#1 || 11·11·29··05:20 || Ben Thorp

I was very black and white about the situation until I met a friend who has a rare form of motor neurone disease, and he says that smoking marijuana is the only form of pain-relief that has worked consistently for him. He smokes on a very regular basis to manage his pain, and I can safely say I've never seen him get high.

Now - that's not to say that I would ever do so, but it has made me question an appropriate Christian response in this particular situation. (Not that I'm into situational ethics either)

#2 || 11·11·29··06:55 || David Kjos

Ben,
   I’m sure that seems true from your perspective, but if you could get inside his head while smoking, you’d tell a different story.

#3 || 11·11·29··07:20 || Dan Staifer

I hear this a lot as a part time High School Sub. "But pot is found naturally on the earth."

I like to come back with so does arsenic, hemlock and other poisons but it doesn't mean we should use it. God could have put hemp on this earth to be a rope or help out with other things. It doesn't mean we should smoke it.

I would like to add, scientifically, everything can be helpful and everything can be a poison. That line is much lower for some things than others. If marijuana is prescribed by a doctor as a pain reliever, than doesn't mean it is a cure for the pain. It just relaxes the pain or intoxicates.

(As an aside - ethanol should be labeled as C2H5OH instead of C2H6O because of the Alocohol subgroup)

#4 || 11·11·29··08:46 || buddyglass

Since I was the one to raise the question on Tim's blog, I figure I'll respond here. Background: I've never used marijuana in any form. I have, however, been extremely drunk on a handful of occasions.

Point #1: beer and wine are food.

I'm not sure how this is relevant. Is there a biblical principle that says, "If an intoxicating substance provides sustenance then it's okay, otherwise it's not"? I also question the extent to which beer, wine and especially spirits are "food". Sure we often drink beer and wine with meals, but we might just as easily drink grape juice or non-alcoholic beer. Alcohol isn't consumed for the calories; it's consumed either because it tastes good, or expressly because of the intoxicating effects. My strong suspicion is that God is perfectly okay with that, including the mild intoxication.

Point #2: scripture commends wine but not marijuana.

The lack of commendation doesn't imply prohibition. Note that the Bible doesn't commend beer either, and yet we're fine with beer based on an extrapolation of the principle behind the commendation of wine.

If you're going to make a biblical case against marijuana then it needs to consist of something other than "the bible doesn't commend it". You might argue that it's inherently harmful in a way moderate alcohol use isn't. You might argue that it's mind-altering in a way moderate alcohol use isn't, and that any level of marijuana use amounts to "drunkenness". Etc.

Point #3: scripture condemns intoxication.

First, no it doesn't. It condemns drunkenness. Drunkenness cannot mean "any level of intoxication" or else alcohol consumption would in effect be forbidden. Drinking a glass of wine creates a low level of intoxication. So in order to make this argument while still permitting alcohol you'll need to argue that a line exists which separates "intoxication God's okay with" from "intoxication God's not okay with" and that any level of marijuana use (no matter how small) takes one past that line. I anticipate that being a difficult task.

#5 || 11·11·29··09:06 || Tim McNeil

As an aside, hemp has such low concentrations of THC that you'd have to smoke a quarter acre to get high from it. A very versatile and useful plant, as opposed to marijuana.

#6 || 11·11·29··09:28 || pentamom

Ben --

Sometimes legitimate medicines have side effects. Some people need to take medicines that make them sleepy, or hyper, or disoriented, because they have a real physical condition that requires it.

That's rather a different thing from the recreational use of something *for the purpose* of the intoxicating effects.

So it's still valid to distinguish between the recreational use of something that is always intoxicating, and the recreational use of something that can be enjoyed without those effects.

#7 || 11·11·29··09:42 || David Kjos

Dear Readers:

I apologize for the fact that all your comments are being moderated. “Marijuana” is not a word that normally appears on this blog, but commonly shows up in spam comments. Bear with me, and you’ll be published ASAP.

#8 || 11·11·29··10:49 || David Kjos

“buddyglass”:

Point #1:
   That beer and wine are food is not relevant to the moral question, but it is part of the answer to the question this post answers: What is the difference between alcoholic beverages and cannabis?
   Whether beer is food or not is not determined by the intent of the user, but by its content. It is high in carbohydrates, and also contains some protein. It is food, whether the consumer cares or not.
   While the average Bud Light Monday Night Football couch potato is probably drinking his beer just for the intoxicating effect, it is not universally true of all. I drink beer because I like it and because it’s healthy (and no, grape juice or non-alcoholic beer do not serve either of those purposes). It is, in fact, a part of my daily diet.

Point #2:
   I didn’t imply any prohibition at this point.

Point #3:
   Don’t be obtuse. Intoxication = drunkenness. Sure, you can split semantic hairs if you want, but I’m not playing. Everyone understands and uses “intoxicated” as a synonym for “drunk.”

#9 || 11·11·29··13:51 || Daniel

Haha. The Greek words that are translated as drunk and drunken, and drunkenness etc -mean- intoxicate, intoxicated and intoxication.

Arguing that drunkenness is forbidden but intoxication is not is like arguing that people are forbidden but persons are not - it is arguing one synonym against another. The Greek word doesn't hinge on the nuance of swallowing liquids - it describes an altered state of mind.

The point is not "do not drink beverages that contain alcohol so much that you become 'drunk'" it is rather, "do not become intoxicated". To argue that becoming intoxicated by method A is forbidden but intoxication by method "not A" is allowed is the worst sort of justifying of sin.

Seriously - arguing one synonym against another, when both translate the same Greek word, is magnificently absurd.

As far as medicinal use of weed goes, I think Proverbs 31:6 covers that: "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter.

#10 || 11·11·29··14:33 || David Kjos

“Haha.” Yeah, that’s what I thought.

#11 || 11·11·29··15:23 || buddyglass

Seriously - arguing one synonym against another, when both translate the same Greek word, is magnificently absurd.

Perhaps I'm mis-using the English word "intoxicated". I'm using it to refer to someone whose behavior is affected by alcoholic intake even by a minute degree. Whatever "that" is (maybe not "intoxicated"), I think it's distinct from "drunkenness" and is not prohibited.

So there is a point at which "acceptably affected" crosses over into "intoxicated". Back to what I said in post #4, in order to preclude weed on the basis of its potential for intoxication, one must show that any level of use results in "intoxication" and not just "acceptably affected".

#12 || 11·11·29··16:14 || David Kjos

“... in order to preclude weed on the basis of its potential for intoxication, one must show that any level of use results in ‘intoxication’ and not just ‘acceptably affected.’”

I’ve done that several times, but you weren’t there to see it. If you won’t accept a first-hand report from one who has done the “research,” you can’t be helped.

#13 || 11·11·29··16:41 || buddyglass

Your experience smoking pertains to...you. Based on it you can say that for you any amount of weed use results in "intoxication" as opposed to "acceptably affected". What's your basis for elevating that to universal truth, i.e. for all people any amount of weed use results in "intoxication" as opposed to "acceptably affected"?

#14 || 11·11·29··17:33 || David Kjos

Yeah, I’ve lived my life alone on an island with no opportunity to observe anyone else. If only I had your experience, I might be able to express an opinion without looking silly ...

Seriously, I don’t have to have surveyed every pothead who ever rolled a joint. My experience is plenty wide. Frankly, if anyone told me they smoked and didn’t get high, I’d call him a liar.

Besides that, it’s beyond ignorant to believe anyone (never mind cancer victims and such) would smoke pot for any other reason. It’s ridiculously absurd.

#15 || 11·11·30··08:00 || Daniel

"I think it's distinct from "drunkenness" and is not prohibited."

I remember someone once asking (in a bible study), "what does this passage mean to you?"

I interrupted the speaker at this point because even though I knew him to be a well meaning and sincere believer, his question betrayed an ignorance that had to be addressed swiftly, lest anyone else fall into the same error. I explained that when handling the word of God, our duty is not to try to interpret some personal meaning from the passage, but rather to learn what the passage actually means.

In the same way, what matters here is not what I think, or what anyone else thinks - what matters is what the word actually means. Drunkenness is certainly one "kind" of intoxication, but it isn't drunkenness that is forbidden (even if some English translations have used that particular synonym to express the notion of intoxication), what is forbidden is intoxication, and perhaps more pragmatically, the pursuit of intoxication through whatever substances might get you there.

As a fellow (former) researcher, I too, in all the dozens (hundreds?) of people I have co-researched the matter at hand with - I have yet to find a single one who partook of weed without the intent to become intoxicated by it. If in some instance there was a person who partook and failed to become intoxicated; it was not by design. I think the appropriate response was to say, "that's a bummer man..." at least up here in Canada.

#16 || 11·11·30··08:26 || David Kjos

Then there was this guy ...