Church's push to legalize marijuana dismissed...

[petros]

Come on, a sip of wine on Sunday isn't going to hurt anyone in Church.
Put away the extremism and work at a rational approach to legalization.

Decriminalization before legalization. It's a heritage plant. It's been with man for over 20,000 years. It out dates religion.

 

[Praxius]

Good point and thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

The study say heavy use by adolescents through to early adulthood who have a propensity for psychosis may have an earlier onset that they would otherwise.

So when you take that into context, someone from say 12 to 19 who has a family history of mental illness has a higher risk of developing some form of mental illness earlier than they would. It's coming, not if but when.
Heavy use meaning many joints per week consistently over a long period of time.

I know of kids who have been smoking Cannabis for years and they are just young adults now. Only a few that are heavy users. None that have a history of mental illness. For them, it is harmless as it is for me and most other people who use Cannabis regularly.

So it is harmless if used responsibly which is to say under a regulated and moderate way.
But that doesn't mean that there is no possible way to hurt yourself if you go out of your way to use it and hurt yourself with it.

Agreed, anything abused or used in excess will in turn abuse you..... just like over eating...... but where does this apply to your previous argument about this particular church's sacrament? If, say children, were to smoke weed once a week as part of their sacrament in the church, how does that equate to your above, regarding many joints per week, constantly for a long period of time?

Many glasses of wine per week, constantly for a long period of time will produce the same amount of issues, if not more.

I don't know, I don't go to Church anymore. When I did when I was younger, I was offered the sacrament along with everyone else I assume and it seems to me that children took it as well. Understand that it was many many years ago.

Same for me.... it's been over a decade since the last time I went to church on a regular basis, minus the odd midnight mass for christmas...... but based on my memory, I don't remember too many kids taking the wine..... for whatever reason..... but even if they did and even if they were allowed due to it being a sacrament and part of their religion, then the use of marijuana should fall under the same line of thought.

Now I'm not saying I'd be all for children smoking pot, even for religious reasons, but then again, it's not my religion..... but even still, if it was like one puff equal to one sip..... then no harm would be done..... I doubt they'd even get a buzz from a puff. I need at least half a joint myself just to get a buzz.

It would seem to me that if you are making a religious connection to something as a sacrament that brings people closer to God in your belief then everyone would be included who wanted to be included. I have no idea if this church do that or not. I don't subscribe to the notion that Cannabis should be exempted from the laws on the basis of religion.

I don't think much of any organized religion for that matter.

Nor do I, however, since just about every other angle to make pot legal has been shot down over the years, if they can legalize marijuana based on a religious basis, all the power to them, I say.

Not in this case.

Well generally speaking, the younger you are, the more healthier you are, the better your body can bounce back and accept treatment from certain illnesses...... like chicken pox. Yes, I know, not the same thing.... but as another example, Cancer..... I feel if you can find/detect & treat something as early as possible, the better the end results will be.

Though what I said earlier was more of a joke.

I agree but only those of the age of majority should be able to make that call for themselves after they have the knowledge of the drug.

I also agree, but that doesn't seem to apply in christian beliefs in regards to the wine drinking..... but as said before..... a sip of wine isn't going to have any major effects on anybody of any age, except to give them an idea of what it tastes like...... pot is the same way.... one puff (not one large haul mind you) won't do anything to anybody, regardless of their age...... this isn't crack we're talking about.

And if you have a responsible adult there grabbing the cup of wine or the joint away from the kid, knowing when enough is enough, then I still don't see a difference.

Context is everything. Abuse is bad, but simple use isn't abuse. Kids, though often clever little people, usually don't have the understanding and forethought to make an educated decision about drugs and alcohol among other things and so should be restricted to adults only.

I agree as well, which is why I personally don't think children should be allowed to drink wine at church, nor do I think they should be allowed to smoke pot..... but it currently doesn't work that way and children apparently can still drink wine at church..... so if they're allowed to do that and adults are allowed to drink wine in a church, then this church has every right to use the same arguments towards pot use in their church, ie: a sacrament.

In this case, it's either all or nothing..... you can not favor one over another.

And if they want to get around the under-aged issues of who smokes the pot.... set age limits. In the RC, you have to be 8 years old before you can even eat that crusty, stale bread..... they could apply the same restrictions in their own church and then everybody would be happy. And if they're worried about kids getting second hand pot smoke..... open the windows or have it only smoked up front with a decent ventilation system....... or setup an old Tim Horton's Smoking Booth.

Should a parent choose to teach responsible use in their own home to their own kids, I have no issue with that as long as it's responsible.

Everybody should be taught at a young age the responsible way to use drugs & alcohol..... though since "Responsible" is a bit vague and can mean different things based on who you ask.... they should be told the effects said drug/alcohol can have on their body, both positive (why people do them in the first place) and the negatives (addiction, health issues, etc.) and then let them decide..... when they're of legal age of course.

No it's about context and there a fine line here, but a line none the less.

I don't see that line.... besides one drug being illegal and another drug not being illegal and commonly accepted in our society..... context is just another word for "beating around the bush."

 

[petros]

There are no addictive drugs, only addictive people so responsibility has nothing to do with it. If you aren't emotionally equipped to deal with day to day life the substance abuse is a secondary problem.

Asking an emotional wreck to be responsible with something that can make them outgoing and happy (even though unhealthy) is ridiculous.

 

[Unforgiven]

Agreed, anything abused or used in excess will in turn abuse you..... just like over eating...... but where does this apply to your previous argument about this particular church's sacrament? If, say children, were to smoke weed once a week as part of their sacrament in the church, how does that equate to your above, regarding many joints per week, constantly for a long period of time?

Many glasses of wine per week, constantly for a long period of time will produce the same amount of issues, if not more.

Right and it's the slippy slope idea that prevents this from getting any traction in the courts.

Same for me.... it's been over a decade since the last time I went to church on a regular basis, minus the odd midnight mass for christmas...... but based on my memory, I don't remember too many kids taking the wine..... for whatever reason..... but even if they did and even if they were allowed due to it being a sacrament and part of their religion, then the use of marijuana should fall under the same line of thought.

Different sort of thing though if I understand it correctly. It's the euphoria that is to bring you closer to God in this belief. So enough must be ingested, not necessarily smoked, to evoke a euphoric state. In so doing, changes to the brain must take place. An understanding of what is happening and why is needed to make this rational to the person. People under the age of majority are still in development mentally and so can only be administered this drug under supervision which would inherently go against the direction of the Church. The Court understands this and how it can be used as a precedent for other more harmful scenarios.

Now I'm not saying I'd be all for children smoking pot, even for religious reasons, but then again, it's not my religion..... but even still, if it was like one puff equal to one sip..... then no harm would be done..... I doubt they'd even get a buzz from a puff. I need at least half a joint myself just to get a buzz.

The teaching of knowledge is always a good thing if done in a responsible manner. Teaching older children to drink and take drugs in a responsible manner would go a long way to reduce the harm done by both substances. A moral assumption is that children get none at all until they are of age and then they can go ahead and have what ever they want and can buy. Even when it makes them sick, ruins their lives and kills them. Like forbidding someone any opportunity to learn to drive and then one day setting them loose on the 401 to figure it out.

Many European countries have cultures where children have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner like adults do and so they learn to manage their consumption. Far fewer alcoholics in those cases. Yet we don't buy into that moral and cultural premise because our culture has a prohibitive aspect to it. Do as I say, not as I do is pretty common here don't you think?

Nor do I, however, since just about every other angle to make pot legal has been shot down over the years, if they can legalize marijuana based on a religious basis, all the power to them, I say.

Progress has been made and fewer are the barriers to legalization. It will come one day if we keep the pressure on and make the knowledge about Cannabis freely available, honest and without gimmicks. The more you know.

Well generally speaking, the younger you are, the more healthier you are, the better your body can bounce back and accept treatment from certain illnesses...... like chicken pox. Yes, I know, not the same thing.... but as another example, Cancer..... I feel if you can find/detect & treat something as early as possible, the better the end results will be.

Apples and oranges. Responsible use of mind altering substances isn't something that needs to be treated at the earliest stages in order to prevent illness. It is something to be taught as the person becomes mature enough to both understand what it is they are doing and responsible enough to know when it is appropriate or not.

Though what I said earlier was more of a joke.

I got that, heh heh but as they say, "never miss a chance to teach." ;-)

I also agree, but that doesn't seem to apply in christian beliefs in regards to the wine drinking..... but as said before..... a sip of wine isn't going to have any major effects on anybody of any age, except to give them an idea of what it tastes like...... pot is the same way.... one puff (not one large haul mind you) won't do anything to anybody, regardless of their age...... this isn't crack we're talking about.

Every sip or puff has an effect. You might not notice it but it does make biological changes. In the brain synapses are made by experiences. Those changes alter how the brain reacts to other things. I think this is the basis of how reuptake inhibitors work.

And if you have a responsible adult there grabbing the cup of wine or the joint away from the kid, knowing when enough is enough, then I still don't see a difference.

It's not that you grab it away. It's that you teach them when to put it down or not even pick it up. When you are not around, that is when the hard work pays off. I feel people need to be of a level of maturity to be able to accept what it is, what it does and understand the responsibility that goes along with it. Being under the influence which is to bring them closer to God is a daily occurrence which as I have said before, is indicated as a problem in a portion of children within a group. That this can be a serious problem later on puts the onus on the Court to rule in favour of least amount of harm to the most vulnerable. That was the basis of the ruling if I understand it correctly.

I agree as well, which is why I personally don't think children should be allowed to drink wine at church, nor do I think they should be allowed to smoke pot..... but it currently doesn't work that way and children apparently can still drink wine at church..... so if they're allowed to do that and adults are allowed to drink wine in a church, then this church has every right to use the same arguments towards pot use in their church, ie: a sacrament.

I think that choice should be made after some discussions between the parent and mature child and if the conditions are favourable then the process of learning and teaching in a safe and responsible manner can and should commence.

In this case, it's either all or nothing..... you can not favor one over another.

Then you know nothing of law.

And if they want to get around the under-aged issues of who smokes the pot.... set age limits. In the RC, you have to be 8 years old before you can even eat that crusty, stale bread..... they could apply the same restrictions in their own church and then everybody would be happy. And if they're worried about kids getting second hand pot smoke..... open the windows or have it only smoked up front with a decent ventilation system....... or setup an old Tim Horton's Smoking Booth.

There is already enough problems with limits based on age. Having a birthday doesn't change the maturity level or anyone. That only comes with time, experience and consideration of one's conduct.

Everybody should be taught at a young age the responsible way to use drugs & alcohol..... though since "Responsible" is a bit vague and can mean different things based on who you ask.... they should be told the effects said drug/alcohol can have on their body, both positive (why people do them in the first place) and the negatives (addiction, health issues, etc.) and then let them decide..... when they're of legal age of course.

I would counter with only those who are interested in learning to be responsible with drugs and alcohol should be taught. All others should be forbidden. Responsible means only one thing. If it's a word to be twisted into an excuse for irresponsibility then I would say that is a clear indication of a lack of the level of maturity needed to enjoy mind altering substances without abusing them.

I don't see that line.... besides one drug being illegal and another drug not being illegal and commonly accepted in our society..... context is just another word for "beating around the bush."

Drugs differ in many aspects from one to another. Thus they must be evaluated on a individual basis for suitability in context. There are drugs that few if anyone should be doing. Few people can control their use and what they do while under the influence. Attempting to treat them all the same is folly.

There are no addictive drugs, only addictive people so responsibility has nothing to do with it. If you aren't emotionally equipped to deal with day to day life the substance abuse is a secondary problem.

Asking an emotional wreck to be responsible with something that can make them outgoing and happy (even though unhealthy) is ridiculous.

True to an extent, but you fail to understand the function of addiction. I for example have no addiction to any drug, and I have done every one at least a few times. Some much more than others. At the same time, I have a sever addiction to food. It has nothing to do with an addictive personality but more with the strengths and weaknesses in the mind.

Drugs like Heroin and alcohol for example are physically addictive. Cannabis, Cocaine is mentally addictive. There is a big difference there. Responsibility has everything to do with it.

 

[DaSleeper]

YouTube - 3 grammer

 

[darkbeaver]

Decriminalization before legalization. It's a heritage plant. It's been with man for over 20,000 years. It out dates religion.

Today our guest is Mary Jane Herb she does not speak hinglish so she has asked me to translate for the listening audience.

DB/.....Hello Mary Jane it's nice to have you here beside me right now, recently you have been declared a deadly poison by the courts of law. How do you feel about that?

MJ/ We don't need no stinking courts of law telling us what to do, we were here first so you can go **** your meat puppet selves you disgusting alien form of life. Sorry I always get a bit high strung when people ask me that question.

DB/ That's alright, it's a very sticky subject. Just this past week in the papers decriminalization has been suggested as a interim position instead of legalization. Could you comment please?

MJ/ We are vegetables ,we have been vegetables for millions of years and not once in all that time have we ever requested any UN mission to help solve problems we don't have. How could you mention papers you stinking chunk of roadkill? Insensitive milk sucking monkey.

DB/ Please accept my apology, I know your in a hurry to catch a plane back to Kashmir, just one final question if you please. How do you feel about being declared a heritage plant by humans?
MJ/ That.s total meat bull****, soooo typical of simians totally presumptuous crap, too just ignore the Plant Academy entirely, like it didn't exist, I,m out of here meat freak!

DB/ Please one more little question! Do you have any seed on you?
MJ/ You ****ing piece of fox food NO! I certainly wouldn't leave my kids with you dirtbag, don't call again, or I.ll send the rag weed now piss off.

DB/ Well that was tense, please tune in tomorrow when we interview an underage cucumber who was forced to work in the porn industry.

 

[Unforgiven]

Today our guest is Mary Jane Herb she does not speak hinglish so she has asked me to translate for the listening audience.

DB/.....Hello Mary Jane it's nice to have you here beside me right now, recently you have been declared a deadly poison by the courts of law. How do you feel about that?

MJ/ We don't need no stinking courts of law telling us what to do, we were here first so you can go **** your meat puppet selves you disgusting alien form of life. Sorry I always get a bit high strung when people ask me that question.

DB/ That's alright, it's a very sticky subject. Just this past week in the papers decriminalization has been suggested as a interim position instead of legalization. Could you comment please?

MJ/ We are vegetables ,we have been vegetables for millions of years and not once in all that time have we ever requested any UN mission to help solve problems we don't have. How could you mention papers you stinking chunk of roadkill? Insensitive milk sucking monkey.

DB/ Please accept my apology, I know your in a hurry to catch a plane back to Kashmir, just one final question if you please. How do you feel about being declared a heritage plant by humans?
MJ/ That.s total meat bull****, soooo typical of simians totally presumptuous crap, too just ignore the Plant Academy entirely, like it didn't exist, I,m out of here meat freak!

DB/ Please one more little question! Do you have any seed on you?
MJ/ You ****ing piece of fox food NO! I certainly wouldn't leave my kids with you dirtbag, don't call again, or I.ll send the rag weed now piss off.

DB/ Well that was tense, please tune in tomorrow when we interview an underage cucumber who was forced to work in the porn industry.

Odd I always found Cannabis to be a lot more friendly. Well, YMMV.

 

[Bar Sinister]

It's always a bit of a stretch to claim that your religion requires you to break the law. Given that argument then genital mutilation, suttee, and human sacrifice (provided there are still a few worshipers of Quetzalcoatl around) could be justified.

 

[Unforgiven]

It's always a bit of a stretch to claim that your religion requires you to break the law. Given that argument then genital mutilation, suttee, and human sacrifice (provided there are still a few worshipers of Quetzalcoatl around) could be justified.

Often law is made without thoughtful consideration. The Cannabis prohibition in Canada was passed without discussion.
While it is acceptable because of religion to take a knife into a school, court room or church, it is illegal to sit on the patio of a cafe and enjoy a vaporizer of Cannabis with a coffee and some intellectual discussion.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Often law is made without thoughtful consideration. The Cannabis prohibition in Canada was passed without discussion.
While it is acceptable because of religion to take a knife into a school, court room or church, it is illegal to sit on the patio of a cafe and enjoy a vaporizer of Cannabis with a coffee and some intellectual discussion.

Now are are discussing something besides religion. While our current marijuana laws might not make as much sense as some people would like, they really have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Allowing a religious exception to any law is always a problem as it can lead to further exemptions until the law becomes so fragmented it is worthless.