The Christian case for drug law reform...

[Route 45]

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.

I wonder what Jews would have to say about this.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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?

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.

Agreed. The Bible also says (in so many words) if you don't work, you don't eat. I interpret that to mean that if one doesn't earn his/her own way, they should suffer the consequences. As long as the government is covering your nut, they (the tax payers) will always feel they should have a say in how you should conduct yourself. Get rid of the welfare state, then it doesn't matter. It's truly none of their business.

I am for a huge roll back on the WoDs, in its various metastasizations. But we're in a sort of catch-22 here.

 

[Lex Concord]

Ephesians 5:18King James Version (KJV)

[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.

Prohibition was, is, and will always be a failure. Righteousness cannot be forced at the point of a sword.

Mere possession or consumption of one substance or another should not be a crime, no matter how self-destructive or sinful it may be.

If a crime against person or property is committed, however, punishment is certainly in order, but not before. An argument for prohibition is an argument for prior restraint because someone *might* hurt someone else. This position has been favored by most in opposition to the Second Amendment for some time, and is clearly in opposition to liberty.

What is needed is healing and compassion, not punishment - imagine if, rather than paying all the costs of imprisonment, the non-violent "guilty" or possession or consumption were put through an addictions program. We would be likely to save money and improve society by training people to be productive members, rather than training them how to commit more heinous crimes AND increasing their likelihood to do so by making gainful employment more difficult due to the felony record.

That said, as doc mentioned above, while government is in the business of providing a safety net (hammock) for poor choices with our money, moving in this direction is less prudent.

Sadly, most societal ills are too often analyzed in isolation, when each is just a small part of the whole of our problems. The issues and policies that led to these issues did not exist or have impact apart from one another, and a holistic approach will be necessary to correct the negative impacts of such failed schemes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Prohibition was, is, and will always be a failure. Righteousness cannot be forced at the point of a sword.

Mere possession or consumption of one substance or another should not be a crime, no matter how self-destructive or sinful it may be.

If a crime against person or property is committed, however, punishment is certainly in order, but not before. An argument for prohibition is an argument for prior restraint because someone *might* hurt someone else. This position has been favored by most in opposition to the Second Amendment for some time, and is clearly in opposition to liberty.

What is needed is healing and compassion, not punishment - imagine if, rather than paying all the costs of imprisonment, the non-violent "guilty" or possession or consumption were put through an addictions program. We would be likely to save money and improve society by training people to be productive members, rather than training them how to commit more heinous crimes AND increasing their likelihood to do so by making gainful employment more difficult due to the felony record.

That said, as doc mentioned above, while government is in the business of providing a safety net (hammock) for poor choices with our money, moving in this direction is less prudent.

Sadly, most societal ills are too often analyzed in isolation, when each is just a small part of the whole of our problems. The issues and policies that led to these issues did not exist or have impact apart from one another, and a holistic approach will be necessary to correct the negative impacts of such failed schemes.

That would be a waste of money too...until the person is ready to make the change. Just as you cannot keep people from indulgence through prohibition, you cannot cause them the "repent" and get on the straight and narrow by placing them into programs.

 

[foszoe]

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.

My version says make disciples not subjects.

It also says something about doing this through baptism and doesn't say anything about belief.

Not so sure this verse supports your assertion.

Actually fairly certain it doesn't

 

[Lex Concord]

That would be a waste of money too...until the person is ready to make the change. Just as you cannot keep people from indulgence through prohibition, you cannot cause them the "repent" and get on the straight and narrow by placing them into programs.

I don't disagree, but I'm guessing the overall success rate would be better than prison.

That said, the point that what is needed is compassion, not punishment, remains true in my mind. I'm certainly open to finding the most effective replacement for the currently ineffective policy.

Personally, I'd prefer legalization passed simultaneously with relevant "welfare" elimination and corresponding tax cuts. As has been suggested above, rehabilitation best fits in the realm of the church, and there is no cause for the government to punish absent a crime against a person or property of another.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't disagree, but I'm guessing the overall success rate would be better than prison.

That said, the point that what is needed is compassion, not punishment, remains true in my mind. I'm certainly open to finding the most effective replacement for the currently ineffective policy.

Personally, I'd prefer legalization passed simultaneously with relevant "welfare" elimination and corresponding tax cuts. As has been suggested above, rehabilitation best fits in the realm of the church, and there is no cause for the government to punish absent a crime against a person or property of another.

I really don't mean to quibble because I think we're actually pretty close here. But there's already all sorts of programs the "system" has in place now to get people to stop doing drugs rather than keep cycling through the system. I don't think they're all that successful judging by the number of folks getting arrested every week (plus a few comments a friend of mine who works for the public defenders' office here in Bedford).

 

[Lex Concord]

Forgot to add that, not only do I think it would be more effective than prison but, as stated in the earlier post, I believe it would cost less.

I could be wrong, but less cost with the same or better effectiveness wouldn't be a bad first step, in my book.

I'm okay with incrementalism... setting the ideal, or at least knowing in what direction it lies and setting out for that destination, realizing that it may be decades or longer before we even near the goal, and that we may never reach it.

I don't like to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Lex Concord]

I really don't mean to quibble because I think we're actually pretty close here. But there's already all sorts of programs the "system" has in place now to get people to stop doing drugs rather than keep cycling through the system. I don't think they're all that successful judging by the number of folks getting arrested every week (plus a few comments a friend of mine who works for the public defenders' office here in Bedford).

Fair enough, and we probably aren't that far off, if at all.

My strong preference would be to simply remove the punishment from both the afflicted and the taxpayer.

 

[ATM]

Vices are not crimes.

 

[jamil]

Vices are not crimes.

That's the purpose for the term, "crime against society." That construct can be used to make anything illegal.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Vices are not crimes.

Biblically speaking, when we marry our spouse, aren't we considered to be one, in separable flesh? So, if my wife starts doing meth or heroin, is she a criminal?

 

[BugI02]

More importantly, would you tolerate it because she is only harming herself and her own property. Do not the users of drugs harm the people closest to them, too

 

[Woobie]

Biblically speaking, when we marry our spouse, aren't we considered to be one, in separable flesh? So, if my wife starts doing meth or heroin, is she a criminal?

Well if you are one with her then she's still harming herself. Then again, the body she is hurting is the one she gave to you.

Oh well, now I'm just playing games.

 

[Woobie]

More importantly, would you tolerate it because she is only harming herself and her own property. Do not the users of drugs harm the people closest to them, too

Back to being serious. Yes, I would find a family member's drug use intolerable. But I wouldn't think them worthy of prison for it. I would, and have, reach out to them. I would want to help them.

Now if they killed someone for drugs, then they should go to prison for murder. If they stole for drug money, they should be punished for theft. We have laws for these things already. Breaking hearts and hurting feelings should not be crimes, neither should stupidity.

 

[BugI02]

But if a loved one got caught up in meth or heroin or some other addictive, destructive drug; would you not wish that the use of that drug had been discouraged as strongly as possible and as such perhaps he or she would not have known someone who would introduce them to it under the less lax enforcement

The way you slow the spread of an epidemic is to target points of transmission rather than those already infected

 

[foszoe]

Biblically speaking, when we marry our spouse, aren't we considered to be one, in separable flesh? So, if my wife starts doing meth or heroin, is she a criminal?

But is it a crime punishable by God or the state?

Pushing the analogy further, if you are a Christian then you also are a bride and a member of one Body, the Church and if a member of the body of Christ falls what are we to do biblically?

 

[jamil]

But if a loved one got caught up in meth or heroin or some other addictive, destructive drug; would you not wish that the use of that drug had been discouraged as strongly as possible and as such perhaps he or she would not have known someone who would introduce them to it under the less lax enforcement

The way you slow the spread of an epidemic is to target points of transmission rather than those already infected

You make a pretty good case about the impact of drugs on families. Is government the only or even the best way to solve family issues? As prolific as the drug problem is, it seems about all the drug war has accomplished is incarcerating people who probably wouldn't have been in jail otherwise.

 

[Woobie]

But if a loved one got caught up in meth or heroin or some other addictive, destructive drug; would you not wish that the use of that drug had been discouraged as strongly as possible and as such perhaps he or she would not have known someone who would introduce them to it under the less lax enforcement

The way you slow the spread of an epidemic is to target points of transmission rather than those already infected

Sure I want it discouraged. But we have been discouraging it in some pretty strong terms for a while, and that hasn't stopped people. Does it console a mother when her son OD's now? "Well, at least it's illegal, otherwise I would feel really bad about this."

We have been targeting the "points of transmission" for decades now, and it has been worse than doing nothing. The epidemic model isn't working.

 

[Woobie]

You make a pretty good case about the impact of drugs on families. Is government the only or even the best way to solve family issues? As prolific as the drug problem is, it seems about all the drug war has accomplished is incarcerating people who probably wouldn't have been in jail otherwise.

It has also made some folks very wealthy. VERY.