he smokes, i dont.

[Firebrain]

Whether or not this is about pot, there's substantial evidence to show that having a child with a smoking partner - and that partner comes into contact with the child, especially if they sleep in the same room - increases the chance of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. You're advised to have a child sleep in your room for the early months of your life in order to prevent SIDs (air circulation, your breathing prompting their breathing, your sleep disturbing them so theirs isn't too deep), so smoking is just a no-go where that is concerned. So, do you want to have babies with him as a smoker? Nope, you don't.

 

[Mac98]

Whether or not this is about pot, there's substantial evidence to show that having a child with a smoking partner - and that partner comes into contact with the child, especially if they sleep in the same room - increases the chance of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. You're advised to have a child sleep in your room for the early months of your life in order to prevent SIDs (air circulation, your breathing prompting their breathing, your sleep disturbing them so theirs isn't too deep), so smoking is just a no-go where that is concerned. So, do you want to have babies with him as a smoker? Nope, you don't.

What if her partner doesn't smoke around the child, or doesn't come in contact with either of them while high? Smokers aren't murderers, they aren't dangerous, they're just human beings with opened-minds. The child won't die if he hangs out with her boyfriend... especially not if he isn't high...

 

[Firebrain]

That study had a couple of flaws - one being that the index of influence - ie the effect the drug had on users' families and friends - was extremely subjective. It also failed to take into account the fact that pot is most often used with alcohol.

 

[Firebrain]

duplicate post.

 

[Firebrain]

What if her partner doesn't smoke around the child, or doesn't come in contact with either of them while high? Smokers aren't murderers, they aren't dangerous, they're just human beings with opened-minds. The child won't die if he hangs out with her boyfriend... especially not if he isn't high...

If he doesn't smoke around the child he still needs to shower, change his clothes and not breathe on the child - which is kind of impossible. The effect of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is, er, death - so a smoking parent should be sleeping in a separate room to mum and baby. That's never good for a relationship.

There's also the effect of cancer to consider, and athsma; both are serious.

And smoke is dangerous; nobody can argue with that. I don't think it's reductive to therefore say that smokers are dangerous. It kind of says so on the packet You know, the bit that says "smoking kills"?

 

[Mac98]

If he doesn't smoke around the child he still needs to shower, change his clothes and not breathe on the child - which is kind of impossible. The effect of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is, er, death - so a smoking parent should be sleeping in a separate room to mum and baby. That's never good for a relationship.

There's also the effect of cancer to consider, and athsma; both are serious.

And smoke is dangerous; nobody can argue with that. I don't think it's reductive to therefore say that smokers are dangerous. It kind of says so on the packet You know, the bit that says "smoking kills"?

you do realise we're talking about pot, right? not tobacco... marijuana has a thicker smoke than tobaco therefore the smoke doesn't enter bronchia's... it's harmful to your lungs, of course, but not nearly half as much as cigarrettes. Besides, pot doesn't stay on your breath or clothes as much as cigarrettes either... and i'm sure he washes his clothes regularly. If he's not around the kid when high, he has enough time to change and chew gum...

And depending on how old the kid is, s/he doesn't need to be sleeping with his/her mom or stepdad all the time.

 

[Cattypuss]

marijuana has a thicker smoke than tobaco therefore the smoke doesn't enter bronchia's.

Sorry but that's not true - the smoke DOES enter the bronchii.

That said, I smoked pot daily, in high quantities, for about 20 years and I think there's some major scaremongering going on in this thread.

 

[Firebrain]

you do realise we're talking about pot, right? not tobacco... marijuana has a thicker smoke than tobaco therefore the smoke doesn't enter bronchia's... it's harmful to your lungs, of course, but not nearly half as much as cigarrettes. Besides, pot doesn't stay on your breath or clothes as much as cigarrettes either... and i'm sure he washes his clothes regularly. If he's not around the kid when high, he has enough time to change and chew gum...

And depending on how old the kid is, s/he doesn't need to be sleeping with his/her mom or stepdad all the time.

She asked if she should be planning future children with this man. Even if she didn't, there are risks for her current child.

Science says so. Argue with that

 

[Mac98]

She asked if she should be planning future children with this man. Even if she didn't, there are risks for her current child.

Science says so. Argue with that

You'd be surprised as to how many people in the world, in the United States alone, smoke marijuana. There are many more than you can imagine. Many of them even manage to raise healthy, happy children...

Having babies with a man who smokes weed occasionally doesn't mean certain death for a child... that's all I'm trying to get across, here.

This issue should not get in the way of love. Especially not if the man she loves is willing to compromise and takes the child's best interest to heart.

I won't argue with you much more... I understand where you're coming from, but there are more important issues... her kid has greater chances of getting hurt on his/her bike than s/he is from his/her stepdad's occasional tokeing.

 

[subwannabe]

Why does someone smoke pot? My guess is to get high, I.E. - under the influence. I find it fascinating how many people defend to their death the right of someone to take drugs, drink alcohol, or smoke pot. Anytime someone is under the influence it is basically morally wrong and they know it deep down inside, they just want to defend their right to do it if they want. Yes, I am a goody two shoes now but I wasn't in my younger years. Whenever I was under the influence I knew it was wrong but since I didn't think I was hurting anyone I didn't think there was anything wrong with it and I wanted to defend my right to do it. Thinking back I now realize that many of those times I didn't think I was hurting anyone I actually could have been. For example, I drove many times when I should not have. I just got lucky. Many people don't get lucky and people have paid the price with either their lives or the lives of innocent people. And don't tell me when you're high you have the ability to decide what is dangerous behavior or not. I know better now but I didn't when I was younger.

 

[Cattypuss]

Anytime someone is under the influence it is basically morally wrong .

What a ridiculous statement.

Driving when intoxicated is clearly morally wrong - and I don't care how stoned or drunk I am - I would never get behind the wheel if at ALL intoxicated. Never have, never will.

Merely getting intoxicated is NOT wrong. Morally or otherwise.

 

[Mac98]

Anytime someone is under the influence it is basically morally wrong and they know it deep down inside, they just want to defend their right to do it if they want.

I guess "morals" are relevant to each individual, right? I've never smoked the LEAST bit of anything in my entire life but I know that deep down, there's nothing wrong with the occasional smoke or drink. When taken to extremes, that's when it gets dangerous for both your physical and mental health. But getting high (on weed) occasionally is by no means morally wrong in my book.

In fact, I'm sure there's a reason we find marijuana everywhere on this planet... why it can be used to make SOOOOO many things (which would save on other natural ressources we're quickly running out of and would help keep the environment cleaner).

This being said, there's absolutely nothing worse than driving drunk or driving high. I've been drunk before but I've always had the intelligence to say "There's no fucken way I can drive right now!" I'm hoping her boyfriend wouldn't risk her and her kid's life by driving under the influence (hopefully, neither would she).

I'm just saying, in my own personal opinion, that I'd rather have friends smoking weed around me than constantly smoking cigarrettes... if you judge pot smokers, you should judge cigarrette smokers just as harshly.

 

[culloden]

All things in moderation. I drink both coffee and alcohol. Other things in the past, perhaps. Smoking pot isn't the end of the world, but the idea that it's harmless is bullshit. Pot smoke has more carcinogens than tobacco smoke. It apparently quadruples one's risk of heart attack within the first hour of use. It's not good for fetuses. There's more. Don't believe me, though. Here's one link. There are many others.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm

And just because alcohol and tobacco and caffeine and every other drug on the planet also have downsides, that doesn't also mean that pot is a good choice. Bad logic there.

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't - I don't much care. But you should be informed.

 

[Mac98]

I'm not saying it's good or better, but I think to say smoking pot is worse than drinking or smoking cigarrettes is sorta hypocritical. Smoking pot in large quantities over an extended period of time can also cause schizophrenia in already mentally fragile people.

Anything in moderation is ok, in my book (though there are exceptions, like heroin or coke that shouldn't be tried, even in moderation)

 

[HoHoBomb]

I ended up with a smoker, it was really annoying because he kept going outside to smoke so I bought him an ashtray. Now he smokes inside.

 

[culloden]

I'm not saying it's good or better, but I think to say smoking pot is worse than drinking or smoking cigarrettes is sorta hypocritical. Smoking pot in large quantities over an extended period of time can also cause schizophrenia in already mentally fragile people.

Anything in moderation is ok, in my book (though there are exceptions, like heroin or coke that shouldn't be tried, even in moderation)

I'd agree. But I'd also add plaid pants to your list of things that shouldn't be tried, even in moderation.

 

[Mac98]

I'd agree. But I'd also add plaid pants to your list of things that shouldn't be tried, even in moderation.

lol with big muttonchops and a curly mustache...

 

[subwannabe]

Another thing to consider is the law. I don't really see how anyone can say smoking pot is morally right when it is technically against the law (most everywhere I know). That's why people actually get arrested for it. Just because some people don't agree with the law doesn't give them the moral right to say, "to hell with the law, I'm going to break any law that I don't agree with". It's not morally right to intentionally break a law. If you don't like a particular law then there are democratic ways of getting it changed.

 

[Cattypuss]

illegal = immoral?

Yeah. Right.

I suppose that legal = moral too, eh? PMSL.

 

[culloden]

illegal = immoral?

Yeah. Right.

I suppose that legal = moral too, eh? PMSL.

"If a, then b," doesn't mean that, "If b, then a."

Particularly in a democracy where citizens have the means to change things, we have an obligation to obey the law. If we don't like it, we can try to change it, but a basic respect for the law is essential to living in a society.

Which is not to say that I'm a perfect exemplar or that there aren't shades of gray, but the essential idea is that we don't get to pick and choose which laws we obey.

 

[Cattypuss]

I have a MAJOR problem with the assertion that illegal = immoral. What happens when a law changes? Do morals change overnight?

Or, if I smoke a joint in Amsterdam, it's not an immoral act, but if I smoke one in London, it is an immoral act?

Morals have nothing to do with laws.

 

[silverwhisper]

cattypuss quoth:
what happens when a law changes? do morals change overnight?

well said, cattypuss. :>

ed

 

[culloden]

I have a MAJOR problem with the assertion that illegal = immoral. What happens when a law changes? Do morals change overnight?

Or, if I smoke a joint in Amsterdam, it's not an immoral act, but if I smoke one in London, it is an immoral act?

Morals have nothing to do with laws.

Morals have everything to do laws. They are the basis of law, and entirely intertwined. Without a common moral ground, you can't have a functional society or state. Morals evolve. Laws evolve. That doesn't invalidate morals or law. History is both a snapshot and an ongoing process.

Some laws make little sense, or are outdated. You have to separate the act from the law. In itself, I don't think smoking pot is immoral. But breaking the law to do so is another matter. So, yes, it's immoral to smoke a joint in London, but not in Amsterdam, but only because the law differs.

It's a fine point. And none of us are morally perfect. But that doesn't change the rhetoric.

It's another conversation entirely if you want to argue that pot should be legal. That I'd agree with, if for no other reason than making it so would suck some of the profits from Mexico's murderous drug cartels.

 

[silverwhisper]

culloden quoth:
morals have everything to do laws. they are the basis of law, and entirely intertwined. without a common moral ground, you can't have a functional society or state.

i disagree. most people would think that a deliberate statement of falsehood is not a moral decision, at least barring some kind of situation-dependent, ameliorating factor. yet i don't believe there's a single jurisdiction in the US where lying is actually against the law. adultery, which a number of people think a less than moral decision, is very rarely a criminal offense. if i make a sacrilegous statement, that's actually constitutionally-protected speech, however much it may offend someone.

it's entirely possible to view criminal code as a means of ensuring the smooth, continuous operation of a community or society without necessarily assigning moral values to it.

ed

 

[Mac98]

Sorry to barge into this already ongoing debate, but I must throw my 2 cents.

imo, laws are imperfect. No one country in the world has 100% perfect laws. There are ALWAYS gray zones (just like in sports). Many policemen have power issues (where they feel they have the right to push people around) this doesn't make it morally justifiable, even though it's in their right.

If a policeman pisses me off or is totally unfair with me, I feel it's in my own personal right to defend myself (with words or actions). To me, that's morally ok, but to many it isn't.

Laws are flawed, many of them are but it is nearly impossible to change a law. Most people wouldn't put the time, money and energy into it.

Laws and Morals are 2 VERY different things. If no country has perfect laws, than no human being or country has the right answers to "what is morally right". That's like saying "your opinion is wrong!" No, it's not! It's my opinion!