Don't let the potheads ruin freedom

The Prometheus Institute ^ | 9/5/2006 | Editorial

[tang0r]

Generally, there are two types of marijuana users. First is the most commonly stereotyped “stoner,” depicted in the media of movies (e.g. Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and television (e.g. Shaggy from Scooby Doo). These are the dead-end job, ambitionless abusers who ingest marijuana to escape their already dismal lives. They represent the image which is most often associated with marijuana use. Certainly, the average American high school is teeming with similar directionless pot-smoking losers, further cementing this public perception.

[mugs99]

I see mapinc and the dpa all over that site.

Lol...You must be on some really good stuff!
The core group of the LEAP site are the over 1,200 judges, attorneys and police officers who are Battlefield Conversions from the War On Drugs.

Link me to your data. I gave you the source of my data -- you can do the same

Which data? I gave you the link to my source that testifies to increases. Those who cite those increases are the over 1,200 Battlefield Conversions who began LEAP.

The source you gave me was nothing but a propaganda press release. It didn't have a single link to hard data. You believe the propaganda if you like, but I'll continue to believe the judges, attorneys and police officers who have been on the frontline of the drug war.

You can cry hogwash all you like...The internet has changed the game. Government and media no longer control what people see and hear. The people are now learning the truth and this insane drug war has been exposed for the sham it is.
.

[William Terrell]

worship false god's, or attempt to use drugs to enchant, cast spells, or enhance their spirituality are guilty of idolatry

Which of these do you think people who like to smoke cannabis are doing?

Alcohol in wine is not forbidden in scripture, the word of God.

But alcohol in spirits is?

So one can smoke cannabis then stop smoking it (necessary for repentance) then one can be aware of Christ within himself. Of course, what you're saying is that if one doesn't stop, one hasn't repented of an evil, and is therefore removed from the one true God and denied the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yes?

You agree that intoxicants can't be used for their intoxicating or one is removed from the one true God and denied the Kingdom of Heaven. Unless they stop.

Suppose they use, say, cannabis from time to time, when it comes their way, from time to time get some for a pleasurable purpose. Are they removed from the one true God and denied the Kingdom of Heaven

Who told you that all this?

This is not what Jesus taught, nor even Paul's version of His teachings to the gentiles, "witchcraft" notwithstanding. Paul's list about four things gentiles must do out of the Mosaic law, and taking herbs or strong drink wasn't among them.

The references to Jesus drinking wine for pleasure purposes are several. Whether wine is OK or not in your lexicon, it contains alcohol and gets you high in the degree you choose?

when one has God's spirit and exercises it to develop spiritual discernment then it becomes apparent that misusing God's creation by ingesting or smoking marijuana for "kicks" is evil.

I will smoke cannabis if an opportunity presents itself for nothing else but the euphoric effect. I use spiritual discernment every day. I pray and my prayers are heard and I experienced them being answered countless times (so long as they were righteous). I know God in my heart. God has not said a word to me about any of His plants being "evil".

God is speaking to my heart now. He says Genesis 1:29.

Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Good grief. It's a parable. It was spoken, if I'm not mistaken, referring to those who are new and ignorant in the spirit needing milk rather than meat.

I means, and I can't see how this is not obvious, as you live through more and more years, and used your understanding to see the operation of the Gospel in your life, you are able, by that exercising of that perceptual muscle, to be attuned to the nature of people and events with more clarity.

If his/her personal experience is not scripturally sound, or causes him or her to violate God's law, then their personal experience is not the way of God. God's way is outlined clearly in the bible.

Your personal experience is not scripturally sound. God's law is negative; He tells you what is forbidden with the implication of all else is permitted, so long as you accept any physical consequences.

I agree, Gods way is clearly outlined in the Bible, but the interpretation you make of Bible scriptures is entirely in the service of your fear, prejudice and bias.

Nowhere do I find, in the New Testament at least, any spiritual prohibition against using an herb for pleasurable effects. Nor anything that hints such use denies one the Kingdom of God.

You seem to have traveled so far the legalistic way that you have lost light of the love of your fellow men, your neighbors.

You sound like a Pharisee or Sadducee would have in Jesus' time on Earth. I seriously and sincerely think Jesus would have the same problem with this legalism.

The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.

Seeing parents torn from their children, families torn apart, children die in dynamic entry raids, the liberties of our God inspired constitutions cratered, the agencies that guard us from the bad hearts of men corrupted by rich seizures, people languishing in prison instead of out serving others because of an herb God put here and told mankind to use, is not love by any definition of the word.

[_Jim]

Yes. Ask a million people: "is the reason why you don't commit murder because it's illegal?" I doubt even half-of-one-percent would say it is. The reason 99+% of the population doesn't commit murder is because of some primary reason of their own, not the illegality. Probably something like ...

Well ... start considering WHAT you might do if you had the latitude - say, to cope with the local drug dealer (heh. BAD example here huh!!??) or the local gang-bangers tearing up the 'hood ... one might resort to 'means' where lives get taken either directly or incidentally as a result of 'action' taken by someone to 'supress' action or behavior they found highly offensive (think BOOMING gang-band vehicles rolling by the house LATE at night now) ...

[Zon]

Well ... start considering WHAT you might do if you had the latitude -

What I might do!?! Please speak for yourself. 

I assume you're talking about how you would respond to persons that didn't harm you and you think a certain considerable percentage of people would act the same and, that criminal laws are considerable deterrent. Unfortunately criminal law has usurped civil law where things that are broken get paid for and persons harmed gain restitution.

[_Jim]

I assume you're talking about how you would respond to persons that didn't harm you and ...

No, I cited a degree of harm, I think, although it was not serious, direct harm. For instance, the love, the warmth I feel for a loud BOOMER vehicle is zero; how a problem in that case is solved I don't really care and I can daydream such solutions as an RPG, but, in reality, that can't be done, for obvious reasons, hence, laws on the books prevent some behaviors.

[DouglasKC]

worship false god's, or attempt to use drugs to enchant, cast spells, or enhance their spirituality are guilty of idolatry
Which of these do you think people who like to smoke cannabis are doing?

Anyone who doesn't worship the one true God is guilty of idolatry. Anyone who smokes dope and who has entered into a covenant relationship with God through the indwelling of his spirit needs to recognize their sin and repent.

But alcohol in spirits is? So one can smoke cannabis then stop smoking it (necessary for repentance) then one can be aware of Christ within himself. Of course, what you're saying is that if one doesn't stop, one hasn't repented of an evil, and is therefore removed from the one true God and denied the Kingdom of Heaven.

It's not quite that simple. Having the spirit of Christ dwell within is an important first step. That requires the invitation (the calling of God), repentence, and obedience to God for starters. Baptism and the laying on of hands are the outward signs of obedience that reflect your spiritual committment within. Nobody has the spirit of Christ unless these things have occurred.

Who told you that all this?

It's in the bible, the word of God.

This is not what Jesus taught, nor even Paul's version of His teachings to the gentiles, "witchcraft" notwithstanding. Paul's list about four things gentiles must do out of the Mosaic law, and taking herbs or strong drink wasn't among them.

I assume you're referring to this:

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

There are several points I could make here, but the main point is that if you believe this is an all inclusive list for gentiles Christians then you have to believe that God thinks it's "ok" for gentiles Christians to murder, rob and steal. In other words, your case is that God doesn't judge gentiles Christians for anything OTHER than these 4 points. That's a wrong headed notion. In actuality, the proper interpretation of this scripture is that they were converting gentiles who were DEEP into pagan practices. This was just for starters. The clincher is the next verse:

Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

They were to refrain from those things and eventually they would be instructed in the way of rightousness through being members of God's church and learning every sabbath.

I know God in my heart. God has not said a word to me about any of His plants being "evil".

This is where you guys seems to always fall off the bus. I'm not saying that the plant is evil. I'm saying that man's misuse of the plant is not acceptable in the eyes of God.

Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Good grief. It's a parable. It was spoken, if I'm not mistaken, referring to those who are new and ignorant in the spirit needing milk rather than meat. I means, and I can't see how this is not obvious, as you live through more and more years, and used your understanding to see the operation of the Gospel in your life, you are able, by that exercising of that perceptual muscle, to be attuned to the nature of people and events with more clarity.

I would say that when one let's God's spirit live through them that they exercise the spirit. One result would be what you mention. But there is also a deeper spiritual discernment that allows the discernment of good and evil:

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Nowhere do I find, in the New Testament at least, any spiritual prohibition against using an herb for pleasurable effects. Nor anything that hints such use denies one the Kingdom of God.

I've already shown you the scripture about "pharmakeia", but you chose to ignore it...apparently. There are other scriptures that condemn the indulgence of fleshly lusts and pleasures:

2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Tit 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

Smoking pot for pleasure is certainly a diverse lust and pleasure.

You seem to have traveled so far the legalistic way that you have lost light of the love of your fellow men, your neighbors.

Since you don't know me, I would have to say that your confused because you can't tell the difference between condenming something that is physically and spiritually harmful to man (smoking pot) and the love of our fellow man. Love the man, hate the sin.

You sound like a Pharisee or Sadducee would have in Jesus' time on Earth. I seriously and sincerely think Jesus would have the same problem with this legalism.

Not really. Jesus has pretty high standards of righeousness:

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The problem with the Pharisees is that they relied on their own righteousness, apart from Christ. The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.

Sure. But how do you define "love"?

Seeing parents torn from their children, families torn apart, children die in dynamic entry raids, the liberties of our God inspired constitutions cratered, the agencies that guard us from the bad hearts of men corrupted by rich seizures, people languishing in prison instead of out serving others because of an herb God put here and told mankind to use, is not love by any definition of the word.

It's an amazingly topsy turvy mindset that can equate smoking dope with God, honor and country.

[tacticalogic]

It's an amazingly topsy turvy mindset that can equate smoking dope with God, honor and country.

No less so than one than can equate bureaucratic regulations with scripture.

[robertpaulsen]

"hence, laws on the books prevent some behaviors."

Which the drug legalizers are loathe to admit. Their mantra is that the War on Drugs is a failure and that everyone today who wants to do drugs is doing drugs.

When asked if drug use would increase if we legalized drugs, they reluctantly admit that it would -- but only a little, you understand.

Bunch of clowns.

[antiRepublicrat]

Well yeah, since the clause wasn't really used by the federal government until the 1900's

Read again. The federal government attempted to use the clause in intrastate matters before the 1900s, only to be told that was not a power granted to it.

It's illogical to assume that since the commerce clause wasn't used in the past to prohibit commerce among the several states, that meant the power to do so wasn't there.

We're talking about commerce, and even non-commerce, within states that the federal government regulates and prohibits using a power clearly stated to apply to commerce among states.

[robertpaulsen]

"The federal government attempted to use the clause in intrastate matters before the 1900s, only to be told that was not a power granted to it."

So? The federal government does that today. They recently did that with the Gun Free Schools Act (U.S. v Lopez) and the Violence Against Women Act (U.S. v. Morrison) and were told by the U.S. Supreme Court that they didn't have the power.

As your link points out, the standard was set in 1824 by Chief Justice (and Founding Father) John Marshall:

The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule which ... continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. ''The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government.'"

Meaning, if the state activity DOES affect other states, Congress may take action. The U.S. Supreme Court used the standard of a "direct" affect and an "indirect" affect initially, but then changed the standard to "substantially" afffect. But it WAS there before 1900 -- just, as I said, rarely used.

"within states that the federal government regulates and prohibits using a power clearly stated to apply to commerce among states."

No they're not. Congress is NOT using the power of the Commerce Clause to regulate and prohibit commerce, non-commerce, or activities within a state. I pointed that out earlier to you, yet you continue to repeat it. Why?

If some intrastate activity, commerce or not, has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating, Congress has the power, through the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution) to regulate that intrastate activity. They have always had that power.

[antiRepublicrat]

They recently did that with the Gun Free Schools Act (U.S. v Lopez)

I believe that is the only limit to federal power in recent history, since the FDR slide into federal totalitarianism.

No they're not. Congress is NOT using the power of the Commerce Clause to regulate and prohibit commerce, non-commerce, or activities within a state.

So why can't granny with cancer grow pot in her backyard to smoke? Oh yeah, Congress decided that it affects interstate commerce, so banned it in direct violation of a state's sovereignty.

They have always had that power.

People who prefer an all-powerful, all-controlling federal state see it that way. People who prefer a collection of sovereign united states (where have I heard that term "united states"?) according to the Constitution see it as a federal power grab.

[Zon]

No, I cited a degree of harm, I think, although it was not serious, direct harm. For instance, the love, the warmth I feel for a loud BOOMER vehicle is zero; how a problem in that case is solved I don't really care and I can daydream such solutions as an RPG, but, in reality, that can't be done, for obvious reasons, hence, laws on the books prevent some behaviors.

The key delineation is to initiate harm against another person. Most all laws deter a small fraction of the population to some extent. Another key point is that a victim has to chose whether to press criminal charges and/or take civil court action or do nothing.

In the BOOMER example you gave is, IMO, a decision of local community ordinance to regulate a certain decibel level during specific hours of the day. Much like zoning laws. Not federal, state, or county, but city, town and village laws and ordinances.

The laws that least deter people are laws that prohibit people from harming themselves and more so, laws that when broken harm no person.

Authoritarians and socialists detest power of local politics and communities to have more authority than state and federal governments in regards to consensual crimes (ie., drug distribution) and victimless crimes (crimes against the State). They support the ideology that the constitution is a living document because it's vital to enabling governments to social engineer the populace.

Authoritarians and socialists perpetuate the myth that persons and society are forever precariously perched on a precipice... That they must constantly save them from taking the next step; plummeting to self-destruction.

The myth explodes when a person realizes that almost every person breaks the law several times a year, yet, with all that lawlessness persons and society have not self-destructed. In fact, just opposite; they've increasingly prospered.

The vast majority of the 3,000 new laws and regulations politicians and bureaucrats in Washington create each year, and a third that many created by each state legislature, cause an unnecessary burden/hindrance to the health, wealth and well being of persons and society. 

Quite literally, they are parasites leeching off a host.

[PaxMacian]

"It's an amazingly topsy turvy mindset that can equate smoking dope with God, honor and country."

It's an amazingly topsy turvy mindset that can equate summary executions during unfilmed no-knock raids and other terror campaigns in the WOD with obeying God, or seeking honor and serving your country!

Your knowledge of the Bible is weak and your mindset that of the witchunters of centuries ago. In the book that ended that atrocious period in western culture, when those that called themselves Christian were not unlike the Taliban, the root of such evil was exposed as a mistranslation to the word 'witch' of Pharmakeia which in fact is quite specifically the occupation of poisoner as one hired to kill another with poison. Referring to such scripture in order to justify an unconstitutional war on our own people is at the very least disingenuous and at worst demonic. Particularly, when one puts on the whole armour of God.

Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God,

that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the
breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;


Matthew 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Romans 14: 2-3
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.


Proverbs 15:17
Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.

[headsonpikes]

Quite literally, they are parasites leeching off a host.

I believe that you underestimate the ecological balance provided by bureaucrats - they consist not only of parasites, but of predators and scavengers, too!

The bureaucrats are respectful of the Great Circle of Life, so long as they are the eaters and not the eaten.

[tacticalogic]

If some intrastate activity, commerce or not, has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating, Congress has the power, through the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution) to regulate that intrastate activity. They have always had that power.

The Necessary and Proper clause can only be used in support of an enumerated power. There is no enumerated power to regulate "intrastate activities".

[robertpaulsen]

"The Necessary and Proper clause can only be used in support of an enumerated power. There is no enumerated power to regulate "intrastate activities"."

That is correct. Congress is using the power given to them in the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation that will enable them to regulate interstate commerce.

[DouglasKC]

It's an amazingly topsy turvy mindset that can equate summary executions during unfilmed no-knock raids and other terror campaigns in the WOD with obeying God, or seeking honor and serving your country!

Apparently you haven't been following my comments. I haven't discussed "no-knock raids" or other "terror campaigns". My focus has been on how smoking marijuana is a practice that is ungodly and unscriptural.

In the book that ended that atrocious period in western culture, when those that called themselves Christian were not unlike the Taliban, the root of such evil was exposed as a mistranslation to the word 'witch' of Pharmakeia which in fact is quite specifically the occupation of poisoner as one hired to kill another with poison.

Although that may be one meaning, other meanings are equally valid. Thayers lexicon defines it as:

pharmakeia
Thayer Definition:
1) the use or the administering of drugs
2) poisoning
3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
4) metaphorically the deceptions and seductions of idolatry

Let's look at the verses in question:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
If the primary meaning of the word in the context of scripture were one who kills another with poison then it seems like "murders" would about cover it. I think it's a pretty safe bet that it refers to drug use for pagan practices.

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

This doesn't mean what you think it does.

Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Note that "drunkenness", caused by ingesting alcohol, defiles a man and keeps him out of the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 14: 2-3 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Culling verses out of context isn't a sound practice for bible study. If you read all of Romans 14, it's evident that Paul is discussing eating habits related to either vegetarianism or fasting. "Herb" isn't pot, except in the mind of potheads.

Proverbs 15:17 Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.

Do you really think this is talking about smoking pot? Let me give you a more modern translation:

Pro 15:17 Better is a dish of vegetables where love is Than a fattened ox served with hatred.

[tacticalogic]

That is correct. Congress is using the power given to them in the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation that will enable them to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress was granted the power to regulate interstate commerce explicitly. They don't need the Necessary and Proper clause.

[308MBR]

Enforcement of unenforceable laws is automatically arbitrary, and is the REAL danger to ALL freedom.

When the punishment for the use of a substance far exceeds its supposedly bad effects, it's time for people of logic to come together and change the law.

[muir_redwoods]

Use of marijuana is stupid, destructive, unhealthful and pointless. Laws against is are much more stupid, much more destructive, much more unhealthful and vastly more pointless.

Let adults decide which plants they want to ingest. The stupid ones will choose marijuana but who am I to tell them what to do?