Thread: Pot and Church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026712
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
In Washington State where I live, the state is in the process of legalizing the use of marijuana as it was decided by referendum.

I'm curious if any denominations have any rulings about the use of marijuana. It used to be covered by "don't do anything illegal" but now that's going away.

As I understand Islam, use of Alcohol is prohibited and use of hemp products tolerated.

Some Christian sects allow wine and some don't.

Anyone have any rulings on Pot?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
God knows its one way to get through some Sunday Mornings. This of course coming from someone with a High church background. Wafers mmmmmmm.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Perhaps something is to be learned from Jesus exhorting Zaccheus to come down?

(Sorry!)

[ 25. January 2014, 08:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Fly safe? Come down? Well, this is off to a good start!

I think the general understanding of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, plus the notion that somehow we (corporately" may have, or have access to, the "Mind of Christ" suggest that it's not a good idea to mess around with either the body or the mind. The notion of pot as a soft drug has always struck me as a bit dodgy anyway. No expert in these matters, but I think some of the stuff currently available isn't all that soft either, even if it ever was.

Never taken the stuff, don't have any personal experience of the risks of habituation or long term damage. Unlike tobacco. I smoked for years, picked up the habit when it was fashionable, movie stars smoked, no real medical information available about health risks. Took me a lot of effort to kick the habit.

When asked this question, my normal advice is "give it a miss for your own sake". But because of my own experiences with smoking, I don't say that from a high perch.

[ 25. January 2014, 08:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I think if they started using it in censers, the church might find itself growing.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Picking up on Barnabas 62, there's a high correlation between use of marijuana, especially in teenage years, and the onset of schizophrenia in the mid- to late- twenties. That by itself is a good reason not to de-criminalise it, and even more a good reason not to defile one's body by using it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Your love keeps lifting me higher and higher. (J. Wilson).
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Picking up on Barnabas 62, there's a high correlation between use of marijuana, especially in teenage years, and the onset of schizophrenia in the mid- to late- twenties. That by itself is a good reason not to de-criminalise it, and even more a good reason not to defile one's body by using it.
I understand that the current research suggests a (not particularly strong, certainly not indicative of a causal link like tobacco and lung cancer) correlation, but there are at least two hypotheses that don't imply a widespread danger from cannabis:
1) cannabis is a trigger for a small proportion of the population who are already susceptible to certain psychological conditions
2) cannabis is used as self-medication by those trying to deal with the early symptoms of psychological conditions

Both of these would result in correlation without direct causation.

I've never taken cannabis myself, and have no particular desire to, but I don't see how it can be considered particularly harmful in comparison with alcohol (I don't drink either, for the record).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
To redeem myself I'd better post something serious too.

The question seems to be about whether churches enforce a policy other than that of the law of the land, and why.

When church policy does differ from the law of the land, it's usually on theological and ethical grounds (rather like what Barnabas62 said) rather than medical ones. I think that's a different debate (I have recently shifted on the decriminalisation issue, or at least on how drug possession is sanctioned).

In the previous incarnation of the church I help lead, when we had a lot of marginal people, the unwritten rules about drugs were: no consumption on the premises, no dealing on the premises, and no extending your dealership among the membership or fringe membership.

Otherwise I think Paul covers all this pretty admirably in 1 Corinthians with "not everything builds up", "I will not allow myself to be enslaved to anything", and so on.
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
It's an interesting question, and presumably not one the church has had to really think about before...

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 do think there's a real danger of hypocrisy from the church in the absence of conclusive proof that pot is more harmful than alcohol and tobacco, if they should choose to demonise one (pot) and not the other two.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
If it were legal, I don't see how it would be any different to alcohol or tobacco.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I understand that the current research suggests a (not particularly strong, certainly not indicative of a causal link like tobacco and lung cancer) correlation
Correlations are never indicative of causation by themselves, in the case of tobacco and lung cancer there is a lot of cellular and molecular biology to support a mechanism as well as the epidemiological correlation. But the epidemiology was considered evidence enough to act before the cellular and molecular biology had come in.

The epidemiology linking cannabis to schizophrenia is reasonably strong now. It is going to be a lot tougher getting a detailed mechanistic link because brains and mental state are harder to pick apart in the lab than carcinogens are.


quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
1) cannabis is a trigger for a small proportion of the population who are already susceptible to certain psychological conditions
One could also state that only a minority of smokers get lung cancer, and therefore the smoke must be trigger for a minority who are already susceptible.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
2) cannabis is used as self-medication by those trying to deal with the early symptoms of psychological conditions
An early explanation for the tobacco link with heart disease was that successful type A personalities were prone both to smoking and heart disease. Reputable journals briefly carried such arguments.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've never taken cannabis myself, and have no particular desire to, but I don't see how it can be considered particularly harmful in comparison with alcohol (I don't drink either, for the record).
One difference is that alcohol in moderation actually promotes health. People live longer. That can't be said for any level of cannabis use.

Having said that it seems to me that the risk of ill-health and serious consequences is much higher with tobacco than with cannabis.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
An early explanation for the tobacco link with heart disease was that successful type A personalities were prone both to smoking and heart disease. Reputable journals briefly carried such arguments.
Surely reputable journals carried such arguments because they were compatible with the evidence available at the time? You seem to be pre-supposing that a correlation in current evidence will lead to causation upon further study, when there is no reason to suppose that this will be the case. It was true in the case of tobacco but then the correlation between ill-health and smoking is much stronger.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I was wondering if the Methodist Church (UK) had ever discussed the use of illegal drugs, and it turns out that it has called for the legalisation of cannabis to be considered.
http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/cannab1.htm

http://www.methodist.org.uk/who-we-are/views-of-the-church/drugs

My feeling is that most mainstream urban British churches might face this issue as a result of their social engagement with local communities, but it wouldn't be something that they'd often need to deal with as a 'religious' issue for their own members. But pastoral support would no doubt be available for churchgoing parents and grandparents who are worried about the effect of pot on their grand/children.

Congregations with an evangelistic mission among highly vulnerable groups would have to give this subject much more thought.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

I do think there's a real danger of hypocrisy from the church in the absence of conclusive proof that pot is more harmful than alcohol and tobacco, if they should choose to demonise one (pot) and not the other two.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If it were legal, I don't see how it would be any different to alcohol or tobacco.
Are you guys serious??

Tobacco is one ball game. Alchohol is a much bigger ball game and pot is a HUGE gall game.

The differences in changes in perception of reality are exponential.

At least that's my experience......(couldn't do much pot - made me lose touch with reality way too much).

I honestly worry about countries that legalize marijuana. Surely they'll all go to pot.

(pun intended)
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Tobacco is one ball game. Alchohol is a much bigger ball game and pot is a HUGE gall game.
Only from the point of view of whether they should be legal, surely? If they are legal, what is the theological reason to reject them? If a church accepts alcohol and tobacco - and quite a lot of them do, at least to the degree of tolerating them - then why should pot be any different? If there is no theological reason for a rejection of alcohol, what is the theological reason for a rejection of pot?

So I can accept that a church may wish to campaign against the legalisation, for all the reasons above. But given that these have all been taken into account, it has to be treated on the same level as other legal drugs that have an adverse effect on the body.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
(couldn't do much pot - made me lose touch with reality way too much).
I take it you are still on it then.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I smoked loads back in the day and it was good shit an' all. I would definitely put it in the same class as alcohol.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The epidemiology linking cannabis to schizophrenia is reasonably strong now.
I found over time that when I smoked grass, I felt increasingly uneasy about certain aspects of my personality, and so I stopped. Not schizophrenia, I don't think, but still . . . .

That said, I used to hide my stash in the choir room.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Picking up on Barnabas 62, there's a high correlation between use of marijuana, especially in teenage years, and the onset of schizophrenia in the mid- to late- twenties. That by itself is a good reason not to de-criminalise it, and even more a good reason not to defile one's body by using it.
Why not treat it as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue? People do damage to their bodies by drinking, smoking tobacco, eating trans fats and huge amounts of red meat, and drinking huge quantities of sugary beverages, and we have never decided that the answer to those issues is to throw those people in jail.

And consider who is being thrown in jail for marijuana possession. Nationally, black people are four times more likely to be arrested for possession than white people. And it isn't because they use it more than white people. If we want the Church taking a stance on any part of this issue, that is probably where it should start.

I've known people who could probably qualify as problem smokers, just as I have known people who qualify as problem drinkers. If you are smoking so much that you aren't going to work or getting your school work done, it's a problem. But that isn't everyone. Among my friends, it is pretty commonly used the same way some of you and your friends enjoy a glass of red wine (or GIN for that matter). Just a way to relax at the end of the day. (It's legal here as well, and we are actually a step ahead of Washington, with retail sales having started on January 1.)

So we should educate people about the health risks and reach out to problem cases, like we do with alcohol. But we don't need to send people to jail for smoking pot, and the Church should really be asking for justice for the minority victims of the war on pot.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
I don't think the church has any difficulty in other areas expressing that something which is legal is not recommended, for reasons spiritual, for your own health, physical and mental, or for the effect it has on others around you or in relationship with you. We probably don't make rules around these things but pastorally would be clear that they are harmful in some way and counsel against them, and try to support those who are trying to change.

I imagine marijuana use is going to be seen as potentially harmful rather than neutral.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I imagine marijuana use is going to be seen as potentially harmful rather than neutral.
Yes, but if you look at Og, King of Bashan's list you'll see that this could be said of many things, not many of which you are likely to see people receive pastoral counselling about.

Regardless of whether a habit is legal or not, I think it the church's responsibility is to teach people 1 Corinthans and Romans, in other words get them to listen to their conscience, respect others' consciences and encourage them to be free from any and every dependency by thinking through the issues themselves rather than abiding by a list of dos and don'ts.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Picking up on Barnabas 62, there's a high correlation between use of marijuana, especially in teenage years, and the onset of schizophrenia in the mid- to late- twenties. That by itself is a good reason not to de-criminalise it, and even more a good reason not to defile one's body by using it.
We don't know if pot is a causative or triggering factor of people use pot as a calming agent as the disease gets going. It is also associated with higher levels of cigarette smoking. Which no one says causes schiz.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Picking up on Barnabas 62, there's a high correlation between use of marijuana, especially in teenage years, and the onset of schizophrenia in the mid- to late- twenties. That by itself is a good reason not to de-criminalise it, and even more a good reason not to defile one's body by using it.
We don't know if pot is a causative or triggering factor of people use pot as a calming agent as the disease gets going. It is also associated with higher levels of cigarette smoking. Which no one says causes schiz.
On the legality, I wld say deal with it as a health issue not criminal.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
My denomination has no official position on marijuana, but ministers have speculated on spiritual issues associated with it.

Swedenborgian theology says that every person is surrounded at all times by spirits, both good and bad, and angels. People are not aware of these spirits, nor are the spirits aware of us. They inhabit two separate but connected planes of life. The barrier between the two worlds should not be crossed.

These spiritual associations are the source of all of our thoughts and feelings. Thoughts and feelings flow into us from God through them, and are adapted as they come down to us. We have more or less control of these thoughts and feelings and make free choices among them. We are never aware that they have any origin other than our own heads, nor are the spirits and angels connected with us aware.

Many factors influence the nature and impact of these spiritual associations. We essentially call them to us by our own choices. But our hereditary makeup, the culture within which we live, and the changing chemical makeup and organic structure of our brains play a huge role.

The issue is that drugs of all kinds achieve their effects by altering our brain chemistry and function. This in turn opens or closes the way to these spiritual associations in different ways. In extreme cases this can result in visions or hearing voices, but more commonly it just results in various feelings, often very profound and pleasant ones.

There is nothing wrong with feelings. The problem is that messing with brain chemistry plays with the normal barrier that separates us from our spiritual associations. Different chemicals call in different kinds of spirits. Over time the effects can become more permanent, can affect our thinking and decisions, move us in ways that we don't expect or intend, lead to psychological or motivational issues, or have other negative effects.

The same is true of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and many other things in life. But mostly these things are very mild, at least in normal doses. Actually everything in our lives play into some kind of effects like these.

The problem with any kind of heavy use of alcohol or any other drug that makes us "high" is that the effects are more spiritual than we realize. The resulting feelings and behaviors are not value free but are often problematic, especially in the long run.

This is one reason why people who are drunk or high do not get sudden urges to perform community service or worship God, but often respond to urges that are more self-centered and less positive.

For this reason our church discourages any kind of drug use or alcohol abuse.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Actually the main reason to legalise marijuana in the US is the racism of how laws against it are carried out. Black men are disproportionately likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana.

racist drug laws

In the interests of disclosure - have smoked once or twice when I lived in hostels, not since because I have no idea where to get it from. Didn't have any real effect other than a very good night's sleep.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
The epidemiology linking cannabis to schizophrenia is reasonably strong now.
Unfortunately, a lot of people won't believe that, because it comes on the tail of decades of ludicrously fabricated anti-cannabis propaganda.

An ad I remember from the Nancy Reagan era. A doctor is talking to a young couple in his office.

DOCTOR: I'm very sorry to tell you that you will never be able to have chidren.

(The couple look at each other with shameful grimaces. Ominous musical tones.)

ANNOUNCER: Marijuana has been linked to lower sperm counts.

And that was it. No source for the information about sperm counts, nor any mention of documented cases of people actually going sterile as a result of marijuana use. The whole thing was a mockery of the scientific method and basic logic, but it was shown on TV and meant to be understood as representing credible research.

And then there was that whole metaphor with the egg, in which it was never explained exactly what horrid chemical process was supposed to be represented by frying an egg. Personally, I've always found raw eggs pretty useless, from a culinary perspective, so you could even read the ad as being PRO-drugs.

If the public fails to accept that there could be a causal link between marijuana and schizophrenia, it will be at least partly because of the Drug Warriors' long history of crying wolf.

[ 25. January 2014, 15:51: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
(couldn't do much pot - made me lose touch with reality way too much).
I take it you are still on it then.
OK in Hell, SC, but not here. A C3 line cross, even in jest, is a C3 line cross. No more here.

Barnabas62, Purg Host
 
Posted by Ophicleide16 (# 16344) on :
 
If cannabis were used in thuribles, every Sunday would be a High Mass!

I would support legalising it if only to eliminate the various problems that arise when fairly widespread practices are banned and forced underground. It's not like churches haven't been dealing, at least on a pastoral level, with those affected by it.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We don't know if pot is a causative or triggering factor of people use pot as a calming agent as the disease gets going.
My anecdote, from personal observation, suggests causation, but that's hardly enough to build a rigorous argument on.

It is enough that I, personally, would worry about my children using pot at about the same level that I would worry about them getting drunk to incapacity every weekend (or if I ever saw them drinking alcopops [Snigger] )

But I'm in favour of legalization, for adults, on basically libertarian grounds, subject to strict emissions controls (smoke all you like, but don't let me smell it.) I'd also attach a strongly reinforced statement that "I didn't know what I was doing - I was drunk / stoned / high / whatever" doesn't excuse a crime, but is an aggravating factor.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think if they started using it in censers, the church might find itself growing.
We'd have to buy more bagels for coffee hour.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I understand that the current research suggests a (not particularly strong, certainly not indicative of a causal link like tobacco and lung cancer) correlation, but there are at least two hypotheses that don't imply a widespread danger from cannabis:
1) cannabis is a trigger for a small proportion of the population who are already susceptible to certain psychological conditions
2) cannabis is used as self-medication by those trying to deal with the early symptoms of psychological conditions

Both of these would result in correlation without direct causation.
Which is what we have now from the "official" scientific reports. So at least we're no worse off with these hypotheses.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If it were legal, I don't see how it would be any different to alcohol or tobacco.
This is my default position. I'm willing to consider evidence and/or arguments to the contrary, but have yet to hear any strong ones.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
One could also state that only a minority of smokers get lung cancer, and therefore the smoke must be trigger for a minority who are already susceptible.
Except, as you say, there are positive causative links known between smoking and cancer. So it's disanalogous. The thing is, we have no established causative medical link between cannabis and schizophrenia, so all reasonable causative hypotheses are still on the table. None that are at all plausible can be ridiculed as prima facie absurd, especially if, like Arethosemyfeet's suggestions, they are known to be operative in other things.

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.
Correction: that hasn't been shown for cannabis use. Big difference. You don't know it's not the case; you're guessing.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The issue is that drugs of all kinds achieve their effects by altering our brain chemistry and function.
This is also true of running, which in some people produces the same effects as certain drugs, and by the exact same mechanism. It changes brain chemistry and function.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
As I think we are getting more heat than light here I have googles WHO Advice of Cannabis. This can be viewed as the official line on what the epidemiological knowledge is at.

The answer seems to be that it is neither a trigger nor a self medication but "can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals". So it does not increase prevalence but increases severity.

Jengie
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
Why does a church have to have a view at all? Is taking drugs, drinking alcohol or smoking linked to the Gospel?

We are encouraged to speak out and act on social issues where people are oppressed in some way and the way that people are put under pressure to take all sorts of substances and the downward spiral that can result are definitely things that we should get our hands dirty with.

But the issues aren't the substances themselves: the issues are bad relationships and helping people escape from or deal with them.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
One problem with pot research is that it has been fairly limited. IIRC, there are significant studies for heavy users and the effects thereto, but not so much the effects to casual use.

Pot in the public space is more problematic than alcohol in some ways. Smoking is not self contained. Ingestion mediums present a higher chance of children accessing them. The jury is still out on vapourisation, but it is not self-contained.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
[ETA in response to The Rogue]: That's the point I've been trying to make.

It seems to me this discussion has taken a wrong turn with regard to the OP. It's surely not up to the church to decide whether there is a causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia. It might conceivably be up to the church (or a national representation thereof) to lobby for legislation on issues like this. But I hardly see it as a local church's responsibility to dispense health advice to its members. I think that's just the wrong kind of paternalism.

[ 25. January 2014, 16:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We don't know if pot is a causative or triggering factor of people use pot as a calming agent as the disease gets going.
My anecdote, from personal observation, suggests causation, but that's hardly enough to build a rigorous argument on.

It is enough that I, personally, would worry about my children using pot at about the same level that I would worry about them getting drunk to incapacity every weekend (or if I ever saw them drinking alcopops [Snigger] )

But I'm in favour of legalization, for adults, on basically libertarian grounds, subject to strict emissions controls (smoke all you like, but don't let me smell it.) I'd also attach a strongly reinforced statement that "I didn't know what I was doing - I was drunk / stoned / high / whatever" doesn't excuse a crime, but is an aggravating factor.
I may be of a different generation than you. We all smoked up when I was young, and so did many highschool teachers and professors at univ. It was all part of the Learyesque concern that killing people was worse than flowers and drugs, and the belief that society was based on evil. There was a turn to churches in the 1960s but it faded, I think because the message was out of touch with the stark reality that it would remain allied with constituted authority.

Maybe what churches should do is start talking about criminalization of tbe poor and addicted, and in Canada of native people, USA of nonwhites. Focus on underlying social problems might make churches more relevant re this.

[ 25. January 2014, 17:03: Message edited by: no prophet ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The issue is that drugs of all kinds achieve their effects by altering our brain chemistry and function.
This is also true of running, which in some people produces the same effects as certain drugs, and by the exact same mechanism. It changes brain chemistry and function.
That's right. Our brain chemistry is changing all the time in response to all kinds of things.

So that's not really the issue.

The issue, according to the line of thought that I was discussing, is a value judgment on the cause of the change, the effects of the change, and specifically the spiritual ramifications of the change.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
This paper (abstract in the Lancet with brackets in url) is what got David Nutt sacked as the drug czar

quote:
"Alcohol ranks as the fifth most harmful drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone. Tobacco is ranked ninth," he wrote in the paper from the centre for crime and justice studies at King's College, London, published yesterday.

"Cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, while harmful, are ranked lower at 11, 14 and 18 respectively."

 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The issue is that drugs of all kinds achieve their effects by altering our brain chemistry and function.
This is also true of running, which in some people produces the same effects as certain drugs, and by the exact same mechanism. It changes brain chemistry and function.
That's right. Our brain chemistry is changing all the time in response to all kinds of things.

So that's not really the issue.

The issue, according to the line of thought that I was discussing, is a value judgment on the cause of the change, the effects of the change, and specifically the spiritual ramifications of the change.
Given that the Christianity's central ritual involves a mind-altering drug (ethanol), I'm not sure it's in a good place to be overly critical of such things.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the Christianity's central ritual involves a mind-altering drug (ethanol), I'm not sure it's in a good place to be overly critical of such things.
Well, you have to bear in mind that the Church in Corinth is strongly reprimanded for any consumption of ethanol in its central ritual in quantities that induce an altered state of mind, so I think the point is moot.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
At the risk of citing to something and thus bringing actual evidence into the debate, we might consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2290: The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. [...]

2291: The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

We should note three things: first, that the CCC says what it says without reference to the legality at civil law of the substances involved; second, that the CCC makes no reference to the mind-altering nature of such substances (query whether such qualities are morally neutral); and third, that "drugs" is not defined (query, of course, whether marijuana is or should be within that category, and if so, what else is).

This, at least, provides a starting point for the discussion. The text of the CCC might suggest a different emphasis than one usually sees; for example, that drinking alcohol to excess (a much larger problem than marijuana use, no matter how one views it) is gravely sinful. Oddly enough, denominations which forbid or actively discourage the drinking of alcohol (sundry Baptists, some Methodists, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.) might be more on point here, since they would condemn both the drinking of alcohol and the use of drugs in equally strong, unequivocal terms.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
nd third, that "drugs" is not defined (query, of course, whether marijuana is or should be within that category, and if so, what else is).
Yes - and the idea that they can cause a 'grave' effect in all cases is questionable - at least in regards to marijuana
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the Christianity's central ritual involves a mind-altering drug (ethanol), I'm not sure it's in a good place to be overly critical of such things.
Well, you have to bear in mind that the Church in Corinth is strongly reprimanded for any consumption of ethanol in its central ritual in quantities that induce an altered state of mind, so I think the point is moot.
That's right.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If it were legal, I don't see how it would be any different to alcohol or tobacco.
My impression is that different religions have different opinions on alcohol and tobacco where they are legal. Some denominations are temperance and some ban smoking. Others allow alcohol, in moderation, and have no opinion smoking tobacco.
Some use wine in the communion, some use pasteurized grape juice. Rastafarians and some small Christian sects use marijuana as a spiritual practice even though for many it's illegal.


One issue is drug legalization. Should one be allowed to use pot. If it's illegal, does the church condemn use either because of not wanting to support drug trafficking or because of the harm to self. This goes away as an issue if the state legalizes although it gets a bit weird when you have states that allow it and states that don't just like dry counties.

Another issue is, is use forbidden, is it tolerated in moderation, or tolerated as a medicinal drug. There are both health and theological arguments for both..

Finally, this is a rare example of the rules changing. How does your church go about making these decisions.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
I'm reminded of Dion Fortune's comment that Western religion dulled the mind by the use of alcohol while Eastern religion stimulated it by the use of tea...
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I never yet heard of a church that banned tobacco or alcohol simply because these things were illegal. Like I said upthread, the arguments are ethical and theological, not legal. I doubt if any churches changed any beliefs enshrined as church rules once, say, Prohibition ended, purely on legal grounds.

Another example might be illegal forms of gambling. Churches aren't against gambling because it's illegal (where it is), but because it's addictive and destructive and so on. This remains true irrespective of whether it's legal or not. The same is true of drugs and their abuse.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Like I said upthread, the arguments are ethical and theological, not legal.
That's right.

Maybe some churches have long lists of rules that they vote on about things like this, but mine does not.

Instead, members of the clergy will register opinions if asked, or include them in their teaching. If their thoughts on subjects like these are out of step with their colleagues they may, or may not, have some discussions on their hands.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I don't actually see a lot of "heat" being generated here. We're all discussing this rationally and politely, and nobody appears to be the least bit hot under the collar.

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
We should note three things: first, that the CCC says what it says without reference to the legality at civil law of the substances involved; second, that the CCC makes no reference to the mind-altering nature of such substances (query whether such qualities are morally neutral); and third, that "drugs" is not defined (query, of course, whether marijuana is or should be within that category, and if so, what else is).
Fourth, that it is making medical pronouncements without being qualified to do so. Just this side of practicing medicine without a license.

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I'm reminded of Dion Fortune's comment that Western religion dulled the mind by the use of alcohol while Eastern religion stimulated it by the use of tea...
We get a lot more stimulants during coffee hour than we do depressants during Communion. (Especially in the OC where the wine is mixed with hot water, and we each get maybe 5ml, some of which is bread.)
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Shouldn't churches disobey the law if it is wrong? Has no one one the ship ever disobeyed a law because it is wrong? But no one marches any more and I guess illegal assembly is no worse than jaywalking. Oh well.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the Christianity's central ritual involves a mind-altering drug (ethanol), I'm not sure it's in a good place to be overly critical of such things.
Well, you have to bear in mind that the Church in Corinth is strongly reprimanded for any consumption of ethanol in its central ritual in quantities that induce an altered state of mind, so I think the point is moot.
That's right.
Yes, but endorsing the religious use of alcohol pretty much constitutes an indirect endorsement of the inebriating use of it. Because, prior to the ritual being instituted, the only reason alcohol was created in the first place was as an inebriant.

To endorse the ritual use but not the recreational use would be like saying: "Okay, this stuff is absolutely essential for our ritual, so we're glad it was created, but all the people who drank it before us were using it for the wrong purposes."

I would imagine that Paul was against the use of alcohol at recreational levels during the ritual, ie. combining the two purposes.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
The Wedding at Cana should put to rest any idea that Christ was against wine, or against consuming much wine. The maitre d' was quite astonished that the bridegroom brought out the really good wine after everybody had drunk so much of the bad stuff that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference; usually one does exactly the opposite. It takes more than a glass or two for people who live in a wine-drinking culture to not be able to discern that they're now being given cheap stuff.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Yes, but endorsing the religious use of alcohol pretty much constitutes an indirect endorsement of the inebriating use of it.
You will find people drinking in moderation and getting a bit merry at parties viewed with approval throughout the Bible. You will find people drinking to excess and getting plastered as a regular way of life viewed with disapproval throughout the Bible.

As regards Paul's epistle castigating people for getting drunk at Communion, one could also recall God's instructions to Aaron in Leviticus 10:9.

[ 26. January 2014, 01:20: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Yes, but endorsing the religious use of alcohol pretty much constitutes an indirect endorsement of the inebriating use of it.
You will find people drinking in moderation and getting a bit merry at parties viewed with approval throughout the Bible. You will find people drinking to excess and getting plastered as a regular way of life viewed with disapproval throughout the Bible.
Yes. By "inebriating", I was including moderate psychoactive effects, which I'm sure the bible-writers had no problem with.

And I do not doubt that they looked with disapproval upon being plastered 24/7.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
Just because I hardly ever get to proof-text, I must mention that Psalm 104 praises God for giving wine "to gladden the heart of man," clearly endorsing the psychoactive effect.

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. (Speaking strictly from personal experience, I never knew anyone with a drug problem who wouldn't have had problems if they had never touched drugs.) I gave it up a couple of decades ago because I found that as I aged, three hits made me sleepy rather than giggly.

From a broader ethical POV, I think the principle of moderate, responsible use covers it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

The most recent major study pretty much debunks the pot-schizophrenia nexus.
quote:
282 subjects
Hardly a definitive study. Whilst I am not saying the study is incorrect, I am saying it fails to be large enough to prove anything.

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

 Which is no great surprise to those of us who inhaled enthusiastically and went on to graduate with honors and have productive lives. (Speaking strictly from personal experience, I never knew anyone with a drug problem who wouldn't have had problems if they had never touched drugs.)
This is the "Gran smoked every day and lived 'till 90" argument, combined with confirmation bias.

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

From a broader ethical POV, I think the principle of moderate, responsible use covers it.
I agree. With the caveat that proper study needs to be done with a broader subject base and, most especially, with casual users.
One consistent effect across studies which have been done is chronic* users suffer memory issues which are not fully recovered when use is ended.

*Pun not intended, but noticed and kept.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Shouldn't churches disobey the law if it is wrong?
But even if a church frowns on marijuana use after it has become legalised, this is hardly disobeying the law.

And churches don't have to actively encourage anything just because the law allows it.

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I would imagine that Paul was against the use of alcohol at recreational levels during the ritual, ie. combining the two purposes.
That will do just as well to counter Croesos' point as far as I'm concerned.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.
This was posted too late to discuss with a psychiatrist mate we ran into dog-walking this morning, but we were able to talk about the comments by Arethosemyfeet. His comment was that the position here is still that there is a strong correlation between teenage use of marijuana and late 20s schizophrenia, but that may be different in the US. He spoke of damage to brain cells still forming correctly and being susceptible to damage; use by adults does not show the same correlation.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
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

Alcohol
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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]

 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :
 
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.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0