"We should be standing up for the greater good and marijuana is not the great good."

i support legalization of marijuana, but don’t believe it should be used by believers on grounds of expediency as well as a fundamental assertion that we should be in control of our faculties. So I don’t know if it is really a morality issue as much as a Christian “best practice” issue.

Practically regulation and taxation would be helpful for increased government revenue, as well as some alleviation of the burden on the criminal justice system. I am sure it is simply a matter of time before states fall like dominoes on this issue.

Four advantages of legalization (in my mind)

1. Potency of the drug would be regulated. I understand that http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-14/health/marijuana.potency_1_average-t…] Marijuana potency has increased substantially over time . The pro-marijuana group sees this as red herring: http://www.slate.com/id/2074151/ The Myth of Potent Pot (comment … article is from 2002).
   
2. In the drug war ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs] a war that we seem to have been in since Nixon ), billions appear to be focused on marijuana as the lesser drug issue over against larger issues (like meth, heroin, cocaine, etc). Economists speak of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle] Pareto principle (or 80/20 rule). Resources (money, law enforcement efforts, judicial resources, jails, etc) are limited. Some view that focusing on the more potent drugs is a better use of resources. Take other drugs (alcohol and caffeine- and these are drugs!): our society approves of their moderate use. Prohibition was a disaster (in the mind of many) and the modern day marijuana ban is likewise wasteful!
   
3. In contrast with billions wasted in the marijuana war, a regulated and taxed legal marijuana would both save billions and raise billions
   
4. Legalization would seriously diminish the power of the Mexican drug cartels (just as the end of prohibition did for the mob)
   Consider that:
   • Cocaine use is actually legal in some countries (Note that do not advocate that in the US!). Some societies are able to self-regulate drug use (consider children who drink wine in France or Italy!). Point is that legal prohibition is not always the better way of regulating behavior. I think this is true about marijuana use
     
   • Marijuana was at one time legal in the US (as was cocaine (consider ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola#Coca_.E2.80.94_cocaine] Coca Cola “!)
     
     
   By the way … and this is completely silly in my view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp] Hemp also falls under the marijuana ban. And industrial hemp has great and varied beneficial use.
   
   

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Alex K.] As for those Scythians: all my ancestry comes from ancient Scythia, so, I have a natural curiosity about them. My research contends that Cannabis intoxication was integral to Scythian history and society.

I contend you are exaggerating this pagan religiously ceremonial element of their history which, by the way, is not uniform with regard to all Scythian people. And in fact, if you use this standard you would be forced to make the same argument for other non-alcoholic intoxicants used by them that are well documented, some in even greater measure.

[Alex K.] The scriptural reference to Scythians who came to Christ was interesting to me. Surely if Paul wanted to condemn marijuana, he could have put it here.

Your argument is based on the assumption that he should have place it there. What you are then demanding from Paul is that every single objectionable practice of their former ways before conversion be listed. That is both impractical and impossible, hence Paul does address the issue in a prescriptive manner in repeatedly telling us that our “former ways”, “the way in which you used to live in the darkness of your mind”, are not our identity or our view and values, rather we are to “put off the old man” and “put on the new man” who is renewed in knowledge through God’s Word.

One who is devoted to defending the use of marijuana will no doubt argue that Paul, here, gives no specifics so no one can dogmatically say, thus and thus is in view. And this is the expected response because their devotion is to their argument of marijuana’s validity and not the appeal of the passage in light of its treatment of our old ways before conversion. But we (Christians) are not taught lesser arguments, rather we are taught higher orders and higher considerations. So when the Scriptures deal with Scythian believers, it is quite clear that they heard the issue by Paul to put off these old ways and renew themselves in the knowledge of Christ. If you still want to argue that the use of marijuana, which was quite pagan and quite in the context of pagan religious ceremonies and practices, is not in view with regard to the Scythians and Paul’s prescription to put away these kinds of former things, you certainly are welcome but my belief is that those you will be convincing are those already in allegiance.

Hi Alex,

of course i have not studied Scythian history extensively, nor all their practices. as bowhunter i was quite interested in their composite bow. i know they were a brutal people who drank wine fashioned out of goblets of their enemies’ skulls. as to a religious usage of marijuana could you provide me with some references? i have come across none, but that is not to say there isn’t any.

i really meant “could” in that God is very clear in His prohibitions, please don’t misconstrue my words as to what i’m saying.

so as missionaries we are to preach against indigenous pot use in those countries which have it?

as tax payers we are spending over $13 billion contra Cannabis in the U.S. we are also arresting over 800,000 yearly for marijuana infractions. is it really worth it? obviously no.

My comments had nothing to do with public policy, btw. I believe its decriminalization and in fact, regulation and legalization, need to be explored seriously.

Jim, I hear your arguments and find several of them plausible… but there is still the subculture problem. There is probably a way to do it right, but they sure haven’t gotten it right in Michigan.
I don’t see why the medical efforts can’t be conducted the way medicines are normally tested and approved.
But if the medical use is bogus and the real motivation is financial, those lobbying for it should just be up front about that. What’s wrong with saying “This is one vice that is not worth the cost of fighting it?” Not all vices are worth the bother to try to reign in through legislation (take “cyber-bullying” for example)… though some clearly are.

Something has really gotten sick and twisted when the same regions are trying simultaneously to legalize weed and ban fast food. We live in strange times.

[Aaron Blumer] Something has really gotten sick and twisted when the same regions are trying simultaneously to legalize weed and ban fast food. We live in strange times.

Only in California!

doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

A: Insanity California

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria101105_cmyk20101103101511…

OK- I’ve had enough fun for this morning. I’m wondering though- which came first 1)the criminalization of marijuana use 2) the dopey subculture?

It seems to me that we’ve already got laws that address things like creating a public disturbance or operating a motor vehicle or machinery while under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Even your average cold medicine has warnings about driving while impaired. Of course, it doesn’t stop anyone from chugging down the Nyquil and hopping their car… but impairment is impairment, regardless of what caused it. So it makes more sense to penalize folks for conduct caused by the misuse of drugs/alcohol than it does to try to criminalize what someone does in the privacy of their home.

I think part of the draw of a subculture is the forbidden aspect of it. Remove the ‘ooh-aah’ factor, and it’s not so cool anymore.

[Aaron Blumer]
I did overlook the word “illicit” there. I think all my counterarguments are solid except for that one. And in it’s place I’ll offer another. Is it possible that illegal drugs have caused “less harm” because they are illegal and not as widely used?
But I think the fact that they are illegal results in a difficulty in tracking their use that makes statistics like these meaningless. It’s comparing many thousands of legal meds used by millions of people to a handful of illegal substances used—at least in the US—only by those willing to commit crime. So comparing the two as an argument for what’s safer is, frankly, ridiculous, Discovery Channel or not.

would i still be fair if i did not immediately answer your points?

no, Aaron your counter arguments are not solid nor the additional question that you propose. these statistics are given by expert researchers and social workers who have earned their degrees studying these issues. you are merely “throwing ideas out there”. sorry. this is not your field or have you ever studied this in depth is obvious to me. go ahead, prove me wrong.

anyway, this is a very significant policy issue for the church and Christians. i have much that could be said as how we got to this point in our nation’s history (which, Aaron, you dismiss as irrelevant, and its not). however, i have an international trip i need to prepare for and, the Lord willing, i will come back early Dec. to return to “sharpening” and being “sharpened”. i’m leaving the laptop at home and going less encumbered.

Aloha, Alex