Approving Alcohol, Prohibiting Marijuana: An Inconsistent Position
- 101 views
Approving alcohol while prohibiting legal marijuana is an inconsistent position.
We should stay away from the recreational use of mind altering drugs whether they be alcohol, marijuana, opioids, etc.
For multiple reasons, a Christian should be sober (1 Peter 5:8).
David R. Brumbelow
This article confuses moral and legal categories. Conceivably, we might have very good reasons for prohibiting something in law while not making it a moral matter. For example, I would shed few tears with a national ban on tobacco in favor of public health consideration due to concerns re. second-hand smoke. Furthermore, I fully approve of draconian laws against DUI. But that does not entail that I am inconsistent in not making an immediate moral judgment on someone who lights up a pipe on occasion or takes a sip of beer.
That is to say, it’s the govt’s job to weigh laws carefully regarding substance use and legality and make good legislation in the interests of advancing human flourishing where possible. Whether the decisions they reach have innate connection to morality or God’s moral law is another matter. If someone decides legalized marijuana has a negative net effect on society, they are not being inconsistent in approving something else while opposing legalization of the latter—even if I disagree with their position. Nor does it necessarily entail that I consider someone who lights up a joint to be sinning in that act (provided, of course, it is legal).
UPDATE: Oops! Just realize I misread the article so that my response above is completely irrelevant. I need more sleep. :(
I might respond later with a more reply that makes more sense.
It’s worth noting that Wally’s column here continues a regrettable habit of the prohibitionist wing; to assume that all drugs are equally bad without differentiating them on the basis of addiction potential (marijuana is not physically addictive), possibility for responsible use, categories of drugs (psychotropics vs. depressants), fat solubility, and a host of other factors. Really, the inconsistency that is most troubling to me is that prohibitionists more or less want to ban all drugs except for the ones they like (caffeine) and the opioid painkillers they need when their gluttony (Proverbs 23) makes them a candidate for open heart surgery, knee and hip replacement, and the like.
It would be really refreshing, as Andrew hints, if regulation and bans were actually predicated on these factors, and not a lingering awareness of “Reefer Madness.” It would furthermore be very refreshing if we’d come back to what God’s Word actually says about drunkenness—Proverbs 23 and 31 note clearly that it’s about losing memory of significant principles (or pain), red eyes, not feeling any pain, and the like—symptoms that appear to show up when the drinker is well past the legal driving limit for the most part. Proverbs 23 even defines the drunk as the one who must have a drink when he wakes—that would be either a hangover cure (“hair of the dog that bit ya”), or outright alcoholism. Solomon is not talking about the person who has a glass of wine or two with dinner here.
Apply that to marijuana, and yes, I think it’s entirely appropriate to take a leaf that’s not physically addictive and does not kill by overdose off Schedule 1, especially in light of the fact that opioid deaths in states that have legalized it have dropped by 23%. In a matter of speaking, for a lot of people the choice is dope or heroin. If we value their lives, what do we do? One is physically addictive and lethal; the other is not.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The main reason why marijuana use is prohibited by TMS (and other institutions), while alcohol is not, is because alcohol is spoken of positively in Scripture. Drunkenness is not, but these are not the same things. No matter what else can and should be said, these are facts.
Fundamentalists recognize this, and often try an end-run around these facts by claiming that alcohol then isn’t like alcohol now. Fair enough - but that case is a minority position. Moreover, I suspect the abstinence position came about in the wake of the temperance movement. My hunch is that the modern abstinence position cannot be found in history, in its current form, prior to the mid-19th century.
I don’t care enough to research this matter myself, but this is my hunch. If anyone has some credible sources for or against my hypothesis, please provide them.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler, my understanding is that American-style prohibitionism dates back only a couple of centuries as well. Per Jim Peet’s comments about “Beer Street and Gin Lane”, 1751, I suspect it has something to do with the greatly increased amount of grain that could be grown, and for the first time in history, the average person could afford to get seriously drunk on a regular basis, and in the U.S., crops were very typically shipped to market in liquid (whiskey or moonshine) form—think the “Whiskey Rebellion” when Washington and Congress taxed it. It’s no surprise that in a culture not used to hard liquor, many just said “let’s be done with it all already”, especially as new ways of purifying water were found like drinking coffee and tea and chlorination. In contrast, the Puritans and Separatists were great beer drinkers, the latter landing at Plymouth because their beer had run out.
There were earlier groups—many monastic ones—that viewed liquor as a luxury that Christians ought not enjoy, but those sects were also the type that would eschew meat and dairy, clothes of anything but coarse wool, and the like. Let’s just say that I don’t think too many FBFI members, or members of the churches we attend, would consent to this.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[TylerR]Fundamentalists recognize this, and often try an end-run around these facts by claiming that alcohol then isn’t like alcohol now. Fair enough - but that case is a minority position.
“alcohol then isn’t like alcohol now.” - What some mean by this is that distillation is a relatively recent process: in the last few hundred years. Distilled spirits were unknown in Bible times. So of course today’s 40 or 50 proof spirits (e.g. Scotch, Gin, Vodka, Bourbon, et al…) are far more potent (have a higher concentration of alcohol) on a volume basis than non-distilled alcoholic beverages (such as wine). Wine, however, was/is still wine: then or now. Fermentation as a natural process ceases once all of the sugar in the juice has been converted to alcohol.
Yet another argument that “alcohol then isn’t like alcohol now” then goes like this: the claim is made that wine back then was usually diluted, typically at a ratio of 3:1. [Note: occasionally you’ll see someone claim a ratio of 20:1, but the single reference in ancient literature to a ratio this great is in Homer’s Odyssey (a mythological wine that was so strong it maintained potentcy even at such a high ratio).]
Regarding the latter, I have been asking a question for years, and nobody ever addresses it: “Let’s say Joe Believer goes into a restaurant and orders a glass of wine (typical serving = 5 to 6 oz.) to accompany a ribeye. (He believes the wine complements the flavor of the steak.) During the meal, he also consumes a 16 oz. glass of water. In doing so, hasn’t he succeeded in diluting the wine by a ratio of about 3:1?” (By my math, 16:5 or 16:6 are equivalent to just plus or minus 3:1.)
[TylerR]Moreover, I suspect the abstinence position came about in the wake of the temperance movement. My hunch is that the modern abstinence position cannot be found in history, in its current form, prior to the mid-19th century.
Furthermore, the abstinence/temperance movement isn’t just a product of a certain time in history, it is a product of limited place(s) in history. It is distinctly limited in where the movement occurred.
[Larry Nelson]Interestingly, I recall reading that the prohibition was not initially targeting wine and beer as such, but they got pulled along in the enthusiasm, so to speak. Tossing out the bottle with the bath water. ;)TylerR wrote:
Fundamentalists recognize this, and often try an end-run around these facts by claiming that alcohol then isn’t like alcohol now. Fair enough - but that case is a minority position.
“alcohol then isn’t like alcohol now.” - What some mean by this is that distillation is a relatively recent process: in the last few hundred years. Distilled spirits were unknown in Bible times. So of course today’s 40 or 50 proof spirits (e.g. Scotch, Gin, Vodka, Bourbon, et al…) are far more potent (have a higher concentration of alcohol) on a volume basis than non-distilled alcoholic beverages (such as wine). Wine, however, was/is still wine: then or now. Fermentation as a natural process ceases once all of the sugar in the juice has been converted to alcohol.
Yet another argument that “alcohol then isn’t like alcohol now” then goes like this: the claim is made that wine back then was usually diluted, typically at a ratio of 3:1.
Regarding the latter, I have been asking a question for years, and nobody ever addresses it: “Let’s say Joe Believer goes into a restaurant and orders a glass of wine (typical serving = 5 to 6 oz.) to accompany a ribeye. (He believes the wine complements the flavor of the steak.) During the meal, he also consumes a 16 oz. glass of water. In doing so, hasn’t he succeeded in diluting the wine by a ratio of about 3:1?” (By my math, 16:5 or 16:6 are equivalent to just plus or minus 3:1.)
TylerR wrote:
Moreover, I suspect the abstinence position came about in the wake of the temperance movement. My hunch is that the modern abstinence position cannot be found in history, in its current form, prior to the mid-19th century.
Furthermore, the abstinence/temperance movement isn’t just a product of a certain time in history, it is a product of limited place(s) in history. It is distinctly limited in where the movement occurred.
The Bible commends wine, it does not commend alcohol. There was no word for alcohol in Bible times. The word wine was used for both alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages. The way you know for sure the Bible is speaking of alcoholic wine is when it describes its effects (Proverbs 23:29-35). And it says to not even look at that kind of wine. You would also do well to not even look at marijuana, opioids, and other recreational drugs.
Ancient people knew full well how to make and preserve alcoholic, and nonalcoholic, wine.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2017/04/11-reasons-to-not-drink-alcohol.html
David R. Brumbelow
Larry, couple of minor corrections. Distilled liquors are typically 80-100 proof, which is 40-50% alcohol. Also, fermentation stops two ways; like you say when the sugars run out, or when the yeast actually dies from the alcohol it’s produced. That last bit limits the strength of wines and sake to about 15% alcohol or so. Anything stronger requires distillation, or the addition of distilled spirits.
And agreed 100% that prohibitionism is geographically limited—I would dare suggest to areas where making large amounts of grain into liquor wouldn’t result in people starving. A point of reference is the Bavarian Rheinheitsgebot or purity law, passed in part to prevent too much wheat from being made into beer instead of bread.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Larry, couple of minor corrections. Distilled liquors are typically 80-100 proof, which is 40-50% alcohol.
Correct; I misspoke. I was thinking of 40-50% alcohol, as you state.
Here are two comments from P&D:
Don:
- For reasons I cannot quite fathom, Don has objected to my posting his comment from P&D here. So, read it for yourself at P&D, then return to comment.
My reply:
Don, a few things:
1. It is certainly not settled that alcohol then isn’t like alcohol now. There is a reason why that is a minority position.
2. Alcohol is spoken of positively in Scripture; marijuana is not. This is a problem for Wally’s article and the allegation of hypocrisy.
3. Paul’s advice to Timothy does not “clearly imply” an abstinence position. Rather, it clearly implies you WANT it to clearly imply abstinence.
4. The link to the temperance movement is significant, because (if true) it ties the abstinence position to a particular slice of time in Western culture since the mid-19th century, and not to the church catholic. When that happens, it’s always a potential red flag.
5. A better tactic is to argue for abstinence on the basis of holiness and prudence. I’ve never been convinced there is a good Scriptural argument to be made.
I advocate personal holiness, don’t drink at all, and advise others to not drink. I share your concerns about the lack of holiness, but I think its a bad tactic to argue for abstinence from alcohol with bad arguments. People see through them.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
If you doubt this, check out the etamology for “yayin”. It comes from a word meaning to bubble or effervesce, which is a pretty good description of the fermentation process. The word for new wine, “tirosh”, comes from a word basically meaning “pressed”. Neither resembles the Hebrew words for grape or vine; the very words are a clear picture of the process by which the ancients made most grapes into ordinary wine containing alcohol. They weren’t chemists yet, but anybody who’s ever toured a brewery or winery is going to recognize the terms used and the process they’re describing.
It should be noted as well that if you’re playing shell games with the definitions of words to satisfy your ideas, you’re going to have a huge problem sustaining any coherent notion of Sola Scriptura or the First Fundamental. It’s really no surprise that theological liberalism arise at the same time as Prohibitionism; both require a redefinition of words to mean something else than what they actually mean.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
…there are a number of big problems Don and Wally are going to run into. For starters, you’ve got the scientific problem that when we look at Proverbs 23 and elsewhere, the consequences to drunkenness are exactly the same as they are today—I can even give numbers on what BAC it is. You also see it in Luke 5:39, where Jesus says that the old wine is better or milder—any oinophile will instantly know what’s going on and agree.
Theologically speaking, you’ve got an issue if you are to argue that it’s different because the yeast is different—that really requires one to argue, more or less, that it’s evolved. Yes, there are strains of yeast that will make some difference, but when you read the ancient sources, it’s pretty clear they were making it about the same strength as Napa and Bourdeaux do even today. Is P&D picking a fight with Ken Ham?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Don mentioned Harding in his comment. I know Harding was on Julie Roy’s program on Moody Radio a few years back, advocating abstinence (I believe).
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Here are two comments from P&D:
Don:
Tyler, there really is no debate that alcohol was different in ancient times and drinking culture was different in ancient times. There also is no debate that modern technology makes the consequences of drunkenness potentially far more significant than before the Industrial Revolution. These arguments speak to the wisdom issue, NOT the theological issue.
Tyler, it is not good netiquette to post someone else’s comments from another site without permission. While I stand by what I said, I do NOT give permission to repost my comments elsewhere over here.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion