Selling medicine marijuana, is it violate the 5th precept

[Hanzze]

Buddha Dhamma is all about this:



The non-doing of any evil,
the performance of what's skillful,
the cleansing of one's own mind:
this is the teaching
of the Awakened.

[danieLion]

Cannabis makes man a better father

[Hanzze]

I guess often equanimity is misunderstood as something we might experiances which is actually thina and/or middha.

[danieLion]

Marijuana may improve memory and help fight Alzheimer's

[danieLion]

Buddha Dhamma is all about....

"Your use of the word "all" here demonstrates your puritanism.

[Hanzze]

Some sentence in regard of compassion an what is meant by it for a Dhamma view, as well as what is regarded as a qualified doctor form Educating Compassion

...This means that the middle ground is where true compassion can be exercised. The Buddha sets out some guidelines for this area in his definition of the ideal nurse. You're qualified to tend to the sick if (1) you know how to prepare medicines; (2) you know what's amenable to the patient's cure, taking away whatever's unamenable and providing things that are amenable; (3) you're motivated by compassion and not by material gain; (4) you're not squeamish about cleaning up urine, excrement, saliva, or vomit; and (5) you're competent at encouraging the patient at the proper times with talk on Dharma.

Of these five qualifications, the one most discussed in the Pali canon is the fifth: What qualifies as a helpful and compassionate talk on Dharma to a person who is sick or dying? What doesn't?

Here again, the don'ts mark off the territory for the do's. The Vinaya cites cases where monks tell a sick person to focus his thoughts on dying, in the belief that death would be better than the miserable state of his life. The sick person does as they advise, he dies as a result, and the Buddha expels the monks from the monkhood. Thus, from the Buddha's perspective, encouraging a sick person to relax her grip on life or to give up the will to live would not count as an act of compassion. Instead of trying to ease the patient's transition to death, the Buddha focused on easing his or her insight into suffering and its end.

This is because he regarded every moment of life as an opportunity to practice and benefit from the Dharma. It's a well-known principle in all meditation traditions that a moment's insight into the pain of the present is far more beneficial than viewing the present moment with disgust and placing one's hopes on a better future. This principle applies as much at the end of life as it does anywhere in the middle. In fact, the Buddha encouraged his monks to reflect constantly on the potential imminence of death at every moment, even when in ordinary health, so that they could bring a sense of urgency to their practice and give the present moment their full attention. If you learn to treat all moments as potentially your last, then when your last moment does come you will face it prepared.

Most often, though, a sick or dying person hasn't been living with this sort of urgent alertness, so the first step in advising such a person is to aim at clearing away any emotional obstacles to learning from the present. The Pali texts note two such obstacles: worry over the responsibilities the person is leaving behind, and fear of death. In one poignant discourse, a man appears to be dying and his wife consoles him not to worry: She'll be able to provide for herself and their children in his absence; she won't go looking for another husband; and she'll continue in her practice of the Dharma. With each reassurance she repeats the refrain, "So don't be worried as you die. Death is painful for one who is worried. The Blessed One has warned against being worried at the time of death." The man recovers unexpectedly and, while still frail, goes to visit the Buddha, telling him of his wife's reassurances. The Buddha comments on how fortunate the man is for having such a wise and sympathetic wife. ...

[danieLion]

Cannabis Stops Metastasis In Aggressive Cancers

[Hanzze]

Are you a marijuana doctor or a just a cannabies user?

[danieLion]

Are you a marijuana doctor or a just a cannabies user?

your question is inappropriate...you ought to be ashamed of yourself

[danieLion]

Pharmacological activation/inhibition of the cannabinoid system affects alcohol withdrawal-induced neuronal hypersensitivity to excitotoxic insults. Translation: Marijuana protects drunkards’ brains during booze withdrawal

[mikenz66]

Are you a marijuana doctor or a just a cannabies user?

your question is inappropriate...you ought to be ashamed of yourself

Well, since this thread started as a question about medical uses of marijuana, it seems appropriate. Presumably no-one would use the obviously valid clinical uses of narcotics such as morphine as an argument for recreational use. I would hope that the same was true for other drugs such as marijuana or alcoholic beverages.


Mike

[Hanzze]

Are you a marijuana doctor or a just a cannabies user?

your question is inappropriate...you ought to be ashamed of yourself

You raise a very importand point. Regardless if informations we might give are useful or not useful for others, the underlying intention we give such informations has direct impact on one self. How ever, its better to be very ashamed one time as to continue to act out of not so clean intentions. If somebody searches for informations, he will get them in this or in that way. So no need to worry that much about others in regard of information. To remember other on good conduct is a very wholesome deed.

[danieLion]

Are you a marijuana doctor or a just a cannabies user?

your question is inappropriate...you ought to be ashamed of yourself

Well, since this thread started as a question about medical uses of marijuana, it seems appropriate....

Mike

The OP is:

Hi,

I've just wondering if people working for a legal marijuana dispensary have violated the 5th precept ? What makes it different from selling alcohol is that alcohol is clearly intoxicants, while in this case it's for medical uses only. What do you think ?

Much metta,
zolek

Nothing here about recreational use. Therefore, the question is . Furthermore, it's a slippery slope to an ad hominem attack (not to mention an extension of Hanzze's puritanism).

[Hanzze]

Maybe it fits to the OP Question to much?

It's all about intention and the highest intention to get free from every addiction, not to solve just a disliked current problem (the worldy way to be able to continue as usual)

But to answer: "I don't like to answer your question" is also an answer.
Or: "Yes." or "No, but I was and it helped me" or "No"

We feel aversion in a question if it touches something we don't like to be touched or endangered. Don't take it peronal, it's just about the meaning of good livelihood and precepts and not about you or me.

The first simile:

Two strong men have grabbed another man by the arms and are dragging him to a pit of burning embers. The Buddha notes, "Wouldn't the man twist his body this way and that?"

The second simile:

A man searching for fruit climbs a tree to eat his fill and to stuff his garments with fruit to take home. While he is there, another man searching for fruit comes along. The second man can't climb the tree but he has an axe, so he chops the tree down. If the first man doesn't quickly get out of the tree, he may break an arm or a leg, or even die.

The third simile:

A person searching for milk tries to get milk out of a cow by twisting its horn. Another person searching for milk tries to get milk out of the cow by pulling at its udder.

and more about Faith In Awakening

[Cittasanto]

Nothing here about recreational use. Therefore, the question is . Furthermore, it's a slippery slope to an ad hominem attack (not to mention an extension of Hanzze's puritanism).

nail + hammer = hitting nail on the _________.
but the main point is how do you know, are you a doctor with relevant qualifications or someone with a vested interest to smoke the green stuff?

[Hanzze]

Well I would not maintain such a thought like "he could be a smoker of ..." and even so, its up to the individual, but actually that shows another aspect why it would be not the best to walk on the edge as many people could misunderstand good intentions and there are always other alternatives.

One needs to look also that he does not to Associate With The Unwise:

Not To Associate With The Unwise Is Most Blissful.

Fools or ignorant people not only injure themselves, but also those around them. If we associate with them, we are apt to follow their ways and so harm ourselves mentally as well as bodily, because all troubles or fear arise from ignorance or foolishness. Even if we do not practise their methods, the more fact of associating with them will harm our reputation; in the same way that a banana leaf is contaminated if it is used to wrap up a piece of rotten fish or meat. The leaf is dirty and smelly even after the fish or rotten meat is thrown away.

one of the Mangalas

So even we have a way to help others, but it is generally not regarded as something wholsesome, we would need to make it discret and maybe unseen.

[danieLion]

Nothing here about recreational use. Therefore, the question is . Furthermore, it's a slippery slope to an ad hominem attack (not to mention an extension of Hanzze's puritanism).

nail + hammer = hitting nail on the _________.
but the main point is how do you know, are you a doctor with relevant qualifications or someone with a vested interest to smoke the green stuff?

These questions are inappropriate because they cross the public/private social contract we've all implicitly agreed to. I've never once asked someone here in the forums what they do for a living or what their consumption habits are. Why? Because my sila is such that I know better than to do something that unethical.

The efficacy of cannabis is irrelevant to my personal life, and stands on its own merits.

That's why I said it's a slippery slope to an ad hominem attack.

And am I to go by your opinion of what "relevant qualifications" are?

The hallmark of a true puritan is that no matter how hard they try to conceal it they still reveal the fact that they think they know better than you--and the evidence.

[danieLion]

Well I would not maintain such a thought like "he could be a smoker of ..." and even so, its up to the individual, but actually that shows another aspect why it would be not the best to walk on the edge as many people could misunderstand good intentions and there are always other alternatives.

One needs to look also that he does not to Associate With The Unwise:

Not To Associate With The Unwise Is Most Blissful.

Fools or ignorant people not only injure themselves, but also those around them. If we associate with them, we are apt to follow their ways and so harm ourselves mentally as well as bodily, because all troubles or fear arise from ignorance or foolishness. Even if we do not practise their methods, the more fact of associating with them will harm our reputation; in the same way that a banana leaf is contaminated if it is used to wrap up a piece of rotten fish or meat. The leaf is dirty and smelly even after the fish or rotten meat is thrown away.

one of the Mangalas

So even we have a way to help others, but it is generally not regarded as something wholsesome, we would need to make it discret and maybe unseen.

"Oh, who will tell us the entire history of narcotics?--It is nearly the history of 'culture', our so-called higher culture!"

The Gay Science (86)

[Hanzze]

I am not sure if associating with Nietzsche is amoung what Buddha had meant with it.

But if you prefer Nietsche than see my question in association which his quote:

„In der That, man thut gut (und klug), zur Erklärung davon, wie eigentlich die entlegensten metaphysischen Behauptungen eines Philosophen zu Stande gekommen sind, sich immer erst zu fragen: auf welche Moral will es (will er –) hinaus?“

– Jenseits von Gut und Böse

[Cittasanto]

Nothing here about recreational use. Therefore, the question is . Furthermore, it's a slippery slope to an ad hominem attack (not to mention an extension of Hanzze's puritanism).

nail + hammer = hitting nail on the _________.
but the main point is how do you know, are you a doctor with relevant qualifications or someone with a vested interest to smoke the green stuff?

These questions are inappropriate because they cross the public/private social contract we've all implicitly agreed to. I've never once asked someone here in the forums what they do for a living or what their consumption habits are. Why? Because my sila is such that I know better than to do something that unethical.

The efficacy of cannabis is irrelevant to my personal life, and stands on its own merits.

That's why I said it's a slippery slope to an ad hominem attack.

And am I to go by your opinion of what "relevant qualifications" are?

The hallmark of a true puritan is that no matter how hard they try to conceal it they still reveal the fact that they think they know better than you--and the evidence.

Just to clarify (here)
I was being facetious I wouldn't call it unethical like it breaks an explicit code of conduct but it is pointless, fallacious, and discourteous, like trying to be a teacher to people. but couldn't think of better way to put it earlier...

relevant qualification = evidence external to your own opinion, or references showing how you came to such a conclusion. which I believe is all that is reasonably asked in most threads.
anyway enough of my little metta-discussion.