Replies

I'm not sure how conclusive either set of studies is. I am more prone to believe the results of the pro-wine studies as I trust the Bible, and it is often on the forefront of scientific inquiry. If a pro-beer study came out I would view it as skeptically as a pro-pot study. But I admit my prejudice and will keep an open mind on pot. I would certainly react differently to someone who truly believes in the medicinal value of pot vs. someone who is obviously making an excuse. Just as I support the use of (chemical) narcotics in medicine but not for recreational purposes.

Well, as pot is a New World plant, I doubt it would show up in the Bible at all. But is something "immoral" or unacceptable simply because it is an item that doesn't show up in the Bible? (Although...some people think so. The Scotts used to not eat potatoes because they weren't in the Bible, if I recall correctly...)

And no offense to you, but in matters of scientific inquiry and research, I would trust the Scientific Method first, and if a research study holds up to that sort of scrutiny, that's a good step.

You might be correct in the assumption, but not in the reasoning. Most social drinking is done to "loosen up," and to "have a good time." At the very least I would suggest that people who need those crutches need to examine why? I can loosen up just fine at parties and have a great time without a drop of alcohol. Since I stopped drinking I have never wakened up in the morning regretting what I did under the influence the night before. I also can't see any justification for the tremendous amount of time and money I once spent on booze. However, I am not ready to go so far as to call all social drinking, "immoral." As you saw in my previous post, morality is a heart issue. I can't paint a whole raft of people that I have never met with such a broad brush. I will reiterate my "knee-jerk" position, however.

Then it seems you are leaving the issue of "drinking" up to someones free will, instead of taking the Carry Nation approaching and saying "Since drinking leads to sin and social evils, it is best if we prohibit alcohol.". If you feel this way about alcohol, why can't you leave pot legal, and let people be free to make up their minds on the issue.

I actually chose that phrase to poke at the gun crowd. There is a moral reason to own firearms, as well as a moral reason not to own them. I don't own them, but I support the rights of others. I question the heart of anyone who loudly asserts a position without being willing to think about it, or to consider an opposing viewpoint. It doesn't matter whether the subject is guns, booze, pot, or condoms. And as the knife cuts both ways, on this I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I'm not convinced that the war on guns or the war on drugs violate the principles of our constitution.

The way I look at it, the Second and Tenth Amendments are pretty clear on the respective issue of Guns and Powers of the Federal Government.

First, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't see how you can get more obvious than that. However, I do NOT support someone keeping a weapon of mass destruction in their house. I think that the gross safety factor involved far overrides the amendment, especially since we didn't have nuclear bombs back in 1776. I think one of the big problems with making the second amendment "fit" in this day and age is that the Founding Fathers were very wary of the concept of a standing military, which is now a part of our everyday life. The Fed has done an excellent job of screwing over the role of militias. That said, I am not sure you could use the Second Amendment to defend personal ownership of a tank.

As for the 10th Amendment: The powers not expressly granted to the Fed are reserved for the States. Unless you can show me the part of the Constitution where the Fed is empowered to have a "war on drugs" or a "war on poverty", then the Fed WOD *must* be disbanded, and the issue settled on a state by state basis.

I am of the unfortunate opinion that 95% of what the FedGov does today is in excess of it's Constitutional bounds.

I do submit that our constitution is subject to the higher moral authority of G-d in so far His will can be discerned since our argument in favor of breaking away from Great Britain is predicated on His moral authority. If the Constitution conflicts with His authority it should be ammended.

But isn't the dark side example of religion directly shaping law something like Sharia in the Middle East? Islam is the Law and the Law is Islam, and in places like Saudi Arabia, you have "Religious Police" making sure that everyone is toeing the line. While I KNOW that Christianity is better than Islam, there potential is still there for theocracy and Religious Police. It seems to me that if the Founding Fathers wanted this country to be a Theocracy, they would have set it up as one.

Where it does not conflict, or where clear evidence of a conflict can not be found, the Constitution must be supported by all citizens.

So you would support the Federal WOD being disbanded, and the matter being decided by the individual states? Unless you can show me in the Bible where it says "Don't smoke pot, period."

I will agree on the latter, but not necessarily on the former. How do you feel about social stigmatization in leu of outright illegality. i.e., cigs. are legal but it is becoming harder and harder to smoke because of all the social stigma.

I have no problems with social stigma at all. I think that we NEED to have social stigma, and that it is much more of a power than law, in many cases. Many Pro-WOD posters seem to think that legalizing pot would suddenly create many more smokers, but they initially forget that the social stigma would still be there.

And all need to know about Prohibition is that in the 20's and 30's, it caused the homocide rate to spike up to levels not seen again until 1975, and MORE people died of alcohol related deaths during this time. I also know that our current Prohibition efforts have created a black market that enriches terrorists, enriches corrupt LEO's who abuse asset siezure laws, fosters more violent crime, and gives the more tyrannical elements in the Government an excuse to pass more and more draconian laws. I find THOSE sorts of activities far more immoral than someone smoking pot in the privacy of their own home, or having a bottle of wine in their own home.

While laws won't change behaviors, some of them do declare who we are as a people. For example, if we could never stop murder (and we can not) I would still want it to be illegal as a statement that Americans value human life.

Yes, but there is, once again, a world of difference between smoking pot and murdering someone. You don't have to usurp the individual rights and liberties of someone to smoke a joint in your house. You DO need to, in order to murder someone. It is in the compelling interest of Society to punish murderers, thieves, rapists, and so forth. I am not convinced such a compelling reason exists for smokers, drinkers and eaters of fatty food.

Don't fall into the libertarian trap. All social ideals are not socialist. We are social beings, after all, and our nation is more than a simple contractual agreement we make with each other to live together.

Yet, we are a nation of individuals, and not of "social units." This country was created to protect the individuals rights from being abridged by the "Tyranny of the majority". I would say the individualism is the cornerstone of our nation.

If you are looking for a judgement from me regarding your habits and whether they are vices I would ask you these two questions. 1) What is G-d telling you? Screen out all other voices and tell me what He is saying to you. Do you ask Him? 2) Under what circumstances would you give them up. If your wife (if not married, substitute any loved one) came up to you and said, "I'd really appreciate it if you would stop." what would your response be?

Well, as I am not a Christian, and at best an agnostic, Question 1 doesn't really apply, at least as far as I am concerned. I know you think it applies to me, I don't think it does, and no amount of talking in the world would ever bridge that gulf.

But as for number 2, that is an excellent question. The empathic measure, and seeing how our actions directly affect those around us. One of the few "universal" ethics seems to be "Do onto others as you would have done to you", which shows up in certain Eastern beliefs as well (although, honestly, the Confucian "silver rule" is more like: Do NOT treat others as you yourself do not want to be treated...)

Again, thank you for the interesting discussion.

Well, as pot is a New World plant, I doubt it would show up in the Bible at all. But is something "immoral" or unacceptable simply because it is an item that doesn't show up in the Bible? (Although...some people think so. The Scotts used to not eat potatoes because they weren't in the Bible, if I recall correctly...)

No, but the reverse is true. If something shows up in the Bible as moral, then it is. The Bible doesn't speak to flushing toilets, but I am not constrained. All I said was that I would be skeptical because I know that the desired conclusion can often drive the experiments. People are funny that way.

And no offense to you, but in matters of scientific inquiry and research, I would trust the Scientific Method first, and if a research study holds up to that sort of scrutiny, that's a good step.

If it weren't for fallible people I would agree with you. In fact, the scientific method was invented by Christians who had a very Biblical worldview. Using it they were able to verify several claims that were in the Bible but unproven.

Then it seems you are leaving the issue of "drinking" up to someones free will, instead of taking the Carry Nation approaching and saying "Since drinking leads to sin and social evils, it is best if we prohibit alcohol.". If you feel this way about alcohol, why can't you leave pot legal, and let people be free to make up their minds on the issue.

It's not a matter of leaving pot legal, it's a matter of making pot legal. When a system has been working, the request for change and the method of instigating change is often more harmful than either the before or after condition.

For the record, the only reason prohibition failed was because the booze industry used its economic pressure on congress. The arguments about creating more crime were smoke and mirrors to protect congressmen's tuckuses when they repealed it.

The way I look at it, the Second and Tenth Amendments are pretty clear on the respective issue of Guns and Powers of the Federal Government.

I am not ready to be drawn in on this post as it is way off topic. I was responding to your question by saying I'm not convinced of your basic assumptions. I'm also not unconvinced. I do believe that we need the right to own guns to protect us from government, not criminals.

I am of the unfortunate opinion that 95% of what the FedGov does today is in excess of it's Constitutional bounds.

While I couldn't quote you a percentage, I'm probably in agreement. I also believe the gov't will continue to grow until we collapse under its weight because people will continue to vote public funds for themselves (absent a move of G-d, of course).

But isn't the dark side example of religion directly shaping law something like Sharia in the Middle East?

That's only a concern if you believe that all religions are created equal. Our nation was founded on religious principles. The freedom of religion is one of those principles. I think it has worked well so far, and I think you can compare Islamic nations to this Christianic one (not Christian) as a way of validating the religions, just as you can compare atheistic nations (China, France) with this Christianic one as a way of validating religion on the whole.

One of the religious principles is that we should not found a theocracy because there is a separation of our duty to G-d and our duty to the state, and the Church and state have different roles in our lives. A Christianic culture is by definition not in danger of becoming a theocracy.

So you would support the Federal WOD being disbanded, and the matter being decided by the individual states? Unless you can show me in the Bible where it says "Don't smoke pot, period."

I won't take a firm specific stand without a lot more research. However, my top-of-the-head response is that the Bible is against getting drunk. Since I have never done any pot or 'luudes or coke or anything I can't say whether you can do drugs without getting the equivalent of drunk. But even a Biblical prohibition against drugs wouldn't be a reason to turn to the feds over the state. So I'll suggest that this one is also off-topic.

Many Pro-WOD posters seem to think that legalizing pot would suddenly create many more smokers, but they initially forget that the social stigma would still be there.

That depends on what follows legalization. There should be a social stigma on having sex outside of marriage, but it isn't there. Would that have anything to do with distributing condoms in schools, glorifying all forms of sex in movies and on TV, and legalizing abortion? We don't know what the result would be. In China when they legalized opium it lead to the near destruction of the economy and Mao's revolution.

Yes, but there is, once again, a world of difference between smoking pot and murdering someone.

Yes, there is. I will agree on that point.

Yet, we are a nation of individuals, and not of "social units." This country was created to protect the individuals rights from being abridged by the "Tyranny of the majority". I would say the individualism is the cornerstone of our nation.

The individual rights presumed an individual responsibility to society. We are not a nation of social units, but we are a social unit. You can't attack our social fabric without changing the nation and - eventually - destroying those rights our fabric protects.

Well, as I am not a Christian, and at best an agnostic, Question 1 doesn't really apply, at least as far as I am concerned. I know you think it applies to me, I don't think it does, and no amount of talking in the world would ever bridge that gulf.

It couldn't hurt to ask Him, especially if you are truly agnostic. Or do you seek to remain agnostic precisely because you know what the answer would be if there were a G-d, and you wouldn't like it?

But as for number 2, that is an excellent question. The empathic measure, and seeing how our actions directly affect those around us. One of the few "universal" ethics seems to be "Do onto others as you would have done to you", which shows up in certain Eastern beliefs as well (although, honestly, the Confucian "silver rule" is more like: Do NOT treat others as you yourself do not want to be treated...)

You have hit on a great distinction between the Christian golden rule and all others. The others say, "do no harm." Christ teaches, "do good."

Again, thank you for the interesting discussion.

It is a pleasure.

Don't be afraid of G-d. He just might be there, and you just might find the thrill of your life in meeting Him.

Shalom.