LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
For all you religious people out there. You should support the idea of legalizing weed. After all "God gave us all the seed bearing plants and herbs to use"
Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?
The Bible and Marijuana
- Thread starter LIGHTBEING
- Start date
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
Why would we put lethal plants in our food? Are you insinuating that Weed is lethal. Weed is not a drug....it is a plant and it is less harmful then Alcohol and Tobacco. I just find it hard to understand why they Gov't would make this plant illegal when a tobacco leaf causes so many deaths.
Plus tobacco tastes like crap. Weed tastes better
Tobacco kills more people than AIDS, murder, suicides, fires,alcohol and all illegal drugs combined.
Plus tobacco tastes like crap. Weed tastes better
Tobacco kills more people than AIDS, murder, suicides, fires,alcohol and all illegal drugs combined.
Yes...
Perfect thread LIGHTBEING!
Come on godbelievers, give your thoughts about the Pleasure Herb. It is a Herb you know, given to us by the great god almighty. He created everthing! So he also created Marijuana!
Why is it so that Marijuana is a forbidden Herb, so to say. Is it like the forbidden fruit in the garden of eden?
What's the story here? I am curious you know. Can you please fill me in here?
Marijuana is also a very good medicine. It is used by nerve-pain and other diseases to ease the pain. In the Netherlands Marijuana is a legal medicine.
Give me your thoughts please...
Perfect thread LIGHTBEING!
Come on godbelievers, give your thoughts about the Pleasure Herb. It is a Herb you know, given to us by the great god almighty. He created everthing! So he also created Marijuana!
Why is it so that Marijuana is a forbidden Herb, so to say. Is it like the forbidden fruit in the garden of eden?
What's the story here? I am curious you know. Can you please fill me in here?
Marijuana is also a very good medicine. It is used by nerve-pain and other diseases to ease the pain. In the Netherlands Marijuana is a legal medicine.
Give me your thoughts please...
A sign of intelligence
I consider it to speak volumes about Christians that they have, generally, realized that the Bible is only an effective tool in the fight to reduce drug consumption. In the case of cannabis, specifically, I do believe that we are licensed by the Bible to use it, as noted by other posters.
I also consider it to speak volumes how many Christians have chosen to latch onto the War for Prohibition. That a similar faith leap is taken to cling to an anti-drug position surprises me none. However, being that Christians are learning to separate their faith in the Homeland War, we must at least give them that credit. It isn't their God that compels them to support their nation's war against their neighbors; it's good old-fashioned blind faith.
I tend to think that as long as the Christian War Against People and the Homeland War stay separate, everything's manageable. Just don't put the conservative Christians in charge of the Drug War; they'll start burning people at the stake. (Oh, crap ... reality check ....)
Clinton's big contribution to the Drug War actually makes sense to me. Clinton was a stoner in college--he knows. So what did he do? Hmm ... the people apparently want a Drug War because two presidents have carried it out and I'm apparently expeected to continue this. What's this? Lawyers? Politicians? No, no, no ... for a War Against Drugs, I give you a real war-hawk .... Hence, General Barry McCaffrey was sworn in as Drug Czar, and people started dying at an alarming rate. Like I've said of his terms: it was a practical joke of sorts. Yeah, people died, but a good number of people would have died of overdoses and so forth. Now Esquivel Hernandez, Patrick Dorismond, Mario Paz, and scores of others are the martyrs of the Drug War. But for Clinton, he had two choices: A) People die to addiction and overdose as the Drug War fails and perpetuates; B) People die at the hands of an actual War Against Drugs while that Drug War fails and eventually perishes beneath the weight of revulsion it brings.
After that reality check, we might be thankful that we're fighting the Drug War in Afghanistan right now. Of course, I'm vaguely disappointed at the loss of good opium, but the heroin market does need to slow and we can't have that money blowing up our buildings or feeding children who might become future terrorists. See, in Olympia, Washington, the State Legislature has been stumbling over wiretap and antiterrorism legislation (none of it will fly in the end). But they don't understand this is unnecessary: just have some junkie say they got drugs from the suspected terrorist and then you can raid the place and even gun him down without any real consequences coming to bear. What's that? He was middle-eastern, possibly a Muslim? Ah, what did it matter that he was innocent of the drug charge? He was probably a terrorist anyway ....
But seriously, let's keep church and state separate. The Christians have realized these last couple years that to be anti-marijuana is tantamount to grape juice communion, angelic intervention circa its 1990's revival, and the idea of scientific creationism. That is, Welch's grape juice is a failed communion substitute; the use of nonalcoholic blood was extra-biblical; angelic intervention violates Christ's words in some forms; scientific creationism requires revision of the scientific process--it is not scientific. To be anti-marijuana is, indeed, an extra-biblical stance.
And I'm willing to hold them responsible not as Christians, but as people who support the Homeland War. That they could hate their neighbors that way is not surprising, even in a Christian. It's subtle, but people clinging to faith usually miss subtlety.
thanx,
Tiassa
I consider it to speak volumes about Christians that they have, generally, realized that the Bible is only an effective tool in the fight to reduce drug consumption. In the case of cannabis, specifically, I do believe that we are licensed by the Bible to use it, as noted by other posters.
I also consider it to speak volumes how many Christians have chosen to latch onto the War for Prohibition. That a similar faith leap is taken to cling to an anti-drug position surprises me none. However, being that Christians are learning to separate their faith in the Homeland War, we must at least give them that credit. It isn't their God that compels them to support their nation's war against their neighbors; it's good old-fashioned blind faith.
I tend to think that as long as the Christian War Against People and the Homeland War stay separate, everything's manageable. Just don't put the conservative Christians in charge of the Drug War; they'll start burning people at the stake. (Oh, crap ... reality check ....)
Clinton's big contribution to the Drug War actually makes sense to me. Clinton was a stoner in college--he knows. So what did he do? Hmm ... the people apparently want a Drug War because two presidents have carried it out and I'm apparently expeected to continue this. What's this? Lawyers? Politicians? No, no, no ... for a War Against Drugs, I give you a real war-hawk .... Hence, General Barry McCaffrey was sworn in as Drug Czar, and people started dying at an alarming rate. Like I've said of his terms: it was a practical joke of sorts. Yeah, people died, but a good number of people would have died of overdoses and so forth. Now Esquivel Hernandez, Patrick Dorismond, Mario Paz, and scores of others are the martyrs of the Drug War. But for Clinton, he had two choices: A) People die to addiction and overdose as the Drug War fails and perpetuates; B) People die at the hands of an actual War Against Drugs while that Drug War fails and eventually perishes beneath the weight of revulsion it brings.
After that reality check, we might be thankful that we're fighting the Drug War in Afghanistan right now. Of course, I'm vaguely disappointed at the loss of good opium, but the heroin market does need to slow and we can't have that money blowing up our buildings or feeding children who might become future terrorists. See, in Olympia, Washington, the State Legislature has been stumbling over wiretap and antiterrorism legislation (none of it will fly in the end). But they don't understand this is unnecessary: just have some junkie say they got drugs from the suspected terrorist and then you can raid the place and even gun him down without any real consequences coming to bear. What's that? He was middle-eastern, possibly a Muslim? Ah, what did it matter that he was innocent of the drug charge? He was probably a terrorist anyway ....
But seriously, let's keep church and state separate. The Christians have realized these last couple years that to be anti-marijuana is tantamount to grape juice communion, angelic intervention circa its 1990's revival, and the idea of scientific creationism. That is, Welch's grape juice is a failed communion substitute; the use of nonalcoholic blood was extra-biblical; angelic intervention violates Christ's words in some forms; scientific creationism requires revision of the scientific process--it is not scientific. To be anti-marijuana is, indeed, an extra-biblical stance.
And I'm willing to hold them responsible not as Christians, but as people who support the Homeland War. That they could hate their neighbors that way is not surprising, even in a Christian. It's subtle, but people clinging to faith usually miss subtlety.
thanx,
Tiassa
A note on God and Marijuana
It should be noted that on the day that Marijuana has taken its proper station in our daily lives, and when those effects and benefits are manifest in the culture, and the human race is progressing--this I will consider proof of the existence of God, as per the Babel Fish Principle, and the considerations thereunto awarded by Oolon Collophid. (sp? I can't find my copy of The Guide ... ok ... don't panic ...)
Very simply, when it proves out to be everything people hope ... yeah, something that perfect might well be evidence of God.
Of course, we all know what happens next.
waiting for the poof!
Tiassa
It should be noted that on the day that Marijuana has taken its proper station in our daily lives, and when those effects and benefits are manifest in the culture, and the human race is progressing--this I will consider proof of the existence of God, as per the Babel Fish Principle, and the considerations thereunto awarded by Oolon Collophid. (sp? I can't find my copy of The Guide ... ok ... don't panic ...)
Very simply, when it proves out to be everything people hope ... yeah, something that perfect might well be evidence of God.
Of course, we all know what happens next.
waiting for the poof!
Tiassa
I hate it when people make simplistic judgements, especially regarding complex matters such as philosophy, history, art... or religion.
I won't debate about whether or not marijuana is a drug or the virtues and misvirtues of alcohol and tobacco.
Although I would like to say that the part about the christians agreeing with prohibition is crap.
You people tend to make the following reasonment : God created it => it's good. (I assume that from "It is a Herb you know, given to us by the great god almighty. He created everthing! So he also created Marijuana!" (- Banshee) and "You should support the idea of legalizing weed. After all 'God gave us all the seed bearing plants and herbs to use' " (- LIGHTBEING))
God also created Satan, you know.
So when you guys say "He put herbs there so we could smoke it!" then I say, if he put lethal herbs there as well, is it because we should all die?
Your reasoning is "If God created it, then it must be good!" But He created everything, and everything is not good.
There are only two ways out of this : He doesn't exist, or He didn't make all things good (or He didn't create anything, and someone else is responsible for part of the creation, as the Catharists believe).
That's a matter of opinion/faith, but either way your reasoning is false.
I won't debate about whether or not marijuana is a drug or the virtues and misvirtues of alcohol and tobacco.
Although I would like to say that the part about the christians agreeing with prohibition is crap.
You people tend to make the following reasonment : God created it => it's good. (I assume that from "It is a Herb you know, given to us by the great god almighty. He created everthing! So he also created Marijuana!" (- Banshee) and "You should support the idea of legalizing weed. After all 'God gave us all the seed bearing plants and herbs to use' " (- LIGHTBEING))
God also created Satan, you know.
So when you guys say "He put herbs there so we could smoke it!" then I say, if he put lethal herbs there as well, is it because we should all die?
Your reasoning is "If God created it, then it must be good!" But He created everything, and everything is not good.
There are only two ways out of this : He doesn't exist, or He didn't make all things good (or He didn't create anything, and someone else is responsible for part of the creation, as the Catharists believe).
That's a matter of opinion/faith, but either way your reasoning is false.
That latter post was just pure logic. I'm making a new post because now I'm going to state my opinion.
Now, I know for a fact that there isn't much more intoxicating chemicals in a joint than in a hefty glass of beer.
But to me, the difference lies not in their respective intoxicating/addicting qualities.
Thirteen centuries ago on the lands that I call home, a group of monks grew wine to make the mass. During centuries, they refined their techniques, creating champagne, and all of the wine/liquor making as we know it.
A thing of the same essence goes for tobacco. The skill of sculpting pipes, or rolling the perfect cigar. The different sizes, types, weeds, shapes...
Though I am quite open to the exploration of 'artificial paradises' and am quite aware of the relative addicting factors of marijuana, I think the difference between marijuana and alcohol/tobacco lies there :
The process of making, and enjoying those has been refined over many centuries, up to the point where it has now become a true art, and a ??, a Way, much like the tea ceremony in Japan.
The making of wine or liquors by viticultors in Burgundy, and savouring wine is quite an art, by which I am fascinated, and even then I have not even begun to comprehend even the beginning of the Path.
I have no shame in admitting I am a casual smoker and drinker - no more ; no less. But I enjoy those as an unique, refined pleasure, and therefore think their intoxicating/addicting properties relative to marijuana have nothing to do with it.
That is also the reason why I think they should in no way be rendered illegal.
And, although I may be wrong on that subject I sincerely doubt so, there is no such art and craft relating to marijuana. That's why I see no point in legalizing it, since it's intoxicating/addicting.
In short, even though alcohol and tobacco is intoxicating/addicting, its becoming an art has made it become part of our civilisation, and making it illegal woudl be like severing one of our limb.
On the other hand, it is not so with marijuana, and thus its legalisation isn't necessary, quite on the contrary.
Now, I know for a fact that there isn't much more intoxicating chemicals in a joint than in a hefty glass of beer.
But to me, the difference lies not in their respective intoxicating/addicting qualities.
Thirteen centuries ago on the lands that I call home, a group of monks grew wine to make the mass. During centuries, they refined their techniques, creating champagne, and all of the wine/liquor making as we know it.
A thing of the same essence goes for tobacco. The skill of sculpting pipes, or rolling the perfect cigar. The different sizes, types, weeds, shapes...
Though I am quite open to the exploration of 'artificial paradises' and am quite aware of the relative addicting factors of marijuana, I think the difference between marijuana and alcohol/tobacco lies there :
The process of making, and enjoying those has been refined over many centuries, up to the point where it has now become a true art, and a ??, a Way, much like the tea ceremony in Japan.
The making of wine or liquors by viticultors in Burgundy, and savouring wine is quite an art, by which I am fascinated, and even then I have not even begun to comprehend even the beginning of the Path.
I have no shame in admitting I am a casual smoker and drinker - no more ; no less. But I enjoy those as an unique, refined pleasure, and therefore think their intoxicating/addicting properties relative to marijuana have nothing to do with it.
That is also the reason why I think they should in no way be rendered illegal.
And, although I may be wrong on that subject I sincerely doubt so, there is no such art and craft relating to marijuana. That's why I see no point in legalizing it, since it's intoxicating/addicting.
In short, even though alcohol and tobacco is intoxicating/addicting, its becoming an art has made it become part of our civilisation, and making it illegal woudl be like severing one of our limb.
On the other hand, it is not so with marijuana, and thus its legalisation isn't necessary, quite on the contrary.
LeoDV, god created satan? Oh, that is a good one! Now I have to laugh so hard I can't type for hours any more.
Conclusion:There is no god!
Marijuana is not addictive and should not be compared with Ecstasy and other so called hard drugs which contain additives which make them addictive in the first place.
I used to smoke Marijuana every day, stopped with it all of a sudden and cannot say I had withdrawal symptoms.
As stated, it is a Pleasure Herb. Opium in its Natural form is not addictive. It is the garbage the dealers add to it that make it addictive, so the users stay good clients and will have a real hard time to let go.
The U$, with their everlasting 'god bless america', better do something for these people. Like better facilities to let this people get off their addiction! The U$ lacks this major!
In the Netherlands are facilities and the number of addictive people decreased over the last years.
By the way, Isn't wine the blood of jesus? Thus, legal and good to drink it? Oh what a crap. I think I will be out of the Religion Forum again, for it is always the same old story! Whatever the issue is, it always goes back to that scripture, written down by some monk, that is called the bible.
God was an extraterrestrial, as were the angels mentioned in the bible. Go think about that for a change...
Oh, what the hell, leave it be! It will be another endless discussion!
If tobacco and alcohol are legal, then let Marijuana be legal too, for it is a hard fact that people under influence of Marijuana are a far less risk for other people and it doesn't make as agressive as alcohol can do. Legalise it!
My goodness, now I've done it! Well, have fun...
Conclusion:There is no god!
Marijuana is not addictive and should not be compared with Ecstasy and other so called hard drugs which contain additives which make them addictive in the first place.
I used to smoke Marijuana every day, stopped with it all of a sudden and cannot say I had withdrawal symptoms.
As stated, it is a Pleasure Herb. Opium in its Natural form is not addictive. It is the garbage the dealers add to it that make it addictive, so the users stay good clients and will have a real hard time to let go.
The U$, with their everlasting 'god bless america', better do something for these people. Like better facilities to let this people get off their addiction! The U$ lacks this major!
In the Netherlands are facilities and the number of addictive people decreased over the last years.
By the way, Isn't wine the blood of jesus? Thus, legal and good to drink it? Oh what a crap. I think I will be out of the Religion Forum again, for it is always the same old story! Whatever the issue is, it always goes back to that scripture, written down by some monk, that is called the bible.
God was an extraterrestrial, as were the angels mentioned in the bible. Go think about that for a change...
Oh, what the hell, leave it be! It will be another endless discussion!
If tobacco and alcohol are legal, then let Marijuana be legal too, for it is a hard fact that people under influence of Marijuana are a far less risk for other people and it doesn't make as agressive as alcohol can do. Legalise it!
My goodness, now I've done it! Well, have fun...
To smoke or not to smoke?
Thoughts on the herb
As far as I am concerned, Pot (or any other drug) should be cared and watched over just like any other possibly dangerous thing. When humans discovered fire I’m sure they were in awe of its dangerous potential, but you didn't see them outlaw it! Passing laws forbidding use of anything naturally occurring in nature is closed minded and is a simple sign of immature fearful thinking.
Existence is a journey of understanding. Have fun for goodness sake!
Thoughts on the herb
As far as I am concerned, Pot (or any other drug) should be cared and watched over just like any other possibly dangerous thing. When humans discovered fire I’m sure they were in awe of its dangerous potential, but you didn't see them outlaw it! Passing laws forbidding use of anything naturally occurring in nature is closed minded and is a simple sign of immature fearful thinking.
Existence is a journey of understanding. Have fun for goodness sake!
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
Marijuana is an expression of culture. Like Xev said....Hippies. How about the Rastas . Or how about places such as Amsterdam....where it is a part of everyday life. Or how about The Indians, in their times, they smoked the herb. How about little old me. I started when I was 15 now I'm 22. It is pretty much expected in my crowd and most of us are all responsible and intelligent people. I would say Marijuana is a big part of culture, maybe not yours.
Marijuana is just not socially acceptable by the higher ups even though they are probably hittin bongs behind closed doors.
And again, Tobacco and Alcohol are way more harmful then the green herb.
Smoke Budda, Smoke Budda, Smoke Budda
Peace
Marijuana is just not socially acceptable by the higher ups even though they are probably hittin bongs behind closed doors.
And again, Tobacco and Alcohol are way more harmful then the green herb.
Smoke Budda, Smoke Budda, Smoke Budda
Peace
You'd think there wouldn't be that much to say, would you?
LeoDV
Welcome to Sciforums. I haven't said that yet. Now, unfortunately, I feel the need to correct you.
Now, of marijuana: what can be said? Well, for starters, the Washington (state) Hemp Education Network (WHEN) even has a page devoted to explaining how theWar on Drugs is Un-Christian, which starts with a paper entitled Prohibitionist who think that they are following Christ have been deceived by Satan. From the get-go, it would appear that those working toward liberty have some strange conception that Christians are prohibitionist. I'm wondering where this could possibly come from? The Woman's Christian Temperance Union still exists, and they are, indeed, developing an anti-Marijuana page. Though they shall develop position papers in the next few months, including marijuana, they point to a free Geocities page which offers many dubious "facts" we've all heard before. e.g.
Hmm ... at present, I'm looking at the Family Research Council, defenders of Family, Faith & Freedom. A search for marijuana gave us the expected broad result. Marijuana prohibition brought up an article about "safe sniffing" ... definitely prohibitionist, though. Of course, how well can they possibly broach the topic, when they have it grouped with Drugs, Crime & Gambling, which page contains headlines about ecstasy, minors and alcohol, lesbian adoption, and gay rights hearings. There is also a Drugs, Crime, and Gambling discussion by Colonel Robert L Maginnis, who has testified before congress about drug policy, military personnel issues, AIDS, teen violence, and homosexuality, and a poll about Drugs, Crime, & Gambling which asks your opinion of Rosie O'Donnell's advocacy of gay adoption ... as direct an issue as this seems not to be on a Drugs, Crime & Gambliing page, it is worth noting that, at present, those opposed to gay adoption are losing the survey at a faith-based site. In other words, FRC is wholly prohibitionist about a good many things. Unfortunately, they can't keep their shite together long enough to tell us which things. They don't like drugs, they don't like homosexuals, and have many opinions about military readiness ... bottom line: they're prohibitionist.
And as I'm looking out over the web, I'm seeing a trend: there are Christian voices against prohibition, but they seem to all recognize that they are a minority, a recent idea, and a deviation from the trend. Unfortunately, I can't get a couple of "Christian arguments to end the drug war" to come up--spotty servers, it seems.
We see, though, that in general, Christianity tends toward prohibitionism. I must take exception to your opinion that the association between Christianity and prohibitionism is crap. Quite obviously, as the evidence of history suggests, Christians are very prohibitive.
And as long as you're noting the He put herbs here so we could smoke them, mentality, very few stoners I know would smoke pot except for the fact that it is the most cost-effective method of ingesting it. Given a choice, most of us would eat the stuff. But a Thanksgiving dinner (US holiday, turkey, give thanks for racial triumph & cultural domination, &c., remember the genocides of the past ...) including marijuana would run about $700, at least. Can you imagine a $50 plate of fettucine alfredo (not at restaurant prices)? Or the $45 loaf of bread you're serving with it? Of foodstuffs using non-stoning hempseed: take it up with the DEA; they've got a problem with all things hempen.
Do you know what a bong is? How about a zong? A hookah? Have you seen the intricacy of my little glass pipe, or my glass bubbler? Good, good. Joint? Spliff? (We're willing to quiz you: there's enough stoners around that we can settle our regional differences and agree on the right answers.) Do you know what a bell-stem is for? Or what a knife-hit is, and how to do that? When you talk about the art of drinking, I have a strange image of John Laroquette sitting before a five-deck pyramid of bourbon shots. Ever seeen real ganja? You know what kif is for? How to make hashish? What do lemon juice and peppermint oil have in common? How does a vaporizer work? What gases do you inject into the growing environment to maximize THC content? What is your opinion of Special K's hydroponic growing setup, outlined several years ago in High Times magazine? What of the advances since then?
Did you know that hempseed is among the highest concentrations of Omega-3 fatty acids by weight in the world? That it may have contributed to the rise of agriculture among humanity?
But such things are not important, for as you've noted, when marijuana can be used as medicine then why not use it. But used as drug
Indeed. What do we use, say, Jack Daniels for, medicinally? Oh, right, right ... it's an art.
People have noted in response to your ... statements ... pot's cultural value. Consider this: On April 20th, at 4:20 pm Pacific Standard Time (GMT -8), I will be at a gathering with many friends and we will all be smoking a tremendous amount of dope at that very minute. When you add up everybody in our time zone, there's the likelihood that we are perhaps twenty out of as many as five-million people taking part in the ritual. (One-million is more like it; workplaces wreak havoc on "voter turnout", as such.) Solidarity? Oh, yeah.
We might note that hashish is the word from which assassin has been derived, a Hindu Kush tradition of hash-eating warriors that runs back a couple millennia. So I have to advise you that when you boast of alcoholism being refined over centuries and becoming a true art and a Way ... well? Take a look around. God made it, I grew it, that settles it ... it ought to be enough.
Pop quiz:
Q: You have a plant that serves as food, medicine, fuel, rope, cloth, paper, can be made into plastic--can be made into a car, according to some (1)--and provides, as a recreational drug, safer results than other intoxicants. Do you:
A) Embrace it, exploit it, advance the human race by it.
B) Quick, make it illegal!
C) Other. ______?
Just because you're an art snob? (Come on ... give me at least a chuckle on that one ...)
I will say, though, that I do find it quite ironic that while the difference lies not in their respective intoxicating/addicting qualities, the chemically addictive, more harmful drugs are the legal ones while one of the greatest plants on earth is illegal because you can get high from it more safely than from the addictive drugs. Sounds like envy, to me, but I'll leave it at irony.
Severing a limb ... I did point out the sixty-five years of prohibition. You know, some religious people blame chaos in society on a forty year-old judicial ruling against forced prayer. We won't go so far as to blame marijuana prohibition for all the violence in the world, but everybody knows that Prohibition only exacerbates a greater number of problems than it seeks to end. And in that sense I think that to claim an art and tradition for alcohol while disclaiming such for marijuana while relying on a condition that, while older than you or I, reflects an infinitesimal portion of the living endeavor no matter how you cut it is the height of blissful arrogance.
Nonetheless, your idea of an art and a way cannot justify Budweiser or MIller High Life in the USA. Budweiser--that's not even beer.
thanx much,
Tiassa
(1)--Daimler-Benz has considered, in the last several years, plans to implement hemp in auto production. There's an old Popular Mechanics article I cannot find on the web, the Schaeffer Library having all sorts of difficulties these days. But, in that search, I did find a Hemp Facts page which includes a number of interesting points, including Henry Ford's 1941 debut of a hemp-fueled, plastic car made from hemp, wheat, straw, and synthetic plastics. Worth a mention.
LeoDV
Welcome to Sciforums. I haven't said that yet. Now, unfortunately, I feel the need to correct you.
You know, we can start with Alcohol prohibition. In terms of the spectre of Prohibtiion and Chrisitanity, this article from Christianity Today recalls the alcohol prohibition movement, and goes so far as to justify the proscription of rights of Prohibition by tying it to the installing of a fundamental right in Woman Suffrage (a brilliant sidetrack). Nonetheless, the author does a reasonable apologism, and indeed connects Christianity with prohibitionism as we all know it to be. And we can go outside America, too, as the Pakistani Christian Post demonstrates in its 3/15/2002 editorial:
Should we go back in history? In an article blaming the political left for the troubles of the Religious Right,Laissez Faire City Times writer Jim Peron notes:
Here we see a cooperative left apparently trying to "speak the language", but, as the author points out, they hedged when it came to banning liquor as the Religious Right wished. We could look to the Prohibitionist Party, whose 1900 Platform Statement includes the following:
And here, from the Churches of God, a record of Our Second Half Century:
And, again, in 1943:
And so far I'm on my first page of a Google search : christianity prohibition liquor. So, starting with alcohol prohibition, I think we can agree that Christians do, in fact, hold prohibitionist tendencies.
Now, of marijuana: what can be said? Well, for starters, the Washington (state) Hemp Education Network (WHEN) even has a page devoted to explaining how theWar on Drugs is Un-Christian, which starts with a paper entitled Prohibitionist who think that they are following Christ have been deceived by Satan. From the get-go, it would appear that those working toward liberty have some strange conception that Christians are prohibitionist. I'm wondering where this could possibly come from? The Woman's Christian Temperance Union still exists, and they are, indeed, developing an anti-Marijuana page. Though they shall develop position papers in the next few months, including marijuana, they point to a free Geocities page which offers many dubious "facts" we've all heard before. e.g.
I'm tired of hearing about the 1,000s of studies because nobody on the prohibitionist aisle ever discusses them and what they actually show. The page also takes issue with synthesized THC--Marinol™--using it as an example of the dangers of THC. Okay ... and Wow! chips show the dangers of potatoes? I could sit there and complain about the contextual errors of the page all day, but I noticed that among the page's list of organizations condemning marijuana (a serious context problem), the author also fails to list the Institute of Medicine, who in 1999 found that marijuana does, indeed, have medical benefits.
Hmm ... at present, I'm looking at the Family Research Council, defenders of Family, Faith & Freedom. A search for marijuana gave us the expected broad result. Marijuana prohibition brought up an article about "safe sniffing" ... definitely prohibitionist, though. Of course, how well can they possibly broach the topic, when they have it grouped with Drugs, Crime & Gambling, which page contains headlines about ecstasy, minors and alcohol, lesbian adoption, and gay rights hearings. There is also a Drugs, Crime, and Gambling discussion by Colonel Robert L Maginnis, who has testified before congress about drug policy, military personnel issues, AIDS, teen violence, and homosexuality, and a poll about Drugs, Crime, & Gambling which asks your opinion of Rosie O'Donnell's advocacy of gay adoption ... as direct an issue as this seems not to be on a Drugs, Crime & Gambliing page, it is worth noting that, at present, those opposed to gay adoption are losing the survey at a faith-based site. In other words, FRC is wholly prohibitionist about a good many things. Unfortunately, they can't keep their shite together long enough to tell us which things. They don't like drugs, they don't like homosexuals, and have many opinions about military readiness ... bottom line: they're prohibitionist.
And as I'm looking out over the web, I'm seeing a trend: there are Christian voices against prohibition, but they seem to all recognize that they are a minority, a recent idea, and a deviation from the trend. Unfortunately, I can't get a couple of "Christian arguments to end the drug war" to come up--spotty servers, it seems.
We see, though, that in general, Christianity tends toward prohibitionism. I must take exception to your opinion that the association between Christianity and prohibitionism is crap. Quite obviously, as the evidence of history suggests, Christians are very prohibitive.
I am now officially laughing. This is just hilarious. It's true that there's a common slogan among stoners that says, God made it, I grew it, that settles it. But if you're going to even drag Satan into it, you might try explaining what the hell the Devil's for. Every theology trying to justify the Devil's existence fails. One cannot escape the fact that the Devil is extraneous. So using such unsupported comparisons as a fictional character whose necessity is not established in any sense of reality as a comparison to the evil of a plant is really quite inappropriate, and rather immature.
You're forgetting that it's only in the last sixty-five years that we stopped being in close contact with the plant. It was the 1937 Marihuana Tax Stamp Act that set the United States to its Drug War. The American Medical Association opposed the tax stamp act, and presently, I'm trying to get a link to the AMA's letter of protest to launch. The point being that, whether by the post-Christian "young-earth" theory (1%) or an evolutionary standard (1.444444e-08%) of the Earth's history, our time "away" from cannabis (e.g. prohibition, efforts to eradicate) constitute a particularly tribulant minority of the living endeavor. If marijuana was a "lethal herb", and we used it for so much in between origin of life and today, don't you think we would have evolved out of the food chain? (e.g. gone extinct?) I would recommend that you check out some of the World Affairs forum's debates on marijuana. Adam and I just had a great conversation that includes much about the nutrition of marijuana as a food source, which is one of its primary purposes in history.
And as long as you're noting the He put herbs here so we could smoke them, mentality, very few stoners I know would smoke pot except for the fact that it is the most cost-effective method of ingesting it. Given a choice, most of us would eat the stuff. But a Thanksgiving dinner (US holiday, turkey, give thanks for racial triumph & cultural domination, &c., remember the genocides of the past ...) including marijuana would run about $700, at least. Can you imagine a $50 plate of fettucine alfredo (not at restaurant prices)? Or the $45 loaf of bread you're serving with it? Of foodstuffs using non-stoning hempseed: take it up with the DEA; they've got a problem with all things hempen.
I think you're out of line here. You keep telling other people what they think. Perhaps you should recall that God made it is a reminder against the propagandous term: The Devil's Weed, by which much erroneous information about marijuana has been spread. Perhaps you should consider actually learning about the debate before telling people what they think.
I just bruised myself slapping my knee so hard. That's really, really funny. Your "logic" (such as the term has been abused) consists mainly of you trying to simplify other people's ideas and sentiments so that you can wrangle with the issue on a scale less intimidating to you.
And? Oh, there's this ....
Such ignorance, such arrogance, such spiteful hypocrisy. Your perception of art justifies your participation in a behavior that is documented to kill a great many people? And your opinion that something that doesn't kill has no value? Of course, you're overlooking a few things.
Do you know what a bong is? How about a zong? A hookah? Have you seen the intricacy of my little glass pipe, or my glass bubbler? Good, good. Joint? Spliff? (We're willing to quiz you: there's enough stoners around that we can settle our regional differences and agree on the right answers.) Do you know what a bell-stem is for? Or what a knife-hit is, and how to do that? When you talk about the art of drinking, I have a strange image of John Laroquette sitting before a five-deck pyramid of bourbon shots. Ever seeen real ganja? You know what kif is for? How to make hashish? What do lemon juice and peppermint oil have in common? How does a vaporizer work? What gases do you inject into the growing environment to maximize THC content? What is your opinion of Special K's hydroponic growing setup, outlined several years ago in High Times magazine? What of the advances since then?
Did you know that hempseed is among the highest concentrations of Omega-3 fatty acids by weight in the world? That it may have contributed to the rise of agriculture among humanity?
But such things are not important, for as you've noted, when marijuana can be used as medicine then why not use it. But used as drug
Indeed. What do we use, say, Jack Daniels for, medicinally? Oh, right, right ... it's an art.
People have noted in response to your ... statements ... pot's cultural value. Consider this: On April 20th, at 4:20 pm Pacific Standard Time (GMT -8), I will be at a gathering with many friends and we will all be smoking a tremendous amount of dope at that very minute. When you add up everybody in our time zone, there's the likelihood that we are perhaps twenty out of as many as five-million people taking part in the ritual. (One-million is more like it; workplaces wreak havoc on "voter turnout", as such.) Solidarity? Oh, yeah.
We might note that hashish is the word from which assassin has been derived, a Hindu Kush tradition of hash-eating warriors that runs back a couple millennia. So I have to advise you that when you boast of alcoholism being refined over centuries and becoming a true art and a Way ... well? Take a look around. God made it, I grew it, that settles it ... it ought to be enough.
Pop quiz:
Q: You have a plant that serves as food, medicine, fuel, rope, cloth, paper, can be made into plastic--can be made into a car, according to some (1)--and provides, as a recreational drug, safer results than other intoxicants. Do you:
A) Embrace it, exploit it, advance the human race by it.
B) Quick, make it illegal!
C) Other. ______?
Just because you're an art snob?
(Come on ... give me at least a chuckle on that one ...)I will say, though, that I do find it quite ironic that while the difference lies not in their respective intoxicating/addicting qualities, the chemically addictive, more harmful drugs are the legal ones while one of the greatest plants on earth is illegal because you can get high from it more safely than from the addictive drugs. Sounds like envy, to me, but I'll leave it at irony.
Severing a limb ... I did point out the sixty-five years of prohibition. You know, some religious people blame chaos in society on a forty year-old judicial ruling against forced prayer. We won't go so far as to blame marijuana prohibition for all the violence in the world, but everybody knows that Prohibition only exacerbates a greater number of problems than it seeks to end. And in that sense I think that to claim an art and tradition for alcohol while disclaiming such for marijuana while relying on a condition that, while older than you or I, reflects an infinitesimal portion of the living endeavor no matter how you cut it is the height of blissful arrogance.
Nonetheless, your idea of an art and a way cannot justify Budweiser or MIller High Life in the USA. Budweiser--that's not even beer.
thanx much,
Tiassa
(1)--Daimler-Benz has considered, in the last several years, plans to implement hemp in auto production. There's an old Popular Mechanics article I cannot find on the web, the Schaeffer Library having all sorts of difficulties these days. But, in that search, I did find a Hemp Facts page which includes a number of interesting points, including Henry Ford's 1941 debut of a hemp-fueled, plastic car made from hemp, wheat, straw, and synthetic plastics. Worth a mention.
A superfine distinction?
To be fair, chew coca leaves, exploit opium resin. Cocaine? Heroin? No. Consider as a comparative difference the highs of LSD versus mushrooms. You can experience the difference processing makes; the quality of LSD manufacture reduces or increases impurities artificially. The natural variations of psilocybin are much more comfortable. In the theistic term, then, God did not give us rye bread and lemons to make hallucinogens.
Put it this way: you pick marijuana and smoke it (or eat it), essentially. If you're maximizing quality, you cure it and groom it. Methamphetamine, however, involves cold medication, fuel (diesel or kerosene) and high temperature. (I've never seen the method for cocaine manufacture, but I'm not encouraged by what one must go through to make a snortable powder.) Simply drying the coca leaves and crushing them in a mortar and pestle for lines--I have no idea what that would do.
thanx,
Tiassa
Most excellent point, Nephilim. Just a quick speculation is that the answer is a firm, No. While it is true that cocaine does still have medicinal uses, the difference is that cocaine is extracted from coca leaves. Kif, in the case of marijuana, is an interesting comparison. To achieve hashish you merely compress the natural resin you get from the plant. Marijuana secretes THC from glands, what you get in kif and hashish is merely this. You are, instead, chemically isolating specific molecules in cocaine.
To be fair, chew coca leaves, exploit opium resin. Cocaine? Heroin? No. Consider as a comparative difference the highs of LSD versus mushrooms. You can experience the difference processing makes; the quality of LSD manufacture reduces or increases impurities artificially. The natural variations of psilocybin are much more comfortable. In the theistic term, then, God did not give us rye bread and lemons to make hallucinogens.
Put it this way: you pick marijuana and smoke it (or eat it), essentially. If you're maximizing quality, you cure it and groom it. Methamphetamine, however, involves cold medication, fuel (diesel or kerosene) and high temperature. (I've never seen the method for cocaine manufacture, but I'm not encouraged by what one must go through to make a snortable powder.) Simply drying the coca leaves and crushing them in a mortar and pestle for lines--I have no idea what that would do.
thanx,
Tiassa
My religion supports the use of "natural plants". God gave us plants for a reason. Everything on this earth has a reason and for a religion to think they are smarter than God is stupid. Sadly most religions do think they are smarter than God. WEll nice entry and I agree with you as does my church.
I do not think E is addictive.....unless you mean psychologically, and, anything can be psychologically addictive.
http://www.teenexercise.com/drug.html
http://www.drugabuse.com/drugs/ecstasy/
http://www.kely.org/kely_ecstasy.htm
Even these rather anti-drug biased sites do not call it physically addictive.
I think everything should be legal. Tobacco and Achohol are legal and many choose not to use it. Abortion is legal and people choose not to do it.
Should pot be legal? Yes.
Should you use it? If you want to and don't let it control you
Proverbs 20:1
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
Proverbs 31:6-7
6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
This is my favorite
Micah 2:11
If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people.
Anyone who claims to make laws of God concerning wine and strong drink is a liar.
End of discussion really. You can bring up ignorant Christians all you want but that doesn't change what Christianity really says.
Matt 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
If what you're putting in is causing bad things to come out then you should stop. It isn't what is going in that is a sin because what came out was sin, it's just causing you to sin.
Very simple concept really. Just because Joe Blow Dumbass can't handle a drink or a bit of pot doesn't justify banning it for everyone.
When you kill someone while drunk, you shouldn't be convicted because you were drunk. You should be convicted because you killed someone. There are legal substances that impair your motor skills more than the illegal stuff.
Ben
Should pot be legal? Yes.
Should you use it? If you want to and don't let it control you
Proverbs 20:1
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
Proverbs 31:6-7
6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
This is my favorite
Micah 2:11
If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people.
Anyone who claims to make laws of God concerning wine and strong drink is a liar.
End of discussion really. You can bring up ignorant Christians all you want but that doesn't change what Christianity really says.
Matt 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
If what you're putting in is causing bad things to come out then you should stop. It isn't what is going in that is a sin because what came out was sin, it's just causing you to sin.
Very simple concept really. Just because Joe Blow Dumbass can't handle a drink or a bit of pot doesn't justify banning it for everyone.
When you kill someone while drunk, you shouldn't be convicted because you were drunk. You should be convicted because you killed someone. There are legal substances that impair your motor skills more than the illegal stuff.
Ben
blonde_cupid
Registered Senior Member
It doesn't make a difference to me one way or the other whether pot is legal for non-medical use or not - but - this is as much effort as I will give in the way of support because, given the state of the human condition these days, I do not see it as a high priority issue.