Pot legalization

[ExodusMe]

Because I believe that society ultimately acts in what it sees as it's best interests for self preservation, and I also agree with that principle, someone could say that my belief is an "article of faith".

Is that the way you're using the word "religious" in this discussion?

Pretty much. I am using it to describe any type of meta-ethic of an individual. Religion should not be understood as only beliefs concerning a god or diety, etc... Believe it or not there are Buddhist atheists. I am sure we would call them religious.

Nah, that's not what I'm proposing. I'm saying that the harm done to society by criminalizing things like marijuana (in terms of the financial cost of imprisonment, the human cost of putting otherwise lawful individuals into the penal system, the human cost in terms of subsidizing violent drug cartels that exist only due to the prohibition of their product, etc) far outweighs the negligible harm done to the individual simply due to getting high. So, IMHO, keeping it illegal on the balance of things is a stupid thing to do.

I wouldn't, however, tell you to vote that way. Let your conscience be your guide.

Yeah, maybe this is where your deism is playing out. Christianity believes God is intimately involved in our world and desires for all people to come to a knowledge of him. I want abusers of marijuana to know the grace offered to them through our Lord Jesus.

And tons of people smoke marijuana for reasons other than getting high. My mom, before she passed of pancreatic cancer, thought about getting some marijuana for the pain. She didn't see cancer as her excuse to now go out and live a life of drug induced debauchery. No, she wanted something to reduce the pain she was experiencing, didn't like opioids, and heard that pot might be an effective alternative.

There are lots of people in similar situations.

By all means, if people want to use it as a pain killer or appetite inducer, then they should get a prescription from a doctor. We are talking about the legalized recreational use of marijuana.

 

[ExodusMe]

I must be far more cynical than you...lol When I think of world history and our experience with theocracies, I see nothing but a lot of running, screaming, people being burned at the stake, beheadings, people being drowned to determine if they're witches, etc... I can't think of a single example of a theocracy that has ever been a benefit to it's citizens.

Yeah I don't know. I am probably just sick of democracy considering our current political climate.

 

[DZoolander]

Yeah I don't know. I am probably just sick of democracy considering our current political climate.

Yeah, there's a lot of nonsense going on nowadays here as well.

 

[mkgal1]

Pretty much. I am using it to describe any type of meta-ethic of an individual. Religion should not be understood as only beliefs concerning a god or diety, etc... Believe it or not there are Buddhist atheists. I am sure we would call them religious.

I wouldn't call them "religious"--that is secular Buddhism:

Secular Buddhism—sometimes also referred to as agnostic Buddhism, Buddhist agnosticism, ignostic Buddhism, atheistic Buddhism, pragmatic Buddhism, Buddhist atheism, or Buddhist secularism—is a broad term for an emerging form of Buddhism and secular spirituality that is based on humanist, skeptical, and/or agnostic values, as well as pragmatism and (often) naturalism, rather than religious (or more specifically supernatural or paranormal) beliefs.

 

[ExodusMe]

I wouldn't call them "religious"--that is secular Buddhism:

Secular Buddhism—sometimes also referred to as agnostic Buddhism, Buddhist agnosticism, ignostic Buddhism, atheistic Buddhism, pragmatic Buddhism, Buddhist atheism, or Buddhist secularism—is a broad term for an emerging form of Buddhism and secular spirituality that is based on humanist, skeptical, and/or agnostic values, as well as pragmatism and (often) naturalism, rather than religious (or more specifically supernatural or paranormal) beliefs.

Yeah I get what they are trying to do. Atheists don't like the term religion because it associates them with beliefs not founded on empirical evidence, so they attempt to separate themselves by coming up with different language.

My qualm would be that there is no objective basis for morality or ethics in evolutionary naturalism, so although I completely understand atheists don't want to be called religious - I still see their beliefs concerning morality and ethics as religious.

Not sure what your beef is with this as it doesn't seem like it adds to the discussion. We are all talking about meta-ethical principles.

If you want to give approval for people to sin I would beware of Romans 1:32 and the hypocrisy of your signature. How are you loving people if you do not wish to help protect them through the laws of our nation?

 

[mkgal1]

I still see their beliefs concerning morality and ethics as religious.

Not sure what your beef is with this as it doesn't seem like it adds to the discussion. We are all talking about meta-ethical principles.

If you want to give approval for people to sin I would beware of Romans 1:32 and the hypocrisy of your signature. How are you loving people if you do not wish to help protect them through the laws of our nation?

I believe that defining things accurately---especially in discussions like this--is pretty critical. We can't label all ethics as "religious"---it's simply not true (and I believe it *is* critical to this discussion---although I may not have the time or attention to formulate a post explaining *why* just now).

About my signature here...(what you called "hypocrisy")? Personally......I don't believe there's genuine love without freedom. The parable of the Prodigal Son may be the ultimate example of that from the Bible. The younger son was free to take his inheritance early and go live as he pleased--AWAY from the Father (but he was welcome back ). Unless people are making choices of their own free will......they aren't acting genuinely.....and if I expect certain behavior from others under duress, I'm not loving them....I'm controlling them.

With our laws, though---that's not necessarily about love.....it's about the safety and betterment of society, so external compulsion (controlling, even) is appropriate. IOW.....even if I, personally, don't care about or love my neighbor.....I still need to be in compliance and held accountable to drive safely on our shared roads.

There's just too many things being tangled together here. People need to be able to come to their own conclusions (again....in the Parable of the Prodigal---the text says, "he came to himself [his senses]"). "Protecting others" from themselves isn't truly helping them (or loving them). Where would we stop? What if an employer has an employee that is eating donuts and soda for lunch every day? Should his job be threatened? Should other employees be taking his lunch from him and placing (their opinion of) a healthier lunch in front of him? Do you see that as "loving"? Should a law be passed that we need to consume the 5 servings of veggies a day (and look out and make sure our family, friends, and neighbors are complying?). Should Fridays be "no meat Fridays"? If so.....how would we enforce that?

I have friends that grew up in communist countries......maybe you need to find some people with that experience to speak to? I don't think that's what the Kingdom of God is all about (which I do agree with you.....that's in the Bible that it's here an now....but that's NOT controlling others with rules). Have you watched the Handmaid's Tale?

 

[mkgal1]

Christianity believes God is intimately involved in our world and desires for all people to come to a knowledge of him. I want abusers of marijuana to know the grace offered to them through our Lord Jesus.

I'm fully on-board with the belief that God is "intimately involved in our world and desires for all people to come to a knowledge of Him".....but I'm just not grasping how pot factors into that?

 

[mkgal1]

I am looking for you to define why it is okay for someone to hurt themselves, but not okay to hurt other people. Isn't that kind of incompassionate? What if the person does not have the moral maturity to make good decisions for their own body? Are you okay with letting that person hurt themselves by smoking marijuana? Is your expectation that they will 'figure it out' on their own?

We do have a couple of family members that have smoked marijuana for years (and only know because they say so....). I don't know that they are even "hurting themselves"---both of them have chronic pain and don't want to take pain pills (I'm not sure if that's the main reason for smoking....but whatever, it's up to them). Their use doesn't infringe on any other family member's life....and, as far as I can tell, it's not "hurting them". They are both over 50 years old--and have smoked since they were teenagers.

OTOH......we have another family friend that has a cousin that had surgery where the surgeon nicked a nerve and did permanent damage (I'm not aware of any more details than that). This gal--prior to her surgery--had a great job and was very active. Now.....she's unable to work....and breaks off small pieces of pain pills all day, but never has relief.

IMO......if I were to approach ANY of these people and impose MY ideas of how they ought to be handling their pain (never experiencing pain like that myself) and especially combining my opinion with any mention of God--it would be *me*, not the substances, that were a barrier or obstacle to God's love and mercy.

 

[ExodusMe]

I believe that defining things accurately---especially in discussions like this--is pretty critical. We can't label all ethics as "religious"---it's simply not true (and I believe it *is* critical to this discussion---although I may not have the time or attention to formulate a post explaining *why* just now).

I am being specific. You just don't understand why I am using religion in that manner. Why are their beliefs not religious? Because they don't identify with a 'religion'? What is 'religion'? I see any meta-ethical claims to the nature of reality as religious. If you want to dispute that, then show me why they are not religious.

My problem is that secular society labels my beliefs as religious while it forces it's own religious beliefs on me. For instance, secular government redefining marriage to include same sex partners would be religious beliefs of secularism. I don't really care to argue about this as it doesn't seem like it is relevant.

About my signature here...(what you called "hypocrisy")? Personally......I don't believe there's genuine love without freedom. The parable of the Prodigal Son may be the ultimate example of that from the Bible. The younger son was free to take his inheritance early and go live as he pleased--AWAY from the Father (but he was welcome back ). Unless people are making choices of their own free will......they aren't acting genuinely.....and if I expect certain behavior from others under duress, I'm not loving them....I'm controlling them.

Laws do not control people. Laws determine right from wrong. We have clearly made laws against murder. People can still murder one another. Likewise, if you believe smoking marijuana is sin, then you should not vote to legalize marijuana. In no way have we removed the free-will from a person to smoke weed. If a person wants to abuse drugs there are plenty of opportunities in America.

With our laws, though---that's not necessarily about love.....it's about the safety and betterment of society, so external compulsion (controlling, even) is appropriate. IOW.....even if I, personally, don't care about or love my neighbor.....I still need to be in compliance and held accountable to drive safely on our shared roads.

You think the primary use of laws is to better society? How does it better society? If you are a Christian your answer would be that it brings people into a relationship with Jesus Christ our Lord and King. Does smoking weed help that?

There's just too many things being tangled together here. People need to be able to come to their own conclusions (again....in the Parable of the Prodigal---the text says, "he came to himself [his senses]"). "Protecting others" from themselves isn't truly helping them (or loving them). Where would we stop? What if an employer has an employee that is eating donuts and soda for lunch every day? Should his job be threatened? Should other employees be taking his lunch from him and placing (their opinion of) a healthier lunch in front of him? Do you see that as "loving"? Should a law be passed that we need to consume the 5 servings of veggies a day (and look out and make sure our family, friends, and neighbors are complying). I have friends that grew up in communist countries......maybe you need to find some people with that experience to speak to? I don't think that's what the Kingdom of God is all about (which I do agree with you.....that's in the Bible that it's here an now....but that's NOT controlling others with rules). Have you watched the Handmaid's Tale?

My argument against the legalization of pot was not that it is not healthy. It was that it is a sin to be drunk or high. Your argument for controlling peoples intake of vegetables would be irrelevant in this case. I have already shown that making laws against the legalization of pot does nothing to prevent the free will of humans as we have laws against murder and humans are still able to murder one another. You have just retorted with illogical arguments that are not relevant to the points I am making.

I'm fully on-board with the belief that God is "intimately involved in our world and desires for all people to come to a knowledge of Him".....but I'm just not grasping how pot factors into that?

The bible explicitly states not to be drunk/high and that we are to be filled by the Holy Spirit. I am not sure how much more clear it can be made for you...

 

[ExodusMe]

We do have a couple of family members that have smoked marijuana for years (and only know because they say so....). I don't know that they are even "hurting themselves"---both of them have chronic pain and don't want to take pain pills (I'm not sure if that's the main reason for smoking....but whatever, it's up to them). Their use doesn't infringe on any other family member's life....and, as far as I can tell, it's not "hurting them". They are both over 50 years old--and have smoked since they were teenagers.

OTOH......we have another family friend that has a cousin that had surgery where the surgeon nicked a nerve and did permanent damage (I'm not aware of any more details than that). This gal--prior to her surgery--had a great job and was very active. Now.....she's unable to work....and breaks off small pieces of pain pills all day, but never has relief.

IMO......if I were to approach ANY of these people and impose MY ideas of how they ought to be handling their pain (never experiencing pain like that myself) and especially combining my opinion with any mention of God--it would be *me*, not the substances, that were a barrier or obstacle to God's love and mercy.

I've already clarified numerous times that I am talking about the recreational use of marijuana. You may not be qualified to determine what is the best way to handle their pain, but a doctor would be. In which case, they should get a prescription for their treatment.

 

[mkgal1]

Why are their beliefs not religious? Because they don't identify with a 'religion'? What is 'religion'?

That may be better discussed in a new thread. But--short answer: "religion is how we understand our relationship to God". If one doesn't believe in a God....then it's not religion, but merely ethics/morality.

 

[DZoolander]

My problem is that secular society labels my beliefs as religious while it forces it's own religious beliefs on me. For instance, secular government redefining marriage to include same sex partners would be religious beliefs of secularism. I don't really care to argue about this as it doesn't seem like it is relevant.

That's an interesting point of view. You believe that secular society has forced something to do with gay marriage on to you?

 

[mkgal1]

Laws do not control people. Laws determine right from wrong. We have clearly made laws against murder. People can still murder one another. Likewise, if you believe smoking marijuana is sin, then you should not vote to legalize marijuana. In no way have we removed the free-will from a person to smoke weed. If a person wants to abuse drugs there are plenty of opportunities in America.

This is the problem with conflating "religion" and "laws" right here. I posted in response to you mentioning my signature (and calling it "hypocrisy")...and in response to that, you are switching gears back to LAW. To stay on topic.....we ought to stick merely with law (and leave out the accusations of hypocrisy and "not loving" others).

 

[DZoolander]

laws are not just statements of right and wrong. Laws carry punishments when they are disobeyed.

 

[mkgal1]

You may not be qualified to determine what is the best way to handle their pain, but a doctor would be. In which case, they should get a prescription for their treatment.

The doctors had told both of them there's nothing more they can suggest for the pain. Why would a script drug be better (in your opinion)? Right now.....there's no legal issue, they are both legal (here). Have you read about pain killers and the side effects....how our bodies need more...and how addiction rates are high?

Regardless.....what does it really matter what the reason is for using/smoking marijuana--if there's no sign of "harm"?

 

[mkgal1]

My problem is that secular society labels my beliefs as religious while it forces it's own religious beliefs on me. For instance, secular government redefining marriage to include same sex partners would be religious beliefs of secularism.

That's an interesting point of view. You believe that secular society has forced something to do with gay marriage on to you?

...just bringing this forward.

 

[DZoolander]

...screech! Straight to a halt lol

 

[Albion]

...to which my reply was "Well, what's the worst thing that will happen if prescriptions are abused? An increase in demand on late night junk food & taco bell?"

Dunno - what do you think?

What I think is that you have taken pains to cover for all the rest of what Marijuana use does to a person.

 

[mkgal1]

What I think is that you have taken pains to cover for all the rest of what Marijuana use does to a person.

....what does it do to society, though? Isn't that the basis in which laws are written?

 

[Albion]

....what does it do to society, though? Isn't that the basis in which laws are written?

Certainly, but use will increase when it's legal everywhere, and it poses many of the same societal problems that alcoholism does, but moreso. I thought about itemizing all the behavioral changes that come with routine and frequent use, but I am sure that you know what they are. My point is that whichever way this goes, we should not talk as though feeling mellow is the whole picture.