DiscussMormonism.com

EAllusion wrote:Marijuana also causes memory loss, slowed reaction time, apathy, and is mild-to-moderately addictive in a certain % of the population of users. Overall, it's not that dangerous of a drug, especially if used infrequently. It's certainly less risky than alcohol, but as someone who advocates its legality I am annoyed by those who downplay its risks.

Marijuana doesn't cause apathy when I use it. In fact, it makes me hypersensitive to others, to suffering and to the human condition. I have to ween myself off for weeks at a time to allow my emotional defenses to regroup and reharden to become the usual insensitive prick that I am when sober.

I watched "Fiddler on the roof" while toasted, and cried throughout half the movie. Marijuana is EVIL!

But yes, there are some risks to marijuana smoking.

I thought it made you hungry...

If that is the case, it would make it harder to obey the Law of the Fast and therefore cause other major problems. I heard about a guy that couldn't last through the fast and his inability to control his hunger pangs led to porn, which then led to adultery.

EAllusion wrote:Overall, it's not that dangerous of a drug, especially if used infrequently. It's certainly less risky than alcohol, but as someone who advocates its legality I am annoyed by those who downplay its risks.

I agree with this. Marijuana isn't harmless, and it definitely is not for kids who don't have mature habits, who are already prone to foolishness and risk taking. It can be bad for decision making. (which is sometimes hysterically funny)

To the OP, it is not a moral issue, but a choice in how you wish to invest your time. Is watching TV a moral issue? Having a favorite football team? Doing art projects? You have to be really twisted in your religion to believe every choice is a matter of morality.

Marijuana also causes memory loss, slowed reaction time,

Yeah, sometimes I start watching a movie and halfway through I realize I already saw it, but it's a vague stoner memory so I just watch it again. I guess that's the opposite of a flash back.

apathy,

Maybe for some people. I earned a doctorate during the years when I was a regular evening user. I worked my ass off and at the end of the day I felt I deserved it. I had stoner friends who were doctors, nurses, business owners, highly responsible parents. Some others were young and foolish by nature, not because of marijuana. The one stoner I knew who was truly "apathetic" was also an alcoholic, so... it is impossible to say who is apathetic because of weed and who is for other reasons.

and is mild-to-moderately addictive in a certain % of the population of users.

Here is my experience with this so-called "addiction". You think you are addicted but all you have to do is separate yourself from the source and you are fine. Take a vacation. You don't actually need it. You just want it. I suppose this is what is meant by psychological addiction.

I might consider the legalization of drugs iff it could be guarenteed that businesses and schools etc. were allowed to test and suspend, kick out, hire and fire based on the findings. But that's the kicker. Why should these entities be forced to spend money and time on such things?

I think I'd rather see the police truncheoning hippies, beatniks, thugs, and bikers on every corner until they've stopped using drugs. Round up addicts and give them the choice of a year in isolation or life in prison unless they finger who they're getting drugs from and work your way up the line with ever increasing incarceration times. etc. etc. My own kid? Do it.

bcspace wrote:I might consider the legalization of drugs iff it could be guarenteed that businesses and schools etc. were allowed to test and suspend, kick out, hire and fire based on the findings. But that's the kicker. Why should these entities be forced to spend money and time on such things?

I think I'd rather see the police truncheoning hippies, beatniks, thugs, and bikers on every corner until they've stopped using drugs. Round up addicts and give them the choice of a year in isolation or life in prison unless they finger who they're getting drugs from and work your way up the line with ever increasing incarceration times. etc. etc. My own kid? Do it.

For Marijuana? Are you joking or just ill-informed?

bcspace wrote:I might consider the legalization of drugs iff it could be guarenteed that businesses and schools etc. were allowed to test and suspend, kick out, hire and fire based on the findings. But that's the kicker. Why should these entities be forced to spend money and time on such things?

I think I'd rather see the police truncheoning hippies, beatniks, thugs, and bikers on every corner until they've stopped using drugs. Round up addicts and give them the choice of a year in isolation or life in prison unless they finger who they're getting drugs from and work your way up the line with ever increasing incarceration times. etc. etc. My own kid? Do it.

bcspace: a true opponent of the nanny state.

bcspace: a true opponent of the nanny state.

And tough on crime, yes indeed.

zeezrom wrote:

Yahoo Bot wrote:It is not a moral issue. One can get a temple recommend by admitting to a WoW violation in the prior week but committing to quit. Of course, evidence of an addiction might discourage a recommend issuance, but only because there is an indication that the commitment isn't going to be followed.

What is your basis for the statement "It is not a moral issue"?

Is it based on whether you can pass the TRI or not?! That is the litmus test for a moral value?

What if you broke one of GBH's other items on his morality list? What if you cheated on a test at school (i.e. University or MBA school) one week prior to the TRI. Would that prevent you from going to the Temple? Is cheating a moral issue?!

You are a lawyer. Come up with a decent argument please.

Cheating is a moral issue.

And, I never said that a temple recommend was a litmus test for morality.

A WoW violation is not a moral issue (except, I suppose one could argue that a deliberate violation of the law is a moral issue, but the mere consumption of the bad stuff is not a moral issue). That is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

It really is a subjective thing, isn't it, in the long run? If you have no foundation for morality, such as yourself perhaps, then what is moral and what is not is merely a discussion akin to angels dancing on the head of a pin.

bcspace wrote:

bcspace: a true opponent of the nanny state.

And tough on crime, yes indeed.

Of course, an adult doing whatever they want to their own body and interfering with no one else's life is only a crime when the nanny state is already in full force.

In the 1897 Sears Roebuck catalog (I have a reprint of this), you could order opium and guns by mail, but it wasn't until we had politicians who know what's best for us outlaw drugs (unless it's tobacco, which we subsidize, or alcohol) and restrict guns that the rates of violent crime really began to escalate. How grateful I am that these gentlemen who whore themselves out for campaign contributions are there to make sure grown-ups don't do anything bad for themselves.

Darth J wrote:

bcspace wrote:I might consider the legalization of drugs iff it could be guarenteed that businesses and schools etc. were allowed to test and suspend, kick out, hire and fire based on the findings. But that's the kicker. Why should these entities be forced to spend money and time on such things?

I think I'd rather see the police truncheoning hippies, beatniks, thugs, and bikers on every corner until they've stopped using drugs. Round up addicts and give them the choice of a year in isolation or life in prison unless they finger who they're getting drugs from and work your way up the line with ever increasing incarceration times. etc. etc. My own kid? Do it.

bcspace: a true opponent of the nanny state.

You hit the nail exactly on the head, Darth J. I am thinking BCSpace is less of a conservative for political reasons, but rather because he has bought the tripe that they support a moral agenda that he hopes this party will enact through law and force. Especially force.

The only thing differentiating him from the socialist liberals he hates (as he seems to picture them) is what he feels they stand for. It has nothing to do with how they would enact policy. Really, it has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with fear rooted in an inability to control everything.

It also explains why he feels Mormons can't be Democrats and hold a temple recommend.