Using Marijuana May Not Raise the Risk of Using Harder Drugs (but look at alternative explanation)

RAND's Drug Policy Research Center ^ | December 2, 2002 | RAND's Drug Policy Research Center

[tacticalogic]

Caesar

Theoretically, I believe that would be us.

[tacticalogic]

the People have constitutionally authorized ways of prohibiting people at large from possessing very harmful substances, as we choose.)

Yes we do. And in this case, no we didn't.

[Hebrews 11:6]

If you mean that, because in America "the people" establish the government, thus any person can do whatever he pleases, I disagree. Our government of/by/for the people makes laws, and we people (at least those who name the Name of Jesus) are commanded to obey the people's laws except where they contradict God's. Do you agree or not?

[rb22982]

You incorrect assume that marijuana is the 'gateway' drug if there is such a thing, even if it were legal. Tobacco and alcohol are both more deadly and addictive, and alcohol is more intoxicating and people use it first before marijuana on average so if marijuana were legal, it in no shape way or form could be considered a gateway drug to any degree even comparing that of alcohol or nicotine.

[TigersEye]

Romans 13 says Caesar gets to decide what to do with them.

Says you.

Romans 13:7
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

If I owe taxes on my cannabis I will pay it. If revenue, then revenue. The arguments and motives that were used to prohibit the use of cannabis have not earned and do not deserve respect from me. The WOsD's has not been conducted with honor, so no honor. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that "Caesar" or any authority may choose my food, drink or medicine. The only authority I have found in Scripture for that is here:

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.

If you choose to stand with an earthly authority that seeks to deny me what God has freely and expressly given then so be it. The die is cast.

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

Scripture admonishes to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's

When Jesus pointed to Caesar's image on the coin that the Romans demanded for taxes, Jesus was clearly pointing out that paying taxes to Caesar (who claimed to be God) was a violation of the 1st Commandment (no false gods) and a violation of the 2nd Commandment (no graven images of false Gods). Clearly, a false god calling himself "the State" has NOTHING coming to him.

Jesus was a tax-resisting anti-statist. And that's why they killed him.

To Heb 11.6: Did Caesar give us the herbs of the field or fruits of the vine and orchard?

Good question. Anything that the State gives anybody, it must first steal from somebody else. I like your responses to Heb 11.6. But you're probably not going to get too far with people who dismiss the record of the life of Jesus in favor of Paul's letters which they believe command us to obey any 2 bit thug that calls himself "the government" or "the state."

[Cultural Jihad]

We know how the Democrats, too, when presented with a choice of their own foolish ideas and the Holy Scriptures always throw away the latter, too.

[TigersEye]

I like your responses to Heb 11.6. But you're probably not going to get too far...

Thankfully I don't have to get anywhere with him. He's going to have to wrassle with somebody else over these issues. Maybe Paul will jump in and tag team with him. ; )

[.30Carbine]

Jesus was a tax-resisting anti-statist. And that's why they killed him.

You make three claims here that are not true. Your claims in the above sentence are:

1)Jesus did not pay taxes.
Matthew 17:24 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" 25"Yes, he does," he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?" 26"From others," Peter answered. 27"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

2)Jesus was an anti-statist.
Matthew 5:38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Matthew 13:41 "The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil." [Sorta sounds like statism, don't it?]

3)Jesus was killed for being a tax-resisting anti-statist.
John 19:7 The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

[Hebrews 11:6]

Friend, it is good that you look for validation to Scripture. Whether you use it correctly, in determining your viewpoint, or whether you use it incorrectly, justifying decisions you have already made by ignoring parts of it, is between you and God and not for me to judge.

Fare well.

[tacticalogic]

If you mean that, because in America "the people" establish the government, thus any person can do whatever he pleases, I disagree. Our government of/by/for the people makes laws, and we people (at least those who name the Name of Jesus) are commanded to obey the people's laws except where they contradict God's. Do you agree or not?

Agree. And part of our law says that the federal government has some specific limits on the kinds if things it can pass laws about. If we want laws that exceed those limits, we the People must authorize it specifically. Do you support laws you see as consistent with God's laws if they are arrived at by means inconsistent with man's law?

[tacticalogic]

Friend, it is good that you look for validation to Scripture. Whether you use it correctly, in determining your viewpoint, or whether you use it incorrectly, justifying decisions you have already made by ignoring parts of it, is between you and God and not for me to judge.

Good advice, IMHO. In your lifetime, how long were you undecided about wheather marijuana should be illegal or not?

[headsonpikes]

BINGO!

The whited sepulcher brigade will be on your trail, now. ;^)

Like the Pharisees, they know the texts, but not the Law.

[unspun]

Pretty much agree. The People are sovereign in our civil society, and govern by our chosen means of constitutions. The constititutions grant powers to governmental institutions.

Christians may decide upon obeying laws based upon whether there is a conflict with obeying God - and whether or not they comply with our self-evident truths, rights, constitutionality, and higher law in the case of conflicting laws.

[tacticalogic]

Do you support laws you see as consistent with God's laws if they are arrived at by means inconsistent with man's law?

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

"From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?" 26"From others," Peter answered. 27"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. "But so that we may not offend them..."

The best time to break out of a concentration camp isn't always right now in full view of the guards. As Headsonpikes pointed out in #133, you can recite the text, but miss its clear meaning.

44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

And you think this means that Jesus was pro-state persecution?

John 19:7 The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

It looks like Jesus obeyed God's law and not the State's

Like a lot of pro-statists around here, I think your fear of the power of the state has gotten in the way of your ability to understand Jesus' anti-state life and message.

[unspun]

Do you support laws you see as consistent with God's laws if they are arrived at by means inconsistent with man's law?

Only where that man's law is bad in principle (there's probably a really nice Latin phrase for that;-) but, those would be in cases where the principles of "nature and nature's God," emergency, and/or rationality "should" be preserved, over what passes for man's law.

I believe in being consistent with the principles and adjusting whatever truly should be adjusted as we go, pretty much as Washington referred in his farewell address, a responsibility in which our nation has been derelict.

After 200 years, things can get messed up and the nation should take a well meaning and well reasoning review - what are the chances of that? (How long did it take Byzantium to get Byzantine?)

[TigersEye]

Friend, it is good that you look for validation to Scripture. Whether you use it correctly, in determining your viewpoint, or whether you use it incorrectly, justifying decisions you have already made by ignoring parts of it, is between you and God and not for me to judge.

So that you will not misunderstand; I looked to Scripture to validate my viewpoint, not determine it. My viewpoint is determined by the direction the eyes of my heart are set upon. My decisions are not self-justified through belief that I am capable of a complete understanding of the written word or through seeking agreement among men as to the meaning of the written word. I have faith that my decisions will be judged on their merits or lack thereof fairly and unerringly by the inevitable consequences of my actions. My ignorance will not be excused and an accounting of my every error will eventually take place. But through a hope that fills my heart with a desire to discipline my mind to an unwavering diligence in pursuit of the truth and the practice of compassion, loving kindness and generosity towards all beings living in ignorance the blessing of wisdom in love will increase purifying my own ignorance that keeps my mind chained to the things of this world.

The truth can't set you free if it remains a verse in a book brought out occasionally to caption a picture of our life in this world. It must become a song that sings itself in our hearts gradually displacing all thoughts and emotions that arise from living as men attached to the idea of self that imagines itself to be separate from everything else. Especially the idea that we are separate from that from which we arose.

I can't align myself with a law that imprisons people for seeking to relieve the suffering of mind and body with a plant that has a slightly sedative, slightly euphoric and very temporary effect, even if it is not the ultimate cure. I have even more trouble supporting a law whose origins lie in the argument that "it makes black men bold enough to look white men in the eye and makes white women want to sleep with black men". I see no hope, faith or love in that and no truth.

[MrLeRoy]

They began by citing as self-evident truth their unalienable rights, with which they were endowed by their creator. Then they demonstrated that Britain's rule had become destructive of those rights, thus giving them the Right and even "the duty" to throw off Britain's rule.

I see non Scriptural citations in the Declaration for either the claim that liberty is a God-given unalienable right or the claim that a ruler can justly be thrown off if he becomes destructive of that right. What Scripture do you believe supports those claims?

[MrLeRoy]

There are so many people with so many positions on all this stuff anyway, that it's a free for all each time. Yeee - hooo !!!

That's about the size of it---so knocking somebody for posting a tangent is probably pointless, and knocking them for an on-point reply to someone else's tangential post is downright silly.