Recently, there was a report about a host of “world leaders” who came together to call for an end to the “War On Drugs” because of what a failure it supposedly has been. There are those who feel that since efforts to lower drug use have failed (despite reports of fewer people using–not saying they’re accurate, only that they exist), well we should just throw in the towel and not waste the money fighting this losing battle. Mostly left-wingers support this move.
At the same time, there are those on the right who speak disparagingly about the “War On Poverty”. They feel the money spent on this struggle is also a waste.
There are other such wars, such as wars on “obesity” and “illiteracy”. In each case, there are those who feel that we are losing or that we are wasting the money. In short, they want to quit. Give up. Wave the white flag.
The pattern here is evident in real war. Since Viet Nam (though the attitude has always existed to some extent throughout history), there are those for whom the costs of engagement rise to a level of great discomfort.
How did this happen? At what point did our national spine weaken so badly that no struggle is worth the effort to overcome? Was it the same time rules of engagement have changed so much as to make any effort almost futile?
Let’s set aside real war and speak of those metaphorical wars mentioned first. Take the war on drugs. Without getting into whether or not any or all drugs should be legalized or de-criminalized, how should we respond to any call to end such a “war”? Seems to me that such calls are misguided. The drugs in question are illegal. They cause harm. The people who manufacture and market them cause even greater harm. The industry syphons money from the economy and puts it in the hands of very bad people, leaving behind fewer dollars to fix the problems caused by the use of the drugs. Ending the war will only alter the dynamic slightly. The bad guys will still engage in illegal activity in order to earn their living. That’s what they do. The drug users will still use drugs, but do it more openly and likely more often. In short, there will be no tangible improvement of life in the country due to withdrawing our forces from the battlefield.
But the attitude that’s behind this call is what is most troubling. QUIT! That’s what is being suggested. Quit because it’s hard! People are going to do drugs anyway, they say. There’s nothing we can do about it.
Well. Here’s another war that’s hard! The “War On Crime”. We’ve been waging this war for centuries. It has not abated. Let’s call it a draw and go home. People will engage in criminal acts anyway. What’s the use? We could use that money spent on law enforcement elsewhere.
Obviously, just as in real wars, the trouble is not the cause, but how we go about fighting. Generally speaking, recreational drugs are harmful, dangerous and a threat to the well being of our citizenry, especially children. The war must go on until victory is achieved. For victory is the only exit strategy worth mentioning. How to we measure victory? Just as in real war, when the enemy is defeated, totally, unconditionally and with extreme prejudice.
"No, I don't believe that smoking a joint is inherently "wrong" based upon Christian belief. Jesus never took a stand on marijuana, as you know."Arguing from silence again? Where's the God-given reason you claimed to have employed to come to your many non-Scriptural positions? Do you actually believe that Biblical warnings against drunkenness were about merely drinking too much as opposed to being in a state of inebriation? This is another "Mom said no cake before dinner, so I'm eating cookies!" It is not uncommon for the first tokes to produce no high of which the newbie can perceive. Quite common in fact. But as one becomes acquainted with what the buzz feels like, only the crappiest weed will fail to provide a buzz on the first toke (regardless of intensity). One is now inebriated, drunk, intoxicated, faced. It is to that state which Biblical admonitions refer and prohibit. And yes, I wrestled with this knowledge, and like your homosexual friends, I dismissed what I knew to be true (though I never attempted to present the behavior as morally neutral).What's more, the Biblical admonition would suggest the issue regards the routine drunkard as opposed to those who get carried away during a celebration of some kind. That is, while it speaks against drinking for the various negative consequences (far more directly than it does about wealth, in fact), it takes a different, harsher tone on the subject of drunkards (one who gets drunk is not the same as a drunkard who does often). All in all, it speaks of BEING drunk in starker terms than drinking itself. It's something to be avoided and it seems to me the manner in which one becomes inebriated is irrelevant.My position is that if one finds a behavior to be wrong, and then one has an opportunity to help shape policy regarding that behavior, to support policy that allows the wrongful behavior is to enable that behavior, giving tacit approval and thus sharing the guilt of those who engage in the behavior. ("I didn't steal nothin'. I just left the door open for the thieves.")As to myself, once again I wish to point out that I never claim perfection, that I never engage(d) in unChristian behavior. I simply don't try to justify the behavior or pretend I haven't done or aren't doing something wrong. I mean, who would I be kidding? Certainly not Him. So then, if one believes a behavior is wrong for one's own self, it seems problematic that one would support others' decisions to engage in it. That also suggests that tolerating it in other is actually taking part in inflicting the harm they inflict upon themselves. This "do no harm" thing can get tricky.
And my position is that it is unhealthy, I don't know that it is morally wrong to imbibe. Again, I am guessing that YOU don't think so, either, since you apparently regularly imbibe.I'm not arguing from silence. I'm stating a fact: The Bible has no position on marijuana. Yes, there are verses against drunken-ness. I've read and heard and it seems reasonable to me that these passages are speaking of drunkenness as habit, rather than an occasional buzz.Taking the Bible as a whole: I don't think the passages that speak of drunkenness mean what you think they mean (and again, I'm not sure that you mean what you mean, since you imbibe).As to what I think is UNHEALTHY ("wrong" is your word, not mine), I advocate free adults making their own life choices on what is and isn't healthy, while I encourage healthy behavior.I am opposed to gov't trying to step in and enforce at gunpoint "healthy" choices – I think that is IMMORAL and wrong. I think that is more fitting for a totalitarian gov't, not a free people.
Regarding buzzed v. impaired or drunk. The NHSTA has this to say.http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/adcouncil/41591/Personally this whole "they're just buzzed" seems like a rationalization. It seems like we can look at a couple of places in scripture and come up with some guidence as well.Eph 5:18 "18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery…"This seems pretty clear that drunkenness (in any context) leads to debauchery. One could make the arguement that since wine is the only intoxicant mentioned that liquer, beer, weed, and other drugs are not covered but not with a straight face.We also see this “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’" in all 3 of the synoptic gospels. This is a reference to Duet.5. It seems that it would be difficukt to love the Lord with ALL of your mind if your mind is impared by a foreign substance.I am curious, since it is reasonably possible to determine how much alchohol one could drink without being impared, how does one make the same kind of judgement with any illegal drug. Is the amount of THC consistent from one joinf to another? Are all joints the same size? Is all weed equally potent? Can we really trust those who are engaged in "self-destructive behavior" and who suffer from "a socio-mental problem" to make responsile choices?Or do we simply enable those folks to access their drug of choice more easily in order to further their "socio-mental problems" and "self destructive behavior"?
Marshall smokes weed? Hilarious.I used to smoke it back in the late 60s early 70s. Me and my friends would use Gen 1:29-31 to justify our indulgence…"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth.…To you it will be for meat… And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."Looks like some who partake of the green herb are still using that verse and more.
"Marshall smokes weed? Hilarious."Be so kind as to explain what it is exactly that provokes such a reaction.
"And my position is that it is unhealthy, I don't know that it is morally wrong to imbibe."What is "drunkenness"? The term comes from the word "drink" or "drunk", which is the past tense version. What happens when one drinks too much alcohol? One is then asked, "Are you drunk?" or is told, "You ARE drunk." Think about that. Are you the past tense of a verb. Substitute any other past tense verb, such as "spoke". Can one be "spoke"? One can be "thrown", but that refers to the actual meaning of the word "throw"."Drunk" in terms of one's state of being means inebriated. At one time, to become inebriated could only be accomplished through having "drunk" wine or other fermented liquids. But the term specifically is used to denote inebriation, intoxication, being plastered. The means by which one gets there is irrelevant. Scripture is not speaking of intoxication by wine only, but of intoxication, period. Sobriety is a Christian characteristic because it is a state of clear-headedness that is is conducive to adherence to Christian values. Inebriation is not. It is clearly the inebriated condition brought about by imbibing that is the basis of Scriptural admonitions against drinking. Not drinking itself. Avoiding wine or strong drink is encouraged, not moderate drinking of either. Since it is clearly the state of inebriation that is the cause of concern in Scripture regarding drinking, the means by which one becomes inebriated is irrelevant. There is also no distinction between a "buzz" and falling down shit-faced polluted. There is irony here. If we were to exchange the topics of drug use with wealth creation, we'd have to switch seats. But my position on inebriation is far more directly supported than anything you've offered regarding wealth creation. "Taking the Bible as a whole: I don't think the passages that speak of drunkenness mean what you think they mean (and again, I'm not sure that you mean what you mean, since you imbibe)."Taking the Bible as a whole, those passages mean exactly what I said they mean. This is true regardless of my own unChristian behaviors, past, present or future. Another distinction between us. You seem to confuse my understanding of proper/improper behaviors with my personal behavior decisions. Like Paul, I often do things I don't want to do or know is wrong. Sue me. I don't use myself and my choices as arguments regarding the sinfulness of a given behavior. Never have. Gotta go. More later.
This: Dan: "And my position is that it is unhealthy, I don't know that it is morally wrong to imbibe. Again, I am guessing that YOU don't think so, either, since you apparently regularly imbibe."I'll admit I've skimmed a few comments of this thread. Now that I've read a little more, looks as though Dan was speaking of drinking alcoholic beverages.
Marty,Still not clear on the "hilarity" of my indulgences. Understandable, as you haven't explained yourself at all.
There's really nothing to explain Marshall. The thought of you smoking a joint struck me as quite funny given you're obsession with "right" behavior and all. Maybe you aren't such a stuffed shirt after all.
I don't know why that should surprise you, Marty. I've long maintained that I am far from perfect and have constantly tried to dispel the notion that my positions should not be taken to imply any such thing. There's a cosmic distance between supporting right behavior or knowing what it is, and actually living it in every manifestation 100% of the time.
Perhaps one war we should give up is the War on Poverty. It has gone so swimmingly well that we should declare victory and move on.
Craig, Please don't feel obliged to respond to the idiot-boy in any way. It's pointless as he's only out to annoy. He's a pathetic little troll who seems to actually believe he's entertaining anyone beyond himself and the frog in his pocket. What's more, your responses will seem odd after I've deleted his sad attempts at cleverness.
feel free to delete my responses as well. I was just trying Alan's tactic of responding in kind (out of love of course) in order to point out his idiocy.
Parkie's too much of an idiot to recognize his own idiocy and thus too much so to appreciate your efforts.
"idiot" and "idiocy"You guys are a creative bunch.