Phelps proven human after all.

[[Syl]]

Hamburgers dont cause someone to not pay attention to driving details and run someone off the road...

Yes, they do. Granted, habitual marijuana use makes it five times more likely, but if pot was as legal as a cheeseburger, I think those two numbers would get closer to parity. I'm no statistician, but the numbers for alcohol look even worse.

[SoulBiter]

I figured someone would come up with a study. Its the same study as people using cell phones or teenagers having their friends in the car or loss of sleep. Anything that takes your focus off of driving increases your chances of having an accident. And if those things.. as innocuous as they are can cause that much, then how much more would you be able to see with someone doing a hit of acid?

[[Syl]]

Exactly. And if all these things, which cause no harm in and of themselves but only while driving (I think I might almost need two hands to count the number of times I've had to swerve out of my lane because some soccer mom is putting on eyeliner in her SUV), are legal... And just as lawmakers are taking steps to make these things punishable with fines, so too should driving while high.

[Zarathustra]

If you are using drugs, and then driving, you should be locked up. If you hurt others, you should be locked up. There are plenty of legal drugs which you shouldn't use while driving (alcohol is the most obvious, but there are prescription drugs, too). So, again, this isn't about keeping people safe. If it were, alcohol would be illegal. I have a feeling that if Jesus didn't turn water into wine, but instead turned bread into LSD, we'd have a completely different view of alcohol and ergot.

I know this sounds like the rantings of an atheist. But our society's stance on alcohol doesn't make sense any other way. Alcohol destroys families, your body, and your ability to operate heavy machinery. All the arguments against other drugs apply to alcohol. So how do we make sense of the fact that it is legal, and these others are not? It is societal prejudice, pure and simple.

With $20, I can go buy enough alcohol to kill myself, or wipe out a bus full of children. As long as that's a fact, you can't tell me that our drug laws make sense.

The Drug War is a modern day witch hunt.

[Cybrweez]

When were drugs first made illegal?

[SoulBiter]

If you are using drugs, and then driving, you should be locked up. If you hurt others, you should be locked up. There are plenty of legal drugs which you shouldn't use while driving (alcohol is the most obvious, but there are prescription drugs, too). So, again, this isn't about keeping people safe. If it were, alcohol would be illegal. I have a feeling that if Jesus didn't turn water into wine, but instead turned bread into LSD, we'd have a completely different view of alcohol and ergot.

I know this sounds like the rantings of an atheist. But our society's stance on alcohol doesn't make sense any other way. Alcohol destroys families, your body, and your ability to operate heavy machinery. All the arguments against other drugs apply to alcohol. So how do we make sense of the fact that it is legal, and these others are not? It is societal prejudice, pure and simple.

With $20, I can go buy enough alcohol to kill myself, or wipe out a bus full of children. As long as that's a fact, you can't tell me that our drug laws make sense.

The Drug War is a modern day witch hunt.

Damn...good...points



Drugs were made illegal in the very early 1900's.. around 1920ish...

[Cybrweez]

That's what I thought. I'm not sure how much can be chalked up to "dominance of Christianity in our culture, and a historical Christian fear for shamanistic or mystical traditions". Certainly its possible, but that Christian dominance was here for 150 years prior to the outlawing. And alcohol was outlawed at the same time. Why did that get overturned, but not drugs? I suspect its more than Christian dominance.

What's interesting, is that a country dominated by Christianity, is one of the most diverse countries, ever. A bunch of guys decided to use Christian principles, that God (not govt, not man) created certain inalienable rights, and implemented them for a country. And despite a history of violent Christian oppression (we'll use the Dawkins approach of selective history for our needs), the country somehow became the multicultural place it is today.

But, I agree its a good culprit. I know many would jump on the bandwagon.

[Mr. Broken]

I started this topic because I was amused by the now notorious photo, and because I saw right away that it would become a thorn in the propaganda paw of all of those who would willingly walk on the individual freedoms of others, but it has become more than that now. This has turned into a serious discussion of issues, law, motivation, and legality. In the end it will probably make little difference, but if anything can be gathered from all of these different reactions, it is that we as a culture remain divided on this issue, and the legalization of marijuana once just a pipe dream (forgive me), now seems to be a reality of the very near future. Perhaps if he cant be a role model for all the little boys and girls, then maybe he will become the poster child for change.

[Zarathustra]

Cyberweez, I'm not trying to pick on Christianity. When I toss around terms like "witch hunt," I mean it literally, based on actual historical events. The 1000s of "witches" which were burned alive by Christians were often accused of witchcraft because of their use of natural psychedelics. This is why they thought they were witches. And accidental ingestion of psychedelics (such as ergot, which can occur in bread, contains lycergic acid, a precursor to LSD) backed up that impression because tripping was often confused with "demonic possession." So the connection between drugs, witchcraft, demonic possession, and the Christian prejudice against these drugs has a long history which shapes our opinions today. The government takes advantage of these fears, throws in a little "public safety" propaganda, and then further twists our opinions through public mis-information campaigns.

Yes, alcohol was made illegal during prohibition. Again, that was done by puritanical religious movement, too (mostly Christians). But prohibition was so bad, that the government reversed its position in a miraculous display of common sense. But practical arguments didn't automatically change public opinion on alcohol--surely it helped that alcohol was a drug used in religious ceremonies (such as the Communion rite) which are central to the Christian religion, as well as receiving the "Jesus Seal of Approval" by the Son of God serving it to wedding guests via direct, miraculous intervention of turning water into wine.

Imagine if Christianity had a sacred rite which included smoking pot. Do you really think that pot would be illegal in a (mostly) Christian country? I can't back all of this up without doing a lot of research. Most of these opinions come from books I've read. But I think it's extremely plausible.

[Rawedge Rim]

Cyberweez, I'm not trying to pick on Christianity. When I toss around terms like "witch hunt," I mean it literally, based on actual historical events. The 1000s of "witches" which were burned alive by Christians were often accused of witchcraft because of their use of natural psychedelics. This is why they thought they were witches. And accidental ingestion of psychedelics (such as ergot, which can occur in bread, contains lycergic acid, a precursor to LSD) backed up that impression because tripping was often confused with "demonic possession." So the connection between drugs, witchcraft, demonic possession, and the Christian prejudice against these drugs has a long history which shapes our opinions today. The government takes advantage of these fears, throws in a little "public safety" propaganda, and then further twists our opinions through public mis-information campaigns.

Yes, alcohol was made illegal during prohibition. Again, that was done by puritanical religious movement, too (mostly Christians). But prohibition was so bad, that the government reversed its position in a miraculous display of common sense. But practical arguments didn't automatically change public opinion on alcohol--surely it helped that alcohol was a drug used in religious ceremonies (such as the Communion rite) which are central to the Christian religion, as well as receiving the "Jesus Seal of Approval" by the Son of God serving it to wedding guests via direct, miraculous intervention of turning water into wine.

Imagine if Christianity had a sacred rite which included smoking pot. Do you really think that pot would be illegal in a (mostly) Christian country? I can't back all of this up without doing a lot of research. Most of these opinions come from books I've read. But I think it's extremely plausible.

Let me attempt to clear up a few things for you.....

1. Alcohol, specifically wine and beer\ale, were, at the time they could be produced by human hands, was safer to drink than water. This continued to be the case for many thousands of years, and in some places in the world, this is still true.

2. The Church was one of the main producers of Wine in the middle-ages and even later.

3. Hashish, which has a similar chemical make up as marijuana, and whose active ingredient is THC, has been around for centuries, and was pretty much banned just about everywhere even then. Opium when not outright banned has been looked down upon.

4. There is no field sobriety test right now to tell if someone is under the influence of marijuana, cocaine, LSD, ecstacy, or pretty much any other drug you can mention other than alcohol. Most of the drugs I mentioned would turn up in any intrusive test for days if not weeks later, rendering the results less than satisfactory for the purposes of convicting someone for operating a vehicle while "under the influence"

5. You fight the battles you can win. Banning Alcohol didn't work real well because it was ingrained in our culture. Banning Drugs is easier because they are not.

6. I agree that the war on drugs is a silly waste of time, and has accomplished nothing except to create hideous laws that are selectively enforced, and haven't even slowed the influx of drugs into the USA. Better to spend the money on treatment, and more cost effective.

[Zarathustra]

Let me attempt to clear up a few things for you.....

1. Good point. As a home brewer, I have to admit that beer is food. But the main reason it was safer than other drinks is because you boil water to brew. It took people a while to figure this out. I think by 1920s, it was clear. With wine, the higher alcohol content and acidity helps to kill off bacteria. But your general point is a good one--most other drugs aren't food/drink. (Pot brownies, on the other hand . . . )

Yet, that is aside from the point that it's perfectly legal to drink alcohol for no other reason than to get buzzed--and most of those places where it's not safe to drink the water aren't modern-day America, which is what we're talking about.

2. Yes wine and beer have been produced by churches and monasteries (some of the best beer is still brewed by Monks). But that's part of my point: alcohol is "church-approved."

3. Yes, pot has been smoked for thousands of years. But it wasn't illegal in America until the 20th century. I'm not sure what your point is.

4. Drugs have been illegal long before the breathalyzer. But it's not a bad point. Are there field sobriety tests for Ambien? Or all the other legal prescription mind-altering drugs?

Do you realize how often cops force you to take a blood test for alcohol?

If you can pass the "walk the line" tests, I say you're fine. If it's not impairing your senses or balance, it shouldn't matter. But if it is impairing you, this should be detectable without testing your breath or blood. Those tests are only for people who are close to the limit, but don't exhibit any outward signs.

There is no way to hide dilated eyes (a side-effect of LSD). I'd have no problem making it illegal to drive with dilated eyes . . . it's dangerous even when it's a side-effect of the optometrist visit.

How do cops handle it now? Do they just not arrest people who are tripping?

5. I agree. I'm talking about principle, but you're right about the pragmatic argument.

[Rawedge Rim]

Let me attempt to clear up a few things for you.....

1. Good point. As a home brewer, I have to admit that beer is food. But the main reason it was safer than other drinks is because you boil water to brew. It took people a while to figure this out. I think by 1920s, it was clear. With wine, the higher alcohol content and acidity helps to kill off bacteria. But your general point is a good one--most other drugs aren't food/drink. (Pot brownies, on the other hand . . . )

Yet, that is aside from the point that it's perfectly legal to drink alcohol for no other reason than to get buzzed--and most of those places where it's not safe to drink the water aren't modern-day America, which is what we're talking about.

2. Yes wine and beer have been produced by churches and monasteries (some of the best beer is still brewed by Monks). But that's part of my point: alcohol is "church-approved."

3. Yes, pot has been smoked for thousands of years. But it wasn't illegal in America until the 20th century. I'm not sure what your point is.

4. Drugs have been illegal long before the breathalyzer. But it's not a bad point. Are there field sobriety tests for Ambien? Or all the other legal prescription mind-altering drugs?

Do you realize how often cops force you to take a blood test for alcohol?

If you can pass the "walk the line" tests, I say you're fine. If it's not impairing your senses or balance, it shouldn't matter. But if it is impairing you, this should be detectable without testing your breath or blood. Those tests are only for people who are close to the limit, but don't exhibit any outward signs.

There is no way to hide dilated eyes (a side-effect of LSD). I'd have no problem making it illegal to drive with dilated eyes . . . it's dangerous even when it's a side-effect of the optometrist visit.

How do cops handle it now? Do they just not arrest people who are tripping?

5. I agree. I'm talking about principle, but you're right about the pragmatic argument.

Look into the Bible, there is no prohibition against drinking alcohol. OTOH there are a bunch against drunkeness. (also against over-eating)

[[Syl]]

Jesus 'healed using cannabis'

Jesus w as almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus and his disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings.

The anointing oil used by Jesus and his disciples contained an ingredient called kaneh-bosem which has since been identified as cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris Bennett in the drugs magazine, High Times, entitled Was Jesus a Stoner? The incense used by Jesus in ceremonies also contained a cannabis extract, suggests Mr Bennett, who quotes scholars to back his claims.

[SoulBiter]

Ive seen that before... the case that make is that a term used in the ingredients has been mistranslated. I suppose if you wanted to make a case for the use of cannibus then that fits. However if you stick with the original translation it wasnt cannibus at all but more of a cinnamon extract.

I realize that the website I posted could be slanted..but no more slanted than an article from "High Times"

www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/calamus.htm

Etymologist Sara Benetowa of the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw discovered in 1936, the connection between kaneh-bosem in the Old Testament as the original Semitic Hebrew origins of the word cannabis. Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 1980 confirmed this information as correct.

Several sources I read began connecting this supposed hallucinogenic with Jesus being the 'Christ' or 'Anointed' and finishing with Shamanism. This is a great example of junk scholarship based on etymological gymnastics enabled by moving from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English (and often back again.) It is a case of someone with an agenda reading imposing their will on the text.

Rabbi Diana Villa easily debunks this: "Yehudah Felix has written three books in Hebrew that relate to your questions: Biblical Vegetation published in 1957, Nature in the Biblical land, published in 1992, and Spice, Forest and Ornament Plants, published in 1997. 'Kinamon' or 'kinman bosem' is definitely cinnamon."

Now, before we throw stones, preachers (watch TBN for examples) are just as guilty of junk scholarship. I have sat through numerous, convoluted 'word studies' where preachers and teachers lead me through a labyrinth of tenuous linguistic and logical linkages all in support of some daft 'revelation'. (At times, these revelations are plainly stated in the Scriptures or are just basic theology. However, most often they are dubious.)

[caamora]

osted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:04 pm Post subject:

Malik wrote:

Cyberweez, I'm not trying to pick on Christianity. When I toss around terms like "witch hunt," I mean it literally, based on actual historical events. The 1000s of "witches" which were burned alive by Christians were often accused of witchcraft because of their use of natural psychedelics. This is why they thought they were witches. And accidental ingestion of psychedelics (such as ergot, which can occur in bread, contains lycergic acid, a precursor to LSD) backed up that impression because tripping was often confused with "demonic possession." So the connection between drugs, witchcraft, demonic possession, and the Christian prejudice against these drugs has a long history which shapes our opinions today.

This might have to be broken off into another thread.

Malik, could you please provide evidence of this? I ask because, as a Historian, I have studied this subject and I never seen anything about drug use for 'witches'. Witch hunts are directly linked to the Black Plague and the idea that God was punishing people for sinning. In early Middle Ages, witches were not thought to exist at all. The Plague changed that and the persecution of the Jews commenced - because they were outside Christianity and as such, thought to be displeasing to God. With the writing of Malleus Malificarum, the people who were mostly accused of witchcraft were single - usually widowed, non-virgin - women who were a financial burden on society.

Sorry, I was going on too long. But, no where in my studies have I found that drug use was considered part of the picture and the ingestion of ergot in bread would have affected both men and women.

My point is that I disagree that our aversion to drug use is Christian based but rather, I think, human (society) based. No one likes to be around someone who is high. Its uncomfortable because they are not acting in a manner acceptable to society. We expect people to be in control of themselves.

No one likes excess. Most people are pretty moderate and they expect moderation in others. When that boundary is broken, it makes people uncomfortable.

[Zarathustra]

Caamora, I have no reason to doubt your status as a Historian. But you have seriously never heard of witches using natural psychedelics? Many religious cults have used native plants for shamanistic rituals and healing. It certainly wasn't absent in Europe. I'll have to dig out my books. I don't have any online research or links.

One detail that sticks out to me (no pun intended) was the origin of the "flying broomstick" symbol associated with witches. Visions of "flight" were induced by hallucinagens such as amanita muscaria, which were often ground up into a paste and applied through the sensitive tissues of the vagina with the use of a "stick" to insert them . . . thus the "riding the broomstick" myth was born.

Though most people who would use a capital letter to describe their profession might disagree ( ), I agree with R. Gordon Wasson that the original impetus for religion was caused by the revelatory, euphoric, transcendental experience early humans obtained by their chance encounters with hallucinagenic plants. In fact, I believe the origins of concepts such as Sacred Fruit (or Forbidden Fruit) derived from the fact that people could find mushrooms and plants which allowed one to "see God" (or the devil, depending on your interpretation). I think these very powerful, unexpected experiences with entheogens were the origin of religion itself.

[Zarathustra]

Just a quick Wikipedia paste:

An early entheogen in Aegean civilization, predating the introduction of wine, which was the more familiar entheogen of the reborn Dionysus and the maenads, was fermented honey, known in Northern Europe as mead; its cult uses in the Aegean world are bound up with the mythology of the bee.

The extent of the use of visionary plants throughout European history has only recently been seriously investigated, since around 1960. The use of entheogens in Europe is thought, by most entheogen scholars[citation needed], to have become greatly reduced by the time of the rise of post-Roman Christianity. European witches used various entheogens, including thorn-apple (Datura), deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna), mandrake (Mandragora officinarum) and henbane (Hyoscyamus niger). These plants were used, among other things, for the manufacture of "flying ointments".

The growth of Roman Christianity also saw the end of the two-thousand-year-old tradition of the Eleusinian Mysteries, the initiation ceremony for the cult of Demeter and Persephone involving the use of a possibly entheogenic substance known as kykeon. Similarly, there is evidence that nitrous oxide or ethylene may have been in part responsible for the visions of the equally long-lived Delphic oracle (Hale et al., 2003).

In ancient Germanic culture cannabis was associated with the Germanic love goddess Freya. The harvesting of the plant was connected with an erotic high festival. It was believed that Freya lived as a fertile force in the plant's feminine flowers and by ingesting them one became influenced by this divine force. Similarly, fly agaric was consecrated to Odin, the god of ecstasy, while henbane stood under the dominion of the thunder god - Thor in Germanic mythology - and Jupiter among the Romans (Rätsch 2003).

Although entheogens are taboo and most of them are officially prohibited in Christian and Islamic societies, their ubiquity and prominence in the spiritual traditions of various other cultures is unquestioned. The entheogen, "the spirit, for example, need not be chemical, as is the case with the ivy and the olive: and yet the god was felt to be within them; nor need its possession be considered something detrimental, like drugged, hallucinatory, or delusionary: but possibly instead an invitation to knowledge or whatever good the god's spirit had to offer." (Ruck and Staples)

[[Syl]]

I have to respectfully disagree with the Rabbi. If kaneh bosem was indeed cinnamon, they wouldn't both be found mentioned in the Song of Songs.

קָנֶה וְקִנָּמוֹן

Kaneh v'kinamon (I speak Hebrew). The "v'" means "and."

The part where I disagree with the article I posted is that the Hebrew version of the Exodus chapter mentioning kaneh bosem reads to me as k'neh besem. Different from the aforementioned cinnamon, but... And if the singular really was "kaneh bos," the plural should be "kaneh bosim." (i instead of e) *shrug*

It'd be easy enough to tell, since a 2000 year-old jug of the stuff was dug up. But according to these guys, they couldn't identify all the components.

Regardless, there is actual evidence of its use in the area.

[Avatar]

Malik, I don't think Caam was disputing the use of natural psychadelics by "witches," I think she was saying that their use of such wasn't a reason for hunting them down, and disputing that anti-drug legislation had a christian basis.

On that last I think I might agree with her...now maybe christian views have affected a social view of drug use, but legally I think there are other reasons.

Hmmm...hold on...I do see one example of (Christian) religious drug prohibition...(The muslims of course being the first to ban a drug)...

In a move interpreted as support for the efforts of the Spanish Inquisition against the Arabs, in a 1484 fiat Pope Innocent VIII banned the use of cannabis. The persecution of heretics in the form of witch hunts also gathered momentum around this time, and frequently targeted users of medicinal and hallucinogenic herbs. The Inquisition proceeded apace in Meso-America and South America, where peyote (péyotl), ololiúqui, toloáche, teonanácatl and other sacred plants of the Mexican culture were prohibited as works of the devil.

Interesting.

Anyway, modern drug laws sprang out of the opium trade, with an international law regulating it passed in 1912 in the Hague.

Originally, the Marijuana Tax Act, passed in 1937, was intended to bring marijuana under the Harrison Act of 1914. Prior to the Act, possession of drugs was a tax violation, since no licenses for selling it existed, therefore it must have come from an unlicensed source.

The Harrison Act required the sellers of opiates and cocaine to be licensed, but did not prohibit or ban the substances or sales. Some people (including myself), believe that the fact that it was banned instead arose at least partly from the efforts of DuPont lobbying to end the competition an industrial hemp industry posed.

Psychoactive drugs weren't illegal until much later...LSD only in 1968 in fact. And those "controls" came through other more innocuous laws, tacked onto the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 only in the early 60's after the Thalidomide disaster.

That was amended in '65 to include new categories of "dangerous" drugs, first amphetamines and barbiturates. That was the first time the federal government directly prohibited drugs as far as I can see.

Oh, btw, one of the conditions the US imposes for foreign aid is compliance with it's drug policies.

--A

[SoulBiter]

I have to respectfully disagree with the Rabbi. If kaneh bosem was indeed cinnamon, they wouldn't both be found mentioned in the Song of Songs.

קָנֶה וְקִנָּמוֹן

Kaneh v'kinamon (I speak Hebrew). The "v'" means "and."

The part where I disagree with the article I posted is that the Hebrew version of the Exodus chapter mentioning kaneh bosem reads to me as k'neh besem. Different from the aforementioned cinnamon, but... And if the singular really was "kaneh bos," the plural should be "kaneh bosim." (i instead of e) *shrug*

It'd be easy enough to tell, since a 2000 year-old jug of the stuff was dug up. But according to these guys, they couldn't identify all the components.

Regardless, there is actual evidence of its use in the area.

I would be OK with it either way. If they did use cannibus in their oils, and I dont totally discount it.... I just dont think its proven one way or the other, then they used it. They had wine as well.. Jesus supposedly turned water into wine during a wedding feast. Would that make Jesus a drunkard.. I hope not.. since he preached against drunkards.. not against drinking. Which says to me that he was more inclined to be against things like that becoming foremost in your life... (you become addicted).. in the case of alchohol an alcholic.