There is an interesting discussion going on at my recent article Social Movement. Commenter Russ was saying that Christians might favor prohibition because they “see what drugs do”. Really what they see is what prohibition does. But never mind. Let us take a look at “what drugs do”. This is for you Russ:
OK Russ. I see you need an education:
It is amazing what people will do to get relief from pain.
So “what drugs do” is provide pain relief. Why exactly isn’t the Christian community up in arms about government restrictions on pain relief? I was under the impression that compassion was the hall mark of Christianity. At least according to the commenters at Hoft’s (the article referenced in the original post).
Only “authorized” pain counts. If you have severe PTSD we put you at the mercy of the gypsy drug store. Because PTSD is not “real” pain.
So if drugs are a problem why not go after the root cause? The pain that causes drug taking for relief?
I see two choices here. Either the Christian community is ignorant or they like punishing Jews (uh, I mean dopers). Neither one is something to be proud of.
BTW how come Christians don’t balance the coin by looking at all the damage Prohibition does? We even have an earlier example to study. They make a fundamental mistake. They assume their wrath is God’s wrath. Which is a rather large presumption. IMO. Because, you know, it often doesn’t work out that way. The pogrom against alcohol users (more commonly referred to as drunks) is a shining example.
And then we have the “bad example” problem. If government can regulate your drug taking habits to prevent you from inflicting harm on yourself what is to prevent nanny staters from using that as a template to prevent you from harming yourself in other ways? Like controlling the food you eat. Nothing.
You can’t give the government nanometer or they will soon control your life. You will of course have choice. Permitted choice. “Chose one from column A comrade. Or if you prefer you can choose from column A.”
And since this is a Tea Party place let me ask: “where in the Constitution is Federal Drug Prohibition a Federal Government power?” A big clue is that we needed an amendment for alcohol prohibition. So where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment? MIA. i.e. Federal Drug Prohibition is a usurped power. Not much complaint about that on the right. Ah. Well. You will get the government you deserve and the criminal parasites the government chooses to support. Enjoy.
Comments
16 responses to “What Do Drugs Do?”
A lot of bad generalizations and stereotyping in this post. First, I’m a Christian who is opposed to government intervention in drugs, and while I lean libertarian, if you look you will find many self-described Tea Partiers waking up to this. There are many parallels to Prohibition as far as the economic consequences of illegalizing behavior, and in fact you should read the book The Rise And Fall of Prohobition. There was misguided confidence about doing God’s will, to be sure, but a lot of it was actually compassion FOR the women and children who suffered abuse from alcoholic husbands – and in an age that was generally less progressive about women’s rights, to boot. Today, most Christians would not support a return to Prohibition, and they may not have thought through the implications of trying to oppose drugs at the same time, but don’t claim they are lacking compassion.
The guy above is correct Simon, I’m a Christian, Tea Party member, Med Marijuana user(and Artisan grower).
I lean Libertarian as well as anyone could I guess so where do I fit in to your stereotype?
Wow. Two Christian libertarians. I’m glad you both fall outside the stereotypes.
I guess all the libertarian policy bashing by the socons at FreeRepublic and socon pundits in general is a figment of my imagination. Me thinks both postliberatian and Bobnormal would get spanked pretty hard by their fellow Christians if they were to argue against the WOD at FreeRepublic.
I’m curious if either one of you have shared your thoughts about the WOD in public at your respective churches and what the response was, assuming you attend church regulary.
There was misguided confidence about doing God’s will…
There almost always is. All too often, when Christians try to do God’s will, it’s done via pointing a gun at a sinner.
Just about everyone is familiar with the saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Generally speaking, it would never occur to most Christians that this could, and IMO often does, apply to them too.
The reason it never occurs to them is simple. When you believe in the existence of a supernatural battle between good and evil, and you believe you have joined the side of “good” in its battle against “evil”, one will automatically see themselves as aligned with the angels in all things. IOW, how could I, a Christian trying to get to heaven myself and help others to do the same, be part of something evil?
In the movie Animal House, the rowdy frat boys are facing further sanctions in a student government hearing. One of the Deltas (Otter) goes into an oration claiming that to condemn the Deltas is to call into question the legitimacy of the fraternity/sorority system. To question those is to question the whole university system. And by questioning the legitimacy of the university system, you are also questioning the legitimacy of the entire public education system. And being that the public education system is the backbone of the country, you are attacking the United States of America! He and the Deltas won’t stand for it and walk out en masse.
This is similar to how many Christians argue when their political and cultural norms/positions are challenged: To question or offer alternate interpretations of the Bible or to challenge the authority or morality of the Bible is to challenge God. To challenge/disagree with God is to be a servant of Satan. People that serve Satan can’t be correct on anything. I’m not going to argue with someone who serves Satan.
I do think that libertarian political theory is making inroads into Christianity. Thirty plus years of strident moralizing from the socons has started more and more Christians (to some extent, even some socons themselves) to do a little introspection. A few are coming to the realization that libertarian political thought is completely congruent with the Golden Rule. But it will be some time before it is accepted by a significant majority of Christians.
Yea, yea, I too am a Christian with libertarian leanings.
On the other hand, I am not quite so sure about legalizing drugs precisely because of the stereotyping that went on in the post above. There is clearly an ugly streak in human beings that needs to manifest itself. (It is almost like we are all sinners.) Given we have this propensity that is expressed in wierdness about drugs, how else would it be expressed?
Given the hatred of Christianity that seems to be the norm among the so-called tolerant, I can imagine a lot worse things than drugs being illegal. I actually think the hatred for western civilization expressed by so many today is such a manifestation.
Much that is creepy is occuring today and the worst of it is not the drug laws.
Libertarian Christians seem to be growing in number. Libertarian ideas are not necessarily at odds with most of the basic Christian beliefs. They are in conflict with basic human nature. As a parent, I want to shield my children from danger and those who would take advantage of them. If drugs are legalized will they become more easily available? Will there be celebrities claiming to be responsible recreational users? I understand the fear of change but I also understand that ultimate responsibility resides in the individual.
Christian leadership like all positions of influence and power draws those who want and need such power, and will even lie to themselves to get it. Even those with the best of motives make human mistakes. There seem to be few if any apologists right now, only power seekers; but here are a few thoughts from years ago
John Bennett of Union Theological Seminary,
Man never ceases to be a responsible being and no mere victim of circumstance or of the consequences of the sins of his fathers. Man has the amazing capacity through memory and thought and imagination to transcend himself and his own time and place, to criticize himself and his environment on the basis of ideals and purposes that are present to his mind, and he can aspire in the grimmest situation to realize these ideals and purposes in his personal life and in society. It is this capacity for self-transcendence that Reinhold Niebuhr, following Augustine, regards as the chief mark of the image of God in man that is never lost.
The first thing that Christians say about human nature is that man—and this means every man—is made in the image of God and that this image is the basis of man’s dignity and promise.
The second thing that Christians say about human nature is that man—and this means every man and not merely those who are opponents or enemies—is a sinner.
Benjamin A. Rogge
“clearly, within certain limits, social security does work; it does provide much needed help to many in real need.
III.2.41
Surely the Christian can find no dilemma here. No? What, then, of the Mennonites and the Amish who have fiercely resisted any participation in this program? Of course, these are patently queer people, who wear funny-looking clothes and have other peculiar ideas, but they do call themselves Christians; in fact, they say that it is because they are Christians that they must refuse to involve themselves in social security.
III.2.42
How could this possibly be? Let us go back to our precepts of religion and see what we can find. Suppose we interpret the brotherhood of man, individual responsibility, and freedom to choose as meaning that each man should be free to choose, even in economic life; that if he chooses wrongly he is responsible and should seek himself to solve the problems he has created for himself; and that, if this proves impossible, it then becomes the responsibility of his fellow Christians, as a voluntary act of brotherhood, to come to his assistance. Surely, this line of reasoning cannot be immediately labeled as un-Christian—even if it would confront us with the embarrassing challenge of doing something individually, directly, and out of our own pockets”
http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Rogge/rggCCS3.html#Part%20III,%20Chapter%202,%20Christian%20Economics:%20Myth%20or%20Reality
I like this article! I live with level 7- 8 pain everyday for almost the last 17 years due to having broken my back in two places while at work. Though I did return to work, same job, same employer, the pain became progressively intolerable for me!
Ive had 23 inpatient surgeries and now have 23 inch scar down the center of my back from shoulder blades to tail bone, more epidurals, caudals and facet blocks then I can count or remember, I am currently on my 3rd implanted nuerological electro- stimulator, (TENS) and still have severe pain. If it werent for the narcotics I take, simply to get through the day, live my life as best I can, and take crae of my family (Im a single parent of two great kids)I dont know what Id do!
People who dont live in pain will never understand the issues surrounding it. The laws of most states say pain relief is a priority, as the things chronic pain can do to your head are incredible. I dont ask for pitty or sympathy, just understanding…I have been in pain management with the stimulators, physical therapies, and medications for more then 10 years…and my Drs should be the ONLY folks who determine whats best for me, in my situation, and Ive grown to trust their judgement!
Taking long term, serious narcotic pain meds (morphine % vicodin)really isnt all its cracked up to be….believe me!
IF there were an alternative to this therapy, I would jump on it…there isnt one that works for me, as of today, so like the article states….we do what we have to do to get by…..thanks!
I always look at things from the perspective of what would I do if I was wearing their shoes.
Pain medications are terrible for your body but I understand why people have to take them. If you have to take them for a long time they will eventually stop working properly and leave you just addicted to the medication.
If marijuana works to control your pain who the hell am I to tell you that you that your should not do it. Move to a medical marijuana state, get the law passed in your state or take a risk and buy it off the street.
Marijuana is a way better alternative because it isn’t physically addicting nor does it harm your liver.
I’m just glad I still have my health.
You libertarian Christians need to rely on prayer.
Speaking as a Christian, if ever there was a gift from God, it is morphine. Praise the Lord!
I also, like every other Christian I know, separate my civic beliefs from my religious beliefs.
Hi Simon,
Apologies for getting to the party late. I’m honored that you posted in direct response to me.
I guess we’re talking at cross purposes here. Look, I’m willing to concede that there are plenty of Christians our there (nominal and devout) who oppose medical marijuana and support the drug laws but drink to the point of inebriation. My guess is that there are probably plenty of both (nominal and devout Christians) who also use pot recreationally and drink, too. My point is that I think that there’s anything particular to Christian teaching that make one more or less inclined to support anti-drug laws (for the record, I’m in favor of legalizing pot; crystal meth, not so much)any more than I think that there’s anything particular to Judaism or Islam that would make it more likely for an adherent of either to actively support the war on drugs. All of these religions ask that adherents not degrade their ability to reason to the point where God is no longer present. That’s it. And in spite of the Wahabist/Salafist take on Islam, there are plenty of devout Moslems who drink in moderation, my father-in-law, to name but one. I don’t think it’s fair to tar all Christians with the brush of the WCTU. I think Christianity is host to a far broader range of opinion then you give it credit for.
Anyway, regarding your point about when, where, and how far the goverment can go in regulating the behavior of it’s citizenry, I think that a community has a right to judge whether a certain type of behavior is harmful to the common good and to then make laws addressing it. I don’t think that this is unreasonable. The example that leaps to mind is drunk drivers: I’ve only come to this blog in the last 6 months or so, so it’s possible you’ve addressed this in past blog items and that I’ve missed it.
Anyhooo, gotta get back to the salt mines. Thanks for your hospitality.
Much that is creepy is occuring today and the worst of it is not the drug laws.
Quite true. The drug laws are just a symptom of the worst.
I mean seriously. Punishing the traumatized? Punishing the victims of sexual abuse?
Where do you think a nation that does that sort of thing is headed?
I think that a community has a right to judge whether a certain type of behavior is harmful to the common good and to then make laws addressing it.
Then your liberty is at the mercy of the mob. God help you when they turn on you.
And harm to the community? Such a nebulous term. It could be anything. Drawing pictures of Mohammed might not pass muster some day – if your rule is in effect.
And you are aware that community is the excuse given for communism? How do you keep the communists at bay? Progressives were at one time allied with the Christian right. I can see the mutual attraction. I can also see why the alliance fell apart. Surface differences. At the deepest level they are aligned “we can change human nature by force. All we have to do is get our hands on the levers of power.”
Which gets to my major point. America is in danger from statists. Some of them are on the left and some are on the right. It is why liberty has been losing ground. We do not have a two party competition. We have a one party (the government party) and two factions. One wants government to mostly do this and one wants the government to do mostly that. What they have in common is the “Government do.” Which always winds up “due the government.” i.e. it is going to cost you.
And what happens when community standards run to this? “We can’t have slackers or people making too much money. It would be anti-communitarian.”
=====
The only true measure in a society you would prefer to keep free is individual harm. i.e. if I’m watching the tube, paying my bills and doing bong loads or drinking myself into oblivion what business is it of yours?
Am I being the best I can be? No. Is it any of the government’s (or should that be community’s?) business? No!
If you see a soul that needs saving – save it – if you can. Not even Jesus could save everyone. Nor has he. Nor did Jesus advocate the use of government weapons to keep people on the true path. Quite the opposite.
Thomas,
There is no such thing as addiction. If you are in pain you will take pain meds.
Tolerance arises from two things: when you fill the receptors taking more drugs does no good. If you keep the receptors filled the body grows more. Thus the need for ever increasing doses.
For habituation (the body’s need for continuous replacement of used drugs) we know how to fix that. It is called detox. For heroin it can be done in a few days to a few weeks. For barbiturates the treatment can run six months. But if you don’t fix the underlying pain you get what are euphemistically called “relapses”.
Seriously. Where did you learn your science? On a street corner?
[…] what appears to be an ongoing series commenter Thomas was spouting some popular misconceptions about drugs. I wanted to make more public […]
Hi Simon,
I don’t dispute that “community” has been used to justify all sorts of ills and evils. On the other hand, I don’t that every law that gets passed by some community-based consensus necessarily operates to the detriment of the individual. All that said, I’m still not seeing evidence that there’s something inherent in Christianity that somehow makes it’s adherents more like to support laws or movements that curtail individual liberty. A case could be made that the Christian respect for life make the religion the single greatest champion of individual rights in the history of the world, not only in the legal sense but in the sense of being given knowledge that frees one from the material contraints of the world.
You points about communitarianism are well taken, but I think that’s a danger inherent to democracy. Which is why I favor the devolution of government decisions to the most local level possible: if I don’t like what one community is doing, I can leave.
The alternative is what I tend to think of as “responsible anarchism”, but I don’t think that human nature and/or human psychology has made us particularly fit for that mode of government. But it hasn’t been tried, so I could be wrong.
My two cents. Thanks again for a stimulating discussion.
‘No such thing as addiction’? Really? For anyone?