Most religions are exclusionary, meaning only one can be right (if any at all). Additionally, various religions have a number of harmful consequences (as history shows) and have been proven to be wrong on a number of important matters by science in recent history (medicine, astronomy, the works). Yet they can also be used for good (they inspire people to help others for example). However, despite the good that religion can accomplish, some argue that it is unethical to indoctrinate children with religious views. Yet it remains the right of individual parents to choose to do this, despite what the consequences may be for society. This is a personal liberty and I'm sure those who practice religion are quite happy to have freedom of the same.
So I ask how can those who practice religion be opposed to the legalization of drugs, particularly the relatively harmless cannabis without being a hypocrite? Is it ok to be a hypocrite? Why isn't cannabis a personal decision for those who choose to believe that it's benefits outweigh it's negative aspects (particularly with responsible use)? What moral right do you have to support its illegalization in a supposedly free country?
Consider all of the evidence we have that the war on drugs is extremly harmful (I'll provide if anyone doubts). If drugs were legal, you would still have the right to support awareness campaigns to convince people to freely choose not to do drugs just as we do with alcohol and tobaco. Most wouldn't go anywhere near the hard/addictive/dangerous drugs even if they were legal (unless they were already addicted of course). They already know better.
Having paused for a moment to ponder your position on the war on drugs, please answer the following questions if you will.
1) If you support the "war", is enforcing your personal beliefs concerning the morality of drug use more important to you than the freedom of other people to reject that belief and act accordingly? Particularly in the case of cannabis?
2) How would you feel about a secular country that deemed religion a dangerous mental intoxicant and strongly regulated and/or prohibited its use (ala communist regimes)? Do you notice any similarities between the inability of these regimes to squash out religion and the western world's inability to squash out drug use?
3) After considering the previous questions, would you be willing to support legislation intended to legalize the use, manufacture and sale of cannabis and hemp in the united states? If not support, then would you at least avoid opposing it and perhaps convince others? Why or why not?
4) If you still support the war on drugs, then how about a war on unhealthy foods, which can cause serious death and dicease when abused? Should such a "war" be waged by government? Should the "criminals" (people that eat banned unhealthy foods) of such a war be sent to jail and/or fined?
You get the idea.
So I ask how can those who practice religion be opposed to the legalization of drugs, particularly the relatively harmless cannabis without being a hypocrite? Is it ok to be a hypocrite? Why isn't cannabis a personal decision for those who choose to believe that it's benefits outweigh it's negative aspects (particularly with responsible use)? What moral right do you have to support its illegalization in a supposedly free country?
Consider all of the evidence we have that the war on drugs is extremly harmful (I'll provide if anyone doubts). If drugs were legal, you would still have the right to support awareness campaigns to convince people to freely choose not to do drugs just as we do with alcohol and tobaco. Most wouldn't go anywhere near the hard/addictive/dangerous drugs even if they were legal (unless they were already addicted of course). They already know better.
Having paused for a moment to ponder your position on the war on drugs, please answer the following questions if you will.
1) If you support the "war", is enforcing your personal beliefs concerning the morality of drug use more important to you than the freedom of other people to reject that belief and act accordingly? Particularly in the case of cannabis?
2) How would you feel about a secular country that deemed religion a dangerous mental intoxicant and strongly regulated and/or prohibited its use (ala communist regimes)? Do you notice any similarities between the inability of these regimes to squash out religion and the western world's inability to squash out drug use?
3) After considering the previous questions, would you be willing to support legislation intended to legalize the use, manufacture and sale of cannabis and hemp in the united states? If not support, then would you at least avoid opposing it and perhaps convince others? Why or why not?
4) If you still support the war on drugs, then how about a war on unhealthy foods, which can cause serious death and dicease when abused? Should such a "war" be waged by government? Should the "criminals" (people that eat banned unhealthy foods) of such a war be sent to jail and/or fined?
You get the idea.
