compared with reporting statistical evidence alone, can have uniquely persuasive effects in overcoming preconceived beliefs and cognitive biases.” (The Importance of Narrative in Communicating Evidence-Based Science, By Jason Karlawish Monday, November 28th, 2011, Journal of the American Medical Association)
So thanks for that! I'm sure that I find it persuasive because it fits with my own experience, and that others will have had different experiences.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The comparison with alcohol seems irrelevant to me. Alcohol is deeply imbedded in the culture and has almost always been legal --- that's why prohibition didn't work. There's no such social history with cannabis so why start?
I hadn't noticed that marijuana prohibition had been a rousing success.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Alcohol and cannabis aren't siblings that we have to treat fairly, we do not have to legalize one because the other is better/worse/the same.
The difference between alcohol and marijuana is that alcohol is a more popular and traditional drug of choice. They both have potential to harm kids. They both have potential to become a problem drug. It does not make sense to wring our hands about one but have regular threads in Heaven about the other because who doesn't like a little GIN after mass.
[ 26. January 2014, 14:31: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lilac
Shipmate
# 17979
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
If one believes Aldous Huxley then psychoactive compounds may be useful in making us more receptive to the Divine. YMMV, and it seems unlikely that the church would follow this somehow!
I read Aldous Huxley's essay on LSD. Basically he believed your mind worked better when your brain was out of action. Your brain got in the way of your mind, because the two were entirely separate. I've heard of Cartesian Dualism, but that's ridiculous.
Somebody once gave me some cannabis stirred into a cup of coffee. It was supposed to be powerful stuff, but it had no effect on me that I could tell.
--------------------
Seeking...
Posts: 62 | From: Birmingham / Coventry Area, UK | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Og wrote:
quote:
The difference between alcohol and marijuana is that alcohol is a more popular and traditional drug of choice.
Well, that and our knowledge of the effects of alcohol is a little more cut and dry. There are no great mysteries left: If taken to excess, it can harm your liver, and cause certain types of cancer. And one-off binges can lead to alcohol posisoning.
But with weed, it's not entirely clear what the long-term impact is. I'm slightly skeptical about the schizophrenia connection, mostly because almost every other alleged danger of cannabis has been debukned(seriously, marijuana prohibitionists are the biggest group of professional liars I've ever seen). However, this is one instance where the evidence does seem to be piling up, and I know other people who have had anecdotal experiences similar to Twilight's.
I'm still a huge proponent of legalization, but I think it should be undertaken only after a few years of public education, in which people are informed about the latest research on the pros and cons. MORALISTS NOT INVITED TO CONTRIBUTE. Just the facts about what is known, and not known, so people can know what the risks are before deciding to indulge.
And I'd be pretty hardnosed about people who give it to minors.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
One important difference between marijuana and alcohol is that the marijuana plant is the only source of marijuana.
Alcohol can be made from grains, fruits and vegetables.
Controlling marijuana is more feasible than controlling alcohol.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think with schizophrenia given how difficult it is to understand the causation of any altered mental state requiring a causative link to be worked out is setting the bar impossibly high.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Sure, but the corollary of this is that we then have to ban marijuana based on the cautionary principle alone, because it is never in principle possible to prove that it has little or no harm.
I don't think that follows. Whether we progress from our view of the likelihood of the link to banning marijuana depends, in my mind, on how great the risk is in absolute terms (e.g. in this case the absolute risk is not enormous to tell the truth), whether one feels that the state ought to be protecting individuals from themselves if they wish to take that risk, and what the likely societal outcomes are of criminalizing a drug.
On all those counts I personally don't think there's a case for banning marijuana. But that doesn't mean I can't take a particular view on the evidence for and against a link with schizophrenia.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, that and our knowledge of the effects of alcohol is a little more cut and dry.
Of course it is a lot easier to study a legal drug that is used by such a large proportion of society where the strength of various concoctions of it is well known, compared with an illegal one can't pin down the precise quantities of an active ingredient used and not everyone wants to be all that open about their personal use.
But I think we probably do know enough to state that there is no equivalent of alcoholism among marijuana users, and that death from over-use is likely to be an order of magnitude less common for marijuana than for alcohol.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Controlling marijuana is more feasible than controlling alcohol.
Judging by the outcomes of the "war on drugs" and the history of prohibition, I'd say that is true only for values of "feasible" that lie in the range of not all that feasible to practically impossible, and for values of "more" that equal of slight difference such as to not nudge "feasible" out of the previously defined range.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One important difference between marijuana and alcohol is that the marijuana plant is the only source of marijuana.
Alcohol can be made from grains, fruits and vegetables.
Controlling marijuana is more feasible than controlling alcohol.
Moo
How is this working in practice?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
We should also declare bacon illegal if the worry about health problems is the reason for the law. Nitrosamines, saturated fat, and the misuse of the latter in rendered form, sort of a bacony hash oil equivalent, by frying bread in it should be enough. Highly addictive, mood altering (makes me right effing happy), and bad for you. Are any churches declared against Demon Bacon?
[edit: ate too much bacon, can neither spell nor proofraed]
[ 26. January 2014, 15:22: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Are any churches declared against Demon Bacon?
Strangely, that's the one the Bible spends quite a bit of time on.
[ 26. January 2014, 15:24: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'm not in favour of criminalising marijuana supply or use either, but in fairness to the proponents of state legislation I think we should recognize that those claiming meaningful difference between the effects of bacon and of marijuana on human behaviour and mental state are not necessarily victims of a priori prejudice and intellectual dishonesty.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Do churches talk about health issues? Some do. In USA anyway some Methodist churches hire a "Wesley nurse" to instruct the congregation on diet, lead exercise classes for the elderly, check blood pressure monthly, recommend flu shots, etc.
No one is required to do as the nurse advises, but she gets several pages in the monthly newsletter to advise on anything she wants to talk about that is health related.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I wonder what the value is in the church hiring a nurse to do that rather than getting in touch with a dedicated public health agency to provide appropriate material.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I hadn't noticed that marijuana prohibition had been a rousing success.
I don't know about that. If I didn't know better I would think that marijuana doesn't even exist, judging from my lack of encounters with it in my daily life.
Despite the fact that I live in a college town and regularly interact with thousands of people both socially and professionally, it is not something that I see (or smell).
In my own college and graduate years I was quite familiar with it. But in my current world the appearance is that it has completely gone out of style.
As I say, I know that this isn't true. Students are occasionally disciplined for using it and I'm sure that some people are using.
I expect that things would change if it were legalized in my state.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The US states which are legalising it should be an interesting study. Human behaviour would suggest there will be a rise in the number of users and the amount consumed per person. Though this may be difficult to track given the lack of hard numbers whilst illegal.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Are any churches declared against Demon Bacon?
Strangely, that's the one the Bible spends quite a bit of time on.
That's be synagogues and maybe some Seventh Day Adventists?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Are any churches declared against Demon Bacon?
Nope. Are any churches declaring against Demon Cannabis? I'm sure you can find an obscure church somewhere that is against it along with dancing, playing cards and women wearing pants, but I've never heard it mentioned in any mainline church I've been to.
Also you keep comparing cannabis with things that are already legal. It's a far bigger deal to take something that's been legal forever and has huge industries already in motion and make it illegal, than to take something illegal and make it legal.
And, once again, there seems to be some effort to be "fair" to cannabis. We don't have to. If there are already many legal products that are bad for our health, adding another one, just so we can say we treat cannabis the same way we treat his brother bacon, isn't going to help anything.
---------
As for deliberate lies about marijuana, I haven't seen it. Some people site the cheesy thirties movie called, "Reefer Madness." It's hardly fair to compare a piece of florid fiction with scientific evidence eighty years later. That's like saying that New York is the safest place on Earth to live, because that King Kong movie turned out to be a tissue of lies.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Once we're outside the realm of things-specifically-named-in-the-Bible-as-sins-with-a-capital-S, I think a reasonable position for a church to have is, if the behavior or activity leads to sinfulness, then it's something to be prioritized as an area for pastoral care or support. Smoking marijuana and then forgetting to attend church and indulging in gluttony all day - yeah that strikes me as a problem for a Christian. Smoking at the end of the day to relax a bit, like many do with a glass of wine - in my view that is not a sin problem or a problem at all.
Does anyone know how churches in the Netherlands address this issue?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The "one smoke and I started to hallucinate" anecdote may be true for your son. But it sounds like "The Fatal Glass of Beer" line used by the Temperance movement when arguing for alcohol prohibition. There are various genetic vulnerabilities to alcohol, Asian and American Indian in particular. But legal Prohibition was a total failure. Essentially most of the knowledge of how harmful pot is has been contaminated by decades of using Drug prohibition as a proxy for political struggle. Those young hippies and colored people are out to destroy your children.
Why legalize something that can harm some people and doesn't really do anyone much good? (Not talking about medical use.)
Because the people decided by popular vote to do it despite all the rhetoric of the war on drugs, which has included many many lies about harm. A very large number of people knew from personal experience that smoking pot did not harm them, and many knew someone who had been harmed by the draconian prison terms for use or dealing and it's clear that the war on drugs has corrupted law enforcement.
Legalising pot has a number of benefits. It becomes a boutique business rather than an economic bedrock for violent gangs. I attended a training by a city drug counselor who talked about youth drug use. She said that the city health people had done analysis of pot that had been confiscated while being sold in the city. A substantial portion had been adulterated with harder drugs, in order to sell a much more addictive, more buzz inducing drug.
Legalizing it also allows for addressing the harm that can be caused. To me, the sign of change were the snack packets of chips that the police were handing out at the last HempFest, an annual civic gather devoted to legalization. The packets had warnings about not smoking and driving and not sharing with minors. That's a small step, but the conversation couldn't even happen in the past.
It's also clear the recreation prohibition has also hindered using pot as a treatment for cancer and aids nausea and post traumatic stress syndrome.
I voted for the referendum for the above reasons. I also don't want to spend the vast amounts needed to fund locking people in prison "for their own good". But that's not why I started this thread.
Given that it's legal, what is the role of the church. Is it a denominational ruling "we don't do this, even if it's legal" Is it, you can do it in moderation if it doesn't harm you, but you're responsible for monitoring it. Is it, skip things that may cause pleasure but may have risks? Is this really a public health issue and not one that ia directly a church concern.
Belle Ringer earlier mentioned her church provided a nurse to give health advice to the members. Someone else asked why not just let a public health authority do this. The answer may be a pond difference. The US has very weak public health support (crisis would be a good word) where I like to believe there's a better set up in the UK for the government to do this.
Finally is there a religious component other than the need for a moderate lifestyle? I would expect the answer to vary.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Also you keep comparing cannabis with things that are already legal. It's a far bigger deal to take something that's been legal forever and has huge industries already in motion and make it illegal, than to take something illegal and make it legal.
There is a huge marijuana industry already in motion. it's just a matter of who you want running it- cartels in Mexico or tax paying business people in Colorado.
And yes, we keep making that comparison because that is at the heart of the question. If you say that marijuana should be illegal because it has certain harmful effects, why should the same logic not be applied to other things that have similar harmful effects?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Are any churches declared against Demon Bacon?
Nope. Are any churches declaring against Demon Cannabis? I'm sure you can find an obscure church somewhere that is against it along with dancing, playing cards and women wearing pants, but I've never heard it mentioned in any mainline church I've been to.
Also you keep comparing cannabis with things that are already legal. It's a far bigger deal to take something that's been legal forever and has huge industries already in motion and make it illegal, than to take something illegal and make it legal.
And, once again, there seems to be some effort to be "fair" to cannabis. We don't have to. If there are already many legal products that are bad for our health, adding another one, just so we can say we treat cannabis the same way we treat his brother bacon, isn't going to help anything.
Criminalization versus public health issue? I come down on the side of public health. But I suppose this is why there is this absolute dementia on crack about guns those legal little toys.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Church and legal substances - the local TEC got a new head clergy who put a stop to the choir's Christmas wassail because this diocese has a rule no hard liquor on church grounds. (The last head clergy didn't care.)
Hard liquor and wine are both legal, but one of them is allowed and one banned. So at least one bishop makes a distinction between various legal substances.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Twilight wrote:
quote:
As for deliberate lies about marijuana, I haven't seen it. Some people site the cheesy thirties movie called, "Reefer Madness." It's hardly fair to compare a piece of florid fiction with scientific evidence eighty years later. That's like saying that New York is the safest place on Earth to live, because that King Kong movie turned out to be a tissue of lies.
See my recollection above about the ad in the 80s which implied that marijuana can make you sterile. Have you heard anything about that lately?
And here's another classic from the same era. Nancy Reagan appeared on an episode of Diff'rent Strokes to tell the kids how bad drugs were.
SOME KID: Mrs. Reagan, are all drugs really that bad? I've heard marijuana can't hurt you.
NANCY REAGAN: You know, there was a case a few years ago of a boy who was smoking marijuana at home, and got into a fight with his sister. He hurt his sister very badly.
Okay, maybe not technically a lie, but an unsourced anecdote, drawing an unproven connection between two occurences, and highly unrepresentative of the general experience of others involved in the same activity. Not to mention presented on a TV show aimed at impressionable children.
There is almost certainly a stronger connection between peanuts and fatal allergies than there is between marijuana and beating the hell out of your sister. But imagine a I see a mother spreading peanut butter on a cracker for her child in the park, and walk up to the kid and say "Better not eat it, kid, some children die after taking one bite of that stuff." Again, maybe I'm not a liar, just someone who makes highly misleading statements, intended to spread panic.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
One more thing...
quote:
As for deliberate lies about marijuana, I haven't seen it. Some people site the cheesy thirties movie called, "Reefer Madness." It's hardly fair to compare a piece of florid fiction with scientific evidence eighty years later. That's like saying that New York is the safest place on Earth to live, because that King Kong movie turned out to be a tissue of lies.
I'm not saying marijuana is entirely safe. In fact, if you go back and read my post, you'll see that I am worried that information about the genuine risks of the drug(such as the possible connection with schizophrenia) will be obscured by all the lies and exaggerations of the prohibitionists.
Oh, and persuant to the specific topic of this thread, an article about why the religious right in Colorado didn't fight legalization this time around.
[ 26. January 2014, 22:37: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Twilight:
The article I linked to above details more dubious allegations made about marijuana by opponents of a 2000 legalization initiative in Colorado. First page, ninth paragraph.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
I read Aldous Huxley's essay on LSD. Basically he believed your mind worked better when your brain was out of action.
It was mescaline wasn't it? Doors of Perception? Similar effects to LSD but naturally occurring. Huxley's wife administered LSD to him on his deathbed IIRC.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One important difference between marijuana and alcohol is that the marijuana plant is the only source of marijuana.
Alcohol can be made from grains, fruits and vegetables.
Controlling marijuana is more feasible than controlling alcohol.
Moo
How is this working in practice?
AIUI the percentage of people who drank alcohol during Prohibition was very much higher than the percentage who use marijuana today.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI the percentage of people who drank alcohol during Prohibition was very much higher than the percentage who use marijuana today.
Moo
From the goverment site on drug abuse
In 2013 in the US where adult use of alcohol is legal.
Marijuana
- Age Group 12+ 12-17 18-25 26+
- Lifetime 42.80 17.00 52.20 44.40
- Past Year 12.10 13.50 31.50 8.60
- Past Month 7.30 7.20 18.70 5.30
Alcohol
- Age Group 12+ 12-17 18-25 26+
- Lifetime 82.30 32.40 84.40 88.10
- Past Year 66.70 26.30 77.40 69.90
- Past Month 52.10 12.90 60.20 55.60
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Legalising pot has a number of benefits. It becomes a boutique business rather than an economic bedrock for violent gangs.
That to me is the most important utilitarian argument. I don't think it does any good having the police force chasing pot users and criminalizing young experimenters starting out in life, in addition to giving violent gangs the business either.
The principled argument is that we allow people a certain amount of freedom to live their lives and if they want to do something mildly harmful the state shouldn't interfere.
Having said that, I think the church could legitimately take a position in advising followers to leave the stuff alone, while recognizing that her advice doesn't require state legislation to enforce it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why legalize something that can harm some people and doesn't really do anyone much good?
You're assuming that getting high isn't a good thing.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Crudely, illegal drug dealers and the huge legal/police/military reaction against them cause more problems to society as a whole than schizophrenia does. Ruins more lives. So if it was a trade-off between the two, legalisation wins on moral grounds.
And it isn't a trade-off between the two of course. Because even if hemp causes schizophrenia (which is doubtful) it certainly only does so for a tiny proportion of sufferers from the disease; and its possible, maybe likely, they'd have got it anyway; and seeing as most people have no trouble getting hold of illegal dope if they want it, legalisation is unlikely to significantly increase usage.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think it is reasonably likely, but not highly probable, that hemp causes schizophrenia and don't think you can reason that they would have got it anyway.
But I agree the risk is low, and we allow people to do more harmful things like riding horses, cycling in rush-hour traffic, smoking cigarettes, drinking sugared fizzy drinks by the litre and staying out late on the London underground.
Added to which, as Ken says, we can't effectively ban cannabis use we can only move it from packaged, ingredients listed and regulated high-street pharmacy world into laced-with-unknown substances unregulated criminal gang world.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One important difference between marijuana and alcohol is that the marijuana plant is the only source of marijuana.
Alcohol can be made from grains, fruits and vegetables.
Controlling marijuana is more feasible than controlling alcohol.
Moo
How is this working in practice?
AIUI the percentage of people who drank alcohol during Prohibition was very much higher than the percentage who use marijuana today.
Moo
But as we have already established, alcohol is the USA's traditional drug of choice, so there may just be a higher percentage of people who are willing to flaunt alcohol prohibition to get their preferred buzz on. We'd need to see how many people would use marijuana if it were legal to know if this is a useful comparison. At any rate, I don't know that anyone has ever said that we should or could ban alcohol but for the fact that it is easy to make your own pruno*. Access to ingredients has far less to do with it than social norms and traditionally acceptable forms of intoxication.
*Pruno: N: my personal favorite name for jailhouse wine, traditionally made by sticking bread, fruit peels, or any other source of yeast in a container with some fruit juice and waiting for a week or two.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lawrence
Ship's Grill Master
# 4913
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Yeah, but disobeying this law does absolutely nothing to address, remedy, or bring attention to any of the moral problems with the law. Marijuana prohibition, absent the racial component, is just a stupid law. There is nothing moral or immoral about smoking a joint. It's a personal choice. So while I would like moral leaders to ask questions about the discriminatory effects of the law, I don't see this as one where civil disobedience is our moral imperative.
I was an avid user of marijuana way back when. I used it for both spiritual and entertainment reasons. I stopped using it after reading an article about how personal pleasure boats were being hi-jacked in the caribbean, the lawful users disposed of at sea and the boats being used once to run illegal drugs into the US. Marijuana was specifically identified in the article. I felt morally bound to stop using marijuana as I could not escape my culpability in the consequences of the illegal drug trade. I am reminded of this decision when I read about the various drug wars in Mexico, Central America and South America due to the illegal drug trade into the US to meet our drug consumption. I think we should legalize most drugs in a highly regulated manner and at least bring the most of the problems related to America's drug problem into the borders of our own country. I think then that the use of potent legal drugs does become an issue of concern for churches, and society as a whole of course, and a theology of their use should be contrived. I doubt one size theology would fit though as the various drugs do various things to people, some perhaps desirable, some certainly not desirable. If I find myself in Colorado, I just may explore that Rocky Mountain High again after all these years!
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Does anyone know how churches in the Netherlands address this issue?
It's never come up in our church. I suspect opinions vary along similar lines to elsewhere - conservative Christians will be anti, more liberal Christians will be more easy-going. Technically it isn't fully legal in the Netherlands, but is "tolerated" which means in practical terms that it is legal. Large (industrial-scale) growers get discovered and arrested regularly, but consumers and small-scale outfits are not pursued.
However I have to say that marijuana is not seen as particularly cool, and if you google marijuana usage by different countries you'll find it is lower here than in many countries where it is illegal. This website compares European nations (it talks about EU, but then includes Norway) and the Netherlands comes in at number 11.
Wikipedia has a broader list of countries, and puts Netherlands on 5.4% (of what?), USA on 13.7%, England and Wales on 6.6%, Australia on 10.6% to pick out a few. So (de facto) legalisation does not necessarily mean more people will smoke pot. Tobacco and alcohol are legal, but not everyone smokes or drinks.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The Washington State and as far as I can tell the Colorado approach is to keep the sellers and the producers at a small scale. Of course that may change when corporations see the profit that can be made by running at larger scale.
One of the implications of the smaller scale is a deliberate parallel to the winery experience. It's a goal of some producers to be able to do tours the same way you can do tasting tours of wine country.
One of the possibilities is that youth reduce their usage of pot because their parents are doing it. It's happened before, see Facebook usage.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan
But as we have already established, alcohol is the USA's traditional drug of choice, so there may just be a higher percentage of people who are willing to flaunt alcohol prohibition to get their preferred buzz on.
I am old enough to have heard stories told by people who were adults before prohibition came in. They said that many people who had not drunk alcohol before prohibition started drinking it then because there was an attitude that anyone who refused alcohol was either sanctimonious or afraid to break the law. There was far more pressure on people to drink during prohibition than there was before it was enacted.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
If that effect was significant then that would also make one think that the effect of legalizing cannabis on overall use would not be as great as some might imagine.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan
But as we have already established, alcohol is the USA's traditional drug of choice, so there may just be a higher percentage of people who are willing to flaunt alcohol prohibition to get their preferred buzz on.
I am old enough to have heard stories told by people who were adults before prohibition came in. They said that many people who had not drunk alcohol before prohibition started drinking it then because there was an attitude that anyone who refused alcohol was either sanctimonious or afraid to break the law. There was far more pressure on people to drink during prohibition than there was before it was enacted.
Moo
Not according to Wikipedia
quote:
After the prohibition was implemented alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10–20%.[4][5][6] One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests came to a similar result.[7] And, yet another study examining "mortality, mental health and crime statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60–70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[8]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
re: Moo/Lilbuddha exchange.
Counterintutive or ironic occurences tend to be remembered more than expected ones. So the folks that Moo spoke with probably experienced a few instances of people being pressured to drink during prohibition, and remembered it years later because it was the opposite of what they would have normally been expected.
I know there is this popular image that everyone during prohibition kept on drinking just as before. But I have to think that criminalization put up at least a bit of an obstacle. If coffee were outlawed tomorrow, and the only people selling it were biker gangs, would all current coffee drinkers just start frequenting the local Hells Angels clubhouse to get their morning cup?
And yes, I am aware that drinking did continue during prohibition in numbers significant enough to keep the mafia in business and render the whole project a disaster.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I expect it would be a bit like lilbuddha's wiki link above for prohibition. At first there would be a large fall in coffee drinking, but those who really are desperate for their early fix would find a way of getting it (either by buying directly from the Hell's angels or by buying off brokers).
Then as the situation became normalized, and everyone worked out how keenly policed it was and where the tolerance in the system was, coffee drinking would go up again.
Probably it would not quite reach pre-prohibition levels, but it would remain quite high.
And probably some people would find it exceptionally cool to drink coffee and some counter-cultural T shirts in rainbow colours with coffee beans would be produced.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan
But as we have already established, alcohol is the USA's traditional drug of choice, so there may just be a higher percentage of people who are willing to flaunt alcohol prohibition to get their preferred buzz on.
I am old enough to have heard stories told by people who were adults before prohibition came in. They said that many people who had not drunk alcohol before prohibition started drinking it then because there was an attitude that anyone who refused alcohol was either sanctimonious or afraid to break the law. There was far more pressure on people to drink during prohibition than there was before it was enacted.
Moo
If this is true, then it seems to be an argument against prohibition.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
My church knows I have a brain and the expect me to use it to make adult decisions regarding my health and well being based on the Christian spiritual principles that they have taught me over the years. The church then does not need to miro manage my spiritual life with every new thing that comes along.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
