Study: Yes, Pot Can Kill People (with Morbidities)

[djAdvocate]

Mar 4, 2014 10:07:47 GMT -5 sesfw said:

but i still want pot legalized.


Why?

I want good thoughtful reasons.  Not because 'it feels good'.
 

because a person should be allowed to do whatever he wishes with his person or property so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other.

but also because pot is the most benign of all illegal drugs, and is unworthy of criminalization by any reasonable measure.

oh, and because it feels good. 

[djAdvocate]

Mar 4, 2014 10:18:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 4, 2014 10:07:47 GMT -5 sesfw said:

but i still want pot legalized.


Why?

I want good thoughtful reasons.  Not because 'it feels good'.

The usual reasons are tax revenues, fewer hassles for medicinal users, and freeing up the justice system to pursue other (more destructive) crimes.

edit: those reasons work too......

In short, the same reasons you might legalize any vice.

that would depend on how you define vice.  there are many vices that harm the person or property of the non-consenting:  i am opposed to legalizing them.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 4, 2014 10:29:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 4, 2014 10:18:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The usual reasons are tax revenues, fewer hassles for medicinal users, and freeing up the justice system to pursue other (more destructive) crimes.

edit: those reasons work too......

In short, the same reasons you might legalize any vice.

that would depend on how you define vice.  there are many vices that harm the person or property of the non-consenting:  i am opposed to legalizing them.

'Vice' generally refers to all types of immorality, but I use it in the sense or a sin against the body or a sin against the self. Concerning drug use, the sins against the self comprise the financial, social, and time costs of drug use. The sins against the body--the temple--comprise deliberately impairing one's faculties, introducing harmful toxins into the body, incurring long-term damage to the brain and/or body, and taking on the various medical risks associated with drug use.

If a drug is medicinal, its benefits to the proper function of the mind and body presumably (hopefully) outweigh the drug's negative impact on the self, and is therefore being used in service of edifying the temple. Recreational drug use has no such justification, which is why I oppose it.

Regarding the issue of illegal drug use in particular, I share Pres. Lincoln's opinion:

"Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed."
    - Abraham Lincoln

Pres. Lincoln had respect for the laws of man. Since the Bible requires the same of Christians, I do my best to observe them and encourage others to do the same.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 4, 2014 11:07:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 4, 2014 10:29:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that would depend on how you define vice.  there are many vices that harm the person or property of the non-consenting:  i am opposed to legalizing them.

'Vice' generally refers to all types of immorality, but I use it in the sense or a sin against the body or a sin against the self.

that's fine.  i had to look it up before i commented.  i wasn't sure if vice was public or private morality.  i think it is generally used the way you just did.  but there is nothing in the definition that precludes, say- child molesting.

Concerning drug use, the sins against the self comprise the financial, social, and time costs of drug use.

i don't care much for the broadness of that definition.  my reason is this: all human behavior has financial and social impacts.  for example- my choice to not drive to work with my wife today has an impact with my family, with traffic, with pollution, and with our budget.  but i sure as heck don't want anyone regulating those things.  do you?

The sins against the body--the temple--comprise deliberately impairing one's faculties, introducing harmful toxins into the body, incurring long-term damage to the brain and/or body, and taking on the various medical risks associated with drug use.

that is an extremely negative view- and one that would include tatoos.  would you allow me to present another one?  there is a tradition in many cultures, including our own native American population, that includes drugs for ritual use.  drugs are used not to impair, but to enlighten (a distinction that is rarely drawn in polite society).  viewed from a certain perspective, this is worshiping the temple, as well.  it is just, as Huxley or Ginsburg or Watts might say, accelerating and shortcutting the process.

If a drug is medicinal, its benefits to the proper function of the mind and body presumably (hopefully) outweigh the drug's negative impact on the self, and is therefore being used in service of edifying the temple. Recreational drug use has no such justification, which is why I oppose it.

Regarding the issue of illegal drug use in particular, I share Pres. Lincoln's opinion:

"Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed."
    - Abraham Lincoln

Pres. Lincoln had respect for the laws of man. Since the Bible requires the same of Christians, I do my best to observe them and encourage others to do the same.

and, as i said, i respect that CONSISTENT position.  do you respect my CONSISTENT position?

[mmhmm]

Marijuana didn't kill these two men.  Cardiac anomalies did.  One may have been a genetic heart condition.  The other was caused by the use of much more dangerous and damage-producing drugs, which resulted in a "sick heart" leading to cardiac anomaly and death.  Even the article states the deaths "may" have been caused by marijuana use.

Alcohol can kill you through alcohol poisoning.  Heroin and cocaine can kill you if taken in too large a dose.  So, for that matter, can any narcotic or strong stimulant.  Marijuana, in and of itself, cannot kill you.  It might exacerbate a pre-existing condition, but it does not kill you.  To intimate that it does is misleading.

[Virgil Showlion]

that is an extremely negative view- and one that would include tatoos.

I don't approve of tattoos either. So at least you recognize the consistency.

do you respect my CONSISTENT position?

I respect it in the sense that it's reasonable and I understand why you've taken it. Fundamentally we're talking about different things. Your position pertains to the legality of drug use. Mine pertains to the morality of it.

Alcohol can kill you through alcohol poisoning. Heroin and cocaine can kill you if taken in too large a dose. So, for that matter, can any narcotic or strong stimulant. Marijuana, in and of itself, cannot kill you. It might exacerbate a pre-existing condition, but it does not kill you. To intimate that it does is misleading.

You're 3 pages late to the argument.

See pages 1 and 2 for my rebuttal.

drugs are used not to impair, but to enlighten (a distinction that is rarely drawn in polite society). viewed from a certain perspective, this is worshiping the temple, as well. it is just, as Huxley or Ginsburg or Watts might say, accelerating and shortcutting the process.

Huxley and Watts also argued that an ideal society constituted masters and slaves wherein the slaves were too drugged out of their minds to mind their slavery. Watch footage of their lectures on YouTube. Huxley in particular was certifiable.

As for cultures that use drugs for "enlightenment", suffice it to say that drug use is neither necessary for enlightenment, nor is it particularly effective, nor is it without consequences. Drugs can certainly induce states where individuals experience visions and ideas, but i) inducing these states comes with both immediate and long-term costs, ii) the faculties for reasonably determining the value and significance of the experience are suppressed or even totally drowned out, and iii) the experience is just as likely to provide dangerous false visions and bad ideas as it is to provide good ones. Some people base their entire lives on particularly powerful visions that are nothing more than random neurons firing during an induced state of euphoria. You can certainly call that "enlightenment" if you want. I'll pass.

[mmhmm]

You're 3 pages late to the argument.

See pages 1 and 2 for my rebuttal.

I saw them.  They don't hold water.  Marijuana didn't kill these guys.  Their sick hearts did.  Sorry, but you can "not care" about anything you like, Virgil.  You ain't the last word on what is and what ain't. No matter what you choose to believe, these guys died as a result of heart anomalies not as a result of marijuana.

I'm not a user.  Not interested.  If I had a medical condition (glaucoma, stomatitis, intractable pain), perhaps.  I don't, so I have no horse in the race.  I just have a thing against duplicity.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 4, 2014 13:34:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

You're 3 pages late to the argument.

See pages 1 and 2 for my rebuttal.

I saw them.  They don't hold water.  Marijuana didn't kill these guys.  Their sick hearts did.  Sorry, but you can "not care" about anything you like, Virgil.  You ain't the last word on what is and what ain't. No matter what you choose to believe, these guys died as a result of heart anomalies not as a result of marijuana.

I'm not a user.  Not interested.  If I had a medical condition (glaucoma, stomatitis, intractable pain), perhaps.  I don't, so I have no horse in the race.  I just have a thing against duplicity.

The study--not I--says that marijuana was the factor that triggered the attacks leading to the death of the two men.

If you want to say that smoking isn't responsible for killing anybody because it simply exacerbates other conditions (predisposition to cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.), you go right on ahead. We all know that one cigarette never killed anybody.

If you want to say that drinking isn't responsible for killing anybody because it simply exacerbates other conditions (kidney and liver problems, contraindicated medications, etc.), you go right on ahead. We all know hundreds of people who survived a night, or indeed a whole year, of binge drinking.

If you want to say that marijuana isn't responsible for killing these men because it simply exacerbated an existing heart condition, you go right on ahead.

Call anyone who disagrees with you duplicitous until you're blue in the face. I'm still absolutely going to disagree with you.

[mmhmm]

Mar 4, 2014 13:49:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 4, 2014 13:34:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I saw them.  They don't hold water.  Marijuana didn't kill these guys.  Their sick hearts did.  Sorry, but you can "not care" about anything you like, Virgil.  You ain't the last word on what is and what ain't. No matter what you choose to believe, these guys died as a result of heart anomalies not as a result of marijuana.

I'm not a user.  Not interested.  If I had a medical condition (glaucoma, stomatitis, intractable pain), perhaps.  I don't, so I have no horse in the race.  I just have a thing against duplicity.

The study--not I--says that marijuana was the factor that triggered the attacks leading to the death of the two men.

If you want to say that smoking isn't responsible for killing anybody because it simply exacerbates other conditions (predisposition to cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.), you go right on ahead. We all know that one cigarette never killed anybody.

If you want to say that drinking isn't responsible for killing anybody because it simply exacerbates other conditions (kidney and liver problems, contraindicated medications, etc.), you go right on ahead. We all know hundreds of people who survived a night, or indeed a whole year, of binge drinking.

If you want to say that marijuana isn't responsible for killing these men because it simply exacerbated an existing heart condition, you go right on ahead.

Call anyone who disagrees with you duplicitous until you're blue in the face. I'm still absolutely going to disagree with you.

I read the study, Virgil.  It says marijuana MAY have been the factor.  There's a difference.

[sesfw]

because a person should be allowed to do whatever he wishes with his person or property so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other.

HOAs are getting into this argument around the Phx area.  They want to dis-allow pot smoking outside of private homes; ie in private yards.  Next door neighbors don't want pot smoke in their yards.

I don't smoke pot or tobacco, never have.  The medicinal pot shop in this town wants their open hours to be extended.  They are now open from 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday.  They want their hours changed to 8am to 8pm Monday through Saturday to be closer to the hours allowed in other towns in the valley.  My thought is if they don't like the hours imposed by the town council then move to a town more to their liking.  No one is stopping them.

They are choosing to stay in this town, therefore they are choosing to abide by the laws.  They knew it when they petitioned to open shop here.

[mmhmm]

Mar 4, 2014 14:35:14 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oh come on virg, "triggered" is such an innocent word.  Their deaths could have also been triggered by shoveling snow, running, or even looking at racy pictures, their hearts were so compromised by other things.

Cigarettes cause the conditions you list above.

Alcohol causes the conditions you list  above.

Marijuana triggered the deaths of these two men, who had underlying fatal conditions.

Very, very, different. 

I don't smoke it, so I have no skin in this game either.

That's precisely my point, dem.  A person with preexisting morbidities isn't the same as a person without those morbidities.  There's just no way.  If two people WITHOUT any preexisting morbidities had up and corked off because of smoking marijuana, the thread title might be relevant.  As it is, it's duplicitous.  Marijuana didn't kill them.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 4, 2014 14:35:14 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Cigarettes cause the conditions you list above.

Alcohol causes the conditions you list  above.

Marijuana triggered the deaths of these two men, who had underlying fatal conditions.

Notwithstanding the fact that marijuana does cause health problems (and is suspected to cause a litany of others; see "Expert Commentary" for a run-through), we don't differentiate between 'cause' and 'trigger' in other drugs.

If a Hollywood star with a heart defect has it fail when he shoots up with heroin, we claim he died from a heroin overdose.

If a man with a liver transplant goes into liver failure by drinking alcohol, we say he drank himself to death.

If a man with emphysema smokes a pack of cigarettes, becomes hypoxic, and dies, we say that smoking that pack of cigarettes killed him.

If a man has a heart attack while bungee jumping, at the very least we call it "a heart attack while bungee jumping". We acknowledge that there was some stressor instrumental in bringing about the attack.

Why should pot be the only drug that "isn't responsible" for deaths caused by conditions it exacerbates?

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 4, 2014 16:09:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Mar 4, 2014 14:35:14 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oh come on virg, "triggered" is such an innocent word.  Their deaths could have also been triggered by shoveling snow, running, or even looking at racy pictures, their hearts were so compromised by other things.

Cigarettes cause the conditions you list above.

Alcohol causes the conditions you list  above.

Marijuana triggered the deaths of these two men, who had underlying fatal conditions.

Very, very, different. 

I don't smoke it, so I have no skin in this game either.

That's precisely my point, dem.  A person with preexisting morbidities isn't the same as a person without those morbidities.  There's just no way.  If two people WITHOUT any preexisting morbidities had up and corked off because of smoking marijuana, the thread title might be relevant.  As it is, it's duplicitous.  Marijuana didn't kill them.

If that's all you care about, then your wish is my command.

Thread title changed.

[mmhmm]

If a Hollywood star with a heart defect has it fail when he shoots up with heroin, we claim he died from a heroin overdose.

If a man with a liver transplant goes into liver failure by drinking alcohol, we say he drank himself to death.

If a man with emphysema smokes a pack of cigarettes, becomes hypoxic, and dies, we say that smoking that pack of cigarettes killed him.

If a man has a heart attack while bungee jumping, at the very least we call it "a heart attack while bungee jumping". We acknowledge that there was some stressor instrumental in bringing about the attack.

Why should pot be the only drug that "isn't responsible" for deaths caused by conditions it exacerbates?

You may claim/say those things.  I do not, necessarily.  It depends on the situation.  If the man had a liver transplant because alcohol abuse killed his first liver and he knows (and he does, if he's had a liver transplant) drinking alcohol will destroy the new liver, the drinking of the alcohol exacerbated a preexisting condition.  Same is true of the rest of your examples.  When someone with no preexisting condition dies while drinking (unless they drink to the point of toxicity - that'll kill ya), smoking, or bungee jumping, I'll take a look.  Until then, it was the preexisting condition that resulted in that person's death. 

[mmhmm]

Mar 4, 2014 16:14:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 4, 2014 16:09:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

That's precisely my point, dem.  A person with preexisting morbidities isn't the same as a person without those morbidities.  There's just no way.  If two people WITHOUT any preexisting morbidities had up and corked off because of smoking marijuana, the thread title might be relevant.  As it is, it's duplicitous.  Marijuana didn't kill them.

If that's all you care about, then your wish is my command.

Thread title changed.

What I care about, Virgil, is presenting such studies with honesty and intellectual integrity.  The new title is, indeed, more reflective of what actually happened.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Until then, it was the preexisting condition that resulted in that person's death.

Well if you ever get bored with retirement, you'll always have a job waiting for you as a lawyer for big pharma.

[mmhmm]

Mar 4, 2014 16:36:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Until then, it was the preexisting condition that resulted in that person's death.

Well if you ever get bored with retirement, you'll always have a job waiting for you as a lawyer for big pharma.

LOL!  I wouldn't work for big pharma (it was offered); nor, would I work for an insurance company (also offered).  Not interested, thanks.  I prefer to do what I do for people.

Come to think of it, though, you might be able to get a gig selling used cars ...

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I think Virg might be inhaling second-hand (pot) smoke - when he amended the thread title a little while ago, he misspelled "morbidities". That's so unlike him:

Study: Yes, Pot Can Kill People (with Morbitidies)

[mmhmm]

Mar 4, 2014 17:54:34 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

I think Virg might be inhaling second-hand (pot) smoke - when he amended the thread title a little while ago, he misspelled "morbidities". That's so unlike him:

Study: Yes, Pot Can Kill People (with Morbitidies)

I saw that, too, but I think it's just a typo.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 4, 2014 17:54:34 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

I think Virg might be inhaling second-hand (pot) smoke - when he amended the thread title a little while ago, he misspelled "morbidities". That's so unlike him:

Study: Yes, Pot Can Kill People (with Morbitidies)

You know, the word caught my eye no less than four times. Something seemed wrong about it. But each time I looked at it carefully and couldn't see anything wrong.

They say you should trust your gut.

[mmhmm]

Mar 4, 2014 18:05:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 4, 2014 17:54:34 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

I think Virg might be inhaling second-hand (pot) smoke - when he amended the thread title a little while ago, he misspelled "morbidities". That's so unlike him:

You know, the word caught my eye no less than four times. Something seemed wrong about it. But each time I looked at it carefully and couldn't see anything wrong.

They say you should trust your gut.

Only trust your gut if it has no morbitidies! 

[djAdvocate]

Mar 4, 2014 13:26:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

that is an extremely negative view- and one that would include tatoos.

I don't approve of tattoos either. So at least you recognize the consistency.

do you respect my CONSISTENT position?

I respect it in the sense that it's reasonable and I understand why you've taken it. Fundamentally we're talking about different things. Your position pertains to the legality of drug use. Mine pertains to the morality of it.

no, yours pertains to the morality of it, and so does mine: that a person should be able to do whatever he wishes with his person or property so long as he does not harm the person or property of a non-consenting other is a moral position.  according to that moral position, all drug use is permitted, as is bashing your face with a brick, committing suicide, etc.  i consider the legality of drugs totally immaterial, as well as being morally inconsistent by several standards of morality, including harm and addictiveness.

your position is that the body belongs to God and to desecrate one is to desecrate another.  my only problem with that position is that a person who eats 5 hamburgers a day and becomes morbidly obese desecrates the temple far more than someone who smokes a joint every day before bedtime, or before sitting down and enjoying some music- yet you condemn the latter.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 4, 2014 16:36:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Until then, it was the preexisting condition that resulted in that person's death.

Well if you ever get bored with retirement, you'll always have a job waiting for you as a lawyer for big pharma.

no.  if it can be demonstrated that a drug is a procuring cause of injury or death, nothing she can do or say will change that.

her entire point is that it canNOT be demonstrated with pot.  if you think nobody has tried, they have- for over half a century.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 4, 2014 14:35:14 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oh come on virg, "triggered" is such an innocent word.  Their deaths could have also been triggered by shoveling snow, running, or even looking at racy pictures, their hearts were so compromised by other things.

Cigarettes cause the conditions you list above.

Alcohol causes the conditions you list  above.

Marijuana triggered the deaths of these two men, who had underlying fatal conditions.

Very, very, different. 

I don't smoke it, so I have no skin in this game either.

i have pointed out that MJ accounts for lower medical risk than sex or aspirin.  that is a FACT.  so, if you want to go down your list of things to outlaw, i think we are all going to know BEFORE you get to MJ.

note: i know your position.  i was using "you" to mean "anybody who wants to make stuff illegal or keep it that way".

[djAdvocate]

Mar 4, 2014 13:26:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

drugs are used not to impair, but to enlighten (a distinction that is rarely drawn in polite society). viewed from a certain perspective, this is worshiping the temple, as well. it is just, as Huxley or Ginsburg or Watts might say, accelerating and shortcutting the process.

Huxley and Watts also argued that an ideal society constituted masters and slaves wherein the slaves were too drugged out of their minds to mind their slavery. Watch footage of their lectures on YouTube. Huxley in particular was certifiable.

um, no.  Watts never argued that and was not "drugged out of his mind".  i am quite familiar with his work, and am friends with his son.

can't speak for Huxley.  i know quite little about him.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 4, 2014 13:26:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

As for cultures that use drugs for "enlightenment", suffice it to say that drug use is neither necessary for enlightenment, nor is it particularly effective, nor is it without consequences.

oh, it is quite effective.  you are right that it is not necessary.  but who the heck wants to spend 30 years doing meditation when 30 minutes can get you there? 

Drugs can certainly induce states where individuals experience visions and ideas, but i) inducing these states comes with both immediate and long-term costs,

life has long term costs, and is proven fatal.  what a person chooses to do with it is their own affair, including "risks".

ii) the faculties for reasonably determining the value and significance of the experience are suppressed or even totally drowned out, and iii) the experience is just as likely to provide dangerous false visions and bad ideas as it is to provide good ones. Some people base their entire lives on particularly powerful visions that are nothing more than random neurons firing during an induced state of euphoria. You can certainly call that "enlightenment" if you want. I'll pass.

that's fine.  i won't condemn you for "passing".  and enlightenment is entirely subjective.  if you are ready to receive enlightenment, then it will be there for you.  if you are just tripping, then that is all you will get.  that goes for religion, as well.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 4, 2014 13:34:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

You're 3 pages late to the argument.

See pages 1 and 2 for my rebuttal.

I saw them.  They don't hold water.  Marijuana didn't kill these guys.  Their sick hearts did.  Sorry, but you can "not care" about anything you like, Virgil.  You ain't the last word on what is and what ain't. No matter what you choose to believe, these guys died as a result of heart anomalies not as a result of marijuana.

I'm not a user.  Not interested.  If I had a medical condition (glaucoma, stomatitis, intractable pain), perhaps.  I don't, so I have no horse in the race.  I just have a thing against duplicity.

i find pot very effective nausea medication.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 4, 2014 15:43:28 GMT -5 sesfw said:

because a person should be allowed to do whatever he wishes with his person or property so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other.

HOAs are getting into this argument around the Phx area.  They want to dis-allow pot smoking outside of private homes; ie in private yards.  Next door neighbors don't want pot smoke in their yards.

this is the same issue as tobacco, but without the ill affects.

I don't smoke pot or tobacco, never have.  The medicinal pot shop in this town wants their open hours to be extended.  They are now open from 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday.  They want their hours changed to 8am to 8pm Monday through Saturday to be closer to the hours allowed in other towns in the valley.  My thought is if they don't like the hours imposed by the town council then move to a town more to their liking.  No one is stopping them.

They are choosing to stay in this town, therefore they are choosing to abide by the laws.  They knew it when they petitioned to open shop here.

people have the right to clean air, within the limits defined by law.  those violating that law should be ticketed, fined, or prosecuted.

[Virgil Showlion]

your position is that the body belongs to God and to desecrate one is to desecrate another. my only problem with that position is that a person who eats 5 hamburgers a day and becomes morbidly obese desecrates the temple far more than someone who smokes a joint every day before bedtime

I believe people have a responsibility to keep their bodies in good physical health. That includes exercising and maintaining a healthy weight.

her entire point is that it canNOT be demonstrated with pot.

It's the same point you've both made a dozen times, and acknowledged by me just as many, including in the OP. I even changed the thread title to make it perfectly clear what the study says.

Heart Problem (Underlying Condition) + Marijuana Use (Stressor) = Death in at least two case studies. That's the bottom line.

if you are ready to receive enlightenment, then it will be there for you. if you are just tripping, then that is all you will get. that goes for religion, as well.

You can stick to getting high; I'll stick to study, prayer, and meditation. Best of luck to the both of us in our quest for enlightenment.

what a person chooses to do with it is their own affair, including "risks".

You've already said that you see no moral requirement for good stewardship of the body, and that according to your moral position, "all drug use is permitted, as is bashing your face with a brick, committing suicide, etc.".

Obviously we're not going to agree on the issue.

I'm not sure how you'd justify your position in a socialist healthcare system, considering you (the taxpayer) have to pay for any damage or abuse I willfully incur to my body. And socialism or no, a straightforward application of Kant's imperative (whereby healthcare costs skyrocket due to excessive demand in an unhealthy population) clearly makes self-abuse 'unethical' by your preferred standard.

[EVT1]

They have a marginal point- weed is pretty strong smell- but it isn't causing any problems so deal with it- maybe your vegetarian neighbors don't want to smell your barbecue.  These HOA's banning all smoke or just pot I wonder?  Some HOA's are just filled with jerks- a lot of them really.  My folks have one- and it is horrible.