toldailytopic: Is it immoral to smoke Marijuana?

[Arthur Brain]

See, I could have snipped that after helpful. The rest doesn't make a contrary point and, because you wrote and I've read it, I could reply to it without the unnecessary addition. And if I had included the full text before answering in the post in question it would be prohibitively long and no exchange of substance based on that practice would survive a rules violation within two or three posts.

This isn't worth pursuing really. (Oh, and apologies for delay) I don't invest time for the sake of it though, but I'm not a huge fan of long posts for the most part either so lets drop it. At least you don't snip one sentence answers themselves like SD....:freak:

Yeah, I really did. My point is offered in the face of that assertion (which I'm disinclined to accept except as an anecdotal observation from your particular or maybe California else). Legalizing will, as with any substance previously banned, increase all the harm and offer no good in return.

Alcohol was previously banned though....:think:

Re: standards.
Depends on who you ask. But the ones running contrary tend to confuse declaration with support.

Consistently no, but occasionally?

You're stepping around my counter to note what isn't being argued. The problem and parallel is found in the conduct of people and not the thing itself. We could ban them and substitute mass transit and emergency vehicles only. We don't. We don't blame the instrument for the hand behind it. We rightly blame the hand. Now if you want to make the case that the hand designs an instrument to exceed reasonably speeds that's an argument I can get behind. :thumb:

To be honest I'm not sure how you could realistically apply 'mass transit' and emergency vehicles only. How would that work? I'm not arguing that drink in itself is a bad thing. I'd be a total hypocrite if I did because I enjoy a fair 'tipple' myself. But in relation to the 'morality' argument I see more reason to ban the stuff than cannabis because of the associated destruction such misuse causes.

I've never thought of it that way. Mostly I think we tend to scale from tipsy to hammered. And all of those are levels of intoxication and not states leading to it. Again, I wouldn't argue that a person at .01 is more impaired than a person who hasn't had anything to drink. But the impairment simply isn't sufficient to constitute a danger. It at best indicates the person impaired isn't as keen as they would be else. Now a professional race car driver might be better at avoiding an accident at .06 than you or me at zero, but would be less capable than himself without a few drinks.

Then we've likely reached an impasse on this point. I don't deny that half a pint of lager is likely to significantly impair the average persons tolerance to any discernible degree. To my mind it's best to avoid altogether before getting behind the wheel because even the mildest consumption may just make that fraction of a difference.

That's the point where we can say with authority that the person should not be operating machinery of any kind and their judgement is inarguably impaired to the point where using it would be asking for the wrong answer. And it isn't semantics to distinguish between a lesser degree of ability and inability, which is what that line represents.

That's the standard by which you apply such authority though. Some people are worse the wear by 0.04 depending on tolerance.

By what study conducted by what group and found where? I've seen arguments against the eight, but nothing substantive relating to lowering that number.

Here's two although there's counters in fairness in one such where arguments are made as you've put forward, hence its inclusion. There's more. Also, why do you suppose that most countries have a 0.05 limit or lower? Britain and America have one of the higher rates there is aside from Cyprus...

http://www.alcoholpolicy.net/2010/06/report-calls-for-lowering-of-drinkdrive-limit.html

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8226473.North_Yorkshire_Police_back_lower_drink_drive_limit/

Sure. A does of cough syrup might fit that description. A thimble full of beer would as well. That's why we have standards, to determine when you have no business doing a thing.

Sometimes it's as well to question those standards though.

Better? No. If I said that (and where did I?) it was only in the comparative, one that doesn't control the reasonableness of the thimble set against the abstention approach.

As above really.

The question has always been of impact. Or, again, we should shut down fast food drive-through lanes given the alteration/impact of their product on the general public.

No one is arguing alcohol can and does impair ability. The question that must be satisfied for any rational prohibition involves degree. And that's what the law addresses. It distinguishes between the sip and the glass, the glass and the pint, the reasoned prohibition and the needless interference.

Ok, degree certainly. I'm not going to be so semantic as to argue that a grown adult without an allergy to alcohol shouldn't operate a car after a thimble of beer. None is still better but hey....our laws allow too much and zero tolerance or a reduction to at least 0.05 would be far preferable given the machinery operated. It's too high and most other countries laws reflect that. Are they at fault?

In order: no and I've taken pains to establish the no...and you could take pot into your mouth and hold it there too or run around through it without breathing, but that's not the use its designed for or the thing it will do if used as meant. It will intoxicate you if you use it.

Ok. Most people smoke the stuff to get discernibly affected by it, then the same goes for drink for the most part as well. Not everyone smokes to get 'stoned' in as much as those who drink intend to get rolling drunk by way of example.

My definition of immoral could be perhaps most clearly summed up: to willfully intoxicate oneself, inviting poor judgment and the moral decisions that flow from it.

How do you define 'poor judgment'? Drink has been a social icebreaker down the decades as it relaxes inhibitions so is that immoral? We're not talking about being a 'drunkard' here.

It isn't if you're describing the effect of a good blanket. Else, answered above...though I could couple that with the argument of example and the Christian duty...or the temple example and what is done with it...or a number of other, similar complaints. The first seems sufficient though.

I'm not seeing how having a pleasant buzz from moderate drinking is the equivalent to being immoral here. I think this is rather a subjective opinion of yours here....

Not sure what you're asking beyond the: is murder or idolatry or sexual immorality something you only hold as a standard for yourself? I don't go around slapping pints out of people's hands, if that's your interest. :chuckle:

Of course not. There again I know Christians who enjoy a drink or three and the buzz it provides without becoming to the point of being drunk. You're being subjective here again.

I'm sure some people will reach a general state of intoxication in advance of that standard. I'm equally sure no one will (absent a medical condition or some interaction with other drugs) having a beer or glass of wine with a meal.

Then you apply a moral standard as such in regards to yourself, which is fair enough. The same as I do in regards to drink and driving.

I considered it, but went with "Ergo" instead.

Take the "r" out and I'd go with that....

That would be delightful. My finger and cheeks were starting to hurt from the over use.

There's cream for that....

Depends on what you see as the obligation to God in how we use the bodies we no longer rightly own. And I think we have a similar obligation to keep them reasonably fit. If I go about morbidly obese absent a thyroid or other medical condition then I'm being a poor steward as well. Doesn't mean I can't have a beer or a slice of key lime pie now and again.

It doesn't mean you can't have a few beers on occasion without getting drunk either, or being immoral in such I would venture.

I'd sooner you stop assuming anything and stick with the known. Anecdotes are good for Reader's Digest, but they make lousy arguments.

Ok, but it does get a little irritating where people insist on the effects of something where they've given little to no indication they've ever experienced themselves.

It can do a great deal more, making reaction times sluggish and judgment cloudy with fever. Chances are you're safe to drive though. lain:

I think this has been covered above in context.

So can a cold/fever. But absent a very, very high fever and a few drinks, again, you should be fine to drive to the drug store for your Nyquil.

Well again, as above and earlier.

I've already provided a couple that have supportive links and one that would even have been fun for you and eliminated our earlier one drink back and forth, but you weren't interested, apparently...which is a funny way to spell entrenched. And any google on state standards for intoxication (U.S.) will turn up similar support. The law wasn't based on guesses.

:e4e:

Well, as pointed out earlier, most countries drink drive unit ratios differ to both yours and mine, and to the lesser, so is their law based on guesses?

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

...Alcohol was previously banned though....:think:

And prostitution was once more widely legal. lain:

Re: energy independence day.

To be honest I'm not sure how you could realistically apply 'mass transit' and emergency vehicles only. How would that work?

As a law? Simply enough. As a mechanical issue? I'd leave it to engineers.

I'm not arguing that drink in itself is a bad thing. I'd be a total hypocrite if I did because I enjoy a fair 'tipple' myself. But in relation to the 'morality' argument I see more reason to ban the stuff than cannabis because of the associated destruction such misuse causes.

Except we don't ban automobiles or guns because fools occasionally possess either and that's the argument you have to advance to begin to suggest your conclusion.

Then we've likely reached an impasse on this point. I don't deny that half a pint of lager is likely to significantly impair the average persons tolerance to any discernible degree. To my mind it's best to avoid altogether before getting behind the wheel because even the mildest consumption may just make that fraction of a difference.

In order: you're right and there's no evidence for that. Rather the point of the standard. The impact of my beer with a meal would be imperceptible in terms of my judgement or reaction time. Now a few beers later and it's a very different story.

That's the standard by which you apply such authority though. Some people are worse the wear by 0.04 depending on tolerance.

Not as a rule, which is what we're talking about with the law. Tolerance is more a weight in the other direction, where what should make the average person incapable might impact some less because of tolerance.

Here's two although there's counters in fairness in one such where arguments are made as you've put forward, hence its inclusion. There's more. Also, why do you suppose that most countries have a 0.05 limit or lower? Britain and America have one of the higher rates there is aside from Cyprus...

Couldn't say why. Now the first link doesn't impact my habit, but supports it. Neither does the second, though it should also be noted that neither advances an actual, scientific finding in support of even that more restrictive standard, though there is a good deal on the impact of tightening laws, which I suspect is a parallel to lowering speed limits.

Sometimes it's as well to question those standards though.

:idunno: You can question 2 +3 once you have the methodology down, but it's not going to give you a different answer. Either the science is there or it isn't.

"No one is arguing alcohol can and does impair ability. The question that must be satisfied for any rational prohibition involves degree. And that's what the law addresses. It distinguishes between the sip and the glass, the glass and the pint, the reasoned prohibition and the needless interference."

Ok, degree certainly. I'm not going to be so semantic as to argue that a grown adult without an allergy to alcohol shouldn't operate a car after a thimble of beer.

Or even after one, by those more restrictive lights of the UK.

None is still better

Except that's a value judgment and unsupported by any evidence of impairment that would measurably impact my ability to perform at a level in line with my not having had a drink with that meal. :nono:

but hey....our laws allow too much and zero tolerance or a reduction to at least 0.05 would be far preferable given the machinery operated. It's too high and most other countries laws reflect that. Are they at fault?

Assumes a fact not in evidence...several, actually.

Ok. Most people smoke the stuff to get discernibly affected by it, then the same goes for drink for the most part as well. Not everyone smokes to get 'stoned' in as much as those who drink intend to get rolling drunk by way of example.

Not an argument and not any against my point that everyone who smokes becomes intoxicated while not everyone who drinks does and anyone can drink (absent a medical condition) without becoming intoxicated.

How do you define 'poor judgment'?

A judgment that would be found faulty by any sober consideration.

When you aren't capable of making the same distinctions and rational choices that you would sober and are by nature of your insobriety prone to choices at odds with your character or ability else you are evidencing the impact of the intoxicant and open to error owed to the choice.

Drink has been a social icebreaker down the decades as it relaxes inhibitions so is that immoral?

If it impairs your moral judgment, yes. I'd suggest therapy or a legal and non intoxicating alternative.

We're not talking about being a 'drunkard' here.

Of course not. Habitual misuse is another and more serious problem.

I'm not seeing how having a pleasant buzz from moderate drinking is the equivalent to being immoral here. I think this is rather a subjective opinion of yours here....

In order: I only just set that out and you're invested in a looser conduct that would be impermissible else, so I should think that would have to be your response. Completely understandable.

Of course not. There again I know Christians who enjoy a drink or three and the buzz it provides without becoming to the point of being drunk. You're being subjective here again.

No, I'm not. If they have those three and evidence conduct consistent with that euphemistic label for intoxication they are most assuredly drunk. They have reached the point of intoxication. Then you can discuss degrees of it, and of the foolishness that follows, but their judgment is impaired. They are no longer fit to make any number of decisions they might be called upon to make in an emergency. And I think that's a rational mistake and a moral failing.

Take the "r" out and I'd go with that....

A bit like calling Phillis Diller homely. I can't see the traction for you. It's part of the act.

It doesn't mean you can't have a few beers on occasion without getting drunk either, or being immoral in such I would venture.

Depends on how much you weigh, how quickly you consume them and with what. So without those parameters I can't give an informed response. I am, for want of context, what you would be had you those three beers, without a meal, within an hours time: impaired.

Ok, but it does get a little irritating where people insist on the effects of something where they've given little to no indication they've ever experienced themselves.

Depends on whether or not they're informed. The anecdotal isn't really or reliably informative. The first time I was ever intoxicated I woke feeling wonderful. Had I that singular experience and relied on it in discussion of the practice...

Well, as pointed out earlier, most countries drink drive unit ratios differ to both yours and mine, and to the lesser, so is their law based on guesses?

And as I noticed those lower standards seemed more policy driven than science supported in terms of physical impairment at the levels considered. And even then they were in agreement with my actual practice. So I consider that something of win against the zero application.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

And prostitution was once more widely legal. lain:

Er, you were the one to declare that: "Legalizing will, as with any substance previously banned, increase all the harm and offer no good in return."

Alcohol was previously banned, so you're skirting this point, or else it needs a rethink on your part. Bringing prostitution into the equation is a sidebar and irrelevant to your own posit. To be consistent you'd condemn alcohol being legalized and yet you don't.

Re: energy independence day.

As a law? Simply enough. As a mechanical issue? I'd leave it to engineers.

Consequences to lives and industry? People don't work the same hours. The varying nature of differing professions requires such so you're just giving a 'pat' answer here. The impact of such would have a major impact on society so can you address that? Realistically it would be untenable unless you can explain how such would work?

Except we don't ban automobiles or guns because fools occasionally possess either and that's the argument you have to advance to begin to suggest your conclusion.

'Most' people would fall under your remit of 'fools' for simply getting tipsy wouldn't they? Or at least 'immoral'? Where I live guns are banned unless you have specific license to a shooting range so we're in different quadrants on that anyway.

In order: you're right and there's no evidence for that. Rather the point of the standard. The impact of my beer with a meal would be imperceptible in terms of my judgement or reaction time. Now a few beers later and it's a very different story.

How many is a few? Another half? Another small glass of wine? How up to 'speed' are you regarding effects other than what the present laws set out?

Not as a rule, which is what we're talking about with the law. Tolerance is more a weight in the other direction, where what should make the average person incapable might impact some less because of tolerance.

So? Even if not as a 'rule', shouldn't the law reflect the "rarities" with a lower alcohol consumption policy before driving? Makes sense to me, makes sense to most other countries too....

Couldn't say why. Now the first link doesn't impact my habit, but supports it. Neither does the second, though it should also be noted that neither advances an actual, scientific finding in support of even that more restrictive standard, though there is a good deal on the impact of tightening laws, which I suspect is a parallel to lowering speed limits.

Neither 'condemns' your 'habit'. What they do is make reasonable and thoroughly logical arguments for decreasing the alcohol consumption rate before sitting behind the wheel! Which funnily enough coincides with most other countries 'tolerance'. Are our respective countries so far ahead in terms of such 'scientific understanding' that we're so much more tolerant to the effects of drink?

:idunno: You can question 2 +3 once you have the methodology down, but it's not going to give you a different answer. Either the science is there or it isn't.

What actual scientific understanding do you have regarding drink and 'impairment' besides what you've read? Suppose the majority 0.05 limit and lower is the correct procedure as most countries have? Are you going to just reduce the argument to the above?? Why do you even think the US laws are acceptable from an objective viewpoint? Because the 'law' says so?

Or even after one, by those more restrictive lights of the UK.

What? We have the same drink/drive limits as you do though plenty here want to see them lowered. Plenty would maybe like to see them go higher too but nightclub 'taxi drivers' are best avoided.....

Except that's a value judgment and unsupported by any evidence of impairment that would measurably impact my ability to perform at a level in line with my not having had a drink with that meal. :nono:

Enjoy your thimble.....

Assumes a fact not in evidence...several, actually.

The country drink driving unit ratio is easily available via the web, so I'm presuming one of the several 'facts' I've failed to 'evidence' isn't in regards to the higher rates of such tolerance in the US and UK? Else please explain as to these 'several facts I'm assuming' as this just smacks of prevarication and soundbite. lain:

Not an argument and not any against my point that everyone who smokes becomes intoxicated while not everyone who drinks does and anyone can drink (absent a medical condition) without becoming intoxicated.

So someone who takes one toke off a spliff is automatically intoxicated as a result then? :squint:

A judgment that would be found faulty by any sober consideration.

When you aren't capable of making the same distinctions and rational choices that you would sober and are by nature of your insobriety prone to choices at odds with your character or ability else you are evidencing the impact of the intoxicant and open to error owed to the choice.

Ok. I've managed to have a fully enjoyable evening with four or five pints, where my judgment and rational choice has been unaffected several times with no ill effect or morality compromised. I've also enjoyed the relaxing buzz on several occasions. So am I intoxicated after such consumption and therefore immoral?

If it impairs your moral judgment, yes. I'd suggest therapy or a legal and non intoxicating alternative.

Heck, if three or four pints 'impaired' my moral judgment then you may have had a point. For most people it doesn't although it gives a bit of a buzz which was kinda the point. You're the one who declared such a feeling to be 'immoral' correct?

Of course not. Habitual misuse is another and more serious problem.

So having a bit of a buzz after a coupla drinks is ok then here and there? Not immoral in itself?

In order: I only just set that out and you're invested in a looser conduct that would be impermissible else, so I should think that would have to be your response. Completely understandable.

Um, whoa, you set that out of your own accord and with no coercion from myself. I simply asked you whether a slight 'hit' from alcohol could be construed as immoral. You then proceeded to equate such a concept with killing etc as if your own subjective view was as obvious from a moral biblical perspective in regards to such.

No, I'm not. If they have those three and evidence conduct consistent with that euphemistic label for intoxication they are most assuredly drunk. They have reached the point of intoxication. Then you can discuss degrees of it, and of the foolishness that follows, but their judgment is impaired. They are no longer fit to make any number of decisions they might be called upon to make in an emergency. And I think that's a rational mistake and a moral failing.

Well most people in my experience can handle three drinks and remain rational, even though 'impaired' in other areas such as driving a car....

A bit like calling Phillis Diller homely. I can't see the traction for you. It's part of the act.

Well, no idea who (or what) Phillis Diller is but I presume you took the 'dig' in jest....

Depends on how much you weigh, how quickly you consume them and with what. So without those parameters I can't give an informed response. I am, for want of context, what you would be had you those three beers, without a meal, within an hours time: impaired.

Well again. This merely comes down to what you subjectively view as 'immoral' IMO.

Depends on whether or not they're informed. The anecdotal isn't really or reliably informative. The first time I was ever intoxicated I woke feeling wonderful. Had I that singular experience and relied on it in discussion of the practice...

Bad idea to rely on the singular in most forms of practice really....lain:

And as I noticed those lower standards seemed more policy driven than science supported in terms of physical impairment at the levels considered. And even then they were in agreement with my actual practice. So I consider that something of win against the zero application.

Policy driven towards what? lesser deaths on the roads? It hardly takes a genius to see that the lesser alcohol consumption tolerated whilst driving would lead to such. Where is your expertise in regards to the 'science' of such if not from web sources TH? :idunno:

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Er, you were the one to declare that: "Legalizing will, as with any substance previously banned, increase all the harm and offer no good in return."

Alcohol was previously banned, so you're skirting this point, or else it needs a rethink on your part.

Skirting? Alcohol was legal, then made illegal, then legal again. Once you have an institutionalized right or privilege it's nigh unto impossible to effectively ban it...and alcohol, as noted, differs in use and effect when responsibly consumed. I don't see the problem here for me.

To be consistent you'd condemn alcohol being legalized and yet you don't.

No. There's nothing in my argument that would suggest that. In fact, my argument goes entirely the other way with that substance, given the distinctions I note in relation to, say, heroin or pot. Unlike those it's actually beneficial and in moderation without moral or physical compromise.

Consequences to lives and industry? People don't work the same hours. The varying nature of differing professions requires such so you're just giving a 'pat' answer here. The impact of such would have a major impact on society so can you address that? Realistically it would be untenable unless you can explain how such would work?

It's been long enough that I'm not entirely sure about which point this is...so rather than wade back and through, unless you think it's particularly important I'll move forward.

'Most' people would fall under your remit of 'fools' for simply getting tipsy wouldn't they?

Are you trying to win a point or an election? Rather stick with the particulars. Do we make laws restraining the sale of aspirin because someone can swallow a bottle and hurt themselves? Of course not.

How many is a few? Another half? Another small glass of wine? How up to 'speed' are you regarding effects other than what the present laws set out?

I wasn't remotely vague about amounts, left a link to a site that notes particular effect with or without food and over time, so sure, I'm familiar. :thumb: You really should check out the link.

So? Even if not as a 'rule', shouldn't the law reflect the "rarities" with a lower alcohol consumption policy before driving? Makes sense to me, makes sense to most other countries too....

No. The law is made reflecting the rule. The rest is mitigating argument.

Neither 'condemns' your 'habit'.

Well, I didn't use the draconian condemn, so I'm not sure why you did the literary finger bit. And by habit I meant nothing more or less than practice, so...

What they do is make reasonable and thoroughly logical arguments for decreasing the alcohol consumption rate before sitting behind the wheel!

Which past a point has never been a point of contention. The entire point relates to impairment in judgment and reflex. Again, even the UK standard is in line with my 'practice' on that count...so good on me?

Which funnily enough coincides with most other countries 'tolerance'. Are our respective countries so far ahead in terms of such 'scientific understanding' that we're so much more tolerant to the effects of drink?

Science is science and your standard is a policy concern because there's just no science that suggests ours is problematic with regard to the skills involving operating a motor vehicle. And, yet again, to reach our line of demarcation you'd have to consume much more than I allow. So lower away if it makes you feel better. :idunno:

But none of this does anything for the proposition for legalizing pot.

What actual scientific understanding do you have regarding drink and 'impairment' besides what you've read?

What, you want a feeling? lain:

Suppose the majority 0.05 limit and lower is the correct procedure as most countries have?

No idea what that's supposed to mean. Check the links. There's no mistake regarding data on impairment and...did you read the UK study embedded in one of your links?

Are you going to just reduce the argument to the above?? Why do you even think the US laws are acceptable from an objective viewpoint? Because the 'law' says so?

No, because the science supports it. Now on a personal level I think the reasonable approach is to limit consumption to the one drink, because once you imbibe beyond that point you lose the health benefits.

Enjoy your thimble.....

Enjoy your liters. :smack:

Else please explain as to these 'several facts I'm assuming' as this just smacks of prevarication and soundbite. lain:

Then my response would be equally in question and I'm as fine with moving on. :idunno:

So someone who takes one toke off a spliff is automatically intoxicated as a result then? :squint:

Someone who tokes intends to intoxicate themselves. I've never suggested instantaneous intoxication.

Ok. I've managed to have a fully enjoyable evening with four or five pints, where my judgment and rational choice has been unaffected several times with no ill effect or morality compromised.

Again, depends on if you ate, how quickly you consumed, etc. Your impression of the experience is interesting but not determinative. I don't know many people who, prior to failing their field sobriety tests intone, "You know, I believe my judgement is impaired."

I've also enjoyed the relaxing buzz on several occasions. So am I intoxicated after such consumption and therefore immoral?

A person isn't immoral. An act is. And if you're intoxicated, then sure, that's immoral. You've compromised your judgement and harmed your body.

Heck, if three or four pints 'impaired' my moral judgment then you may have had a point.

Again, as ever, it depends on variables. If you're intoxicated then your judgment, moral or otherwise, is compromised. I omit a few new angles at the same question since I haven't been remotely vague about any of it. Asked and answered.

Well most people in my experience can handle three drinks and remain rational, even though 'impaired' in other areas such as driving a car....

Rational? Try memory games with them. If you think an intoxicated person isn't mentally impaired you're mistaken. Now, depending on the variables they may not be intoxicated at that point. Food, time...

Well, no idea who (or what) Phillis Diller is but I presume you took the 'dig' in jest....

Really? One of Bob Hope's foils. Made a career out of homely and self depreciating jokes rooted in it. Very funny dame.

Depends on how much you weigh, how quickly you consume them and with what. So without those parameters I can't give an informed response. I am, for want of context, what you would be had you those three beers, without a meal, within an hours time: impaired.

Well again. This merely comes down to what you subjectively view as 'immoral' IMO.

Then you've been drinking. That had nothing to do with morality.

Policy driven towards what? lesser deaths on the roads?

I'd hope that's the aim. Doesn't follow that it follows biological science. It might be more aimed at psychology, I suppose. Or it might be a purely assumptive or political move along the less is more line, which is true past a point but not at every.

It hardly takes a genius to see that the lesser alcohol consumption tolerated whilst driving would lead to such. Where is your expertise in regards to the 'science' of such if not from web sources TH? :idunno:

In links and studies from reputable sources and institutions that form the basis for the law here. What do you do, read tea leaves? Or lean exclusively into anecdotal self justification?

:e4e:

 

[bybee]

Two points Arthur, there is scientific proof that alcohol harms the unborn child so pregnant women are asked to abstain and, as a woman married to a man who was a practicing alcoholic for many years. I humbly suggest that you hear how others perceive your behavior after the consumption of a few litres.

 

[serpentdove]

Yes. :zman:

φαρμακεία, φάρμακον [pharmakeia /far·mak·i·ah/] n f. From 5332; GK 5758 and 5760; Three occurrences; AV translates as “sorcery” twice, and “witchcraft” once. 1 the use or the administering of drugs. 2 poisoning. 3 sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it. 4 metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry.
Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996, S. G5331

See:

Mood medications by Darrell Ferguson (right click, open)