Please stay on topic.
I’ve been on topic calmly disagreeing on you, and challenging your condemnation of marijuana, by arguing that the arguments you use, if successful, would also condemn alcohol.
You responded that alcohol and marijuana were not “chemically the same”, which you changed to “wine is not whiskey”. I called that a special pleading argument, asking you what was special about marijuana. You write a post about marijuana showing up in tests ‘because it stays in your system longer’, I pointed out a problem with that test being that its so sensitive it picks up all sorts of stuff.
I don’t think anyone can say I’ve been off topic.
I think if you’re free to drink whiskey, you should be free to smoke pot.
we’ve been mainstream drinking whiskey collectively as a country for over 300 years. we haven’t been mainstream smoking pot collectively for over 300 years. so its apples and oranges. How ingrained something is in the culture is relevant.
There is a difference if someone gets loaded at lunch on marijuana and someone has a positive drug screen for the substance.
It is, however, really up to the insurance companies as to whether to require drug screens or not, and what to do about the results.
If the green lizard at Geico thinks that a positive test for grass is enough to raise rates or cancel insurance, they are the ones who have to pay the claim, so I don’t have a problem.
On the same point, if another insurance concern wants a different test or puts different weight on it, and will allow it, that’s their prerogative as well
No but three hundred years from now we will have been smoking pot for three hundred years, if we legalise it today.
And why is that a good thing? To engage in your argument about whiskey and wine, why should one more substance be added to the mix? Bad enough we have drunks then add pot heads? I’m trying to inform everyone reading about how wrong this is. How it is only about growers and investors making money, with a small amount of money going to the State for an unneeded health risk.
with that logic, there is nothing we shouldn’t legalize today. Since 300 years from now? We will have been been doing it legally for 300 years! Insane logic.
IMO, pot is different from drinking or consuming sugar because it doesn’t affect others by their smell. Cigarettes and pot do.
People have been smoking pot for hundreds of years before now. Different jurisdictions in America and elsewhere didn’t outlaw grass until the 20th Century. Of course that’s not all- at the turn of the 20th Century, heroin and cocaine were quite legal in America and elsewhere and a number of prominent individuals including world leaders were users.
wasn’t as mainstream and widespread as alcohol, which was the key point - the level of it being ingrained in culture
Because it feels good to be high, and to some it helps calm them down. I know one person with post-traumatic stress disorder who able to keep his attacks under control with an occassional joint. I know another person who suffers from debilitating anxiety attacks, and an occasional joint takes it away.
No amount of praying made those things go away. I’m quite convinced its God’s mercy that allows these people to experience some relief of their ailments. And the specific form of his mercy in this case appears to be in the form of a joint.
Its also a perfectly good recreational drug, when taken in the right doses. In Denmark, where I live, CBD oil, which contains no THC, has been legalised. And research into dosage-response for THC is slowly getting approved, so we can see whether THC is inherently dangerous.
I support allowing it in the degree that we have research about it. If as you say its more dangerous than alcohol, I’ll be against it as well.
There is nothing wrong with whiskey. I agree with the venerable Chesterton that its the people’s right to enjoy a pint and a bit of the good stuff.
It must affect people differently. Smoking pot, which I did quite a lot of back in the day, used to give me debilitating panic attacks. It took me awhile to figure out what was causing them.
We’re also finding out in Denmark, that its the THC which causes the anxiety and the bad trips, and modern day joints have as much as three to four times as much THC as they did in the seventies.
The part of a joint which causes a persons muscles to relax, and relieves pain is a compound called CBD. Unlike THC it doesn’t produce a high. It relaxes you. I haven’t used it myself, but a lot of people are switching to CBD oil instead of smoking joints, precisely because it is much better at relaxing a person.
I believe both deserve to be studied much more than they have.
Not really because its treating symptoms (angry, depressed, etc) not the cause (family abandonment, abuse as a kid, etc). So its a band aid when people may need stitches. It just delays the problem, doesn’t solve the problem. I dont disagree alcohol can be abused in same way, but practically too ingrained to ban it.
When I smoked it it was in the late 70’s and early 80’s so I’d imagine I’d get really freaked out now, especially since I’ve gotten them over the years even without smoking pot.
I take it your arguments are more related to the benefit and needs of society then. Mine are more about the choice of the individual. Why should the individual be prohibited from acts that harm mostly themselves?
Almost half of drinkers have “blacked out”. Having no memory of several hours sounds like a damaging event (except when done on purpose during surgery). Beyond the brain, alcohol abuse harms the liver, kidneys and nerves, leading to other issues.
Edit: I feel we need to differentiate “use” from “abuse”. Generally speaking I view use as a level with little to no significant harm. All substances cause some harm when used. Abuse is acute damage or neglecting responsibilities.
I dont personally believe that, because we live in Welfare State where everyone is on the hook if someone loses job due to drug use. Get rid of Welfare state then we agree.
First of all, the friends I’ve mentioned have exhausted all natural remedies, and have asked for healing from God. I don’t think you have any idea what you’re talking about. Both have good families, one is a family father with two children, the other has two of the kindest parents I’ve ever seen in my life.
A ban on alcohol would not only be misguided, I think it would be against something that is a good, alcohol.
Try reading Chesterton on the prohibition, he might open your eyes. If not, you can come down to the pub and argue it with me over a pint o’ the black stuff.
“In Catholicism, the pipe, the pint and the Cross can all fit together.” -, Chesterton
I’d suggest reading my post carefully again.
No need, I’d also be against a ban on alcohol, even if it was shown that it would work.