The Christian case for drug law reform...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • PaulF

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 4, 2009
    3,045
    83
    Indianapolis
    David Simpson via TribTalk.org said:

    I found this article interesting. As neither a conservative nor a Christian I am curious as to how well this message resounds with its intended audience. Does it sound reasonable to you? Why or why not?

    I am all for decriminalization of Marijuana. In fact, I would like to go much farther, will full recreational legalization of Marijuana, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and MDMA (Ecstasy). There is a difference between occasional drug use and drug addiction. The creation and support of black markets only increases the criminal activity associated with drug use, which in turn serves to legitimize an ever-increasing police state atmosphere.

    What does INGO think?
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    I found this article interesting. As neither a conservative nor a Christian I am curious as to how well this message resounds with its intended audience. Does it sound reasonable to you? Why or why not?

    I am all for decriminalization of Marijuana. In fact, I would like to go much farther, will full recreational legalization of Marijuana, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and MDMA (Ecstasy). There is a difference between occasional drug use and drug addiction. The creation and support of black markets only increases the criminal activity associated with drug use, which in turn serves to legitimize an ever-increasing police state atmosphere.

    What does INGO think?


    My thoughts would be in general agreement with the position of the author. I have always viewed the argument more from the moderation viewpoint not the plants are natural viewpoint.

    What you speak of and what I didn't see with a cursory reading in the article itself, is the Meth stuff.

    In my view, his support breaks down in the designer drug stuff like Meth and Ecstasy. He could extend his argument by saying God gave human beings creativity and attempt to stretch that to cover "cooked" drugs. The resistance of some will be based on the plants in their natural state do not have the concentrations found in the drugs on the street.

    I am not all that knowledgeable of the drug culture though. My known experience has been being around people smoking pot.

    What his article did for me was provide an avenue for incremental change which I had not thought of before.

    Lift the prohibitions on the plant based stuff first. See how it goes for a few years then release the chemical cookers.

    My question back to you is, if we do lift all restrictions including those cooked to high concentrations, should we also do away with prescriptions for medications? It seems to me the logic would say yes.
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    I found this article interesting. As neither a conservative nor a Christian I am curious as to how well this message resounds with its intended audience. Does it sound reasonable to you? Why or why not?

    I am all for decriminalization of Marijuana. In fact, I would like to go much farther, will full recreational legalization of Marijuana, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and MDMA (Ecstasy). There is a difference between occasional drug use and drug addiction. The creation and support of black markets only increases the criminal activity associated with drug use, which in turn serves to legitimize an ever-increasing police state atmosphere.

    What does INGO think?
    i didn't read the article yet but I agree with your stance on the issue and feel the same, however I would I guess consider myself conservative (not republican, deffinately not a democRAT or an anarchist). I won't let my religious views have an impact on my politics decisions, I'll judge people by their values not who they pray to, unless they are Muslim radicals.
    i have a feeling trump is gonna go all Nixon and DEA agent Elvis on us
    and boost the war on drugs. If so I'll disagree with him and think it's a damn shame. But I'll still like him
     

    SmileDocHill

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    61   0   0
    Mar 26, 2009
    6,159
    113
    Westfield
    Not until the government is out of the 'paying for ramifications and complications of your actions' business entirely. After that, sure, what's it to me.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    We have perhaps one historical example to seek wisdom from

    Have the sum total of the effects of ratification of the 21st amendment been a net positive, net negative or net neutral for America. This analysis should include all the lives affected by alcohol abuse and those who abuse alcohol balanced against the rise of organized crime and other negative effects I may be missing
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    [h=1]Ephesians 5:18King James Version (KJV)[/h] [SUP]18 [/SUP]And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;


    Besides the obvious admonition from the Lord to not be drunk or high, when those of lesser means need their fix, they rob, steal and murder, and drug use is not a victim-less crime. It`s unfortunate that prohibition failed, because alcohol has taken a great many lives and ruined a great deal more lives.
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    My opinion has been that prohibitions are bad policy. As long as there is a demand, there will be suppliers. Making the entire market illegal does nothing to eliminate it. If our alcohol and drug prohibitions have taught us anything, it's that the market stays strong, with suppliers getting much wealthier than they otherwise would, and consumers become more desperate. Murder, robbery and other violent crimes increase as a result.

    It seems shameful to me that Christians are the biggest supporters of these prohibitions, but at the same time it is easily understood. An effort to eliminate evil seems like a good thing. But it creates more evil than it stops, so the icing on the cake is bad. But let's look at the cake. It amounts to laziness. Instead of getting our hands dirty and getting involved, instead of ministering to those suffering from substance abuse, we abdicate all of that to government and wash our hands of the dirty masses.

    If we want people to stop hurting themselves and their families, let's minister to them. Turning our backs on them and asking government to smash them so they'll go away and stop bothering us is not modeling Christ.
     
    Last edited:

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,148
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I think it goes against the general Christian view that harmful elements came into the world because of the fall of mankind. I don't see this being a particularly effective argument with especially the evangelical demominations who emphasize the differences between the nature of mankind and the state of the world before and after the fall of man.

    A better argument would be that it is not Government's place to determine what is or is not a sin, that is up to one's own conscience. Probably that is still a hard lift for many denominations who already believe that it is their duty to have their government and laws reflect their values.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    My opinion has been that prohibitions are bad policy. As long as there is a demand, there will be suppliers. Making the entire market illegal does nothing to eliminate it. If our alcohol and drug prohibitions have taught us anything, it's that the market stays strong, with suppliers getting much wealthier than they otherwise would, and consumers become more desperate. Murder, robbery and other violent crimes increase as a result.

    It seems shameful to me that Christians are the biggest supporters of these prohibitions, but at the same time it is easily understood. An effort to eliminate evil seems like a good thing. But it creates more evil than it stops, so the icing on the cake is bad. But let's look at the cake. It amounts to laziness. Instead of getting our hands dirty and getting involved, instead of ministering to those suffering from substance abuse, we abdicate all of that to government and wash our hands of the dirty masses.

    If we want people to stop hurting themselves and their families, let's minister to them. Turning our backs on them and asking government to smash them so they'll go away and stop bothering us.

    I agree in theory with the assertion that we need to minister to the hurting, but, today, we may not minister to a great many people because they are "offended", and mistakenly believe the Constitution protects them from being offended. So I strongly support prohibitions on drugs. I know from expreience, most show outrage at being ministered to. It`s not a matter of the church turning their backs on the hurting, it`s the hurting shunning the church and crying out to a nanny government.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    I think it goes against the general Christian view that harmful elements came into the world because of the fall of mankind. I don't see this being a particularly effective argument with especially the evangelical demominations who emphasize the differences between the nature of mankind and the state of the world before and after the fall of man.

    A better argument would be that it is not Government's place to determine what is or is not a sin, that is up to one's own conscience. Probably that is still a hard lift for many denominations who already believe that it is their duty to have their government and laws reflect their values.

    I would submit that the "general christian view" today is so unbiblical, because the Gospel has been so watered down to appeal to many, that it`s irrelevant to the church. It is another thread entirely about whether it`s proper for the church to ask society to mirror the Commandments, but, society has a vested interest in promoting a clean, sober society in which, people are productive, contributing members, rather than draining society of resources, as criminals and addicts do.
     

    edporch

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Oct 19, 2010
    4,663
    149
    Indianapolis
    When it comes to marijuana, private individuals should be able to legally grow their own for their own use, in a way similar to how individuals can make their own beer and wine.
    BUT, it should STILL be illegal to deal in marijuana, in the same way it's illegal for a private individuals to sell the beer or wine they made.

    I say this because my life experience with drunks has caused me FAR more trouble than any pot smoker I've crossed paths with.
    i.e. I'd rather live next door to a pot smoker than a drunk.
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    I agree in theory with the assertion that we need to minister to the hurting, but, today, we may not minister to a great many people because they are "offended", and mistakenly believe the Constitution protects them from being offended. So I strongly support prohibitions on drugs. I know from expreience, most show outrage at being ministered to. It`s not a matter of the church turning their backs on the hurting, it`s the hurting shunning the church and crying out to a nanny government.

    So because people reject Christianity we impose laws on them that increase the suffering and encourage greater problems than substance abuse?

    I say hold out the cup. Encourage them to drink of the Water of Life freely. But don't hold them down and try to pour it down their throats if they refuse. No wonder so many turn their backs on Christ. They see his people running around lobbying for more laws to make their lives worse. Maybe if they saw Christians on Post road instead of the statehouse, they would actually learn who Christ really is.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    I don't remember Christ preaching that he came to set up an earthly kingdom nor asking his followers to do it for him.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    I don't remember Christ preaching that he came to set up an earthly kingdom nor asking his followers to do it for him.

    Huh? Ever hear of the Great Commission? It was not about political parties, it was about telling people of the Gospel, and converting them to follow His Commandments.
     

    aaron580

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Nov 27, 2012
    4,017
    48
    Morgan County
    As a Christian, admittedly not a perfect one, I can agree. Me thinks it's the alure of something that not just everybody is doing it, it's rebellious, and just hard enough to reach that gives a drug it's appeal. Banning them doesn't solve a thing. I see why somebody would think it would, but it just doesn't work. Some people would use more than others, some people will put others in danger as a result. Moderation with anything is key, i will hate anybody who puts another person in danger because of a "fix" though.

    Beer wasnt considered alcoholic in russia until fairly recently...
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    So because people reject Christianity we impose laws on them that increase the suffering and encourage greater problems than substance abuse?

    I say hold out the cup. Encourage them to drink of the Water of Life freely. But don't hold them down and try to pour it down their throats if they refuse. No wonder so many turn their backs on Christ. They see his people running around lobbying for more laws to make their lives worse. Maybe if they saw Christians on Post road instead of the statehouse, they would actually learn who Christ really is.

    When people reject Jesus, and when their evil ways begin to prey upon innocents, government has not just the right, but the duty to pass laws to both protect innocents, as well as punish criminals, period. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    When people reject Jesus, and when their evil ways begin to prey upon innocents, government has not just the right, but the duty to pass laws to both protect innocents, as well as punish criminals, period. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

    So if they have a duty to punish criminals, which I am not arguing, then what makes someone a criminal? The law makes them criminals, does it not? So then if we change the law, they are no longer criminals, and not worthy of punishment.
     
    Top Bottom