Smoking cannabis a sin? Can Christians smoke weed?

(Ninja'd)

My goodness...

(Let's save the Jesus/Yeshua naming for a separate thread.)

CD, I think you're waaaaay overcomplicating things and taking them waaaaaaaay too personally.  It's really quite straight-forward:  You suggested Jesus must've gotten at least tipsy.  CW said being tipsy or drunk would be sinful and since Jesus is God and cannot sin, He therefore never got tipsy.  By claiming Jesus sinned (or could have) is blasphemy.  That's it!  Since you don't subscribe to the Bible's teachings, why do you care if someone accuses you of blasphemy?  It'd be as if a Muslim came on here and called you and me both infidels.  So what?  Neither of us are Muslim and if by their standard they attribute to us a negative label, why would either of us care?

As for your behavior... well maybe we're at an impasse then.  But I recommend taking a deep breath, ignoring what anyone else said for a moment, and look back solely at your posts in this thread.  How did you respond?  Did you respond with respect or patience?  From my perspective, you immediately went on the extreme defensive and got hung up on the blasphemy thing, in turn going on the offensive towards CW and then BM and Christians at large.  You're doing the exact same thing as you're accusing everyone else of.  You could have just as easily responded to CW something like this:

"Thanks for the reply CW.  You seem to see this as rather black-and-white but I see it a bit more grey.  Why do you think being "sober-minded" specifically refers to mind-altering substances?  Could it be referring to anything else?  And where would you draw the line?  How about caffeine, as an example?
p.s. I don't understand how what I wrote was blasphemy.  Can you please elaborate?"

That would've been a fine response and furthered the conversation in the topic's intended direction.  Why not respond like that?  (And that goes for the numerous past posts which provoked your week vacation.)

To put things in perspective, I don't remember the last time I banned anyone before you - temporarily or permanently.  Heck, I can't even think of anyone I've had to devote this much time to giving them warnings in recent times.  It was probably at least a year ago though.  We've had numerous members come and go since.  Is it possible then that perhaps the issue isn't everyone else, but instead is you - at least in part?  Something to consider...

As for your accusations against our little community here...  Without being familiar with your alleged past defending of Christians, it looks to me like quite the opposite:  Upon joining this forum, you immediately and repeatedly made very clear your apostasy, and then wasted no time in pushing people's buttons, resurrecting numerous very old but sensitive threads, and snapping at anyone who disagreed with you in the slightest and accusing us of all of hypocrisy and being pharisees, etc.  With only the behavior you've shown us here, it sure looks like you were trying to make people angry just so you could point at us and say, "see, you're all a bunch of bad people" so you can justify to yourself your own actions.  Maybe that's not your intention in the slightest... but that's sure what it looks like.

So again, just relax, respond with respect, and all will be fine!  If someone else says something you find to be too harsh or mean, let me or one of the other mods know and I can address that too.  Deal?

Hence my pseudonymn/handle/name here- *CONTRARIAN-Deist-.
I'm a very individualist, contrarian , freethinker by nature.
Tending to think outside all boxes and color outside the lines.

Kerrick.
I never said I don't subscribe to or do deny ALL the bibles teachings. I'm not a Christian or jew or revealed religionist, and I don't subscribe to EVERYTHING in the bible...but I do to some. I don't subscribe to modern protestantism or Catholicisms interpretations of the many scrolls/books that are compiled into your modern bible or to their main doctrines. That doesn't mean I don't find ANY value in the bible.
I take it as the writers grappling with mystical experiences combined with their own individual and collective cultural biases of the times the scrolls written in(at various times over centuries as they were written and only centuries later compiled)...taken along with the gnostic and other scrolls which the roman catholic institutional church decided by mere vote of corrupt men with obvious agendas...leaving out of that compilation,

Like I said, my views and thoughts on various religions and paths and philosophies is ....complicated and nuanced.
Never did I say I reject ALL of it.

I don't really care about being accused of *blasphemy* within the context of your or any specific religion. I was just pointing out what I see as obvious inconsistencies and/or hypocrisies and/or ironies is all.
Blasphemy, to me, is a mostly meaningless accusation/term.
In context of being accused of blasphemy against the Deus/Creator(not just specific small g *gods* of various theism or religions) I might take it more seriously though, except I don't believe the Creatoe can even be blasphemer or take personal offense to being blasphemed, that would box it in, make it to small...and human like in its passions(anthropomorphism/centrism). I absolutely, unequivocally revere God(in the PanDeistic sense) and don't blaspheme it nor want to nor think it's even possible to.
But, if someone was to accuse me of blaspheming it...it would offend me ...but only in so much as the accusation is laughably absurd.
As far as being accused of blaspheming in the context of a said religions theology....I'm not offended by the accusation...I just find it silly and am merely challenging the irony, hypocrisy and inconsistency.
Meh.

I'll admit in the last few posts there I did get defensive. I'm not so much bothered by the accusation of blasphemy as by the consistent accusations since I joined the forums, of *trolling* and disengenuous, and being *slithery*, and having my character impugned.
Like I said, for the most part over the weeks I've been pretty patient and forgiving with these accusations or personal attacks on my character and motivations/intentions...but in this thread I just got suck of it...and yeah...I got defensive and lashed out ...treating others to the same treatment I've been receiving...getting more personal....in response or reaction to having people getting personal with me first as I laid out above here, with consistent impugning of my character and intentions/motivations, I've only insulted...BACK(not initiated the insulting). Abused back to being abused.
If that's not acceptable here, cool. Then like I said...ban me if you must. If it you reevaluate and see my point and think my last few responses here have shown me to not neccaserily be the snake in the grass bad person several if you have suggested I am, and you think my last few responses here have been more level headed...and you are willing to allow me to stay and interact with you all....them also, cool.
Do as ye will.
Be well
Later.

My motivation is only this.
To engage with various different types of people and discuss and debate things in a reasoned, civil manner, hoping only to persuade and be persuaded, so each can think rethink, and rethink our rethinking of various issues through this methodology.
Others...and myself as well.
To encourage freethought and open conversation between everyone...so ad to reach shared values and consensus in society while also respecting our differences and diversity of thought but be as diplomatic with each other as possible. But also be able to vehemently disagree with each other while respecting each other as individual beings at the same time. While hopefully persuading each other in various issues to reach consensus in at least some
That is my core intention and motivation in life and in society.
If that is something you think you can tolerate, agree upon, and respect and you are willing to continue to let me interact with you on your forums in that capacity. Then cool. If not...then cool and farewell and be well.

In reason
C.D.

And...apologies for my sometimes long windedness. I tend to do that, not because I want to, but because I believe that many issues require covering as many variables as possible and being as precise and accurate as possible, even if that means complicated argumentation and being as extensive as possible...or *seeming* long windedness(to some, I think some people get the point to this method though).

And apologies for getting angry and personal earlier on in this thread(and a couple other places/times/threads)...but please understand I only did so as I perceived my character and intentions to be being impugned/assassinated/attacked (tit for tat to personal attack)

I don't enjoy attacking, but I also don't put up with personal attack either(and am willing to turn the other cheek... but only up to a point....when I run out of cheeks to turn)

Shalom

Apologies for getting angry and personal there, that was my intention when I wrote it, I was in a particularly frustrated state of mind at the time(last night).
I apologize for my more personal attack reaction there. But I still stick to the main arguments and points I made and the questions I raised.

Contrarian Deist wrote:Would you say that slightly tipsy(which will happen.even if just by accident to anyone who drinks alchohol or wine even just occasionally) versus getting black out wasted drunk are two different things, and that tipsy isn't bad or even *sinful* per se morally or biblically?
If you agree to this point. Then my question is the same in regards cannabis. Is slightly high not neccesarily bad, immoral,  or *sinful*(in the biblical or christianity or religious context even) vs getting get blasted?
Is there nuance there do you think(personally,  and/or from the Christian perspective)?

There are certainly varying degrees of tipsy, just like there are varying degrees of drunk.  Back in my drinking days, I used to mock some of my acquaintances for their definition of drunk.  ala "You can remember what you did last night?  *scoffs* Freakin' light weight."

Likewise, tolerance is a variable to intoxication.  Some people are tipsy with 1 drink.  But that same person having 1 drink a day for a month, it may no longer intoxicate at all.  A more extreme side of that, I showed up in a detox one time with a blood alcohol level of .07 and I was in full withdrawal.  (shaking, sweating, and I hadn't drank for 1 day.) and wasn't even close to being intoxicated.

I touched on personal conviction and I would once again refer back to that.  Romans 14 is the road map.  While the examples in that chapter are diet and "holy day", the principles still apply.  (and just to summarize the chapter)

- If someone believes something is wrong, then to them, it is wrong.  (wrong = sin)
- If someone falls or sins because of something you do, then you should not do it, even if you think its right.
- If someone believes it is wrong, but you believe it is right, then keep it between you and God.
- If you think what you're doing is right, you're blessed.

As you could imagine, those are all quite "open", but with personal conviction comes personal adherence, accountability and responsibility.  Its not really about what someone else thinks of it.  Its about what it is, what you think of it, between you and God.

Drunkenness isn't just the consumption of too much alcohol.  There's also an intent of debauchery or indulgence with it.  Surely an accidental anything would be seen differently as a willfully deliberate anything.  Likewise drinking too much once and then not drinking that much again.

Contrarian Deist wrote:
And do you agree that when Yeshua allegedly turned water to wine and gave it to the crowds(or drank it with his apostles and/or others at other times as well( that probably some of those people, maybe even some of his apostles and disciples and perhaps even himself, may have a lower tolerance and at least got a little tipsy or had the chemical reaction to their bodies/brains that it affected their moods to some degree...if even just making them cheerier)?
In which case, isn't it plausible that a comparison could be morally made that if Yeshua were here today he might say turn ordinary plants into cannabis plants and use and serve them instead...in moderation enough that neither he nor his apostles/diciples or the crowds served might get slightly high but not fried(lol!) By it and that might not be seen by him as a *sin* just as getting slightly tipsy or having the chemical reaction to body/brain affecting mood to be a bit cheerier by use of a moderate amount of alchohol apparently wasn't a major concern to him either?

Comparing just the morals, yes water to wine and houseplants to cannabis could make sense.

I probably won't help my own side of this "debate" bringing this up, but there are scholars and theologians who believe that the "Kaneh Bosm" (cane that smells) mentioned in the original Hebrew text of Exodus 30:23 (that the KJV calls "sweet calamus") is actually "cannabis".  This passage is the outlined ingredients of holy anointed oil.  250 shekels of that is like.... 6lbs!!!...  If it was cannabis, it surely puts a whole new spin on Christ being the anointed one.  (as the skin would absorb the oil and anyone anointed would be more ripped than they ever could be from just smoking it)

I will say I do wholeheartedly believe Christ was without sin, but sin always has a context and it can be very nuanced.

"Why is it when I chase people out of a temple with whips because they've turned it into a market, its 'disorderly conduct', but when Jesus does it, its 'righteousness'?"  There's more to that than just the act, just like there's more to intoxication than just consumption.

Back to Romans 14, I'd like to point out that half that chapter talks against criticizing and judging others, specifically regarding rights and wrongs and others thoughts about that.  Should we keep the debate to the Christian concept of sin, we're fast approaching your criticisms, anger and "getting personal" of what others have said here, overshadowing what anyone thinks about use, abuse, what a buzz is, being wasted, etc.  

Contrarian Deist wrote:Lol! Yeah, well, I like to be historically and contextually accurate(and accurate in general).

It appears you've made this exclusive to "Yeshua" though.  This is why I mentioned sacred name theology.

I have yet to see you object to the names Paul, Samuel or Timothy (as middle east names mind you) as not under the regional or original text name.  Do you as a deist, really see Christ as set apart from other biblical figures, hence why the different "rule" for His name?  If you agree to the contextual vernacular of Christ's name because of the history and context of the Bible, then why not all biblical character names for the sake of accuracy?  If we do this for every biblical name, why not landmarks?  Why not objects?  Finally...
Why aren't we all trilingual speaking English, Hebrew and Greek for a complete biblical etymology?

Contrarian Deist wrote:How is this *blaspheming*? If I were still Christian I could and would make similar arguments. I've seen and heard plenty of Christian's...even of the born again evangelical variety ask similar questions of their brethren and try to open up discussions with them on these and similar matters...and get silenced, shut down, and guilted for even asking such questions...questions that aren't even pertinent to the fundamental doctrine beliefs of the religion itself,  just questions and discussions on non fundamental matters.

I can understand blasphemy as far as being a genuine disrespect or irreverence toward God in any part....  but the concept of "inquisitive blasphemy" or "accidental blasphemy" doesn't set well with me.

I do fear (and this is speculation) that a lot of Christians use this word out of guilt and shame leverage in a conversation.  Perhaps as permissible name-calling.

Thomas.
I like and appreciate the way you come at the issue, and where I might disagree with you...I find it not easy to argue with your nuance and reasonableness in it.
Hence I will only say this, I respect your integrity and your intellect in the discussion, your take, your balance.
I may say more or add more to your comments later, but for the moment I think(and hope) this suffices for the time being. I cannot find much in your reasoning to strongly disagree with(maybe a little, but not strongly).

That said. In regards the names of Yeshua and the others. I hadn't considered that before, and I thank you for causing me to consider the angle.
I guess I would say that if those were not the actual names of those individuals then, yes, I think people should be made aware of their actual names and use their actual names(as should bible translations),
However if their names were not drastically different in spelling and appearance, but maybe only in dialectic pronunciation/accent then the use of those names as given is acceptable IMO.
I mean, my name is Bill(birth name William) I would see no issue with someone from another culture or accent dialect(contemporary/now...or in the distant future in referring to me)pronouncing my name slightly differently due to their accent, but spelling it drastically differently or saying it drastically differently...instead of as close to the original as possible...yeah that'd probably irritate me(as at that point they arent referring to or using or spellling my actual name...if even they are just slightly pronouncing it differently due to a accent issue. Not that I'd find it extraordinarily *offensive*...just pointless and dumb, lolM)
I guess that with Yeshuas name it is different than the other biblical characters names somewhat because the religion is based on him not them(...or should be at least) so it's not quite the same thing, but...yeah if there names were actually said and spelled quite differently...then people should be made aware of that and get as close as possible.
My issue with *Jesus* is that it is not even the original english translation of his name...but a late transliteration of a specific english dialect(and then monopoly imposed on the whole Christian world and the whole world)...I'm sure his name in the original hebrew alphabet looks like different because the hebrew alphabet is structurally and pictorially very different from any others(kinda like Egyptians used hieroglyphs as their letters for example), but to my understanding the original english translation of his name still wasn't...*jesus*...but Yeshua(and probably even closer to Joshua of the line on mary and Joseph or Joshua of Nazareth or Jehoshua)...you may have noticed that in some of my posts naming him I use both or all 3 of those like Yeshua/Jehoshua to try and be as accurate as possible.
But didn't the original english translations read Yeshua?

Anyways, thought provoking questions and points. Keep em comin

Just looked up Paul's name. The original transliteration from the roman Latin is Paulos(his birthname Saul...though I haven't looked up the original transliteration from the original language ...to Saul, maybe its Saulos? I'll have to look it up.
So since he changed his name after his conversion...Paulos is probably the closest approximation, but even Paul isnt a great change in spelling/look and pronunciation from Paulos, not like Jesus from Yeshua is).

I like this train of thought you've got me going in about names/translations of names. Got me looking more stuff up, feeding the intellect...thank you. This is thought provoking conversation right here.

These are the same reasons it annoys me to see so many Christians(and nonchristians) refer to the biblical hebrew deity as simply capital *G*- *God* as if that title or descriptor is the specific proper name of that deity(when its actually Yahveh or Yahweh...also in later transliteration Jehovah) I personally always refer to him as Yahvey(that is the closest approximation I've come across ...as it was originally translated to Yahweh but pronounced Yah-vey...hence why later transliterations call him Jehovah......adding the *V* sound).
I always refer to any cultures/religions deities by their actual names, and use small *g*- *god(s)* as the descriptor or title(or simply as *deity/deities*), I only use large G *God* in referring to a universal Deistic/Pantheistic(or PanDeistic) conception of a non-anthropomorphic/centric , unnamed Creator/divine mind source(but that's just me, it doesn't bother me if others don't quite see it that way in regards a general creator, but it does annoy me when people use the word God as a proper name for the Jewish or Christian or judeo-Christian or ANY religions/cultures specific gods/deities....which have actual proper names. As if God...a descriptive or descriptor or title is a proper name).

But, perhaps this is a topic more appropriate for the **theology* section of these forums. As this thread is created on the topic of cannabis. But i just felt the need to say these things here since, well we're already in the topic(in my personal opinion ...if all that can be said about a specific thread topic had been discussed it's not derailing to naturally flow into other topics thereunder, I know many people think it is and get annoyed by *going off topic*...and I understand that, for me personally....I've never understood why that us perceived by some to be a big deal. But that's just me. Meh, lol!)

Contrarian Deist wrote:
Hence I will only say this, I respect your integrity and your intellect in the discussion,  your take, your balance.
I may say more or add more to your comments later, but for the moment I think(and hope) this suffices for the time being. I cannot find much in your reasoning to strongly disagree with(maybe a little, but not strongly).

Generally speaking, I see nothing wrong with disagreeing.  Again generally speaking, I myself am completely find with someone having a different conclusion on many, many different concepts.  Obviously with Christians (and as a Christian), there's a hard-stop on some faith/theological related things, but that doesn't mean we have to purge all other opinions that are different.  XD

I appreciate your insight as well in these threads.  

Contrarian Deist wrote:However if their names were not drastically different in spelling and appearance, but maybe only in dialectic pronunciation/accent then the use of those names as given is acceptable IMO.
I mean, my name is Bill(birth name William) I would see no issue with someone from another culture or accent dialect(contemporary/now...or in the distant future in referring to me)pronouncing my name slightly differently due to their accent, but spelling it drastically differently or saying it drastically differently...instead of as close to the original as possible...yeah that'd probably irritate me(as at that point they arent referring to or using or spellling my actual name...if even they are just slightly pronouncing it differently due to a accent issue. Not that I'd find it extraordinarily *offensive*...just pointless and dumb, lolM)

Its ironic to me that "hallowed be thy name" in the Lord's Prayer, the name isn't actually stated in the prayer.  The title "Father" is in there, and that's another aspect to the name game.  (titles substituting names)  

My dad's name is Ron (birth name Ronald) but it would be weird if anyone in my family called him Ron or Ronald.  Its either "dad" or "papa", depending on who's saying it, depends on the applicable title.  Surely there's no confusion as to who we're talking about.  Not once have I even seen a hint of "That's not my name!".  (not even a dad joke to accommodate, and my dad has dad jokes LOL)

Surely God can understand what we mean, rather than the actual words said.

As far as you using the name Yeshua for your reasons, it makes perfect sense to me.  Have at it!  I have one other friend that uses Yeshua regularly as well, instead of Jesus, Christ or Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus.

...but policing the words that other people use, like they're wrong and they need a browbeating for it?  That doesn't make much sense to me.  Not that "correct terminology" or "proper name" doesn't make sense, but smashing someone else's freedom of speech to accomplish a personal standard of accuracy, is like diving across the room to save a glass of soda from spilling, but you crack the $900 phone in your pocket in the process.  Nothing complicates a discussion or a debate more than demanding to choose the words they use, and trying to enforce it.

My line of work is customer service with multiple national US brands.  Each "program", its standard protocol to introduce myself in the opening of the call.  I say Tom to them, and some people hear Todd or John or Bob or Rob or Ron and that's what they call me however long they're on the phone.  I leave it, and not because its unlikely I'll speak to them again - but because I'd only elongate and possibly emotionally charge my call if I go on defense about name accuracy.

Contrarian Deist wrote:These are the same reasons it annoys me to see so many Christians(and nonchristians) refer to the biblical hebrew deity as simply capital *G*- *God* as if that title or descriptor is the specific proper name of that deity(when its actually Yahveh or Yahweh...also in later transliteration Jehovah) I personally always refer to him as Yahvey(that is the closest approximation I've come across ...as it was originally translated to Yahweh but pronounced Yah-vey...hence why later transliterations call him Jehovah......adding the *V* sound).

You might be happy/interested to know that the last Orationem full length release had a decent YPM.  (Yahweh Per Minute)

I can't take full credit for that, being that I went verbatim free-domain scripture and the album concept was Psalm 119.

I assume there are Christians that do in fact smoke weed now that it is legal in many States. Just like alcohol can be used wisely and in moderation, I believe weed can be used in moderation. Having been both a heavy alcohol user in the past and a weed smoker, I believe that the effects of alcohol are more dangerous, both on the body and in your behaviour.

Do I think that it helpful to smoke weed? No not really. It is probably wisest for people to avoid anything that can affect your ability to make better judgements.

ThomasEversole wrote:

Contrarian Deist wrote:
Hence I will only say this, I respect your integrity and your intellect in the discussion,  your take, your balance.
I may say more or add more to your comments later, but for the moment I think(and hope) this suffices for the time being. I cannot find much in your reasoning to strongly disagree with(maybe a little, but not strongly).

Generally speaking, I see nothing wrong with disagreeing.  Again generally speaking, I myself am completely find with someone having a different conclusion on many, many different concepts.  Obviously with Christians (and as a Christian), there's a hard-stop on some faith/theological related things, but that doesn't mean we have to purge all other opinions that are different.  XD

I appreciate your insight as well in these threads.  

Contrarian Deist wrote:However if their names were not drastically different in spelling and appearance, but maybe only in dialectic pronunciation/accent then the use of those names as given is acceptable IMO.
I mean, my name is Bill(birth name William) I would see no issue with someone from another culture or accent dialect(contemporary/now...or in the distant future in referring to me)pronouncing my name slightly differently due to their accent, but spelling it drastically differently or saying it drastically differently...instead of as close to the original as possible...yeah that'd probably irritate me(as at that point they arent referring to or using or spellling my actual name...if even they are just slightly pronouncing it differently due to a accent issue. Not that I'd find it extraordinarily *offensive*...just pointless and dumb, lolM)

Its ironic to me that "hallowed be thy name" in the Lord's Prayer, the name isn't actually stated in the prayer.  The title "Father" is in there, and that's another aspect to the name game.  (titles substituting names)  

My dad's name is Ron (birth name Ronald) but it would be weird if anyone in my family called him Ron or Ronald.  Its either "dad" or "papa", depending on who's saying it, depends on the applicable title.  Surely there's no confusion as to who we're talking about.  Not once have I even seen a hint of "That's not my name!".  (not even a dad joke to accommodate, and my dad has dad jokes LOL)

Surely God can understand what we mean, rather than the actual words said.

As far as you using the name Yeshua for your reasons, it makes perfect sense to me.  Have at it!  I have one other friend that uses Yeshua regularly as well, instead of Jesus, Christ or Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus.

...but policing the words that other people use, like they're wrong and they need a browbeating for it?  That doesn't make much sense to me.  Not that "correct terminology" or "proper name" doesn't make sense, but smashing someone else's freedom of speech to accomplish a personal standard of accuracy, is like diving across the room to save a glass of soda from spilling, but you crack the $900 phone in your pocket in the process.  Nothing complicates a discussion or a debate more than demanding to choose the words they use, and trying to enforce it.

My line of work is customer service with multiple national US brands.  Each "program", its standard protocol to introduce myself in the opening of the call.  I say Tom to them, and some people hear Todd or John or Bob or Rob or Ron and that's what they call me however long they're on the phone.  I leave it, and not because its unlikely I'll speak to them again - but because I'd only elongate and possibly emotionally charge my call if I go on defense about name accuracy.

Contrarian Deist wrote:These are the same reasons it annoys me to see so many Christians(and nonchristians) refer to the biblical hebrew deity as simply capital *G*- *God* as if that title or descriptor is the specific proper name of that deity(when its actually Yahveh or Yahweh...also in later transliteration Jehovah) I personally always refer to him as Yahvey(that is the closest approximation I've come across ...as it was originally translated to Yahweh but pronounced Yah-vey...hence why later transliterations call him Jehovah......adding the *V* sound).

You might be happy/interested to know that the last Orationem full length release had a decent YPM.  (Yahweh Per Minute)

I can't take full credit for that, being that I went verbatim free-domain scripture and the album concept was Psalm 119.

Oh, I agree. I am and have always been a free speech absolutist. I hope I didn't leave the impression that I was demanding the use of Yeshua vs Jesus(etc). It wasn't a demand.
There is a difference between a statement of *should/shouldn't* and *can/cannot*. But ii get your point and I agree 100%

Hippyman wrote:I assume there are Christians that do in fact smoke weed now that it is legal in many States. Just like alcohol can be used wisely and in moderation, I believe weed can be used in moderation. Having been both a heavy alcohol user in the past and a weed smoker, I believe that the effects of alcohol are more dangerous, both on the body and in your behaviour.

Do I think that it helpful to smoke weed? No not really. It is probably wisest for people to avoid anything that can affect your ability to make better judgements.

Fair enough and well and succinctly stated.
Though one might argue smoking weed in helpful in a couple ways, 1) used as a medicine, 2) used spiritually as a meditative tool to calm and relax , tranquility and have an easier time connecting to the Divine/God/etc, and also 3)for those it helps in this way(as it doesn't work the same way for everyone )...tranquility and making ones mood cheerier
And 4) only occasionally in a social setting to enjoy social company in a certain fashion.
Etc.
But I understand your point.

Actually a moderate amount of alchohol imbibed....or applied can also help certain ailments/pain and/or can be used for other possible positive purposes.

Tobacco/cigs on the other hand zero redeeming qualities...only negative.
I say that as one who has smoked for the allmost the last decade(though I've seriously cut back in recent last couple or 3 years, but replaced it with vaping)...I don't and have never really drank alchohol...I'm 42 and have had a beer or cooler on rare occasions and even gotten drunk once or twice ...and hated it.... but I've only drank a handful of times.
Weed, didn't start it until about a decade ago...smoked it ALOT for a few years or so but progressively cut back since, lately...especially the last few months I've barely touched it( before that the last year or two before only a few hoots a night at most...like someone might drink a quarter-half glass of wine before bed type thing).
I dont abuse most of these(well right now I do the vape, and did cigs and pot for awhile)...or most substances....except for caffeine and sugar, lol!

Agree that for some it is helpful for the reasons you mentioned and why making it legal is beneficial for those who can derive a benefit.

All I know is that I have “420” posts right now.