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).