Christian Liberty: Christians and the Use of Recreational Marijuana

Todd, I gotta be honest with you. The fact that you are a member of an pro-marijuana advocacy group means that I’m done arguing with you about this online. If you’re ever in DC and want to pick it back up, let me know. I’ll be happy to do it in person.

For everyone else, I encourage to Google 1/10 of gram of marijuana. I’m pretty confident that you’ll conclude that most (all) people who want to smoke weed recreationally are not smoking that small of an amount. The question remains, why smoke weed recreationally if not to get high?

Having been told I’m allergic to the stuff, it’s presumably academic to me, but let’s assume someone could use that small amount without getting seriously high. Should we care? “Ifs and buts, if they were candy and nuts, boy what a party we’d have” and all that, but again; should we care?

The next question I’d ask if trying to formulate things with a user is “what would be the attraction of that level of usage?” For a good beer or wine, I get it—many enjoy the taste, and in low doses, it’s a convivial feeling of well-being that the Germans call “Gemuetlichkeit”. What would it be for marijuana?

(and yes, I’ve been diagnosed as allergic….as a teen, I came in with bright red eyes from ragweed, upon which the doctor immediately asked “you’re not smokin’ dope, are you son?”, and later, when he did scratch tests on my back, he said “hey, son, you’re allergic to dope”. OK, thanks, doc….)

Do you believe that buzzed falls under the Bible’s prohibition against drunkenness? And are there levels of buzzed? Generally, weed users classify the experience in three colloquial stages - buzzed, high, and baked/stoned.

For starters, the buzz from weed happens way sooner than it does from alcohol, and its intensity increases much quicker. Once again, for me, as I argued in my article, it comes down to the scale - it takes so little to reach a level of buzzed/high with weed that the recreational use is rendered out of of bounds for Christians. Unless there is another reason to smoke it recreationally than reaching a level of intoxication, that is. And then, unless you’re using really cheap, bad weed, you could only take 2 to 3 drags, if that and if you’re okay with saying that the Bible allows for being buzzed. Much more than that, and you’ll quickly cross into high.

How are we defining “buzzed”? What effects are we talking about? What is the dosage that would lead to it for, say, a 200 lb man?

To draw a comparison, the state police here are telling us that “buzzed driving is drunk driving”, which would imply that they’re saying their experience is that when a person reports feeling “buzzed”, they’re at 0.08 or higher and have seriously impaired motor function and perception. If you’re using about the same kind of thing, I’d have to say that if someone were to use marijuana (or any other drug) responsibly, they’d have to come in somewhere below the “buzz” level.

And yes, that would bring up the question of “what’s the point, then?”

How are we defining buzzed?

The reality is that it takes very little weed to get an adult buzzed to the point where they should not be operating a motor vehicle. So very little, in fact, as you recognize, “that would bring up the question of ‘what’s the point, then?’” if we believe and teach that Christians should not get buzzed.

http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-sci…

A statement we use:

We believe abstaining from the recreational use of dangerous drugs (alcohol, marijuana, opioids, etc.) is both safe and wise. Drugs should only be used for strictly medicinal purposes, and even then with great caution. (Proverbs 20:1; Proverbs 22:3; Proverbs 23:29-35; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8; 1 Peter 5:8)

David R. Brumbelow

Good statement.

Take a look at Colossians 2:20-23. What do we see in these man-made regulations but a complete lack of power to restrain sensual indulgence? Plus, I can think of a drug that put a college friend in the hospital that’s abundant in every church I’ve ever visited. It can be lethal.

I can go with John’s argument—that it is virtually implausible that one would be able to use marijuana recreationally without getting high—but let’s not go beyond what Scripture says and call it “godliness”. It’s not. It’s Pharisaism, trying to put boundaries around God’s Word to avoid transgressing it in one area—and inevitably transgressing it in another as a result.

We have reached a critical nexus; a perfect storm - alcohol and marijuana in the same thread. The space-time continuum may not be able to handle this. I must leave now.

I really liked Jim’s bullet pointed decision tree and David Brumbelow’s position statement as well, although I would add 1 Corinthians 6:12 (yes, I know the immediate context is not drugs or alcohol) and probably Romans 14 as well.

That being said, we have a huge problem with opioid addiction in my area, and I have to think that cannabis use is preferable to opioid drugs for medical reasons. It’s not a situation that I’ve had to counsel for yet, but a lot of the prescribed drugs seem to have far worse side effects and habit-forming consequences than marijuana. It’s something that I need to look into. I’ve seen some evidence that marijuana can do a lot of things to help alleviate pain and suffering when used wisely.

But aside from medicine, I think abstention from alcohol and marijuana is the best, wisest, and safest route for believers.

You’ve given me an idea for a post - on church covenants and the making of lists and regulations.

I’ve been working on this because our church is looking at this section of our covenant. It’s an older-style constitution that states that those who agree will neither use or sell alcohol, for example, but doesn’t deal with addictive drugs, prescription drug abuse, etc.

I think we are headed for a statement closer to what Dave has laid out.

I understand Bert’s concern that we cannot legislate morality, but are we to ignore it instead? Does it not reach a point where a church should counsel someone caught in such a problem? It does deal with medical situations (per Todd’s concern) and could use more on the side of restoration.

Steve, my concern is not about you can’t legislate morality; every law is an attempt to do the same, and a well crafted church Constitution will have some comments that give members guidance on what kinds of behavior is, and is not, appropriate in the church.

Rather, my concern is that Colossians 3 clearly states that the rules of men have no value in restraining sensual indulgence. None, zero, zip, nada, bupkus. So if a clause is put into the church constitution that does not clearly derive from Scripture, it is in that category. Extra-Biblical asceticism makes you think you’re doing something when you’re not, and that tends to end up in disaster.