Well, since this thread started as a question about medical uses of marijuana, it seems appropriate. Presumably no-one would use the obviously valid clinical uses of narcotics such as morphine as an argument for recreational use. I would hope that the same was true for other drugs such as marijuana or alcoholic beverages.danieLion wrote:your question is inappropriate...you ought to be ashamed of yourselfHanzze wrote:Are you a marijuana doctor or a just a cannabies user?
You raise a very importand point. Regardless if informations we might give are useful or not useful for others, the underlying intention we give such informations has direct impact on one self. How ever, its better to be very ashamed one time as to continue to act out of not so clean intentions. If somebody searches for informations, he will get them in this or in that way. So no need to worry that much about others in regard of information. To remember other on good conduct is a very wholesome deed.danieLion wrote:your question is inappropriate...you ought to be ashamed of yourselfHanzze wrote:Are you a marijuana doctor or a just a cannabies user?
The OP is:mikenz66 wrote:Well, since this thread started as a question about medical uses of marijuana, it seems appropriate....danieLion wrote:your question is inappropriate...you ought to be ashamed of yourselfHanzze wrote:Are you a marijuana doctor or a just a cannabies user?
Mike
Nothing here about recreational use. Therefore, the question isHi,
I've just wondering if people working for a legal marijuana dispensary have violated the 5th precept ? What makes it different from selling alcohol is that alcohol is clearly intoxicants, while in this case it's for medical uses only. What do you think ?
Much metta,
zolek
. Furthermore, it's a slippery slope to an ad hominem attack (not to mention an extension of Hanzze's puritanism).
The first simile:
Two strong men have grabbed another man by the arms and are dragging him to a pit of burning embers. The Buddha notes, "Wouldn't the man twist his body this way and that?"
The second simile:
A man searching for fruit climbs a tree to eat his fill and to stuff his garments with fruit to take home. While he is there, another man searching for fruit comes along. The second man can't climb the tree but he has an axe, so he chops the tree down. If the first man doesn't quickly get out of the tree, he may break an arm or a leg, or even die.
The third simile:
A person searching for milk tries to get milk out of a cow by twisting its horn. Another person searching for milk tries to get milk out of the cow by pulling at its udder.
and more about Faith In Awakening
nail + hammer = hitting nail on the _________.danieLion wrote: Nothing here about recreational use. Therefore, the question is
So even we have a way to help others, but it is generally not regarded as something wholsesome, we would need to make it discret and maybe unseen.Not To Associate With The Unwise Is Most Blissful.
Fools or ignorant people not only injure themselves, but also those around them. If we associate with them, we are apt to follow their ways and so harm ourselves mentally as well as bodily, because all troubles or fear arise from ignorance or foolishness. Even if we do not practise their methods, the more fact of associating with them will harm our reputation; in the same way that a banana leaf is contaminated if it is used to wrap up a piece of rotten fish or meat. The leaf is dirty and smelly even after the fish or rotten meat is thrown away.
one of the Mangalas
These questions are inappropriate because they cross the public/private social contract we've all implicitly agreed to. I've never once asked someone here in the forums what they do for a living or what their consumption habits are. Why? Because my sila is such that I know better than to do something that unethical.Cittasanto wrote:nail + hammer = hitting nail on the _________.danieLion wrote: Nothing here about recreational use. Therefore, the question is
but the main point is how do you know, are you a doctor with relevant qualifications or someone with a vested interest to smoke the green stuff?
Hanzze wrote:Well I would not maintain such a thought like "he could be a smoker of ..." and even so, its up to the individual, but actually that shows another aspect why it would be not the best to walk on the edge as many people could misunderstand good intentions and there are always other alternatives.
One needs to look also that he does not to Associate With The Unwise:
So even we have a way to help others, but it is generally not regarded as something wholsesome, we would need to make it discret and maybe unseen.Not To Associate With The Unwise Is Most Blissful.
Fools or ignorant people not only injure themselves, but also those around them. If we associate with them, we are apt to follow their ways and so harm ourselves mentally as well as bodily, because all troubles or fear arise from ignorance or foolishness. Even if we do not practise their methods, the more fact of associating with them will harm our reputation; in the same way that a banana leaf is contaminated if it is used to wrap up a piece of rotten fish or meat. The leaf is dirty and smelly even after the fish or rotten meat is thrown away.
one of the Mangalas
The Gay Science (86)Nietzsche wrote:"Oh, who will tell us the entire history of narcotics?--It is nearly the history of 'culture', our so-called higher culture!"
„In der That, man thut gut (und klug), zur Erklärung davon, wie eigentlich die entlegensten metaphysischen Behauptungen eines Philosophen zu Stande gekommen sind, sich immer erst zu fragen: auf welche Moral will es (will er –) hinaus?“
– Jenseits von Gut und Böse
Just to clarify (here)danieLion wrote:These questions are inappropriate because they cross the public/private social contract we've all implicitly agreed to. I've never once asked someone here in the forums what they do for a living or what their consumption habits are. Why? Because my sila is such that I know better than to do something that unethical.Cittasanto wrote:nail + hammer = hitting nail on the _________.danieLion wrote: Nothing here about recreational use. Therefore, the question is
but the main point is how do you know, are you a doctor with relevant qualifications or someone with a vested interest to smoke the green stuff?
The efficacy of cannabis is irrelevant to my personal life, and stands on its own merits.
That's why I said it's a slippery slope to an ad hominem attack.
And am I to go by your opinion of what "relevant qualifications" are?
The hallmark of a true puritan is that no matter how hard they try to conceal it they still reveal the fact that they think they know better than you--and the evidence.
I wouldn't call it unethical like it breaks an explicit code of conduct but it is pointless, fallacious, and discourteous, like trying to be a teacher to people. but couldn't think of better way to put it earlier...-Sutta Nipata, 5.7: Nanda's Questions (Nanda-manava-puccha).Whatever brahmans & contemplatives
describe purity in terms of views & learning,
describe purity in terms of precepts & practices,
describe purity in terms of manifold ways:
none of them, living there in that way,
I tell you, have crossed over birth & aging.
An arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these five principles. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is the Pāli for "to consume stored-up sensual things, as he did before, when he was a householder," sannidhikārake kāme paribhuñjituṃ, seyyathāpi pubbe agāriyabhūto?mikenz66 wrote:Sure, unlike us, an arahant has no need to make an effort to maintain precepts:An arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these five principles. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mike
Relevant qualifications aren't deduced from comparing my opinion to other opinions but in interpreting the "total" effect of all relevant opinions, of which mine is one.Cittasanto wrote:relevant qualification = evidence external to your own opinion
I've posted several references here, and to post all the ones availible is not practical.Cittasanto wrote:or references showing how you came to such a conclusion.
-Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (pp. 247, 261, 4th Ed.)To sum up: there is no 'scientific world-view', just as there is no uniform enterprise 'science'--except in the minds of metaphysicians, schoolmasters and politicians trying to make their nation competitive. Still, there are many things we can learn from the sciences. But we can also learn from the humanities, religion and from the remnants of ancient traditions that survived the onslaught of Western Civilization. No area is unified and perfect, few areas are repulsive and completely without merit. There is no objective principle that could direct us away from the supermarket 'religion' or the supermarket 'art' towards the more modern, and much more expensive supermarket 'science'. Besides, there are large areas of knowledge and action in which we use procedures without any idea as to their comparative excellence. An example is medicine, which, though not a science, has increasingly been connected with scientific research. There are many fashions and schools in medicine just as there are many fashions and schools in psychology. It follows, first, that the idea of a comparison of 'Western medicine' with other medical procedures does not make sense. Secondly, such a comparison is often against the law, even if their should be volunteers: a test is legally impossible. Adding to this that health and sickness are culture-dependent concepts, we see that there are domains, such as medicine with no scientific answer to question 2 (What's so great about science?). This is not really a drawback. The search for objective guidance is in conflict with the idea of individual responsibility which allegedly is an important ingredient of a 'rational' or scientific age. It shows fear, indecision, a yearning for authority and a disregard for the new opportunities that now exist: we can build world-views on the basis of personal choice and thus unite for ourselves and for our friends, what was once separated by a series of historical accidents (Footonote 22. Woflgang Pauli, who was deeply concerned about the intellectual situation fo the time, demanded that science and religion again be united: letter to M. Fierz, 8 August 1948. I agree but would add, entirely in the spirit of Pauli, that the unification should be a personal matter; it should not be prepared by philosophical-scientific alchemists of the mind and imposed by their minions in education....).
How can something be violated? Acts just have an outcome. Selling intoxicants has impact on the seller. Consuming intoxicants has impact on the consumer. No violation.zolek wrote:I've just wondering if people working for a legal marijuana dispensary have violated the 5th precept ? What makes it different from selling alcohol is that alcohol is clearly intoxicants, while in this case it's for medical uses only. What do you think ?
