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.

[robertpaulsen]

"They don't need the Necessary and Proper clause."

In the regulation of drugs, Congress determined that they did.

[Zon]

they consist not only of parasites, but of predators and scavengers, too!

By the laws of nature and reason they're criminals.

[William Terrell]

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.

You're saying that if a person smokes cannabis or takes it otherwise to enjoy the effects thereof is guilty of idolatry. You're going to have to show some serious, direct and clear scripture about that.

Where is it written that taking anything, cannabis included, recreationally is a sin?

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.

Christ cannot dwell inside a man who smokes cannabis for enjoyment? God has prohibited cannabis used for enjoyment? Does God also prohibit tobacco, hot fudge sundaes, and a shot or two of whiskey?

If that were so, every person in history would be relegated to Hell.

You are saying that unless physical rituals are performed, no one has the spiritual awareness of Christ inside his being? What about those who have read the words of the Gospels, believed them and have pledged their hearts to Him, and the law He taught?

Jesus never said that.

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

Show me where where it says that using a herb for enjoyment is prohibited by the scriptures. Forget the "witchcraft" angle. It's ludicrous on its face.

I agree on drunkenness. But drunkenness pulls out the evil nature of many men. It destroys the coordination and is the source of bad decisions. But alcohol is a CNS depressant. The point is that alchol is in another level spiritually worse than most plain herbs.

Wine contains a relatively high alcohol content. But the scriptures, and you, condone that.

Who the hell do you or any church to say about the obedience to God's law outside the scriptures, and the commandments? Where do you get your authority to expand scripture to include things not listed in them?

It sure looks to me like you're protecting a personal bias and using novel interpretations of the scriptures to justify it. And in doing so, are making the same mistake of the Pharisees and Saduccees.

There are several points I could make here (regarding Acts 15:20, prior post), 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.

Murder, stealing, fraud produce a harm to your brother. He has lost something, even his life, from your deliberate action. Do you see the difference?

In other words, your case is that God doesn't judge gentiles Christians for anything OTHER than these 4 points.

Of course not, harm to others, as well as the breaking the Commandments and abandoning your neighbor are assumed. We're talking about, and have always been talking about what you do with and by yourself.

In actuality, the proper interpretation of this scripture is that they were converting gentiles who were DEEP into pagan practices.

According to scriptures, these prohibitions were the conclusions of the apostles of what shall be required of the gentiles whom would follow God and Christ. The Jews wanted them to follow the entire tome of Mosaic law, including circumcision.

I agree, "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.

You say of this verse, "They were to refrain from those things and eventually they would be instructed in the way of righteousness through being members of God's church and learning every sabbath."

I say of this verse, Paul is validating that those things he mentioned are among the law of Moses, read every sabbath and have been handed down of old time.

The passage is crystal clear. Al you have to do is parse the words, and note it is a continuation of 15:20.

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.

And you are saying "misuse" is using an herb for pleasure. But you continue to provide no authority for that, except what some men say that you like and fits your bias.

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:

So if you were to take some cannabis for recreation that you can no longer discern good from evil? I'm sorry but I don't see any connection. I know a lot of people who smoke cannabis who will discern good from evil, do so just fine. Those that don't, don't need cannabis to lack that discernment.

(Your cite of first Corinthians 2:12-14)

Says nowhere that that the discernment of the spirit is not exercisable and exercised by one who take cannabis. The natural man has to eat, and will commit sin if starving, matter of fact, will commit sin to continue to survive in the body in any way that survival is threatened.

It is by the spirit of God through faith in the teachings of Christ that we work toward overcoming this survival. Cannabis has nothing to do with whether faith is present or not.

I've already shown you the scripture about "pharmakeia", but you chose to ignore it...apparently.

No. I refuted it, and its basis in logic and language.

(cite 2Tiothy 3:4-5, Titus 3:3). For Smoking pot for pleasure is certainly a diverse lust and pleasure.

How do you figure? Where do you get the notion those who like cannabis love it more than God? It is written over and over that to love God is to follow His commandments, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

What of God's commandments are broken by taking cannabis? How does cannabis keep you from loving your neighbor, scripturally? Timothy is clear. Titus is clear. Letting anything we like to do take us to living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another is condemned.

It is the person, and evidently you were one, that walks that direction, unable to handle that particular experience.

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.

And neither do you know me.

While you're loving the man and hating the sin, you are destroying families, killing innocent people, subverting our national sovereignty and corrupting our peacekeepers.

Love.

(cite Matthew 5:20 and 5:28) Not really. Jesus has pretty high standards of righeousness

Matthew 5:20 is talking to you. Unless you go to the heart and spirit of the law, unlike the P & P, you do not exceed the P & P. What you do is not "love", for the fruits of it are not the fruits of love.

I guess your reference to Matthew 5:28 is an indication that Jesus can be pretty finely drawn about prohibitions.

Please note that the lust of men after women is not taking a herb that gives you pleasure. Pleasure is not prohibited in the Holy Scriptures. Jesus Himself took pleasure from wine.

Jesus is giving us a mystery. Before actions, events and objects occur in material form, they are conceived in the mind first.

The problem with the Pharisees is that they relied on their own righteousness, apart from Christ.

As do you. His message was legalism (the self serving attachments of men) is not what the law is about.

Sure. But how do you define "love"?

Treating others as you like them to treat you. Legalism is not love.

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

The brutal trespasses I listed are happening now, as with the last time your kind of thinking tried it, during prohibition. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

I'll be presumptious and say that God does not need your help to judge the quality of the souls of men.

[genetic homophobe]

Best I can figure, having been raised in legalistic churches, and being in one now that emphasizes "holiness" or "holy living", is this: Touching alcohol...bad. Chewing or smoking tobacco in any way, shape or form...bad. Smoking or even being near cannabis...bad. Constantly stuffing face with all sorts of unhealthy food 'till you've eaten yourself into a diabetic coma...well, let's stick to talking about SINS! Now, please pass the biscuits...and the butter, please...thanks. Now, where were we? Oh yes, Jesus turned water into grape juice.....

[tacticalogic]

In the regulation of drugs, Congress determined that they did.

In the regulation of drugs, among a great many other things Congress is not regulating interstate commerce, they are merely using it as a pretext to assume regulation of things they were not authorized by the Constitution to assume control of. The impropriety of this should be self evident. The process of amendment makes it unnecessary. It is an obvious abuse of the clause. They do it because the court lets them. It is the "living document" legacy of FDR's New Deal.

[robertpaulsen]

"It is the "living document" legacy of FDR's New Deal."

Baloney. Congress was legislating intrastate activities 20 years before FDR. In 1824, Chief Justice (and Founding Father) John Marshall stated that Congress could reach into the state if the in-state activity affected interstate commerce.

"they are merely using it as a pretext to assume regulation of things they were not authorized by the Constitution to assume control of."

You're acting as though the federal law has never been challenged on these grounds. Guess what? It has. Here, buy a clue.

[tacticalogic]

Actually affecting interstate commerce, yes. Not just "interfering with Congresses ability to enforce regulations". In those cases there was an actual objective of regulating interstate commerce "as a negative and preventative provision among the States themselves". In the case of regulating drugs, you've said it yourself - "regulating interstate commerce" is just a tactic, there is no objective of regulating interstate commerce. It is purely a pretext.

[tpaine]

Congress makes a 'finding' that they can regulate drugs, using the commerce clause, -- and justifies the regulation by again 'finding' that the necessary & proper clause empowers such action..

Neat. We have the 'rule of law' by fiat finding.

-- According to anti-constitutionalists, that is.

[DouglasKC]

You're saying that if a person smokes cannabis or takes it otherwise to enjoy the effects thereof is guilty of idolatry. You're going to have to show some serious, direct and clear scripture about that. Where is it written that taking anything, cannabis included, recreationally is a sin

I've already covered most of these points, but I'll list an excerpt from this article that sums it up:

Some people may believe that the Bible has little to say about drugs, but this is not so. First, the Bible has a great deal to say about the most common and most abused drug: alcohol. Ephesians 5:18 admonishes Christians not to be drunk with wine. In many places in Scripture drunkenness is called a sin (Deut. 21:20-21, Amos 6:1, 1 Cor.6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-20). The Bible also warns of the dangers of drinking alcohol in Proverbs 20:1, Isaiah 5:11, Habakkuk 2:15-16. If the Bible warns of the danger of alcohol, then by implication it is also warning of the dangers of taking other kinds of drugs.

Second, drugs were an integral part of many ancient near East societies. For example, the pagan cultures surrounding the nation of Israel used drugs as part of their religious ceremonies. Both the Old Testament and New Testament condemn sorcery and witchcraft. The word translated "sorcery" comes from the Greek word from which we get the English words "pharmacy" and "pharmaceutical." In ancient time, drugs were prepared by a witch or shaman.

Drugs were used to enter into the spiritual world by inducing an altered state of consciousness that allowed demons to take over the mind of the user. In that day, drug use was tied to sorcery. In our day, many use drugs merely for so-called "recreational" purposes, but we cannot discount the occult connection.

Galatians 5:19-21 says: "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft [which includes the use of drugs]; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." The word witchcraft here is also translated "sorcery" and refers to the use of drugs. The Apostle Paul calls witchcraft that was associated with drug use a sin. The non-medical use of drugs is considered one of the acts of a sinful nature. Using drugs, whether to "get a high" or to tap into the occult, is one of the acts of a sinful nature where users demonstrate their depraved and carnal nature.

The psychic effects of drugs should not be discounted. A questionnaire designed by Charles Tate and sent to users of marijuana documented some disturbing findings. In his article in Psychology Today he noted that one fourth of the marijuana users who responded to his questionnaire reported that they were taken over and controlled by an evil person or power during their drug induced experience. And over half of those questioned said they have experienced religious or "spiritual" sensations in which they meet spiritual beings.

Many proponents of the drug culture have linked drug use to spiritual values. During the 1960s, Timothy Leary and Alan Watts referred to the "religious" and "mystical" experience gained through the use of LSD (along with other drugs) as a prime reason for taking drugs.

No doubt drugs are dangerous, not only to our body but to our spirit. As Christians, we must warn our children and our society of the dangers of drugs

To save space, I'll answer the rest of your post in my next response.

[robertpaulsen]

"Actually affecting interstate commerce, yes. Not just "interfering with Congresses ability to enforce regulations"."

That's where you have it backwards. Congress does not have the power to legislate in-state activities that "actually affect interstate commerce". If they did, they could regulate everything.

Congress has the power to legislate in-state activities only if those activities have a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating.

And you're parsing words. If an in-state activity affects some interstate commerce Congress is regulating, then that in-state activity is interfering with Congress' ability to enforce regulations.

"In those cases there was an actual objective of regulating interstate commerce "as a negative and preventative provision among the States themselves"."

Geez, did you butcher that quote. First, it's taken out of context. Then it's totally misapplied. Regulating commerce is a "provision"? I thought it was a power.

When applied to commerce among the several states, the "dormant" feature of the Commerce Clause was to act as a "negative and preventative provision" against injustice. By "dormant" I mean that the clause could be used "among the states themselves", without Congress getting involved, to settle their differences in federal court.

"Of the approximately 1400 cases which reached the Supreme Court under the (commerce-rp) clause prior to 1900, the overwhelming proportion stemmed from state legislation".
-- Prentice & J. Egan, The Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution (Chicago: 1898), 14.

[DouglasKC]

You are saying that unless physical rituals are performed, no one has the spiritual awareness of Christ inside his being? What about those who have read the words of the Gospels, believed them and have pledged their hearts to Him, and the law He taught? Jesus never said that.

I said "Baptism and the laying on of hands are the outward signs of obedience that reflect your spiritual committment within." Physical actions are a reflection of your spirituality. Baptism and the laying on of hands are basic principles of Christianity:

Heb 6:1 Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Heb 6:2 of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

In addition, Jesus Christ showed by example the importance of baptism:

Mat 3:16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;

Physical actions reflect spiritual conditions and committments. Anyone who takes drugs to "find God" is probably lacking God, or at best, backsliding into their former carnal lifestyle.

If that were so, every person in history would be relegated to Hell.

That's your interpretation, not mine. God is merciful and just and has a plan to bring salvation to as many who want it.

To: (use semi-colons to separate multiple recipients) William Terrell Your Reply: (HTML auto-detected, see help for more information) You are saying that unless physical rituals are performed, no one has the spiritual awareness of Christ inside his being? What about those who have read the words of the Gospels, believed them and have pledged their hearts to Him, and the law He taught? Jesus never said that.

I said "Baptism and the laying on of hands are the outward signs of obedience that reflect your spiritual committment within." Physical actions are a reflection of your spirituality. Baptism and the laying on of hands are basic principles of Christianity:

Heb 6:1 Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Heb 6:2 of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

In addition, Jesus Christ showed by example the importance of baptism:

Mat 3:16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;

Physical actions reflect spiritual conditions and committments. Anyone who takes drugs to "find God" is probably lacking God, or at best, backsliding into their former carnal lifestyle.

If that were so, every person in history would be relegated to Hell.

That's your interpretation, not mine. God is merciful and just and has a plan to bring salvation to as many who want it.

I agree on drunkenness. But drunkenness pulls out the evil nature of many men. It destroys the coordination and is the source of bad decisions. But alcohol is a CNS depressant. The point is that alchol is in another level spiritually worse than most plain herbs.

Clearly there is a difference between alcohol and other drugs as pertains to spirituality...at least scripturally speaking. Abuse of alchol is physically harmful I agee. Smoking pot is also physically harmful. The difference (and I know you can't believe this) is that marijuana deludes the user into thinking that it is beneficial to them in terms of spirituality and health. It takes the user farther and farther away from God and into the mistaken notion that they have discovered the path to God, or a path, to God.

I have to go so I will continue my response in later posts. However, I did want to respond to this:

And neither do you know me.
While you're loving the man and hating the sin, you are destroying families, killing innocent people, subverting our national sovereignty and corrupting our peacekeepers.

I am doing none of those things. And even if the "war on drugs" is as draconian as pro-drug people say it is, then each and every person who makes the choice to use illegal drugs also takes on the choice of living with the consequences of their behavior. The fact that they want to continue their selfish, self-indulgent behavior at the expense of family, finances and health should be a clear indicator of just how much control marijuana has over their lives. They put marijuana ahead of apparently everything else that is near and dear to them. That, my friend, is the very definition of idolatry.

[PaxMacian]

"My focus has been on how smoking marijuana is a practice that is ungodly and unscriptural."

You may focus myopically on what you wish but you can't deny the master
you know that you serve in your support for this unholy war.
What do witchunts by DEAmen have to do with following the gospel of peace?
What is 'godly' about seeking eradication of a gift from God while you
persecute the possessors, propagators or protectors of this gift.

GOD MADE HERB
GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
GOD GAVE IT TO MAN

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"Although that may be one meaning, other meanings are equally valid."

The validity of Thayer's first definition combined with your mindset would
have us at war with all pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies.
What are you? Some new form of extremist christian scientist?
I will address your use of Gal 5 later when I am in front of my Bible resources.

Mathew 15:11 means exactly what it says and is worth repeating.

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.

Your peace will not be found in the judgement of others as to their consumption of an herb. I should not have left out Matthew 14:4 before.

Matthew 14:2-4
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.

4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

"Herb" isn't pot, except in the mind of potheads."

An herb is a plant desired for its medicinal, savory or aromatic qualities.
Indeed it is an herb to 'potheads' but how does dietary law, traditionally a religious matter, become the purview of the federal government in the USA?

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

Who is talking about alcohol? Alcohol is a poison and people overdose from
it often. But, then the Lord turned water to wine. Do you want alcohol prohibition back too?

Your "modern" translation is reductionist as is modernism in general.
It denies the aspect of desire inherent in the word 'herb' by reducing it
to the modernist classification of vegetable.

Doubleplusungood comrade!


"Whoever thinks he understands divine scripture or any part of it, but whose interpretation does not build up the twofold love of God and neighbor, has not really understood it." St. Augustine

... the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God' (Romans 8:21)

[Know your rights]

In 1824, Chief Justice (and Founding Father) John Marshall stated that Congress could reach into the state if the in-state activity affected interstate commerce.

Knowing your record with 'paraphrase,' I recommend that nobody trust the one above.

[Know your rights]

If the Bible warns of the danger of alcohol, then by implication it is also warning of the dangers of taking other kinds of drugs.

By the same token, if the Bible refrains from calling for complete abstinence from or legal banning of alcohol, then by implication it is doing the same with regard to other kinds of drugs.

The word witchcraft here is also translated "sorcery" and refers to the use of drugs.

The use of drugs FOR OCCULT PURPOSES; the text you quote doesn't demand any broader reading.

[robertpaulsen]

Not familiar with landmark cases? By all means, don't let your ignorance stop you from questioning my integrity.

"It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary."
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

Subsequent courts have cited that phrase to mean that Congress may intervene when other states ARE affected.

[PaxMacian]

Regardless of whether the commerce in herb exists at all, as in home grown,
the federal government has failed to regulate an industry which it is obligated
to regulate by attempting to ban that which it hasn't the enumerated power to
ban. In its failure it puts at risk the citizens it pretends to protect.

[tacticalogic]

"Of the approximately 1400 cases which reached the Supreme Court under the (commerce-rp) clause prior to 1900, the overwhelming proportion stemmed from state legislation". -- Prentice & J. Egan, The Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution (Chicago: 1898), 14.

How many of them required invocation of the Necessary and Proper clause, how many of them involved "regulating interstate commerce" as a tactic, rather than an objective? The fact remains - they are using the Commerce Clause as a pretext to regulate things that are not interstate commerce and not among their enumerated powers, and it started with the New Deal, using the "substantial effects doctrine" that was an invention of that court.

Congress has the power to legislate in-state activities only if those activities have a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating.

That's what you say now. When it gets down to looking at whether a "substantial effect" actually exists, then it becomes irrelevant and the standard becomes whether it affects their ability to enforce the regulation. Your arguments are a constant bait-and-switch game.

And you're parsing words. If an in-state activity affects some interstate commerce Congress is regulating, then that in-state activity is interfering with Congress' ability to enforce regulations.

And there it is.

When applied to commerce among the several states, the "dormant" feature of the Commerce Clause was to act as a "negative and preventative provision" against injustice. By "dormant" I mean that the clause could be used "among the states themselves", without Congress getting involved, to settle their differences in federal court.

Madison made no reference to a "dormant" commerce clause. That's your fiction.

[Cementjungle]

Why not restrict booze and smokes to people who will pay an arm and a leg for it and use the proceeds for a tax cut on the middle class

We already do, via taxes on cigs and booze. Well, we tax them but who knows what the tax money is used for.

[DouglasKC]

GOD MADE HERB
GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
GOD GAVE IT TO MAN

I'm never sure if you marijuana advocates are joking when you start quoting God's support for misusing his creation.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

Clearly God is talking about FOOD to eat, not smoking pot. Nightshade is a deadly poison to man. God didn't create it as food. Marijuana is also a poison to the human body, one which messes with brain chemistry among other things.

Matthew 14:2-4 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.

That verse is actually from Romans 14. Are you under the impression that the bible is talking about marijuana whenever the old King James version refers to vegetables as "herbs"?? If you actually read the whole chapter then you will see that this verse in context is talking about eating practices, not smoking pot. Nearly every other verse in the chapter references food in some form or another.

Your "modern" translation is reductionist as is modernism in general. It denies the aspect of desire inherent in the word 'herb' by reducing it to the modernist classification of vegetable.

I'm totally baffled by this statement in relation to Romans 14.

"Whoever thinks he understands divine scripture or any part of it, but whose interpretation does not build up the twofold love of God and neighbor, has not really understood it." St. Augustine

Adhering and practicing God's law IS love. Preaching and teaching others to adhere to God's law IS loving others. Encouraging people to continue in self destructive behavior (like smoking pot) isn't love toward neighbor, but is a form of hatred toward God and others.

... the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God' (Romans 8:21)

I have no clue why you think this relates to smoking pot, but it's real meaning is that all of God's creation is waiting for his sons and daughters to be glorified.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
Rom 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
Rom 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.

[robertpaulsen]

"by attempting to ban that which it hasn't the enumerated power to ban."

Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to prohibit the interstate commerce of anything their little hearts desire. It's quite powerful. Then again, it has to be.

Unless you can show me where there's an exception in that clause for drugs. If you can't, our dialog is over.