Welcome to Gaia! ::

Without a doubt, foreign substances (and by this, I mean everything from marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, and the misuse of pain killers and prescription medicine) is harmful to a person's body. There is no end to the number of studies which back such a statement. These effects are, more often than not, both physical and mental. I doubt this information is new to any of you, and the point of this post is not to act as a PSA about the dangers of foreign substances, but instead to prompt discussion on the extent to which the Law of Three effects self-inflicted harm through the use of Foreign Substances (I feel that cutting and suicide are more deserving of their own thread for such a topic, and that I am most certainly not sensitive enough to make said thread).

First, I think, it must be decided whether or not the individual actor is encompassed within "none" in the phrase "An' ye harm none, do what ye will." If one subscribes to the belief that the Law of Three is a universal and cosmic law, than the wording is entirely straight forward: "None" is an absolute; there is no leeway, and by harming oneself you are harming someone.
The second school of thought is that the Law of Three, like most or all forms of 'magic', comes from within a person. From the view of this particular belief, it comes down to what the individual actor believes: If the actor believes that actions against themselves are in violation of "An' ye harm none", then there will be retribution. If they do not believe such, then there will not be.
Things become more convoluted when one thinks about individual actors: Those hurt by the 'collateral damage' of a person's self-inflicted damage.

If it is decided that the individual actor is indeed in violation of the rede, then one must decide whether or not the use of Foreign Substance constitutes as "harm". Here, it becomes necessary to define harm. No doubt, amongst each person the definition will be different, and so for the purpose of this discussion we will be using the following definition:

It can then be decided that the use of foreign substances do count as "harm". However, the reason for their use should also be taken into effect, to decide if whether or not "the ends justify the means", if such a thing is possible within the bounds of the rede. If it is, then what might constitute 'legal' use of foreign substances within the bounds of the rede? Many use foreign substances for a variety of reasons, some for simple recreational use, others because it may be the only way to escape (as they tragically see it) emotional or physical trauma for a time, some are simply addicted, and yet others make use of some substances for ritual use. Many of these reasons may be more or less valid, depending on the individual viewer, than others. It is up to the individual, and only the individual, to decide how they feel on the subject, and what is, and isn't, 'legal' use of foreign substances within the bounds of the rede.

Before we do that, I think it is important to discuss if "An ye harm none, do what ye will."

If it matters, An isn't a contraction.


I think you're confusing the Rede and the Threefold Law. The Rede is advice- not a Law.

I think since the rest of the post hinges on two ideas- what the Threefold Law and what the Rede are- I don't think there is much to discuss.

The Rede advises that if something doesn't cause harm, you don't need to give it a second thought. That isn't saying if it does cause harm you can't do it.

How does moving a micro organism equal harming it?

If the Rede really meant that we couldn't cause harm, the human race would die out - as anyone who has ever had a baby can attest to, Childbirth can often cause harm to mother and child both (temporarily anyways). sweatdrop

What part of the Rede says you can't harm?

And then you have the question what if the cure harms?

For example. I have severe shoulder and knee pain. Over the counter pain meds stopped working years ago and my doctors refuse to proscribe me anything stronger. I have taken to smoking a small amount of pot on days where the pain gets too bad to handle. So by relieving my pain with pot am I harming myself or helping myself?

Why is pot morally wrong?

Food changes me. So does sleep.

I don't think either of those are morally wrong.



I'm not sure disliking something makes it morally wrong. I mean, I know I roll my eyes when people say that about witchcraft, same-sex couples, Voudon and other things they don't like to be around.