|
Author
|
Topic: Left vs Right: Prohibition
|
EL3LN3TN
unregistered
|
posted
One of the more interesting anti-recreational drug arguments I've heard is that the potential of legalizing them could create gigantic trillion dollar foreign cartel governments in places like South America, and Indo-Asia, that could threaten U.S. interests. These could be of possibly multi-national size!
I mean foreign oil is bad enough, right?
...but then, having U.S./European drug companies processing & producing them would turn them into gigantic megabillion $$ entertainment/food & beveridge conglomerates! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
IP: Logged | 
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pio:
I do not think there are any sins where there is only one victim to be hurt. Drugs is a common example used, but what about the money spent on drugs? What horrible things does that do? An MOST drug users will do it in some form of a group, are we not then setting a bad example and leading others to more occasions of sin? There are always consequences beyond the immediate that we will still have to answer to God for. Therefore I say that prohbition for clear sins is not only justified but ordered by the Natural Law.
I'm not speaking of personal choice. As christians we should not be taking part in drugs first and formost because the are illegal. If they were legal than it would be up to the individual. The thread is concerning our government outlawing drugs. My opinion is that we should not be using force to keep someone else from using or selling drugs. Them taking the drugs or selling them is not directly harming anyone else involuntarily.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Pio
unregistered
|
posted
I do not think there are any sins where there is only one victim to be hurt. Drugs is a common example used, but what about the money spent on drugs? What horrible things does that do? An MOST drug users will do it in some form of a group, are we not then setting a bad example and leading others to more occasions of sin? There are always consequences beyond the immediate that we will still have to answer to God for. Therefore I say that prohbition for clear sins is not only justified but ordered by the Natural Law.
IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by ahar:
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
drugs don't hurt anyone else unless you are forcing those drugs on another person. All the crimes and detrimental effects of drug use is the resposibility of the one doing the crimes, or neglect or the irresposible actions, not the drug.
It is not right to use violent force to keep others from doing something to themselves. It is not until they hurt someone elses person or property that violent force should be used, and that is because it is in responce to the person on drugs inniciating the violence through damaging person or property. If through drug use the person acts irresposibily or neglectful of some duties, as in parenting, than the person is to held responsible for those acts, but it is the persons fault.
People need to be responsible for themselves and it is not to be blamed on the drugs they were on. You are responsible for your actions because you chose to put the drugs in your body and your responsible for what your body than does.
So a person should not be prohibited from using drugs, just because it causes others to do wrong. And the use of violent force against those who have only hurt themselves or to prevent them from hurting themselves is wrong.
Drugs (things like Cocaine, Heroin etc) are an interesting one. I think of it like this - if you have a friend who is about to do something stupid for fun at a party for example (e.g. juggle steak knives) you'd tell him to quit it and stop being an idiot, rather than try and juggle the knives and cut his hands. If this applies to a friend, it should also apply to a stranger?
If this is the case, then when we roll it up to a national level, laws against cocaine etc could be seen as an attempt to help people not do stupid things. One of the arguments I've seen against civil partnerships for same sex couples is that by allowing it the state is implicity giving it's approval. You could say the same thing about drugs - if the state (as in Government, not as in Nebraska) were to allow drugs it could be seen as an implicit approval. If as Christians we don't want to show approval of gay marriage, why would we want to show approval of other things such as harmful drugs?
If you want to talk to your friend about not doing something that may hurt themselves then thats fine. If you want to talk to a total stranger about not doing drugs than that is good to. We should all be helping others when we see them doing things that could hurt themselves.
But when you put that to government, it is now a totally different thing. Now it is you forcing me to pay for violent force to be used against me or others for doing something that you think is bad for them. That is wrong.
You can ask others to not do drugs, but you cannot use violence to prevent them from using drugs. And you cannot force others to pay for the implimentation of the violent force.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
drugs don't hurt anyone else unless you are forcing those drugs on another person. All the crimes and detrimental effects of drug use is the resposibility of the one doing the crimes, or neglect or the irresposible actions, not the drug.
It is not right to use violent force to keep others from doing something to themselves. It is not until they hurt someone elses person or property that violent force should be used, and that is because it is in responce to the person on drugs inniciating the violence through damaging person or property. If through drug use the person acts irresposibily or neglectful of some duties, as in parenting, than the person is to held responsible for those acts, but it is the persons fault.
People need to be responsible for themselves and it is not to be blamed on the drugs they were on. You are responsible for your actions because you chose to put the drugs in your body and your responsible for what your body than does.
So a person should not be prohibited from using drugs, just because it causes others to do wrong. And the use of violent force against those who have only hurt themselves or to prevent them from hurting themselves is wrong.
Drugs (things like Cocaine, Heroin etc) are an interesting one. I think of it like this - if you have a friend who is about to do something stupid for fun at a party for example (e.g. juggle steak knives) you'd tell him to quit it and stop being an idiot, rather than try and juggle the knives and cut his hands. If this applies to a friend, it should also apply to a stranger?
If this is the case, then when we roll it up to a national level, laws against cocaine etc could be seen as an attempt to help people not do stupid things. One of the arguments I've seen against civil partnerships for same sex couples is that by allowing it the state is implicity giving it's approval. You could say the same thing about drugs - if the state (as in Government, not as in Nebraska) were to allow drugs it could be seen as an implicit approval. If as Christians we don't want to show approval of gay marriage, why would we want to show approval of other things such as harmful drugs?
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by EL3LN3TN:
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) How about legitimate, legal, "healthy" drugs??? Drugs like Prozac, legitimately prescribed by the Almighty Psychiatric Profession, that are known and documented to incite violent suicidal behavior, or other "anti psychotic" drugs like Haldol, Artane, or Cogentin that reduce ppl to worthless zombies??
At least people are being made whole and more healthy with these, no?? ![[happyhappy]](graemlins/happyhappy.gif)
Yes, having to aquire prescriptions from goverment licensed individuals is something else I oppose.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
EL3LN3TN
unregistered
|
posted
How about legitimate, legal, "healthy" drugs??? Drugs like Prozac, legitimately prescribed by the Almighty Psychiatric Profession, that are known and documented to incite violent suicidal behavior, or other "anti psychotic" drugs like Haldol, Artane, or Cogentin that reduce ppl to worthless zombies??
At least people are being made whole and more healthy with these, no??
IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
I guess it was unfair to list all those things together and say the left would allow and the right would oppose, especially in the case of the guns, cause its the left that opposes guns and the right that is for guns.
So lets take drugs since they are currently prohibited and their first on my list. Drugs for the most part arn't good for you, and since most of them are pretty strong and addictive, I would say that the Bible would be opposed to most drug use. I don't know that much about drugs, but I imagine a little majuana would be OK if it were legal, but thats not the point.
drugs don't hurt anyone else unless you are forcing those drugs on another person. All the crimes and detrimental effects of drug use is the resposibility of the one doing the crimes, or neglect or the irresposible actions, not the drug.
It is not right to use violent force to keep others from doing something to themselves. It is not until they hurt someone elses person or property that violent force should be used, and that is because it is in responce to the person on drugs inniciating the violence through damaging person or property. If through drug use the person acts irresposibily or neglectful of some duties, as in parenting, than the person is to held responsible for those acts, but it is the persons fault.
People need to be responsible for themselves and it is not to be blamed on the drugs they were on. You are responsible for your actions because you chose to put the drugs in your body and your responsible for what your body than does.
So a person should not be prohibited from using drugs, just because it causes others to do wrong. And the use of violent force against those who have only hurt themselves or to prevent them from hurting themselves is wrong.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
By prohibition I lump
drugs
Incrediby destructive to the person, all those around them and the community as well.
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
prostitution,
Destructive to the person, the community and wider society
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
public nudity
Potentially harmful to society
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
alcohol,
Very destructive to those around an alcoholic and causes many problems in society
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
guns
I wouldn't trust half the people in the UK with anything sharper than a plastic spoon, let alone a gun.
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
and any other things people want to keep from us from doing that doesn't hurt anyone else but ourselves.
Don't think that there is anything in the list that just damages the individual.
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
Left winger would be against prohibition and a right winger would be for prohibition.
How can we argue this point from a biblical perseption.
I'm not a left winger, but I would be against prohibition.
I don't generally have right wing views, but for me absolute prohibition of most of the stuff on that list isn't too bad a plan.
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
EL3LN3TN
unregistered
|
posted
I don't think guns could be categorized completely as something that "does'nt hurt anyone else"..etc etc ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
So in the other thread it looks like we are going use words like left winger and right winger for discussion.
So how about prohibition?
By prohibition I lump drugs, prostitution, public nudity, alcohol, guns and any other things people want to keep from us from doing that doesn't hurt anyone else but ourselves.
Left winger would be against prohibition and a right winger would be for prohibition.
How can we argue this point from a biblical perseption.
I'm not a left winger, but I would be against prohibition.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
