Legalization or dangers of marijuana
- Thread starter Lik3
- Start date
Oafman
Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
With respect, this is simply preaching, of the usual variety.
Your implication that it is my pride which stops me believing that I am the special pet of a timeless overlord makes very little sense. I guess you also think it is my pride that makes me realise I am a speck in time and space, here by chance, and ultimately purposeless, beyond what I make of my life and how I interact with those I love
What you typed does not have its foundations in logic. I'm honestly glad that it works for you, but I require those foundations.
Upvote
0
Standing_Ultraviolet
Dunkleosteus
- Jul 29, 2010
- 2,798
- 132
- 32
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I think that most of us here come from the perspective that the legality of alcohol is morally acceptable and that its use by adults is a right that can only be taken away under exceptional circumstances (ex., as a form of punishment in prison, or when someone is known to be an alcoholic with a history of DUI). Not all recreational mind altering substance use is intrinsically immoral, or even a bad idea. You may come here from a different perspective, and if you do, I would ask you why the Bible not only allowed for the production of wine in ancient Judah, but actually encouraged its use in ceremonies of both Jewish and Christian origin.
If marijuana only accomplishes the same thing as alcohol, and alcohol was acceptable to the writers of the Torah, why would marijuana legalization violate the tenets of Christianity?
People don't automatically obey the law anywhere, but that's not really the point here. It is currently illegal to smoke marijuana or to drive a vehicle while under its influence. People do both of those things. If marijuana were legal, it would still be illegal to drive while under its influence. People might still do that, but they would likely do the same thing now. Those who choose to drive while under the influence of intoxicating substances are not known for their good decision making or their willingness to obey the law. So, this is not really all that relevant to a discussion of whether marijuana should be legal.
The message that I am getting from this is that you believe that, because people are doing things that you believe are wrong, you believe that the country will collapse. However, violent crime rates and teen pregnancy rates are at a relatively low point right now. It's possible for almost anyone to get an education, even if that might not mean a lot given the state of the economy. Globally, life expectancy has risen dramatically, and infant mortality is lower in most parts of the world than it was in the past. Women and ethnic minorities have more rights in most countries than they ever have before.
The problems that I worry about in the future are issues like overpopulation, global climate change, and peak oil production. The spread of marijuana legalization, same-sex marriage, and other things like that may concern you, but you need to realize that not everyone sees those as a bad thing. We're approaching this from fundamentally different perspectives. Where you're seeing moral degradation and some sort of societal collapse here, I'm seeing something very different.
In the United States, STDs have a disproportionately high prevalence in the "Bible belt" region. Normally, this is the part where I would say that correlation doesn't equal causation in cases like this. Poverty is more widespread in that part of the country, more at-risk populations are present there, education is lower, etc. However, in this case, a lack of openness about sexuality might actually contribute to the problem.
Developing countries, despite having higher rates of religiosity, also has considerably higher rates of STD infection. The United States, which is among the most religious developed countries in the world, also has its highest infection rate. The map below has been compiled from World Health Organization information by Wikipedia user Lokal_Profil, and reflects DALY information regarding STDs other than HIV. Darker colors of yellow or amber indicate higher values.
You can see here that the highly religious countries of Africa (where the preponderance of people are either Christian or Muslim) have the highest rates of infection. South and Central America, with an immense Catholic population, also have a relatively high infection rate, and even the intensely conservative Middle East has more trouble with venereal disease than either secular Europe or the developed United States.
Rates of STD infection tend to be positively correlated more with low levels of education and income than with a non-religious worldview.
From the CDC website:
"Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV."
I'm sure you believe what you said here, but it's untrue, and potentially dangerous to someone who might decide not to use a condom because it "just isn't worth it".
Other problems you listed here are usually associated with either using defective condoms or not being instructed in their proper use.
First, I noted that some people (those who really are unethical and just want to use someone) are probably going to worry about themselves. That didn't really get answered here.
Legitimate sexual addiction probably exists in only a minority of cases. If you're a sex addict, then you might not act ethically, but that happens in only a minority of cases.
Definitely correct, but that's beside the point, because I do understand your argument. I'm capable of both understanding something, and believing that it is incorrect.
That might be your experience as a Christian, but it definitely wasn't mine. My experience was fraught with anxiety, stress, and cognitive dissonance. That's not why I left my religion, but if I had had some internal incentive to stay, I might have been able to cope with the dissonance better. Many people get a great deal of joy from their religious faith, and build their lives and social communities around it. I didn't have any of that, so it was easier to leave than it was to stay.
Upvote
0
D
dies-l
Guest
Please, don't put words in my mouth. I simply don't believe that human law is capable of producing a moral people or inhibiting immorality. It is a valuable tool for the physical protection of the recognized rights of a people from intrusion from others. It is impotent as a tool to enforce morality.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe that gluttony is immoral? If so, should it be illegal to eat more than you should?
Do you believe that lying is immoral? Should it therefore be a crime to tell even a "white" lie?
Do believe that engaging in lustful thoughts and attitudes is sinful? Should that, then, be a crime?
In short, the mere fact that something is immoral is not a sufficient basis for criminalizing it. If it was, we'd have a lot more laws, criminalizing a lot of things that currently perfectly legal. And, there would be no less sin in the world.
I do believe that Bible and God's infinite nature of purity, righteousness, and morality are the standard of how we should live. I just don't see the government is a proper vessel to to enforce that, nor do I think it just to incarcerate everyone who ever sins, as then we would all be in prison all the time.
No. Being a Christian with a basic level of intelligence led me to my conclusion. These same factors also led me into the practice of law. Being a lawyer has given me plenty of experience with the effect of drugs on society, and this experience has led me to the conclusion that marijuana is rather harmless as drugs go.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
It isn't pride. I would gladly sacrifice my free will and be a living puppet if I actually thought that there was a god. I tried multiple times to find religion, but most of what I found was distrust and superiority complexes, among other things. However, I have decided to be a good person because it is the right thing to do, not because of any perceived reward or punishment, just because I should do it. I abstain from sex and alcohol not because some god said no, but because I wanted to make healthy decisions for myself.
Due to the quirks of a social disorder, i almost never feel the emotion shame, and I have reduced feelings of pride. I am open about how I feel not because I feel any allegiance to it, but because I see no reason not to.
Upvote
0
Paradoxum
Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
- Sep 16, 2011
- 10,712
- 654
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
People don't have to say "We are going to take away people's liberty", for them to take away people's liberty. I think you know that really.
The nature of the issue is that people want to smoke, and that it is authoritarian to stop that. You may say that stress is an additional problem, but it isn't a deeper problem than liberty.
Advocating a less stressful life, and advocating people be free to do what they wish unless it harms others, are compatible. You can do both. Even if stress is the reason why people do these things (I don't think it is just stress) they should nevertheless be free to do them if they want to.
Also, liberty isn't merely an abstraction... the lack of it has real affects. That big metal door that locks people in prison is real, and the loss of money from a fine is real.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
LOVEthroughINTELLECT
The courage to be human
People don't have to say "We are going to take away people's liberty", for them to take away people's liberty. I think you know that really.
No, I don't know that.
Liberty is not something that I have thought about much. I would probably struggle to give a definition of it if asked to.
That is the way that some people see it.
I don't know about non-Americans, but it is my understanding that public opinion in the U.S. is moving towards repealing prohibition not because prohibition is authoritarian but because it is not working.
I said that we have a symptom, Americans are over-medicated and abuse all kinds of medical and non-medical substances, and that a possible cause of that symptom is the stress of our way of life.
Compatible does not necessarily mean equal.
If lack of liberty causes people to be over-medicated and abuse all kinds of medical and non-medical substances then every society where people lack some liberty would be over-medicated and abuse all kinds of medical and non-medical substances. But not every society in which people lack some liberty has that problem, so something other than lacking some liberty is the cause.
I think that we should spend our resources addressing the root causes of problems.
Also, liberty isn't merely an abstraction... the lack of it has real affects. That big metal door that locks people in prison is real, and the loss of money from a fine is real.
The lack of dignity has real effects. But dignity is an abstraction, not something concrete.
Liberty is the same.
Upvote
0
ChristianCenturion
Veteran / Tuebor
- Feb 9, 2005
- 14,188
- 576
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't believe it is hypocritical.
I have done drugs when I was young.
I knew people who did drugs... and know people who still do drugs; although, I myself do not do them any longer - one of many sins I have repented from and I'm still a work in progress as far as that tangent.
So, I know through experience that marijuana does affect one's thinking - it is a drug and people use it for a "reason," after all. So, even if I were not one guided by christian morality, I would be against people using it whenever they wished only to then go out in public to do whatever they wished (under the influence of said drug). Having it illegal tends to force it into a situation where they have to do it in privacy (secret) and can be held accountable if it becomes an issue where others have to deal with the consequences of one's "private" actions.
But I do strive to live my life by christian teaching; so, perhaps this might help reflect a little basis from that particular viewpoint:
Deut 21:19-21
Prov 23:20
1Tim 3:8
Eph 5:18
Titus 2:3
... and so on.
Obviously, there is a common sense pattern in christian teaching on dulling one's senses not being "a good thing." Can I, as a christian, drink wine, beer, or what-have-you? Put simply, yes. Are there "problems" with me drinking so much that I am affected? Put simply, yes. Therefore, I do not promote such for others and discourage it in certain ways - be that alcohol, drugs, etc.
As a side note-
It is my opinion that the opening post on this discussion topic might have several problems - for lack of a better description. One subtle one is that the opening post might be interpreted as opining that marijuana is "OK" and should be supported; while slightly implying that if others have a non-supportive opinion, there is hypocrisy... but perhaps that is just how it appeared to me at first glance. BTW - I would discourage smoking, drinking in excess, etc. as well.
As for the aspect of laws: here in the U.S., smoking cigarettes is limited as to who can or can't, where they can't smoke, etc. The same for alcohol and being "caught using" that in a manner that effects or can effect others (i.e. at the workplace, driving, responsible for taking care of others, etc.). So, even with what are implied as allegedly "acceptable drugs," it is not exactly a blanket allowance by a society.
Pitfalls in opinions or arguments similar to below might want to be avoided:
a, b, c (acts or things) are bad and people do, accept, or allow those, so x, y, z should be also.
Or perhaps the argument from ignorance - I have not seen accidents caused by this or that, so this or that should be acceptable (to others) until proven (to me) otherwise.
Or perhaps - "A" must lead to "B" (eg. low grade X must lead to hard drugs Y or Z); otherwise, "A" should be acceptable.
Upvote
0
ChristianCenturion
Veteran / Tuebor
- Feb 9, 2005
- 14,188
- 576
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Also, liberty isn't merely an abstraction... the lack of it has real affects. That big metal door that locks people in prison is real, and the loss of money from a fine is real.
Just a note: "IF" someone feels like they just "have" to do x or y, despite it being known to have legal or liberty consequences, and they do it anyway, doesn't that in itself reflect something about what they value?
Don't get me wrong, that cuts both ways. Civil rights activist demonstrated and protested peacefully AND suffered consequences - but I point out that many did so knowingly and willingly. Their value basis on the issue of race, I happen to agree with.
As for someone's "liberty" to do drugs such as marijuana: I do not share or support such a value basis.
IMHO - I also find a blanket argument of group A's liberties are being taken away or group A is being oppressed unless group B capitulates by abandoning their liberties or value system is... a common one. I am not persuaded by such though.
Upvote
0
Forest Wolf
Magical And Blessed
- Jul 7, 2013
- 1,127
- 40
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I think legalizing any mind altering substance provides the opportunity for abuse and consequences as with any other. Alcohol for instance.
I think the only reason the federal government is not stepping in on Washington and Colorado is it's a test market to see what occurs as to liability and profit for those states.
Prohibition doesn't usually work. But it does provide avenues for a criminal element to supply the demand. And prosecution provides revenue for the prosecutors. Making marijuana illegal makes for a profit now and these mere two states will show which is greater.
The nanny state model isn't effective either. People with a penchant for self destruction aren't going to be dissuaded by the laws that tell them they can't do that.
And in truth that's just fine with me. People who do stupid things that ends up killing them are simply electing to remove themselves from the gene pool. That's just good natural hygiene.
I think the only reason the federal government is not stepping in on Washington and Colorado is it's a test market to see what occurs as to liability and profit for those states.
Prohibition doesn't usually work. But it does provide avenues for a criminal element to supply the demand. And prosecution provides revenue for the prosecutors. Making marijuana illegal makes for a profit now and these mere two states will show which is greater.
The nanny state model isn't effective either. People with a penchant for self destruction aren't going to be dissuaded by the laws that tell them they can't do that.
And in truth that's just fine with me. People who do stupid things that ends up killing them are simply electing to remove themselves from the gene pool. That's just good natural hygiene.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Paradoxum
Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
- Sep 16, 2011
- 10,712
- 654
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Fair enough... I just assumed you would have.
What the majority thinks is the main issue isn't necessarily true.
Maybe they are over medicated, I don't know, but I can see how too much stress can be bad. I'd say that abuse of substances is a personal opinion. Do you think getting drunk is abuse? You can say it is unhealthy, but you can't tell me it is wrong, because I am free to accept harm if that is the way I wish to live my life.
I wasn't saying that a lack of liberty leads to substance abuse.
Dignity seems to generally be meaningless, but it can mean something useful if defined well, and in some circumstances.
I explained how liberty has real affects, and if it refers to a real difference, then it isn't just an abstraction. It depends what you mean by called it an abstraction. It isn't a lump of matter, but that doesn't mean the concept is less important or real.
You could say that anything is an abstraction if you want to ignore its real effects. 'There is no harm, only a change in biological structure'. Over-medication and abuse are abstractions. 'Problem' is an abstraction. Nothing you are saying is any more about raw lumps of matter than what I am.
I don't know what point you are making here.
You don't have to think soft drugs are moral to support the liberty of others. If you don't support peoples liberty though, that makes you authoritarian. There is no other way round it. If you aren't for legalisation, then you can't say you value liberty. You also have no basis for saying that people should support your freedom of religion, even if they disagree.
Group B doesn't have to abandon their liberties and values. It just means group B loses their privilege of being able to force their values on others... by kidnapping them and sticking them behind bars. Group B can say drugs are wrong, and still have all the liberties they had before, while allowing others to live their lives how they wish.
All we are asking for is for people to live their own lives. You can pray, and I can smoke, and we can both be free and happy (not that I do that alot... I'm just using me as an example). That is what it means to live in a free country.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ChristianCenturion
Veteran / Tuebor
- Feb 9, 2005
- 14,188
- 576
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I apologize that I didn't lay an integrated concept out in a more comprehensible way, but I'm fine with letting stand as is.
Ah, and herein lay the "liberty of others" crux... I'll put it as plainly as possible:
I, as an individual with alleged equal "liberties," do not have to "support" anything.
I'll help correct your error there:
I speak (post) for myself.
You do not speak (post) for me - simple fact and logic.
Unless you show where I stated (as your post fabricated it) that " you (I) don't support peoples liberty," this is easily seen as the tactic of pushing a very specific context into the broad, disconnected, or overgeneralized. Personally, I like seeing this done - in that it simply reflects what was actually stated stands and wasted effort to fashion a replacement is necessary by the opposing viewpoint.
So, I suppose that I should thank you.
Thank you.
While I understand that "labels" are, especially labels hinting negative connotations (eg. ad hominem), inevitable when discussing moral or ethical issues with certain mindsets, I believe that you are well out of your realm of "authority" to dictate what I am or am not. And if you check my response above, I believe that I plainly outlined the "other way round it."
"If" I were to even entertain the notion that you are an "authority" as to what qualifies as authoritarianism, please note a very simple definition and what it also has to include here from a credible source:
authoritarianism
I've already broken down your strawman above, but perhaps this may help clarify the nature of your own post for you:
Strawman
Correction:
Group B (at least where I live) would also have rights along with liberties. Rights such as equal representation and say regarding laws, legislation, regulation, the spending of taxes, and so on. I believe that you will find that when trying to dictate that group B must abandon said rights, you are in fact denying certain liberties at the same time: such is a problem with a hypocrisy ridden position of overgeneralized liberty. If it helps, here is another definition to review:
Liberty
By all means, live your life.All we are asking for is for people to live their own lives. You can pray, and I can smoke, and we can both be free and happy (not that I do that alot... I'm just using me as an example). That is what it means to live in a free country.
And technically, people are 'free' to do even illegal things - just because there is a law, does not mean a magic wand makes something resolved, disappear, or even right or wrong for that matter. It simply means a law exists - there is either a temporary support for such a law or there isn't.
In this instance and topic, I happen to agree with marijuana being illegal.
I am free to express that... and free to express the same to my representatives, government, and fellow citizens. It is a government shared by a variety of citizens after all.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
There is more to it than just peoples liberty and their rights to be able to do something. The decision to allow something has to be also made as a society and what we think is best for all not just one group or another. The problem is some start to push the equal rights thing to far and then it becomes more about self than about what is good for all. We have to set some levels of standards otherwise things will just be a free for all. There is always going to be that element of rebellion against what is the general consensus as to what is right and decent and people will what to live how they want to. We should be able to have free lives but within a code of certain conducts which most agree is doing the right thing. But what i see happening is a push for self rights and to allow many of our standards to be compromised in the name of peoples rights.
The trouble is when we leave it up to ourselves we tend to end up falling short of setting a good standard. Because we have no real foundation as to what is right and wrong we end up allowing many things which will break down any models we have put in place. We allow alcohol but we dont really set any real guidelines or maintain good standards for its use. Sure we have laws which say you cant drink and drive but there isn't a law to get wiped out at a party or allow or set poor examples for the young. Its always the ones who cant handle it that we need to consider but we overlook that because we want to be able to have the freedom to make decisions for themselves and so its hard to have restrictions that cater for those who get in trouble with drinking. They end up being taken care of by the charities because no one else wants to know.
So our wants for freedom and the rights at all costs to choose will also have affects on society overall and in the end it will cost us anyway. Those who cant handle it will cost us money through accidents, rehabs, crime and family and community breakdowns. So allowing pot as well will just be an extension of this. But its almost like it has got to a point where rather than see that alcohol has already done so much damage we are saying well if we can have one we can have the other because its a rights issue rather than a health issue. Its almost like society as a whole is slowly becoming an addict with an unmanageable life bit by bit. Adding more and more to the problems but in denial about what it is really doing. Just like an addict we only want to see whats in front of us and just want the feel good of what it gives us right here and now.
So we are way beyond any point of having some decent standards that will bring things under control. We are slowly getting out of control. If we allow pot then it is just another subconscious message to say well what else is ok to take. We already have enough of a problem with all the other drugs and their associated problems and we are getting totally out of control. We are slowly going mad and mental illness is becoming an everyday occurrence. So two wrongs dont make a right and neither do three or four wrongs. But thats where we are at so far away from any control and standards as to what is the right or wrong thing to do. This is because i believe it is the age of self and an individualism. What are the individuals rights and nobody can tell me what to do with my body or my life. So we end up allowing just about anything. The young pick this up and we have been so busy trying to protect their rights that we have created an whole new monster that is getting out of control.
The trouble is when we leave it up to ourselves we tend to end up falling short of setting a good standard. Because we have no real foundation as to what is right and wrong we end up allowing many things which will break down any models we have put in place. We allow alcohol but we dont really set any real guidelines or maintain good standards for its use. Sure we have laws which say you cant drink and drive but there isn't a law to get wiped out at a party or allow or set poor examples for the young. Its always the ones who cant handle it that we need to consider but we overlook that because we want to be able to have the freedom to make decisions for themselves and so its hard to have restrictions that cater for those who get in trouble with drinking. They end up being taken care of by the charities because no one else wants to know.
So our wants for freedom and the rights at all costs to choose will also have affects on society overall and in the end it will cost us anyway. Those who cant handle it will cost us money through accidents, rehabs, crime and family and community breakdowns. So allowing pot as well will just be an extension of this. But its almost like it has got to a point where rather than see that alcohol has already done so much damage we are saying well if we can have one we can have the other because its a rights issue rather than a health issue. Its almost like society as a whole is slowly becoming an addict with an unmanageable life bit by bit. Adding more and more to the problems but in denial about what it is really doing. Just like an addict we only want to see whats in front of us and just want the feel good of what it gives us right here and now.
So we are way beyond any point of having some decent standards that will bring things under control. We are slowly getting out of control. If we allow pot then it is just another subconscious message to say well what else is ok to take. We already have enough of a problem with all the other drugs and their associated problems and we are getting totally out of control. We are slowly going mad and mental illness is becoming an everyday occurrence. So two wrongs dont make a right and neither do three or four wrongs. But thats where we are at so far away from any control and standards as to what is the right or wrong thing to do. This is because i believe it is the age of self and an individualism. What are the individuals rights and nobody can tell me what to do with my body or my life. So we end up allowing just about anything. The young pick this up and we have been so busy trying to protect their rights that we have created an whole new monster that is getting out of control.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
LOVEthroughINTELLECT
The courage to be human
I would add that an argument could be made that people are so busy clamoring about liberty that they fail to see that they are being manipulated.
Bread and circuses make people easier to control and distract them from the real sources of their oppression.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
They are easily manipulated and swayed because we have no foundation of what is right and what is wrong or what is acceptable or not. Because we allow many rights and just about any rights it compromises there being any solid foundation for building a decent society. Soon it will be OK for anything goes because its a rights issue and we have the right to live and do as we please.
We need to get God back into the equation and realize that there is a reason why following Gods ways works. It not only sets a good standard but it saves us from health problems and financial problems and even keeps the environment clean. One of the core beliefs is to treat your body as a temple. So you try to stay away from things like drugs. But then you will also realize that the environment is the same. Jesus taught to do unto others as you would like done to you. In the bible when the society followed Gods ways they lived in harmony and didn't have all those problems.
Sure you have your everyday hassles but thats just a normal part of life. But things didn't get that out of hand with massive crime. There were not only consequences as far as punishment for wrong doing there is also the spiritual side in that a person feels the guilt of sinning against God and being separated from him. There is a reason for living a good life because Jesus is in your life and you want to do it not because you have to abide by a bunch of dos and dont's. Yes this system of doing things entraps you rather than sets you free. You think that you have happiness and liberty but little do you realize all the restrictions and things you have to do to have that way of life. Id rather go and find a little piece of land and look after myself far away from all that.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Standing_Ultraviolet
Dunkleosteus
- Jul 29, 2010
- 2,798
- 132
- 32
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I think that most of us would agree that there is a certain code of conduct that people should have to obey. The problem is, that code really should be as basic as possible. Good people differ on the morality or immorality of certain actions. A given person might want to have sexual intercourse before marriage, while another believes that his actions are immoral. Another might want to drink alcohol, while another believes that all alcohol intake is immoral. Marijuana falls into that list of things where good and reasonable people disagree on its morality or immorality. A code of conduct that dictates human behavior should be something that any reasonable person can agree with in theory, even if they violate it in practice. Imposing the morality of one group of reasonable people on another group who might not share that morality is problematic.
The problem with this reasoning is that there are quite a few things that can be dangerous when misused. A person who drinks alcohol has the ability to decide whether they are going to use it to excess or not, or whether they're going to participate in high risk behaviors that lead to alcoholism. Similar things are true in regard to driving a vehicle. Someone who drives a car down the road has the ability to use it improperly by speeding, or to participate in high risk behavior by running a red light.
If I am responsibly drinking a beer with friends while watching television, I should not be imprisoned because someone else might irresponsibly drink several beers and get behind the wheel of a car. The idea of imprisoning an innocent person because they have the tools to behave in the same way as a guilty person is abhorrent for a reason. The same is true with marijuana.
At the point when laws become too paternalistic, you can absolutely become an authoritarian.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
I can see where you are coming from and I know as i use to smoke pot as well so i can see both sides of the story. But there seems to be a sub conscience or even denial aspect happening as well about what is really going on. The justifications by using examples of reasonableness to allow the rights of people to do things that in the end are not good for you. No matter which way you look at it its like the thin edge of the wedge. It will either slowly and progressively affect your health both physically and more importantly mentally. Or for some it will progress onto other things. The mind state of allowing these things also lowers boundaries and standards to accept that if this can happen then other things that are associated with it can be allowed as well.
I just worry about this freedom to do what i want thing. Jesus talks about self sacrifice and it is about the opposite quite often. About not putting yourself first and thinking about others and what is best for all. Its not just about self pleasure and satisfaction and everything doesn't revolve around what desires an individual should have. We seem to base our lives on wanting to feel good and quite often this is a need for some sort of stimulation.
Prescription drugs have become one of the biggest abused drugs in modern society. The trouble is we are all taking all this stuff to make life seem better but it seems to be making it worse. The rate of depression and suicide is going up and mental illness is increasing. It just seems we are slowly losing control. Yes there are those who say they can control it and may never develop a problem. But its a bit like cigarette smoking. Years ago we said the same thing and now we have high death rates from smoking related diseases. People are now suing tobacco companies for the harm they have caused. Though you say an individual has the right to do this or that it can also have an affect on society as a whole in the long run. Whens it going to end and do we really know where all this is going to lead. What about the natural high of life. Jesus said i have come to give life and give it abundantly. But p[people would rather try 101 different other ways to find that life and not God.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
