Peace Maker Tony

Thank you for your input here on the discussion of whether or not Christians should smoke pot. I guess you missed it that I was making an analogy in response to a commonality in a lot of the posts of the pot defenders. My point was that as porn and pot-use are VICES, and neither is better than the other, so too, pot and cigs are vices, and neither one is better or justifiable over another. Whereas many people in this thread want to justify weed by using that "pot is better than cigarettes" (or booze, or whatever) mentality.

I have asked in another post for someone to tell me how recreational use of weed glorifies God, and have not received an answer, despite all the proponents of it on here. I will add, how does it not contradict 1 Peter 5:8, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, Ephesians 5:18 and the many other scriptures? Lastly, if drunkards do not inherit the kingdom, how will recreational weed-users? Man may be double-minded, God isn't.

Yes, before this post I had already gotten your point about starting a new thread, and I haven't used the word since then, nor do I see the point in doing so again.When I first mentioned it I just didn't foresee how bringing up a biblical Hebrew word in a (Christian) thread about drugs could be a problem, nor how that word was somehow unrelated to the discussion. I invite you to point me to a post where I said or implied that medical use of weed is sorcery. This thread is not about medical use, it is about whether or not Christians should use marijuana. So rather than me or anyone else having to stop talking about "sorcery" in this thread, don't you think maybe it's the people who keep bringing up medical use in a thread that isn't about that, should be the ones to have to start a new thread?

The examples in the bible show that God obviously deals more harshly with some sins than others. There were only a few sins in the O.T. that required the punishment of immediate death for the perpetrator, so I don't agree with your "we're all sinners, and a sin is a sin" mentality. I have heard that response a lot regarding the issue of homosexuality. But to not make any differentiation between sins is to muddy the waters, IMO, which is what the homos are always trying to do. Our civil laws have life in jail for murderers, but not for petty theft, the bible's the same way when it comes to sin. I hope I've made my point on that, not meaning to overdo it. The key point is the issue of repentance, which no true Christian would be without. So any homo that is continuing his lifestyle is unrepentant and not serving Jesus, only himself. When he identifies himself as a homosexual, he is identifying himself as a sinner, one that is unrepentant, and unashamed of his sin. He can call himself Christian, but he is merely defining himself - by necessity and convenience - by his own code of morality, not God's. As an example, Ray Boltz, the well-known Christian composer who in the 1980's had a string of hit albums, has for a while now been "out" as a homosexual, and has joined a gay-friendly church and involved himself in gay activism groups. Here's a quote from him : "Right now, I am part of a group called “Soul Force” that aims to help LGBT kids trump the fundamentally anti-gay policies at Christian-affiliated schools". So, spiritually-speaking, unlike Saul becoming Paul, it looks like Boltz has turned from Paul into Saul! Anyway, Boltz is my example of an unrepentant (homo) sinner, and shiloh357's comments aptly pertain to him. There are no gay Christians, and I am not judging him (the bible does that) when I say he is not a Christian, gay or otherwise. Boltz - and all homos like him - want to have their cake and eat it too. Also, we are not helpless to overcome sins, nor slaves to them, unless we want to be. IE, we love our sins enough to keep doing them. I'm specifically thinking of Golden Eagles's example about Romans 1:18-23. When we submit to God He makes all things new and His death on the cross set us free from the law of sin and death and the flesh no longer has dominion over us. So no one has the right to act like they can't change, by saying, as in the case of gays, "it's the way I am", or whatever.

Not being testy at all. I am in no way attacking you but showing you that your knowledge on the subject is lacking. You continue to regurgitate the same ol' rhetoric that has been spoon fed to our society since the "war on drugs", or as it should be called, the governments get rich quick scheme. But you say that you are debating if a Christian should use it if were to be legal correct? Well, then that's what you should have been debating. You seemed to be adding a bit more to that debate, so I called you on it. Now you if don't agree that a Christian should smoke, I understand, but stop repeating the tired government propaganda that has only lined their pockets. I am glad that you are not attacking me, neither am I you. And that's fine if you feel the need to call me on something, I have not claimed to be an expert on this, nor do I feel I need to be to have a sound and proper opinion on it. About your opinion on my lack of knowledge on the subject, here's the thing : unlike you, I am not self-absorbed in this subject, it doesn't consume my life like it apparently does yours. So, contrary to what you obviously think, I am NOT "repeating the tired government propaganda". How can I repeat something I have not concerned myself with? I don't own any books about drugs, or the politics thereof. I don't watch t.v., I don't even read the newspaper. I can't think of a time in the last 20 years where I had a thought about marijuana or any of the issues involved with it. It was not at all on my radar before this thread started. So anything I have said is simply my opinion, based on what I know the bible says about it, based on common sense and intelligence, and coming from personal experience. So to repeat, I am not just copy/pasting info from some government site, or anything like that. Now, regarding government propaganda, your statements aren't propaganda, correct? One more thing I want to add, knowledge is not wisdom, so you may want to rethink your stance on my lack of knowledge. Lastly, like walla299 said, I can't imagine why any Christian would be so engrossed in this subject. Wait, I noticed one more comment you made that I also want to respond to. You asked me : "But you say that you are debating if a Christian should use it if were to be legal correct?". The answer to that is, no, incorrect. I don't know how many times in this thread I have stated that legality is NOT my concern. Let me put as simply as I can, my stance on drugs. I do not feel Christians should use drugs, period, and even less promote the use of them. That the government has made it legal in some states has no bearing on my position. I believe any so-called benefits of using weed are far-outweighed by their deleterious affects. I believe the bible likens drug-use to sorcery. I believe drug-use is a form of rebellion, which is as witchcraft. I belief we, as Christians, are not to imitate the world, so even if 99% of the world was using weed and saying it is okay, we should all the more refuse to do so. Almost all worldly religions use drugs in their worship, which shows there is a spiritual component to drug-using. Would all these false religions use drugs if they had the God of the bible in their hearts, or is the reason why they have to use drugs in their worship, because they DON'T have the God of the bible in their hearts and are vainly trying to reach Him through fleshly - the only option available to them - worship? The bible says we are not to offer "strange fire" unto the Lord, as in the biblical examples of Nadab and Abihu. In their case, immediately after they had been dragged outside the camp, the Lord made this statement to Aaron, the father of these two men: "Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of meeting, so that you may not die --- it is a perpetual statute throughout your generations --- so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean" (Leviticus 10:9-10). Why did God mention wine in the same discussion about improperly approaching the Lord to worship? Well, if you carefully read this account, paying attention to the context, the reason Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire to the Lord, was because they were intoxicated, which impaired their judgment and ability to properly present their offering to God. The point should be obvious, that when your mind is dulled and impaired through intoxication, you are in danger of losing the ability to worship or approach God properly, in His way, and on His terms. So my next question is - to continue this stream of thought - do you think God would approve of you showing up at church on Sunday in a stoned condition? Why not, if weed is so good and God-approved? Will you answer that question, or just ignore it? Will you hear the Holy Spirit speak to you when your mind is all doped up? Will you unwittingly offer strange fire to the Lord in such a state? Lastly, we are also to abstain from all appearances of evil, and you cannot argue that a Christian smoking up and promoting weed doesn't look right to a non-believer. If they can discern that, why can't we? We do not want the world to think we're no different than them in the way we behave. We are a living tabernacle of God, our lives a living sacrifice to Jesus. So what are we sacrificing to Him when we use drugs? Anyway, my time is usually limited, and it takes me forever to type these posts, and as such I see no point in my going around and around, repeating myself for nothing. So I think I will leave it that.

This is a​ false dichotomy. There is no graduation from one drug or another. If so you would have included cigarettes. The reason why weed is called a "gateway" drug is because it is illegal. If tobacco were illegal then it would be called a gateway drug. Why? This is because the people that sell weed also sell other harder drugs, thus making it easier for a person to get access to them. Cigarettes will never be a gateway to anything, because they don't get you stoned and impair you like marijuana does, and they don't affect you in the same ways that pot does. And people who smoke cigs don't do so for the same reasons pot-smokers do, and vice versa. And about graduation, in many cases there absolutely is when it comes to pot. The reason many people progress from the softer to harder drugs is because the former lose their effect and no longer give them the sensations they crave. This absolutely does not happen in the case of cigs. Unless you want to tell me that people who smoke cigs would start smoking weed if cigarettes were banned! You obviously have no real understanding of the highly addictive properties in cigs Think of why people smoke cigs at all , simply because of the way it makes them feel ,,it not being stoned , and even taking a couple tokes of pot does not mean you get stoned even though it has an effect ,Cig smokers smoke because they Need it , can't go without it that is why they smoke 20 to 40 or even 60 cigs per day ,,they crave it, . I notice at every job there is smokers who can't wait for break so they can smoke , like it or not cigs are a drug that creates addiction because it has mind altering effects .People will say they need it to calm their nerves , they need it in order to relax, they can't really relax without it. Many people smoke pot to help go to sleep Look at the extreme measures most cig smokers will go to to get their fix of nicotine and other chemicals in cigs ...many smokers will lose a lung because of the damage caused by smoking , but will still continue to smoke because they gotta have it because of they way it makes them feel , regardless of how much damage it causes The government has been growing pot on government pot farms for decades , the government sells pot for medicinal usage , Again it is God who will determine if a person used drugs for a legit reason or not and He will be judge ,not you or anyone else Drugs are used for variety of reasons and pain control and anxiety control are a couple. There is an epidemic on the misuse of prescription drugs which is far worse than pot Like I have said before I am not defending smoking pot , but simply presenting that so much hysteria about it as a sin and yet when it comes to smoking cigs that have been proven to cause cancers and cause even death and loss of limbs people who focus their arrows at pot smokers try to nullify smokers of cigs as if it was no big deal when it is There is medical proof that pot has medicinal benefits which is why the government grows it and sells it There are no medicinal benefits in smoking cigs I seemingly am in the minority of people here that have not made this a pot vs. something else debate. Like I've opined, cigs are bad, weed is bad. Legal or illegal doesn't change that. I'm curious why you would say I have no understanding of the highly addictive properties in cigs. I would imagine EVERYONE knows how addictive they are. Lastly, about your comment on people that "focus their arrows at pot smokers to try to nullify smokers of cigs" : perhaps the reason it appears that pot is being picked on, singled out, etc., compared to cigs, is because, unlike marijuana proponents, nobody is saying cigs are good for you. Everyone knows cigs are bad, so if a smoking group had the audacity to start a campaign saying it was good for you, that group would receive just as many arrows headed their way.

This is a​ false dichotomy. There is no graduation from one drug or another. If so you would have included cigarettes. The reason why weed is called a "gateway" drug is because it is illegal. If tobacco were illegal then it would be called a gateway drug. Why? This is because the people that sell weed also sell other harder drugs, thus making it easier for a person to get access to them. What is with the comparisons between apples and oranges I keep seeing? Nobody graduates from cigarettes to other drugs, as is the case with non-cigarette drug-users. Cigarettes will never be a gateway to anything, because they don't get you stoned and impair you like marijuana does, and they don't affect you in the same ways that pot does. And people who smoke cigs don't do so for the same reasons pot-smokers do, and vice versa. And about graduation, in many cases there absolutely is when it comes to pot. The reason many people progress from the softer to harder drugs is because the former lose their effect and no longer give them the sensations they crave. This absolutely does not happen in the case of cigs. Unless you want to tell me that people who smoke cigs would start smoking weed if cigarettes were banned! But as I've said several times in different posts, the issue of legality or illegality is a red herring. Just admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Before weed became illegal, it was never called a gateway drug. It was only after it was made illegal that it was then a gateway drug. I smoked for a long time, and I mean a long time, and I never progressed neither has many of those that I smoked with. Now I know others that used coke, but it wasn't due to the high being less impactful. It was because they were persuaded into trying the other drug. This has been the case for 99 percent of the people I have known that have tried something else. Basically, you have proven that you are not knowledgeable on this subject, and are just saying the same ol government propaganda. They have a whole other reason {$$$$} for keeping it illegal. They just need to keep those that still hold a weedaphobia mentality, to continue to push their tired slogans. If you can show me some numbers that coincide with this gateway theory I'll retract my statement. But consider, you need to provide numbers of "graduation" before and after weed became illegal. A little bit testy, aren't you? Attack the messenger when you don't like the message. You know what, I don't care what weed was called before or after it became legal. I am debating whether or not Christians should use it, while you are just side-tracking and ignoring everything I say. You will believe what you want to believe, and you will keep on idolizing the weed. That's your right, but I believe you will answer to God for promoting drug use. Christians and drugs. Wow, what a world!! What's next? This is what I have noticed from people with your stance, time and again : you apparently cannot even remotely accept or agree that there just might be some bad things about weed. Nooooooo, it's the wonder drug! Why, it's even God-approved!! How dare I besmirch the idol that is marijuana! According to you, people that are against weed not only don't know what they're talking about, but they are weedaphobics. :24: What a ridiculous thing to say.

Yep, and it's quite possible that a cherry tree that produces plumbs isn't a cherry tree. I absolutely agree. Many Christians have no fear of God, and so they don't obey God. Their response to any verse that teaches the virtue of the fear of God is to mutter 1 John 4:18, fear is the absence of love. Fair enough, but if they loved God, they would obey God. Those who say they love God but divorces their spouse is a liar. I think the biggest reasons Christians divorce is because they run their marriage by worldly standards, which doesn't work for non-Christians, either. But, non-Christians tend to avoid the divorce by not getting married in the first place. You hit the nail on the head on all points. Marriages being run by worldly standards, claims to love God but divorcing their spouse, etc.

This is a​ false dichotomy. There is no graduation from one drug or another. If so you would have included cigarettes. The reason why weed is called a "gateway" drug is because it is illegal. If tobacco were illegal then it would be called a gateway drug. Why? This is because the people that sell weed also sell other harder drugs, thus making it easier for a person to get access to them. What is with the comparisons between apples and oranges I keep seeing? Nobody graduates from cigarettes to other drugs, as is the case with non-cigarette drug-users. Cigarettes will never be a gateway to anything, because they don't get you stoned and impair you like marijuana does, and they don't affect you in the same ways that pot does. And people who smoke cigs don't do so for the same reasons pot-smokers do, and vice versa. And about graduation, in many cases there absolutely is when it comes to pot. The reason many people progress from the softer to harder drugs is because the former lose their effect and no longer give them the sensations they crave. This absolutely does not happen in the case of cigs. Unless you want to tell me that people who smoke cigs would start smoking weed if cigarettes were banned! But as I've said several times in different posts, the issue of legality or illegality is a red herring.

Hmmmmm, why does that matter? Because you're itching to tell me that if I never tried it I shouldn't say anything about it, right? But again, it doesn't matter, because if I told you I've done plenty more than you and your friends, would you then cut me some slack that maybe I know a little bit about what I'm talking about? I suspect that even then you wouldn't. And I don't know how much of this thread you've read, but in one of my other posts I explained some of what I know about drugs and how I know it. Yes, I am aware that cocaine was in Coca-Cola and that they used to rub heroin on baby's teeth and all that stuff. And? As I've stated elsewhere, legality is not an issue with me. I couldn't care less what the government calls legal. And your, and others' ubiquitously-trumpeted phrase that pot has been shown to be helpful to some people is a moot point. Because it may help in one area but harm in 5 others. Well, if I am misinterpreting you, it is because in one breath you talk about medicinal use, and in the same breath you talk about recreational use. Are they one and the same to you? Are you defending both? Also, your different point of view doesn't enter into the equation, so please don't try and make it about that, as if I am just here to disagree with you because I love to be disagreeable. My posts to you have mostly been about your methodology in defending pot, which you curiously have not responded to. So the basic gist of this statement is, since none of can know if we fall into the category of those that are predisposed to becoming addicted, right from the get-go there is a definite risk involved in smoking up. So how much risk is acceptable in your view? The word "addiction" doesn't have a positive aspect to it, does it? I think that's why the national pot advocacy groups severely downplay this aspect, as it would definitely hurt their cause. Interestingly, one of the hallmarks of addiction is denial. How many pot smokers have you known that admitted they had a problem? Exactly, same goes for me. Anyway, factors in the causality of addiction include how much is used and the potency of it. Obviously if someone smokes a joint once in a blue moon he is likely not going to get addicted. But I have never seen a recreational pot-smoker that wasn't addicted to it. That's why we have the term, "recreational use", so we can deny that it is an addiction or need. It's a really nice P.R. term IMO. One question I might add is, if it is simply recreational, and not addiction, what is their motivation/reason for regularly using it? I'm not talking about using it to try curb severe pain, I'm talking about their need or desire to get high. It is an escape from reality and fleshly pursuit of pleasure. Case in point for that question : nobody drinks alcohol because they love the flavor, because if they said that's the reason, I would then ask why no one drinks a case of soda in one go like alcohol drinkers often do. There are many millions more soft drink-lovers than dope smokers, yet you don't see the same behavior. People drink alcohol to get high; they like the sensations it produces in their body ; they like having their mental processes altered. Same thing with drug users, right? So the obvious point is, the recreational part of pot-smoking means getting high, escaping from reality, numbing their senses, tripping out, etc. So please tell me what is so good about that. And please tell me how the word "recreational" has any bearing on smoking drugs? Is drug use a hobby? Is it for fun? Something to do in your spare time? Anyway, I'm done flogging that horse, I'll move along to your next points. Wait, one more comment. My buddies couldn't start their day without having 2 joints with their breakfast. In fact that was their breakfast! And none of them were hardcore users, just guys that would smoke up at a rock concert, or the odd party. Pot absolutely is a gateway to other drugs for most users, and as to what a given person is seeking, they are seeking to feed their lust of the flesh, are they not? It astounds me that you don't see even the slightest spiritual component to drug-taking. Healthy/stable-minded people in love with Christ and walking in the spirit have no need for drugs as far as I'm concerned. People take drugs because something is wrong in their lives, not because something is good in their lives. Think about that! As to your point about it being nonsense, all I can say is, What????? Then pray-tell, why have the porno mags gotten more and more explicit over the decades? Because no one is into hardcore? Have you never heard the expression, "give the people what they want"? Your comment here shows a serious lack of understanding about addiction and a similar amount of denial. Not to mention, a lack of understanding about what the bible calls a reprobate mind. You don't go from "fine" to reprobate over night. It is a process whereby the more you partake of sin, the more sin you need and the worse it gets. When you open the door to sin, sin doesn't just sit there all content and happy, it makes you want more of it. So for the life of me, I don't know how you can act like the sin of pornography just stays the same. Why is Playboy magazine losing money? Because it is too soft for the average porn consumer? You know this about Christian women, how? And I notice you didn't include men, which are different than women. Do you seriously not see any ripple effect to sin? Beastiality is now legal in some Scandinavian countiries. Swearing and full nudity is no longer rare on t.v. anymore. So it doesn't matter if some people don't do "perverted" sex, or aren't as "bad" as others, the point is that all sin, when excused, will eventually lead to the inexcusable. I should copyright that quote. The thing is, all I did was say one sentence about the colloration between the addictions of porn and drugs, and it wasn't my intention to get side-tracked from the topic of marijuana. Do you think there is ANY, any at all, innocency to sin? As in, there is no ripple effect to it? Do you think a sinful lifestyle controls you, or you control it? You can just indulge in 1 sin and never desire any related ones? Is the flesh, which 24/7 wars against the spirit, ever satisfied? Can a stoned, intoxicated mind resist the temptations of the devil? Okay, I am asking you a sincere and honest question here, and I would expect the same in your answer. Has the motive behind this decades-long fight for legalization been to help cancer victims relieve their pain? Or has it been more like to promote a drug lifestyle or counterculture (which is a fancy way of saying 'rebellion')? And I guess you whizzed by my request that you make your case for pot without comparing it to anything. But you insist on making a,"it's better than cigarettes" kind of plea. But we're not discussing cigarettes. This thread is not about cigarettes. They could be the absolute worst susbstance one could ever put into the body, they could kill a billion people a year; but that would not prove anything about any positivity of using marijuana! So why do you keep bringing them up? Surely that is not how you judge the morality and correctness about things in your life. So please try to refrain from the comparisons of one vice to another! Absolutely agree that harming the body can be a sin! Except it appears that you don't think pot-smoking grieves the Holy Spirit, correct? And I couldn't care less what is accepted. Morality is not a mass-approved concept. So your solution is what, don't condemn one vice (pot) because another (cigarettes) isn't condemned? You think it isn't fair? I agree that people aren't consistent in their condemnation, but I don't agree that pot is this wonderful drug you're making it out to be. Both are harmful, in different ways. Smoking cigarettes relaxes the nerves in people, so that makes smoking okay? Shall I get on a soapbox about how cigs are good because they do that, while ignoring the plethora of harmful effects it has on the body? I think that's what you're doing about pot. You're screaming into the megaphone (so to speak) about how pot is helpful to people (what, it helps people in pain?) while ignoring the numerous health problems associated with it. As to your statement that pot has been proven to be medicinally beneficial, not meaning to be crude, but so has drinking your own urine for health benefits. Let me try to make a direct and simple point. NO ONE at my place of employment is allowed to come to work with marijuana (or, obviously, any other drug) in his system. They are not allowed to smoke it on the premises or during work hours. They are not allowed to work around machinery, ETC. And it is not because the workforce wants to be mean to people. Or discriminate, or take away rights, or because they are ignorant about pot, or judgmental, holier than thou, or anything of the sort. It is because marijuana IMPAIRS YOU and will negatively affect your work duties. How is that not obvious to you? Is it not equally obvious that the employees receive no such disapprobation against smoking cigarettes???? If you have pot in your system at my workplace, someone is going to get badly hurt or killed, pure and simple. And I would refuse to work beside you, your hurt feelings notwitstanding. This isn't a game about poor downtrodden pot advocates that no one understands and that always get denied their rights. And you think it would be different with pot? Anyway, if you saw how slow I type, you would know how long it takes me to answer just 1 post like this, so my time is out. You haven't answered any of my questions, nor provided any evidence for your statements, instead just going on and on about cigarettes. Pot AND Cigarettes are bad; it doesn't matter which one is worse.

Amen Absolutely, very well said!

Yes, he does, if it is a Godly law, but that subject is discussed in another thread, so I won't rehash it here. Our conscience comes from the Holy Spirit, does it not? If so, when would He tell us to smoke pot? Okay let me ask you this. If drugs are not wrong, would you really not have a problem with it if your pastor toked up all the time? Well for one thing, the bible says the use of drugs is akin to sorcery. Also, can you at least admit that drug-taking is worldly - ie: fleshly - if nothing else? But of course it is more than that. And the reason why it is an appearance/form of evil is because you are willfully intoxicating your body and there are no good connotations to the term "drug addict", which is what anyone who regularly takes drugs is. People can play semantic games by talking of "recreational drug use", or other fancy ways of saying "drug addict", but the results are the same. No one in his right mind would automatically say anything to the effect of, "that's so great that he's a drug user". But marijuana consumption is a spiritual thing to those who have used it enough. You can liken pot-smoking to just getting mellow, or putting yourself into a relaxed state, or whatever, but the fact is your mind is being altered when you smoke drugs. And the mind is where Satan attacks, and how can you resist his attacks when you are not even in a normal state of mind? Yes, it is about appearances, as in the mall rat/hippie look you referred to, but appearances also means perceptions. A pastor can be in a 3-piece suit and as soon as he lights up a joint in front of me, my perception of him changes. You know what I mean?

My first reply will echo one I stated elsewhere in this, or another thread about marijuana, which is : why do defenders of pot always compare it to other things in order to try justify it? Do we say stealing isn't so bad because murder is worse? In the same vein, is marijuana good because it's not as bad as cocaine? It seems like that was the angle your comments were coming from, with your foremost example being your comparison between cigarette and pot smokers. But IMHO such straw-man/non sequitur comments do not bolster your pro-pot stance. Can you talk about pot without bringing any other drug up? If pot was good you wouldn't need to bring up anything else, it would be self-evident. But it isn't good, so you need to compare it to some things that are worse than it, or have cons of their own, in order to make pot seem good, or harmless, or no big deal, or whatever. Here's just a quick question for you: what do you think is the more common scenario for drug-users? : 1) they start out on hard drugs, like cocaine, heroin, etc., and then graduate towards pot ........... OR 2) they start out with marijuana, and then graduate towards the hard drugs, like cocaine, heroin, etc.? I think you see my point, that, like pornography addictions need to get harder and more perverse in order to satisfy the never-satisfied lust of the flesh, so too, in the case of drugs, pot often quickly becomes "not enough", and leads many users to try other drugs in order to try satisfy that particular lust of the flesh. So just that factor alone makes cigarette smoking not even qualified to be discussed in the same conversation about marijuana. Now in answer to your other points, marijuana fries your brain, and harms your body just as much as cigarettes do, if not more, so once again, comparing it to harsher drugs, or whatever other angle you may use, proves nothing. So if all you've got is, "it's easier to withdraw from pot-smoking than from cigarette-smoking", or, "it is "easier to quit than drinking is", or "Christians smoke cigarettes, so why can't they smoke marijuana?", then sorry friend, you're going to have to do better than that. Can pot stand on it's own merits without being compared to anything else? Or can I justify eating 2 Big Macs a day because it's better than eating 5 bags of Oreo cookies a day? Do you see what I mean?

Hi, Eisleben. Is legal marijuana like legal abortion? In other words, legal means okay? On your point about better witnesses, I don't think a Christian smoking a joint is a good witness to anybody. We are to abstain from all appearances of evil and not be worldly. That all pagan religions use all sorts of drugs in their worship practices should be a tip-off, in my opinion as to whether it should be used by us or not. Lastly, so I understand what you said more clearly, when you referred to legalism, were you saying that it is legalism for a Christian to avoid pot for moral/biblical or other religious reasons? God bless!