toldailytopic: Is it no longer immoral to smoke marijuana now that it is being legali

[jeremysdemo]

I am opposed to smoking of any kind due to its eventual deleterious effects on the body.
I am opposed to over indulgence in food due to its eventual deleterious effects on the body.

in what way are you opposed to it, for yourself, for Christians, etc?

and to qualify, opposed to it how, ethically, morally, etc?

the reason I ask is before you said it was a neutral act neither moral or immoral.

keep shinin

jerm

 

[jeremysdemo]

So overindulgence in pot brownies would be out too? :chuckle:

you certainly have to be careful with those.

In the 60's and early 70's marijuana only had 5-8% THC, by heating it it may convert some of the CBD to THC increasing that percent to maybe 9 or 10% if one was lucky.

Now due to all the drug cartels and industry demands of stronger effect over the last few decades many strands have gone up to 18% THC with little if any CBD.

The result is a much higher raising of the cannabinoid receptor threshold in the brain which can lead to psychotropic effects, but without sufficient CBD it quickly drops off. (in layman's terms a much higher high that does not last, basically they turn pot into crack)

Now some cultivators have managed to breed strands that return the CBD to it's normal level (you may have heard of the ones in Israel) and above it's 60's level making it much more useful as medicine, and for recreation oddly enough.

Be safe, and be well with God has given, Dena.

keep shinin

jerm

 

[jeremysdemo]

Breathing God's air if one is not a Christian is just as sinful!!

Paul -- 121312

God certainly knows the heart.

that is why I said I don't judge those who smoke it as well.

keep shinin

jerm

 

[Angel4Truth]

Its as moral to sit around getting high because its legal as it is moral to kill a baby because its legal.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Its as moral to sit around getting high because its legal as it is moral to kill a baby because its legal.

Is it just as moral to smoke a cigarette as it is to kill a baby considering their present legal status?

 

[Eeset]

Isaiah 29:13

 

[Angel4Truth]

Is it just as moral to smoke a cigarette as it is to kill a baby considering their present legal status?

Is smoking a cigarette the same as getting high?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Is smoking a cigarette the same as getting high?

It is when you first start. lain:

Is getting 'high' the same as killing a baby?

 

[Angel4Truth]

It is when you first start. lain:

Is getting 'high' the same as killing a baby?

As an act itself, no, as a moral action, yes. Sin is sin.

 

[Eeset]

Sin is that which separates us from God.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As an act itself, no, as a moral action, yes. Sin is sin.

In which case you must also think smoking is immoral then, yes?

 

[Angel4Truth]

In which case you must also think smoking is immoral then, yes?

No. Ive never met anyone who gets high from smoking or whose sound mind before God is altered because of it.

Im sure there are some examples that could be deemed immoral, say someone uses grocery money needed to feed their family to purchase cigarettes or something, but then you are talking about smoking, not all the things that could or could not come from it.

At any rate you are straying from my point.

Getting high because its legal is as moral as killing a baby because its legal or having an affair because its legal or having gay sex because its legal.

There are some more for you to think about

 

[Arthur Brain]

No. Ive never met anyone who gets high from smoking or whose sound mind before God is altered because of it.

You only get high from smoking until the body adjusts to what at first is a nicotine rush. You only get that 'buzz' in the early days of the habit. Have you ever smoked? :think:

Besides which, what's so immoral about getting 'high' and so less about being addicted to a habit that causes nothing but harm? Please don't tell me you're one of those people who think smoking is essentially harmless?

 

[Angel4Truth]

You only get high from smoking until the body adjusts to what at first is a nicotine rush. You only get that 'buzz' in the early days of the habit. Have you ever smoked? :think:

Besides which, what's so immoral about getting 'high' and so less about being addicted to a habit that causes nothing but harm? Please don't tell me you're one of those people who think smoking is essentially harmless?

How many people do you know who have crashed their cars into innocent bystanders because they had recently smoked a cigar or cigarette?

If you dont know the difference, then i cant do anything for you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No. Ive never met anyone who gets high from smoking or whose sound mind before God is altered because of it.

Im sure there are some examples that could be deemed immoral, say someone uses grocery money needed to feed their family to purchase cigarettes or something, but then you are talking about smoking, not all the things that could or could not come from it.

At any rate you are straying from my point.

Getting high because its legal is as moral as killing a baby because its legal or having an affair because its legal or having gay sex because its legal.

There are some more for you to think about

Well, I missed your edited response as you'll probably have seen but there's still double standards here if you think smoking itself is okay? There's nothing good that comes from it. It's a harmful addiction and benefits nobody, apart from those who coup the revenue from it....

Is smoking around children just as immoral as those which you describe above?

 

[Eeset]

Oh my! I read recently that 50% of fatal accidents involve alcohol or drugs. That is terrible. It means that 50% of fatal accidents are caused by people who are totally sober and drug free. That means we should make driving illegal!

 

[Arthur Brain]

How many people do you know who have crashed their cars into innocent bystanders because they had recently smoked a cigar or cigarette?

If you dont know the difference, then i cant do anything for you.

That wasn't my point and you should know that without me having to spell it out. If you want to draw the discussion into car crashes/victims related to intoxication then alcohol is your primary culprit on that score, which even then is irrelevant to the topic at hand and any of my points so far.

Care to stick to the topic at hand?

lain:

 

[Angel4Truth]

That wasn't my point and you should know that without me having to spell it out. If you want to draw the discussion into car crashes/victims related to intoxication then alcohol is your primary culprit on that score, which even then is irrelevant to the topic at hand and any of my points so far.

Care to stick to the topic at hand?

lain:

Hello out there? YOU changed it to smoking cigarettes, equally irrelevant.

I could care less if you agree with me about the weather, but getting high simply because its legal, is as moral as killing a baby because its legal.

If you dont like that i think that, too bad. Capisce?

So move on.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hello out there? YOU changed it to smoking cigarettes, equally irrelevant.

I could care less if you agree with me about the weather, but getting high simply because its legal, is as moral as killing a baby because its legal.

If you dont like that i think that, too bad. Capisce?

So move on.

Rather I brought up cigarette smoking in order to make a point which you're utterly reticent to address for some reason. I even explained to you how initially smoking cigarettes leads to a high. Any honest smoker will tell you the same.

If you're going to argue that it's 'immoral' to get high but yet don't give any concern to the dangers of cigarette inhalation (and not just that to the actual smoker him/herself but those surrounded by such like children) then your response is typical of anyone caught in an uncomfortable double standartd.

Heck, maybe you are like Nick M & think cigarettes are harmless and second hand smoke doesn't affect anyone yeh?

The 'capisce' and 'so move on' bit?

This is a debate forum Angel. If you're that flustered to come up with this stuff in a reply then you need to chill out really.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Rather I brought up cigarette smoking in order to make a point which you're utterly reticent to address for some reason. I even explained to you how initially smoking cigarettes leads to a high. Any honest smoker will tell you the same.

If you're going to argue that it's 'immoral' to get high but yet don't give any concern to the dangers of cigarette inhalation (and not just that to the actual smoker him/herself but those surrounded by such like children) then your response is typical of anyone caught in an uncomfortable double standartd.

Heck, maybe you are like Nick M & think cigarettes are harmless and second hand smoke doesn't affect anyone yeh?

The 'capisce' and 'so move on' bit?

This is a debate forum Angel. If you're that flustered to come up with this stuff in a reply then you need to chill out really.

I didn't realize that my personal thoughts on what is or isnt moral was a debatable issue.

At any rate, you have a lot of nerve changing the topic, then telling me to stay on topic.