Pot Smoking and Other Spiritual Hazards (Page 3 of 6)

I agree with pocketable-L about calling it weed, and about different strains having different effects.  And I think z3n3rg is right that it can expand focus, although it can somewhat paradoxically make you scatter-brianed at the same time if you don't really try to focus.  Oftentimes for me that ends up being a higher form of "focus" in helping me connect different ideas.

I have never liked smoking anything.  Because of this it took me a while to warm up to the idea of getting high with my weed-smoking friends, but eventually I was glad I did.  Then I was introduced to eating it instead of smoking, and although it can cause more paranoid freak-outs if you're prone to that sort of thing, if you get the dosage right it *can* be a pretty nice mind-expanding experience.  So I worked at getting the dosage right and now that's pretty much all I do when I use it.  I hold down a fairly straight day job during the week and I usually only indulge on the weekends.  Sure there are times during the week when I would like to get high, but if I smoked or ate every day then there would be no point for me because I wouldn't be able to compare "normal" life to life "on weed" and it would lose any beneficial effect.  Plus I would probably be in a hazy daze all the time because it would never leave my system.  I don't see how some people can stand to get high every day but if it works for them, so be it.  The more you do it the more of a waste of time it is in my opinion, but that's how it works for me.

Those of you who have lots of experience with the plant, either your own or from observing others, any comments on how gastrointestinal consumption is different?  At the very least it's hard to argue against it being healthier.  It's different for everyone and if you don't like smoking you might like eating, or it might make you *really* miserable especially if you eat too much.

Know what Lyra?  I sometimes take unusual positions on this board. . and one of them is that I actually enjoy your "nitpicking"!   Though it may be easier to feign offense and/or ignore your actual reply, I feel I would be remiss in doing that, so. . .

Perhaps I am unclear as to what he is referring to with the phrase "escape from the sphere".  I interpreted this to be referring to an exit from 3D (or "tick-tock"), which I consider a primary reference point for spiritual growth.  In addition, since I am here using dear Stuie as the scapegoat/fall guy for numerous other spiritual authors who don't share his particular terminology, I thought that a general term such as "spiritual growth" would be more appropriate.

Perhaps there is a more specific definition for "escape from the sphere" that would shed more light on the subject, and provide specific points upon which one could assess the effects of pot smoking.  If anybody has a clearer description of what he is talking about here. . toss it up.

In any case, I think it would stand to reason that tearing my etheric, poisoning my brain, and being paranoid and docile (bit of a conflict between those I think) would MOST DEFINITELY interfere with my spiritual growth.

Hmm. Sticky point.  I was being specific with the language to focus on the idea that I am not a victim to a plant, i.e. it has no will of its own that could supercede mine and "make me" anything.  Something causing a default reaction within my body may be the evocation of a certain chemical response, however I think that the terminology of "making me" is one step too far.  To me that's just like saying "Lyra's post made me so furious!"  There's an opportunity of choice to determine one's response that is being overlooked. 

I will concede that it has effects upon my body with the caveat that I may or may not choose to mentally offset, or magnify, those effects, depending upon my mood or environment.  I believe that the ingestion of all substances, including food and drink, but especially psychoactive substances such as marijuana is heavily influenced by the intent of the user, and the purpose toward which the use is employed.

Let me make an example.  The "default" reaction to marijuana use is to knock out the short term memory and "cause" one to be forgetful.  However, if one uses the plant with the intent of enhancing sensory input, and makes a conscious effort to pay more attention to detail than one normally would, then they can have an experience which is more easily recalled, and actually improve upon their ability to recall things at a future time without the use of the plant.

Also. . . what do you mean by "artificial" energy?

I am not going to argue against anybody else's experience, though I would encourage such people to explore the source and subject of the paranoia and to apply an appropriate mental cure.  I will maintain that the paranoia existed as a potential state within the person before the plant was ingested.  I will also suggest that smoking marijuana in a safe environment may provide an excellent opportunity for identifying the source and subject of the paranoia and identifying potential mental cures.

Depends upon my mood and intent, as per above.  However, I will also add here that the connotation I gathered from Stuart's words were that the supposed effects of smoking marijuana were lasting, or even permanent, changes, to one's functioning.

Indeed my entire rant is arguing against claims such as "smoking marijuana permanently damages your aura"  or "smoking marijuana causes irrevocable personality changes".  And so on.  Again, perhaps I am misinterpreting his words. 

Against the claim that smoking marijuana results in temporary, reversible, and augmentable changes to one's energetic field and personality, I have no argument.

Again I quote,

smug, Complacent or self-righteous.

fundamentalism, A movement or point of view characterized by rigid adherence to fundamental or basic principles.

"Smug" may be a bit inflammatory. He certainly sounds quite confident to me.  I don't think I really need to argue "fundamentalism," but I will if you want to continue with that one.

Undoubtedly, yes.

I've got a charge on it because I think that undue focus on what people put into their bodies is a HUGE sidetrack and pitfall for spiritual seekers, especially to those who are new.   Here is somebody who wants to make a change in their life, and they're not quite sure how to go about it, so they go to the store and pick up one of these books, only to find that everybody seems to agree that things like doing drugs, eating meat, and smoking, etc. are incompatible with spirituality.

So their focus immediately turns to obsessing over what they are putting into their bodies, stopping negative behaviors, and denying their own baser impulses, when their focus would be better spent on what is coming forth from their bodies, accentuating positive behaviors, and affirming their more noble impulses.  It also results in a tendeny for spiritual newbies to get caught up in some fundamentalist group or another, and causes them to do things like completely disregard the thoughts of a very wise person just because they happen to have a cigarette hanging out of their mouth, or because they happen to be enjoying nicely grilled steak.  It also contributes to the exceedingly obnoxious result of people running around and preaching to everybody else (including the smoking, steak-eating wise man) about this kind of nonsense when they would do much better to keep their mouths shut, assume they don't really know anything, and listen to their own inner guidance. 

Mmmm. . . raspberry!

I see what you are getting at, and yet I don't entirely agree.

I DO acknowledge that this is frequently employed as a distraction technique in arguments to try to avoid a good, solid point that somebody has made because one really doesn't have a valid response.

I also believe that this is a valid argumentative strategy when:

1.  It is being employed to demonstrate a flaw in the structure of the argument itself by changing the subject of the argument to something less emotionally charged.

2.  It is being employed to demonstrate that there is no real basis for the argument, because a generalization of the argument would make the specific one valueless.

You are correct in pointing out the fallacy of making the assumption that just because something wasn't mentioned, the author-speaker doesn't have an issue with it.

This is what I'm saying:

1.  We are spiritual beings having a physical experience.

2.  Everything we experience in the physical world has the potential to affect our consciousness.

3.  We may choose to not allow any of said physical experiences to affect our consciousness, or to alter the manner in which they do.

[Author's note:  The above three are another set of "absolute" truths I refer to in other recent posts.]

4.  Therefore, prognostication concerning the effects of any particular physical agent (in this case marijuana) upon the consciousness of the spirit employing the agent is (a) meaningless, (b) misleading, and (c) draws one's attention away from the above three truths, which are primary to making a decision regarding the employment of physical agents in the first place.

. . . IF one is not aware AND lacks the tools to deal with the situation appropriately.

No he didn't, but I thought it would be a good way to point out the fallacy of the assertion, while also lightening the mood of the post.

. . . ah yes. . . that was me monitoring you via an implant device.   No worries, all you have to do is discontinue the use of Native Spirit pouch tobacco and the cherry/raspberry rolling papers, and I will no longer be able to manipulate you via my Universal Remote Control. 

The method of consumption definitely alters the chemical effects.  Different barriers allow different things into the body.  Also, anything that enters through the digestive system makes a pass through the liver before heading off to the brain and central nervous system, while things entering through the skin or lungs get to the brain in the first pass.

This is a very good point and often overlooked.

Yes.  And when I was in high school I ate at McDonald's every morning for breakfast, at Taco Bell every afternoon for lunch, and consumed upwards of 3 liters of Mountain Dew every day. . .but that's was all just fine, it was the pot that was really damaging to my health.

I agree ...

My lifeforce was somewhere close to me but not "in" me. No real emotions, arising from the body, and no pain, like the pain you need to feel in order to let it go. It becomes all mental.

...years of constant weed-smoking left me like a plant, a smiling one yes, but still a plant...I got pretty ill in the end.

Again, no chance?  I find that hard to believe, especially in light of the fact that in my own (though possibly highly unusual) experience, quite a large chunk of I have learned about dealing with hyperdimensional negs has, in some form, involved drugs or alcohol.  Again, as I pointed out earlier, sometimes this has been somebody else's use of them.

And again, not referring specifically to your response, but others in general. . I am neither advocating drugs and alcohol as a means to spiritual growth, nor am I saying that the use of such doesn't open oneself up to negative effects.  I AM saying that spiritual growth MAY occur while using drugs or alcohol, and that the negative effects of such MAY be largely offset, or reversed. Is it harder to reverse cirrhosis than a simple hangover?  Duh.  That's not what I'm arguing here.

I will accept "reduced chance" or "more difficult" or "for most people" or any other qualifier that takes this statement out of the realm of the absolute, and assigns it to the realm of the relative where it belongs.  An absolute approach to substance use is neither instructional nor empowering.

Oh, but he can! He's just choosing not to. 

But people ARE singling out marijuana use and LABELING it as "bad" instead of acknowledging that it is simply on a spectrum somewhere between spring water and cyanide in terms of substances which can have an effect on your body. 

And even then. . massive doses of spring water can kill you and very minute doses of cyanide are completely harmless.

The fact that spiritual writers DO frequently warn against using marijuana, and DO NOT warn against Taco Bell, Mountain Dew, or even tap water (I had to throw a new one in there just for fun!), is suggestive of a belief that marijuana is somehow "more" dangerous than any of the other three.  Though, no, it does not constitute proof of such a belief.

He could have said "If you drink tap water you've got no chance."

He could have said "If you masturbate more than twice a day you've got no chance."

He could have said "If you prefer green M&M's over blue you've got no chance."

My argument would have still taken the same form.

But for some reason, of which we can only guess right now, but certainly SOME reason, he said:

"If you smoke pot you've got no chance."

First and foremost, irrespective of the possible value of marijuana use, I am saying:

"Yes, you DO have a chance." 

No matter WHAT you do. . . you have a chance.