Cannabis

[AnonOfIbid]

Preceptually speaking, is cannabis an intoxicant? I am aware of the discussion here regarding the translations from pali that Dhammanando brought a of clarity to. I think this question's a little different (yet still relevant to that thread).

[retrofuturist]

Greetings AnonOfIbid,

Preceptually speaking, is cannabis an intoxicant?

Yes, thereby making it a violation of the fifth precept in spirit, if not in letter.

Either way, it's certainly not conducive to Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.

Metta,
Retro.

[AnonOfIbid]

...it's certainly not conducive to Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration....

Too easy: how, specifically, is it not conducive to these? Not everyone experiences the effects the same.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings AnonOfIbid,

specifically, is it not conducive to these? Not everyone experiences the effects the same.

Are you familiar with the Buddha's instructions for Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration?

Metta,
Retro.

[AnonOfIbid]

Are you familiar with the Buddha's instructions for Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration?

quite

[Viscid]

Are you familiar with the Buddha's instructions for Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration?

quite

Remember: They don't include 'thinking about Doritos.'

[daverupa]

There are two tests which seem to reflect the "heedfulness/heedlessness" dilemma when assessing this or that substance.

1. Does the substance affect memory? If so, mindfulness as defined in the Suttas is necessarily impacted.
2. Does the substance affect driving ability? If so, clear comprehension as defined in the Suttas is necessarily impacted.

Alcohol runs afoul of both of these. Cannabis runs afoul of the first (though the science is as yet inconclusive about the second). As to your main objection, despite the subjective valence of cannabis use, deleterious memory effects are universally attested in human users. Therefore, for one practicing the Dhamma these are to be avoided.

[chownah]

When I smoked cannabis I got intoxicated...
chownah

[Nibbida]

I would say it depends on the intention behind the use of cannabis. If it is being used for purely medicinal purposes, then no it doesn't seem to be against the precept of intoxicants. Many painkillers, seizure medications, etc can have mentally impairing effects but their intended use is to minimize suffering.

If the purpose is recreational, then I'd say use is contrary to the precept, as is use of alcohol. Again, I have no moral objection to their use. In fact, the fact that alcohol is legal and cannabis isn't seems inconsistent to me. But I don't advocate the use of any drug as a way to numb unpleasant thoughts and emotions. The goal of Buddhist practice is to develop concentration, mindfulness, equanimity, etc. Using a chemical to alter consciousness makes for less reason to develop these skills. Why develop equanimity if I can just self-medicate with alcohol (or any other drug).

Antidepressants, on the other hand, do not seem to act contrary to this precept. They do not have an intoxicating effect and they do not numb emotion. People on antidepressants feel a normal and full range of emotion: happiness, sadness, stress, etc. They do bring depression and anxiety into a more manageable range so that a person can use psychotherapy, mindfulness, etc. more effectively. A small percentage feel emotional blunting (i.e. no emotional reaction to anything) from certain antidepressants, but they don't like it and get off the medication.

So again, intention behind use of the drug is a key element, not so much how acceptable society deems it. That's my story.

[andre9999]

...it's certainly not conducive to Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration....

Too easy: how, specifically, is it not conducive to these? Not everyone experiences the effects the same.

I think the burden if proof lies upon you this time around. Tell how, specifically, it does not affect clarity of mind.

[AnonOfIbid]

There are two tests which seem to reflect the "heedfulness/heedlessness" dilemma when assessing this or that substance.

1. Does the substance affect memory? If so, mindfulness as defined in the Suttas is necessarily impacted.
2. Does the substance affect driving ability? If so, clear comprehension as defined in the Suttas is necessarily impacted.

Alcohol runs afoul of both of these.

I presume by "mindfulness" you mean sati. On this term, I defer to Ven. Thanissaro, where it merely means "to keep in mind." So, do you mean sati as defined in the suttas? Furthermore, the term "affect" is too vague. Almost everything we consume affects memory. A better questions is, "What exactly does it do to this individual's memory in this situation?" The same applies for clear comprehension. I agree with you on alcohol. Regarding:

...the subjective valence of cannabis use, deleterious memory effects are universally attested in human users....

(1) please cite studies (i've never found one on this with good methodology)...(2) universally attested? no outliers ever?

[AnonOfIbid]

...this time around....

what other time do you refer to?

[Kenshou]

Are you just playing the devil's advocate, or are you seriously trying to argue that marijuana isn't a precept violation? Don't kid yourself. If not, what is your agenda?

[andre9999]

what other time do you refer to?

Completely irrelevant. When you want to challenge the accepted norm the burden of proof lies upon you.

So do you have good reasons why cannabis doesn't violate the fifth precept?

[AnonOfIbid]

If it's so irrelevant, why'd YOU bring it up? Where and how is this the accepted norm? Why are you using a legal term in this arena? Are we in court? Where did I say cannabis use does not violate the fifth precept?

what other time do you refer to?

Completely irrelevant. When you want to challenge the accepted norm the burden of proof lies upon you.

So do you have good reasons why cannabis doesn't violate the fifth precept?