Why Marijuana Should Remain Illegal

As a preface to my comments, let me clarify a couple of things. First, I oppose the recreational use of marijuana and think that even its medicinal use is unwise. For that reason, much of what you say resonates with me.

Legalization or non-legalization, however, is (a) not a biblical way to deal with the abuse of drugs and (b) not an American way. There is also a point which you have not addressed, which I believe must be addressed in a treatise on the ethics of any legislation, namely the cost of enforcement.

A. You have given ample reason why marijuana should be off-limits for a Christian and why it is harmful to the individuals using it. This, however, does not explain why even among literally hundreds of Old Testament laws God wouldn’t have made alcohol illegal in Israel. Deut 14:26 indicates that the purchase of strong drink was legal and one was not punished for purchasing it. Just because something is unwise, does not mean that we should make it illegal. Otherwise, we ought to make it illegal for consumers to incur debt or a host of other things. There are biblical ways of dealing with drug abuse, including, but not limited to admonishment, rehabilitation, and self-restraint. To use the law to accomplish this end is without biblical precedent.

B. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution assigns the power to legislate matters not contained in the constitution to the people or to the states. Not, however, to the federal government. For the federal government to make the possession or use of a substance illegal is an abuse of federal power. The reason for bringing this up is that the discussion should never be about whether it should be legalized at the federal level, but at the state level. It is the right of the state to decide whether or not to legalize drugs.

C. The cost of enforcement is something which needs to be brought up. With the US already Trillions of dollars in debt, we are adding about $15 Billion per year to that debt with the cost of enforcement for drug use. The Scriptures say much about the foolishness of being in debt, and our children will suffer when they are forced to pay off what we owe. The roughly half million people put in prison each year for marijuana offenses are typically non-violent, meaning that their only crime was marijuana.

This brings me to the real point that bothers me about the article. I strongly oppose the use of government to protect the people against themselves. Government is rightly used to protect the people against each other and against foreign invasion, but when it protects us against ourselves, there’s no telling where it will stop. If society decided fundamentalism is bad for us, they could imprison people for practicing fundamentalism. A government powerful enough to protect you against yourself is a government powerful enough to take away everything you have. Freedom is, for better or worse, the freedom to make a wrong choice for yourself. Otherwise it is not freedom at all.

And in case anyone missed it before, I firmly believe that a Christian should not use marijuana. We should use the power of the Word, the Holy Spirit, and personal influence to help our neighbors see the wisdom of abstaining from marijuana. Let’s not relegate our personal responsibility to the government.

to consume as long as you don’t get drunk, why not take a puff or two from a joint? I sssume of course that you live in a state/country where it is legal. Hey, God gave us the herbs of the field, and one writer here at SI specifically argued once that the “joy” of alcohol was to be taken advantage of. In other words, SEEK THE BUZZ! All for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). What defense could possibly be made to oppose legalizing marijuana?

Dave said:

One very big problem Christian social drinkers have is if they are justified in taking one mind-altering recreational drug (alcohol), then they have no legitimate argument against another legal mind-altering recreational drug (marijuana). The wise thing for Christians is to have nothing to do with either drug.

You are against legalized marijuana. Of course the proverbial horse has left the barn big time in Washington State and Colorado. Do you favor a return to prohibition of alcoholic beverages? Why or why not?

One could be opposed to legalized marijuana for any number of reasons: To cite several:

• That marijuana is a gateway drug. Google it … there’s opinions and studies all over the place about this! OR
• DUI and marijuana and the difficulty of enforcing.

You continue to state that alcoholic beverages (even drinking in moderation) are mind altering. In another thread you cited the CDC (Centers for Disease Control). But the CDC does not take a total abstinence policy.

One could favor legalized marijuana for a number of reasons (reflecting on Jeremiah Sandal’s post above):

• One could cite the high costs of the “war on drugs” and specifically the legal, regulatory, and policing costs associated with this particular battle OR
• One could be more of a libertarian bent and see that the government should not be involved in it’s prohibition.

For me:

• From my own studies about the prohibition era, I’ve concluded it was a disastrous mistake. It brought about more crime including the rise of the mobsters, it brought about the income tax and the rise of big government
• I see the value of allowing research into the medicinal benefits of the marijuana (a la recent Minnesota legislation)

[Mark_Smith] one writer here at SI specifically argued once that the “joy” of alcohol was to be taken advantage of. In other words, SEEK THE BUZZ! All for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31).

Correction: You mean “one poster”. There have been no S/I articles advocating getting buzzed. And while I’m not sure which post(s) you are referring but I’ve never seen anyone on S/I advocate drunkenness

First, Prohibition was not nearly the failure many today make it out to be.

“One of the clear lessons of Prohibition is that when we had laws against alcohol there was less consumption, less alcohol-related disease, fewer drunken brawls, and a lot less drunkenness. And contrary to myth, there is no evidence that Prohibition caused any big increases in crime.”

-William Bennett, a graduate of Williams College, has a doctorate in political philosophy from the University of Texas, and a law degree from Harvard. He was director of the National Drug Control Policy under President George H. W. Bush, and Secretary of Education under President Reagan.

Second, what many do not realize is that America still has prohibition. It has prohibition against heroin, meth, cocaine, etc.

I don’t think there is much public support for bringing back Prohibition of Alcohol. But he question could be asked,

“Are there any dangerous drugs you think should be prohibited?”

Third, is alcohol mind-altering? Of course. The first drink affects your mind and judgment. Most drinkers will admit a drink relaxes them, calms them, gives them a buzz, etc. That is why they drink (and maybe to fit in). That is why nonalcoholic drinks that taste like alcohol are not nearly as popular with drinkers as the drug of alcohol.

The government is putting out ads emphasizing “Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving.” Many traffic accidents re caused by drivers who are not legally drunk, but are intoxicated enough to impair their reaction time and their judgment.

Many who drink will freely acknowledge the first drink does affect you. A Defensive Driving instructor who admitted to drinking in moderation said,

The first drink affects your judgment. Therefore if you have had any alcohol, you are unqualified to judge whether you are fit to drive.

Jerry Vines said, “Moderate drinking is moderate intoxication.”

David R. Brumbelow

[Mark_Smith] If you think alcohol is ok to consume as long as you don’t get drunk, why not take a puff or two from a joint?

Response:

• I’ve actually had many opportunities to smoke a joint and have not. (I was in college from ‘67=71 @ the University of Cincinnati)
• My reasoning then: 1.) Illegal; 2.) Wasn’t impressed with the lifestyle of “heads” as we called them then (think “pot-head”); 3. My M&M argument. If there were a full bowl of M&M’s next to my chair I would eat them all. Didn’t want to start and see where pot lead me
• Re alcohol vs marijuana … it’s apples and oranges!
  • 1st people don’t drink alcohol. They drink beverages that contain alcohol. Some regard (it’s their preference) those beverages as tasty, refreshing, or enhancing a meal.
  • An alcoholic beverage is processed through the stomach / liver / kidneys
  • Marijuana is processed through the lungs. See Health Hazards of Smoking Marijuana: “Marijuana smoke contains a greater amount of carcinogens than tobacco smoke. In addition, marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, further increasing the lungs exposure to carcinogenic smoke. “

From the CDC:

“Note: Legal limits do not define a level below which it is safe to operate a vehicle or engage in some other activity. Impairment due to alcohol use begins to occur at levels well below the legal limit.”

“According to the guidelines, people who should not drink alcoholic beverages at all include the following…Individuals who plan to drive, operate machinery, or take part in other activities that require attention, skill, or coordination.”

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm

David R. Brumbelow

Jim, it was your resident reformed reviewer of books who advocated the buzz.

[David R. Brumbelow] is alcohol mind-altering? Of course.

Is there a working definition to this term? “mind-altering”

At some level a DQ Blizzard is mind-altering (as would be sex, sleep, running, water skiing, etc)

[James K]

Jim, it was your resident reformed reviewer of books who advocated the buzz.

Thanks

It was that Reformed reviewer of books. But, to be fair, I think he said it while responding as a “layman”, not an SI thread starter. Either way, that doesn’t bother me, other than to reinforce that if you think alcohol is a gift from God to be taken carefully and responsibly, why would you not think the same thing about marijuana in states where it is legal to use it?

So, Jim is correct. I meant “one poster” rather than implying that it was an official position of SI in some way.

Is this article about being against marijuana legalization or against beverage alcohol? Or both? I ask because the thread has gone the way of against beverage alcohol.

Thanks

Though processed differently an alcoholic drink (via the stomach and small intestine) or marijuana inhaled (via the lungs) both enter the blood stream and affect the brain/nerve cells of the body.

Those who argue for legalization of marijuana can make the case that both drugs have a similar affect upon the brain. Though marijuana lingers longer in the body, both can cause health issues for the user.

*For the record I am an abstainer and advocate such for both one’s personal health and avoiding being a stumbling block.

I think I’ve demonstrated that the M/J issue is not identical the beverage alcohol issue. One can not be opposed to beverage alcohol and still be opposed to M/J.

Mind-altering is such a vague term. I really think that some are ignorant of the practices of some who drink. I know many. A glass of wine with pasta; a beer with pizza. I have a brother-in-law who drinks HARD LIQUOR … he splashes some rum in his coke. I know many drinkers (Christian and otherwise) who absolutely limit themselves to no more than one drink a day. Might be an aperitif before a meal

The Womens Christian Temperance Movement crowd among Baptists want to lump all drinkers together. The gutter drunk is the same as the old lady who has a glass of wine with dinner (my 94 year old Mom). Be an unnuanced fool and paint with a broad brush if you want. But your arguments have failed to sway me to:

• Demand that a Christian brother must abstain because of your own preferences
• And make beverage alcohol a divisive issue among believers!

In the Calvinist/Arminian (some might even be semi-pelagian) debate, a feature characterizing the Arminian side seems to be a man-centered worldview. The Calvinist (generally more scholarly and biblically oriented) view consistently sees that God is totally superintending His creation in the most minute details. It is the same with folks who advocate total abstinence: they seem to be very “man centered” while those who see the bible allowing responsible alcohol enjoyment see this as a blessing and part of God’s created order.

Most Calvinists are more than merely moralists, instead they are spiritually empowered by God through the Holy Spirit (right theology and practice seem to go hand in hand). Semi-pelagianism is characterized, in my opinion, as hyper moralists who tend to self-righteousness. Just my observation (I have observed plenty).

Another observation: I have never encountered an total abstentionist who is a competent bible scholar. Sorry, but the bible teaches moderation and control to say otherwise is outside of the bounds of acceptable biblical study.

I will defend what I said here but I am busy the rest of the day today. See you tomorrow (or not).

“I hope they will be full of spirit against evil spirits, stout against stout, and hale against ale.” -Charles H. Spurgeon, letter to temperance society, March 19, 1884.

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/04/charles-h-spurgeon-on-alcoh…

“A man who is a drinker has no place in the ministry.” -John MacArthur; 1 Timothy.

I might add they would also be considered competent Bible scholars.

Many other examples could be given of Calvinist and non-Calvinist / Moderate Calvinist Bible scholars who oppose alcohol.

David R. Brumbelow

The argument for the legalization of medical marijuana has mostly to do with the fact that certain medical treatments make it really difficult to keep food down, and somehow smoked or eaten (brownies, etc..) marijuana does this better than Marinol. Dope has also been found useful for those who have suffered concussions, for some reason. So the medical argument does appear to be legitimate, though certainly a lot of people want it to be a prelude to full legalization.

So really I’d argue the question is whether one puff, or one joint, gets a person “intoxicated” by Bible standards, and whether the usual user can, or can not, cease using the drug if he so desires. From what I’ve seen, the answers are “no” and “no.” A person does not get falling down drunk (this is the Bible definition) with one joint, and many users walk away from it. So it’s really failing the public health test for banning it. If you wanted to ban something that really is deadly, that would be the “American diet and lifestyle” that kills something like 700 thousand of us annually.

Quick correction; the answers are “no, the person is not flat out stoned” and “yes, the person can stop using it without withdrawal symptoms”.

John MacArthur is not a scholar but a “popular-level” preacher and writer. He is wrong on some things and right on some things.

My contention stands: godly Israelites and Jesus used intoxicating beverages responsibly from the record of the scriptures. To construe the record in any other way is false teaching in my book.

For those who are unaware of alcohol: the one drink of wine I have daily is not really noticed as I have my meal with it. Alcohol’s effects are not static: every breath expels alcohol from the system. In one hour, through breathing, all alcohol of one drink is removed from the body. So, if at a celebration where there is feasting and dancing, there would be a need for large quantities of wine which Jesus produced at the wedding in Cana.

The Bible says Jesus turned water to wine (John 2), not alcohol.

For an excellent article on this by Mark Creech, see:

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2013/04/jesus-turned-water-to-wine-…

David R. Brumbelow

For more information on the damaging effects of marijuana:

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2014/01/gleanings-on-damaging-effec…

David R. Brumbelow

It’s worth noting that Creech’s “excellent article” about wine predominantly uses Brumbelow as a source, and Brumbelow’s writing about marijuana simply cites a Southern Baptist lobbyist, Barrett Duke, without proper citation or any peer reviewed work. When you take a look at the real data, you quickly find that marijuana is well behind legal things like the U.S. diet in terms of negative influence.

It’s also worth noting that the “addictive” nature of marijuana is not a physical addiction like that for opiates, painkillers, alcohol and nicotine, but rather is more of a compulsive behavior—like my trips to the coffee pot throughout the day.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/almost-addicted/201311/is-marijuana…

Now given that lots of things are compulsive behaviors—eating, washing, drinking, smoking, sex, coffee, and even marijuana—I’ve got to wonder whether we do better to ban the substance, or to address the reasons for the compulsive behavior. Given that I’m not about to give up eating, bathing, and coffee, I’m leaning towards the latter.

Lots of great reasons not to use marijuana—I start with being allergic tot he stuff and not particularly feeling the need to get “high”—but those do not automatically translate to a reason to ban it. Really, a lot of the “keep it illegal” faction are more or less recycling “Reefer Madness”, and we do not honor God by doing this any more than if we recycle Carrie Nation’s WCTU rhetoric in the face of contrary evidence.

You’ll note that the people who endorsed recreational alcohol have no problem with toking a joint! At least they are consistent.

What is a scholar alex o. If John MacArthur is not one, is any pastor? What makes one a scholar?

Also, you say you drink one glass of wine nightly. Why? Health reasons? You say you hardly notice it, so there must not be much joy in it.

Not everyone who enjoys a moderate amount of alcohol consumes marijuana. In fact, I would imagine that most moderationists when it comes to alcohol abstain from marijuana. For me, it comes down to a simple reason. Most marijuana users seek a high. Many people who enjoy alcohol in moderation drink for the enjoyment of the flavor. I’ve done a lot of reading from all angles on marijuana and have yet to hear people talking about the nuances of flavor. It’s all about the experience of being high. Being high isn’t acceptable for a Christian anymore than being drunk. Now is it possible to enjoy marijuana in moderation and without getting high? I don’t know, but I’m not going to be the guinea pig. I certainly haven’t found documentation on it.

Having said this, my original point has not been addressed in this thread. Just because an activity is not suitable for a believer, does that give us a right to forbid unbelievers from doing it? Especially when we don’t have a “Thus says the Lord” on the matter. Even more so when we consider that marijuana users rarely harm people besides themselves. What marijuana users need is the Gospel, not jail time. Putting them in jail seems like it would make them harder to reach with the Gospel.

[Mark_Smith]

What is a scholar alex o. If John MacArthur is not one, is any pastor? What makes one a scholar?

Also, you say you drink one glass of wine nightly. Why? Health reasons? You say you hardly notice it, so there must not be much joy in it.

Johnnie Mac writes “popular” books, his readers are folks who barely know the bible. Do you think any college or seminary professor reads his books for insights? I do not believe I have disparaged him, his strength is dealing with a more general audience. If MacAurthur says a pastor is disqualified because they drink from 1Tim. 3, he gets it wrong. The idea is of “being beside the wine” having it next to oneself in order to partake more of it. A pastor needs more self-control than that.

The bible speaks against the wrong use of intoxicating drinks often but not against the nature of the drinks themselves. This is how Hosea needs to be read when the drunkards are renounced. Part of the sacrifices was pouring out wine next to the altar. When an Israelite brought freewill and peace offerings they ate part of the offering as an act of “eating with the Lord” thereby showing peace and fellowship. These products (grain, oil, wine, animals) were the staples of Israeli everyday fare. It is crazy to think the ancient Israelites reconstituted raisins into a beverage to pour out to the Lord. Actually a person would get sick doing so since the water would not be sanitized by raisins.

This discussion is really on the fringe of reality as I don’t know what some are smoking to come up with these crazy ideas. I won’t have discussions with KJV only types either as it is a waste of time. I am beginning to feel some in this discussion are hopelessly biased and not worth my time.

Why I enjoy wine? Certainly not for the effect alone but I do enjoy the relaxation alcohol provides sometimes. It is the whole package: the aroma, taste of a nice NZ Sauvignon Blanc (my current favorite) is really nice. Sometimes I notice the effects if I am not hurrying (like most Americans when they eat). At my age any more than one drink would hurt my body since it doesn’t digest alcohol very well after 60. One drink is good for digestion I would say and provides good components for health. I drink it more for enjoyment than trying to live longer because of it though (I believe it does provide long term benefits).

No man should be made the pastor of a church who drinks intoxicating liquors as a beverage.” -B. H. Carroll, founding president of SWBTS

“The bishop (pastor) is to be free from wine (1 Timothy 3:3). One would presume that this admonition, at least in part, is for an example. If so, here again the ideal would be total abstinence for all who make up the body of Christ, i.e., the church.”

“Not only is it imperative that a preacher abstain from strong drink altogether, but in this day in which the liquor industry grips modern society with such violent tenacity, the preacher ought to take his stand firmly against the use and sale of beverage alcohol.” -Dr. Paige Patterson, current president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

David R. Brumbelow

John MacArthur’s comments on alcohol are something of a sidetrack here, but they do have the good purpose of illustrating how far afield mainstream evangelical and fundamental thought is on the subject. That is, if we are to take seriously his exegesis of the word “paroinos” (his comments on this can be Googled), we must assume that Christ, the apostles, and Timothy were not qualified to be in ministry because they were known to drink wine.

Unless we accept David’ hypothesis that Timothy was drinking raisin juice (which would have done nothing for his frequent illnesses), that cannot be true. And hence we need to go beyond mere prooftexting to understand wine in its ethical and unethical use—a merry heart and drunkenness as defined by the Scriptures. I think such wisdom would be welcome with marijuana, too.

1 Timothy 5:23 has often been misused.

No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities. -1 Timothy 5:23

1. The wine referred to could have either been fermented or unfermented. The Bible and ancient writing often refer to unfermented wine by the name wine (Isaiah 65:8; Matthew 9:17; etc.).

Modern English translations do so as well.

Ancients knew and practiced multiple ways of preserving unfermented wine. It was available throughout the year.

Unfermented wine or grape juice has many, probably more, healthy properties than alcoholic wine; without the harmful side effects.

However, even if Paul was recommending alcoholic wine:

2. He said a little.

3. Strictly for medicinal purposes.

At most, this is only justifying a little alcohol for medicinal reasons.

It is also interesting that as a pastor, Timothy, for good reason, had been abstaining from wine.

David R. Brumbelow

[Bert Perry]

John MacArthur’s comments on alcohol are something of a sidetrack here, but they do have the good purpose of illustrating how far afield mainstream evangelical and fundamental thought is on the subject. That is, if we are to take seriously his exegesis of the word “paroinos” (his comments on this can be Googled), we must assume that Christ, the apostles, and Timothy were not qualified to be in ministry because they were known to drink wine.

Unless we accept David’ hypothesis that Timothy was drinking raisin juice (which would have done nothing for his frequent illnesses), that cannot be true. And hence we need to go beyond mere prooftexting to understand wine in its ethical and unethical use—a merry heart and drunkenness as defined by the Scriptures. I think such wisdom would be welcome with marijuana, too.

What are you doing at SI?

Seriously, God created Cannabis. It should never be referred to as “the devil’s weed.” To proscribe substances is the height off folly and has ruined many lives. The laws against substances have ruined lives much more than the substances themselves. The mindset of prohibition of substances including alcohol is one of the major faults of America’s history (another one is racism). But all countries have their faults as do individuals. The idea should be to become better: an upward walk. What society is reflects what the government is to a large degree. As Christians we are to serve the Lord in our corner of influence.

With that I am done with this thread.

You have made at least three assertions which you believe to be facts, but to which you offer no support.

Ancients knew and practiced multiple ways of preserving unfermented wine. It was available throughout the year.

Unfermented wine or grape juice has many, probably more, healthy properties than alcoholic wine; without the harmful side effects.

3. Strictly for medicinal purposes.

The third of these, I would argue that Paul is not conceding that Timothy may, if he so desires, consume some alcohol, but is in fact admonishing him to drink it. This passage cannot be construed to mean that this is the only occasion upon which the consumption of alcohol is permitted. However, the case can be made that there is at least one occasion on which its consumption is commanded.

On a different note, I would be curious to hear from the abstentionists how they explain Psalm 104:15 how unfermented wine produces a gladdening effect on the heart of man. I do not know of this effect happening over a glass of Welch’s, but perhaps someone else has a different experience.

and I read physics stuff written for “mere laymen” so as to get insight. I guess so called “theologians” are above that in alex o’s world!

Enjoy your wine and toke dude! Someone pass him the cheetos;-)

As our society heads further into godless paganism, we can expect to see more liberal social policies regarding sex (LGBTQ for example) and drugs. People are living for the moment, the high, the experience. They are looking for escape anyway they can find it. All of this behavior hurts society and affects the social climate in which we raise our families, lead our churches, and run our schools. I am concerned about drunk drivers and mentally impaired drivers. They needlessly kill thousands of people every year. None of us want our surgeons, pilots, dentists, pastors, police officers, magistrates to be using these substances while they are employing their craft.

Drug-dealers, dope-addicts, Mexican cartels are not the good guys. They are harming our neighborhoods, our families, ruining communities, and causing the downfall of legitimate commercial enterprise. The fact I have to state the obvious proves how corrupt our society has become. For a Christian drugs such as marijuana distort our minds, pervert our judgment and defile our temple. The curse has effected creation, our bodies, our natures. Just because God made something does not give us the right to abuse it or use it for evil ends. Dave’s article is helpful.

jeremiahsa,

Perhaps you would be interested in the following article:

“Does grape juice offer the same heart benefits as red wine?

Answers from Katherine Zeratsky, R.D., L.D.

Possibly. Some research studies suggest that red and purple grape juices may provide some of the same heart benefits of red wine, including:

Reducing the risk of blood clots

Reducing low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or “bad”) cholesterol

Preventing damage to blood vessels in your heart

Helping maintain a healthy blood pressure

Grapes are rich in health-protecting antioxidants, including resveratrol and flavonoids. These antioxidants are found mainly in the skin, stem, leaf and seeds of grapes, rather than in their pulp.

The amount of antioxidants in grapes depends on many factors, including the kind of grape, its geographic origin and how it’s processed. Dark red and purple grapes tend to be higher in antioxidants than are white or green grapes. Likewise, the level of antioxidants, such as resveratrol found in wine, varies with higher levels in red wine.

Besides grape juice, other grape products, including dealcoholized wine, grape extracts and grape powder, may offer health benefits.

Keep in mind that it’s also beneficial to eat whole grapes — not just grape juice. Some research suggests that whole grapes deliver the same amount of antioxidants that are in grape juice and wine but have the added benefit of providing dietary fiber”

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/e…

David R. Brumbelow

Mike,

Legalizing drugs would immediately take away income from many Mexican cartels and terrorist organizations. It would eliminate a black market and bring it into the light of day. There are no more Mexican alcohol cartels, cigarette cartels, etc. because these are legal. Just a thought.

My suggestion: end the war on drugs, and double down on investigation, prosecution, and prison time for DUI, theft, murder, rape, etc.

One thing is for certain, drug prohibition should not be a federal issue. It should be left to the states.

Actually, ancient people had multiple ways of preserving unfermented wine. Just because we don’t know those methods, doesn’t mean they did not know.

They accomplished this without pasteurization and refrigeration. Although, at times they came very close to pasteurization.

Methods used in Bible times to preserve unfermented wine.

1. Boiling down fresh wine to a thick consistency that would not spoil or ferment. When ready to drink, they simply added water. This thick, strong wine (grape molasses, pekmez, vincotto) was also used for cooking.

I have some of this grape molasses. Although it says to refrigerate after opening, I purposely kept it at room temperature. After over two years it was still fresh, unspoiled, and unfermented.

2. The grape harvest lasted six months and certain type grapes would keep fresh for months. These grapes could be pressed into wine at any time of the year (Genesis 40:11).

3. Dried grapes or raisins were re-hydrated and pressed into fresh un-intoxicating wine, a practice used by many Jews right up to modern times. Ancient warriors were issued cakes of dried grapes to make their own wine as needed.

4. Nonalcoholic wine was also preserved with salt and lactic fermentation.

“Ancient Wine and the Bible” goes into great detail, quoting ancient and modern sources, on these methods.

There is also a little more on this at:

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/10/preserving-unfermented-wine…

David R. Brumbelow

[Mike Harding]

None of us want our surgeons, pilots, dentists, pastors, police officers, magistrates to be using these substances while they are employing their craft.

You like rollmops too?

I thought I was done and am now but want to point out the tactics of the prohibitionists: nobody has even intimated this in the thread what you assert. Not one argument that prohibitionists offer really holds any water on this debate. Sometime what is said is true but it doesn’t really apply to the overall debate. Talk amongst yourselves as your methods are transparent.

[Mike Harding]

As our society heads further into godless paganism, we can expect to see more liberal social policies regarding sex (LGBTQ for example) and drugs. People are living for the moment, the high, the experience. They are looking for escape anyway they can find it. All of this behavior hurts society and affects the social climate in which we raise our families, lead our churches, and run our schools. I am concerned about drunk drivers and mentally impaired drivers. They needlessly kill thousands of people every year. None of us want our surgeons, pilots, dentists, pastors, police officers, magistrates to be using these substances while they are employing their craft.

Drug-dealers, dope-addicts, Mexican cartels are not the good guys. They are harming our neighborhoods, our families, ruining communities, and causing the downfall of legitimate commercial enterprise. The fact I have to state the obvious proves how corrupt our society has become. For a Christian drugs such as marijuana distort our minds, pervert our judgment and defile our temple. The curse has effected creation, our bodies, our natures. Just because God made something does not give us the right to abuse it or use it for evil ends. Dave’s article is helpful.

Once again, marijuana kills a few thousand people annually (assuming its implications in traffic accidents and such are verified), alcohol about 88,000 and the standard U.S. diet and lack of exercise kills over half a million people from heart disease and another 200,000 from diabetes. Being a quality engineer by trade, I start with #1 on the Pareto. Let’s end corn, sugar, and dairy subsidies, and then we can start looking at lesser factors.

Interesting side note; some claim that George Washington’s diary indicates that he separated male and female hemp plants, which makes no difference in the quality of the fiber. However, it does increase the amount of THC in the female plants. Was somebody smoking it?

That said, I have no objection to banning certain drugs if the danger of them really does surpass a certain threshold. I see that with heroin, morphine, crystal meth, and some other drugs—they are physically addicting (not just habit-forming), and the physical effects are far greater. People die of heroin overdoses, for example. I just don’t see that with marijuana.

[David R. Brumbelow]

jeremiahsa,

Perhaps you would be interested in the following article:

“Does grape juice offer the same heart benefits as red wine?

Answers from Katherine Zeratsky, R.D., L.D.

Possibly. Some research studies suggest that red and purple grape juices may provide some of the same heart benefits of red wine, including:

Reducing the risk of blood clots

Reducing low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or “bad”) cholesterol

Preventing damage to blood vessels in your heart

Helping maintain a healthy blood pressure

Grapes are rich in health-protecting antioxidants, including resveratrol and flavonoids. These antioxidants are found mainly in the skin, stem, leaf and seeds of grapes, rather than in their pulp.

The amount of antioxidants in grapes depends on many factors, including the kind of grape, its geographic origin and how it’s processed. Dark red and purple grapes tend to be higher in antioxidants than are white or green grapes. Likewise, the level of antioxidants, such as resveratrol found in wine, varies with higher levels in red wine.

Besides grape juice, other grape products, including dealcoholized wine, grape extracts and grape powder, may offer health benefits.

Keep in mind that it’s also beneficial to eat whole grapes — not just grape juice. Some research suggests that whole grapes deliver the same amount of antioxidants that are in grape juice and wine but have the added benefit of providing dietary fiber”

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/ex…

David R. Brumbelow

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. I sincerely doubt that I will persuade an abstentionist of the moderationist position or that an abstentionist will persuade me of theirs, but when I studied the Scriptures prior to becoming a moderationist a few years ago, it is possible that there were facts that I missed. I think this is why it is vital to document sources in this debate.

I do hope that my abstentionist brethren will consider their methods in the light of the Scriptures as carefully as (or more carefully than) they consider their positions. Far be it from me to cause my brother to stumble by offering him a drink in his weakness. Using civil prohibition as a means to force moderationists to be abstentionists is not a means authorized by Scripture. This applies both to alcohol and any other drug. Let us allow the Holy Spirit to work as we disciple others to be like Christ. If you believe in your heart that alcohol is wrong for a Christian, you would be sinning not to disciple that way. What I object to here is merely the use of government to aid in discipleship.

Another point that keeps coming up should be addressed. No one (and I mean no one!) advocates that driving while intoxicated should be legalized. The deaths due to marijuana and alcohol intoxication while driving are tragic, but we have a problem here with enforcement, not with lack of law. Let us not send SWAT teams into people’s homes to raid their marijuana while they are at home instead of spending those resources enforcing DUI and DWI laws. The logic behind prohibition is the same whether it is guns or alcohol or marijuana. We have laws to make murder illegal, but making guns illegal will not prevent murder. We have laws against DUI, but making marijuana illegal does not prevent DUI.

Regarding Timothy’s illnesses,if indeed grape harvest lasted six months and any grape product would have been sufficient for Timothy’s ailments, Paul would have told Timothy simply to eat grapes or raisins. Paul instead tells a young man to drink wine.

Since a young man’s biggest health risks back in that day were malnutrition and infection, only wine would do, because unfermented foods do not kill bacteria, and boiling destroys vitamin C and other vitamins. So grape molasses is right out. The only one of David’s methods that might work would be lactic fermentation, but you would also get yeast from the same place you get lactobacillus—the air. So that would be alcoholic, too.

When you legalize something like marijuana, it only increases its use and thus its needless damage. The cartels will simply put more of their energy into harder drugs. Dairy, sugar, corn are normal parts of a legitimate diet. Agreed, we eat too much of it; nevertheless, life spans keep expanding for both men and women compared to generations ago when obesity rates were less. Yes, we should all exercise more, but that doesn’t mean we should ban cars. We are dealing with an increasingly dangerous substance which used recreationally causes harm physically, psychologically, intellectually, and societally. Nothing good will come about by legalizing it. The legalization will legitimize its use among the puerile and naive.

[QUOTE=Mike Harding] Nothing good will come about by legalizing it.[/QUOTE]

Fewer people would be in jail.

Fewer 4th Amendment violations by police.

Reduced crime at the border.

Industrial Hemp business in the US (jobs).

Reduced pressure on police, more assets for real crime.

Increased sales tax revenue for states when it is taken off the black (non-taxed) market.

Somehow, the command for personal holiness has been lost in this entire discussion. I am disappointed in anybody who wants to argue that recreational marijuana use is a holy and acceptable activity. Consider the holiness required of OT priests to minister in the tabernacle and the temple, and then realize that we are individual priests who can approach God directly, and our bodies are new tabernacles of our Holy God under the New Covenant.

Legalizing drugs would immediately take away income from many Mexican cartels and terrorist organizations. It would eliminate a black market and bring it into the light of day. There are no more Mexican alcohol cartels, cigarette cartels, etc. because these are legal. Just a thought.

So you think the drug cartels will just roll over? Is there no black market for anything legal? Cigarettes is an interesting comparison. States with high cig taxes have a huge black market. CBS News reported that more than 1/2 of cigarettes in New York are smuggled in and sold under the table. So whatever the merits/demerits of legalization of drugs might be, it probably will not kill the drug cartels or the black market. It might increase it because there is no longer a fear of prosecution for use or for selling.

Fewer people would be in jail.

Perhaps, but not an appreciable amount. Very few people are in prison for marijuana alone, and most are for growing or dealing, not for using. But this argument could be made for any number of things. If we just make something not illegal, we can reduce a lot of the jail population. In fact, why not just do away with incarceration altogether?

If the goal is reducing jail and prison population, there are other crimes that make sense to eliminate, or at least eliminate incarceration for, such as white collar crimes. It doubtful our society is better off because Madoff or Lay went to prison. It’s doubtful our society here in Detroit is better off because Kwame Kilpatrick is in prison. … Unless you consider the deterrence factor, and even that is disputed. Personally, I think incarceration is important.

But the goal of making something legal or illegal is not to control prison population but whether or not a particular act or issue is detrimental to the wellbeing of society as a whole.

Reduced crime at the border.

Doubtful, but a very small, almost negligible issue.

Reduced pressure on police, more assets for real crime.

Marijuana use is a real crime, and will be so until the laws are changed.

Increased sales tax revenue for states when it is taken off the black (non-taxed) market.

Perhaps, but remember, there are always ways to avoid paying sales tax.

Regarding the question of Timothy, why would Paul have to tell him to drink?

[Mark_Smith]

You’ll note that the people who endorsed recreational alcohol have no problem with toking a joint! At least they are consistent.

Not quite true, Mark—let’s make sure we’re not taking cheap shots, brother, as that was at least borderline. Remember that Ephesians 4:29 and other passages make clear that reckless insults are every bit as much a sin as is drunkenness.

Moreover, the question here is not whether we have a problem with pot (or alcohol I guess), but rather whether it should be illegal to do so. And given that it’s pretty safe in comparison to the American diet and lifestyle, it’s my view that the case for keeping it illegal is pretty weak, especially when we consider its benefits for cancer victims (like my late mother, who did take Marinol) and others.

In the church, yes, it’s different; there are any number of immoral behaviors that the church ought to police, but are not illegal. Gluttony (there’s that American diet and lifestyle), laziness, intoxication, obscenity, immodesty, careless and evil speech, and the like are all things that are not regulated by law, but ought to be addressed by the church. For that matter, I’d address a huge problem of treating cultural norms as if they were Biblical as a very real thing that needs to be rebuked by the church.

But again, these are matters predominantly of sanctification, not human government, and we confuses these at our peril.

Larry,

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#Total

There is a table here that shows the arrests for marijuana possession in the US. More people are arrested for marijuana possession than are arrested for violent crimes. The question isn’t whether or not to have jail. The question is whether jail should be used to keep people from harming themselves when they are not harming others. And if society decides that fundamentalists are harmful to themselves, the precedent to imprison them has been set by imprisoning others who are harmful to themselves. Nothing in the constitution makes allowance for protecting people against themselves. Government is supposed to protect the people against others. I think what Sean meant by “real crime” is the category of crime that harms other people.

As for the black market, there would indeed still be a black market if marijuana were legalized, but it would be significantly smaller. But allowing the money from legitimate sales of marijuana to flow legally would decrease the power of the cartels by eliminating their need to smuggle drugs across the border from Canada or Mexico. The alcohol prohibition gave power to people like Al Capone because organization was required to sell alcohol illegally. When the alcohol prohibition ended, gangs like Capone’s dissolved. Making something illegal also makes it rare and valuable. That’s why the cartels do not want marijuana legalized any more than Baptists. The principle is called Baptists and Bootleggers. An odd coalition for sure.

I was not taking a shot. If you think “responsible” alcohol use is acceptable, what is your argument against “responsible” marijuana use (assuming you live in a state where it is legal, like CO). You have none. That was my point.

Mark, usually putting a word in quotes, as you do with “responsible”, means that you are implying that there is no responsible use of alcohol. It’s not blatant, but yes, there is a cheap shot there. Take heed of your attitude, dear brother.

And the reason I do not extensively discuss Biblical reasons not to smoke marijuana (though I did mention I’m allergic to it above) is simply because this thread is about the civil law, not the operation of the church. We need to keep that distinction in mind.

But if I must address what objections I have to marijuana use, it would actually look fairly similar to the objections David cites, except I would clarify that not every use of mind-altering drugs (like caffeine) violates the Bible’s prohibition on drunkenness. You’ve got health effects, legal consequences, and the simple fact that smelling like an ashtray is about as winsome for the Gospel as refusing to bathe. Really it would also be the same kind of thing I note to the kids regarding alcohol, cigarettes, and for that matter the Mountain Dew and Burger King they love. I try to address the sins they’re vulnerable to, after all.

Important in the church, but I don’t believe the civil law needs to speak to these things. As others have noted, the cost of the war on “Reefer Madness” is too high, and the benefits are too small. You work to solve the big issues on the Pareto.

• All contact sports should be outlawed
• Motorcycles should be outlawed [if you’ve ever ridden a bike (I mean a motorcycle) without a helmet at 70+ … that’s a joy no one should ever experience again!)] [This is for the motorcycle rebel Steve Davis who sometimes frequents this site! We’re trying to help you buddy!]
• Also bungee jumping and sky diving
• Water skiing & swiming in oceans (sharks)
• Swimming in lakes and ponds because of amoeba
• Bicycling on two wheels
• Rock climbing and hiking in the outdoors … a puma could get you!
• We should eliminate steps and carpet as much as we can!
• And ban red meat, chicken and pork. Also peanut butter
• And let’s bubble wrap everyone!
• Please God .. I mean .. the government … save me from myself!

Where is that guy’s helmet? And his respirator to get rid of harmful gases?

Keep Our Own Kids Safe campaign forever!