see you believe the lies as well ... it wasnt a gamble i knew for a fact mar j helps not hurt ... and my child was at no risk ... in fact he has benifited greatly as he is more aware then my other 4 children wish i would have did the same but ultimately it was the mothers choice to smoke herb or not ... see the govt got 95% of the world believing marj is a drug ,.....first of all! MaryJj is not a socially corrosive drug. It is not even a drug.
drugs are altered by man. So they termed it "psycoactive change in the brain" Under this term they still can not say it is a drug. So they deemed it a controlled substance.
well! In church, if you catch the "holyghost" This is a form of psycoactive change in the brain.
In many religions, they require psycoactive states to be altered in order to have a greater expirience, understanding, and relationship with god.
It appears the Govt. has made a set of laws that would suggest they do not want us to have this greater expirience with god?
I think you need to re-evaluate your scientific process. Out of millions of babies born every year, your few children come no where near a statistically significant sample, so making any sort of statement of fact based on your personal experience is pretty far fetched. You could have 1000 kids, and still not really be statistically significant...
I know someone with 4 kids, smoked pot through all 4, 3 are quite healthy, one had severe visual impairment. I also know several mothers who smoked cigarettes, or drank fairly heavily and seem to have quite healthy kids. Does that refute the overwhelming evidence that both of those activities significantly increase your risk of having complications? No. Children are born under ideal circumstances with cerebral palsy, or a host of other ailments; some we understand, some we don't. There are simply too many variables, and to sort them out takes actual clinical trials where these variables are all considered and methods for isolating them against a control are taken.
I think you also have a personal definition of drugs, which might work great for you, but to expect others to understand your definition and how it differs from the english translation is kinda unrealistic. Is aspirin a drug? Do a search and you'll find that the majority of medicinal substances (usually called drugs), come from nature, in fact, after the peak in the 80's and 90's, synthetic compounds have been decreasing in medical use. At the same time, testing on organic systems (like ant colonies and corals), and how they manage disease, has become a huge area of research, and is driving the majority of our pharmaceutical industry today.
I'm really not sure where you are going with the religion aspect, and to be honest, I always get very nervous when people use religion to justify a point of view that isn't really religious. I am not aware of any medical conditions termed the 'holyghost', nor is there testing to back up your statement about it triggering psycoactive changes in the brain. The closest thing you will find are studies on the brainwaves of people while they do things like meditate or read (and if I recall correctly they also measured people while praying, sleeping, and doing other everyday activities), though none of these activities were associated with the administration of any type of substance (ie: a drug), nor were they considered any disease state, or medical condition.
Also to imply that a change in brainwaves, or brain chemistry equates to a psychoactive change in the brain such as is achieved through the use of substances is ridiculous. You then would also need to include sleeping, thinking, sensing, and all the other things which are processed and recorded in our brains, and at that point you might as well say that anything alive is undergoing psychoactive changes in their brains, and as such must be experiencing the same thing I am while I am tripping balls on LSD!
Kinda a side note, but THC actually has specialized receptors in the brain, receptors which we have been unable to find other natural uses for. It is not created naturally by our bodies, it is a foreign agent we must consume to activate these receptors. This is remarkably different than the chemicals your body naturally creates when in situations such as prayer, or meditation (or for some I'm sure fishing, or whatever you do that relaxes and centers you).
I have said before that issues like these simply have not undergone the testing required to make general statements about it. Anything you hear, from either side of the fence, is speculation based on someones relatively limited experience. That said, the one test I'm aware of that looked at the effects of smoking marijuana on unborn children was unable to find any negative health effects. This was a study conducted in europe (I want to say it was in the UK, but don't quote me on that). It was a great test, but didn't receive much attention in general, and was only the first in a series of trials which would be needed to say more definitively what issues, if any, are associated with exposure in early development.
Edit: It also really worries me how quick you are to state your limited anecdotal experience as fact. It seemed really logical that the world was flat, after all, that jived with everyones (in hindsight, quite limited) experience. However, we all know now that the world isn't flat... And don't bother with the "nothing can be proven as fact argument". That only works with people won't don't have a background in or understand science
