»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
The legalization of recreational drugs
| Philosophy 101 |
|
The legalization of recreational drugs |
|
|
Caelestis Junior Member
since 2002-12-10
Posts 12Canada |
What is it about our country that sets it apart from others in the world? Freedom, many would say. Our citizens have the right to make their own decisions, without being oppressed by the government. This is not entirely true. It is obvious that every society needs a government in order to function, and every government must pass laws in order to maintain the society and to ensure that the rights of its citizens are not violated. Surely, each law that has been passed by our government was done so in with the intent of inhibiting the violation of one citizen by another? Not so! While many of our laws were made for this purpose, there are undoubtedly such things as victimless crimes. I will focus on the topic of recreational drugs. I will separate recreational drugs into two categories: the first, the contents of which I believe should be legalized, contains drugs that have been proven not to be highly addictive, physically. Some examples are cannabis and “magic mushrooms”. The second category, of course, contains the drugs, such as heroine and cocaine, which have been proven to cause extreme physical addiction. When a person, who is of appropriate age and mental ability to rationally decide whether or not the benefits of recreational drugs (the obvious benefit being pleasure) outweigh the potential health risks, decides to consume one of these substances, there is no victim created. The rights of another citizen are not violated – is it the government’s place to protect these individuals from themselves? Ideally, our noble protectors, the government, should thoroughly research the long term effects of these drugs, make the information accessible to everyone, and then give it’s citizens the right to make their own decision, rather than treating everyone in the country like a child. Why, then, should we not also have the right to consume physically addictive drugs? I believe a fairly accurate comparison would be to the concept of legalizing intoxicated driving. In each case, while it is rarely the intention of the individual to cause harm to others, this is too often the case. The drug addict may turn to crime in order to fund their habit, and the drunk driver may accidentally kill another person. I would love to have the freedom to make my own decision on recreational drugs. However, I would gladly give up my right to consume physically addictive drugs in order to moderate the crime rate. [This message has been edited by Caelestis (12-10-2002 03:00 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Caelestis - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
While I might agree that drugs should be legalized - and then regulated - I'm not sure I'm willing to accept your classification system. A drug is a drug is a drug, and I've seen no conclusive evidence that the psychological addiction of marijuana is any less dangerous to society than the physical addiction of heroine. In both instances, I've seen people do "really bad things" to support their habit. Should governments protect people from themselves? Within limits, yes. That's why 12-year-olds can't go bar-hopping, you can't drive a hundred miles an hour even if you're the only car on the road, and no one can legally commit suicide. It's not so much a matter of "should" the government as it is "when should" the government. Personally, I have a bigger problem with seat belt laws than I do with drug laws. In my opinion, the problem with current drug laws isn't that they're unjustifiable, but rather that they're unenforceable. It's at least reasonably difficult for a 16-year-old to buy whiskey in the Western world because the supply of whiskey is highly regulated. There's no black market to speak of because there's no high profits to justify the risk. Until we control the supply of ALL recreational drugs in a similar manner, the law is impotent to stop drug use in the home, and what happens in the home inevitably spreads outside the home. Any law that can't be enforced weakens even those that can. Oh, and BTW, I would most certainly classify alcohol right up there with marijuana and heroine, but would cite current practice as only the BEGINNING of the regulation we need for recreational drugs. In other words, I don't think legalization should necessarily make it easier to get wasted. Just more controllable. |
||
|
Caelestis Junior Member
since 2002-12-10
Posts 12Canada |
"When a person, who is of appropriate age and mental ability to rationally decide" -- therefore 12 years olds are excluded from my arguement. Obviously people who are that young are not wise enough to make a lot of decisions for themselves. However, do you believe that you need to be protected from yourself, being an adult (I assume) of reasonable intelligence, by the government? You mentioned that you believe marijuana addicts may be as dangerous to society as heroine addicts. I disagree. First of all, marijuana, because it causes no physical withdrawl symptoms, is far easier to quit than drugs such as heroine or nicotine. It's also a lot cheaper, and therefore an addict is less likely to need to resort to crime in order to feed their addiction. Finally, you cannot become more addicted to a drug like marijuana than you can to a favorite food, or a video game. If one person turned to crime to support his lobster addiction, would you support the criminalization of sea food? I would place alcohol on the list of drugs which I believe should remain legal, because although it can cause physical addiction, and studies have shown it is in fact more damaging to your health than cannabis, it is no where near as addictive as heroine or cocaine. [This message has been edited by Caelestis (12-10-2002 05:24 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
What this all boils down to is the difference between legislating actual actions and potential reactions. I had this argument with my boyfriend the other day. In regards to the seat belt thing- he made a very good point. What about the un-belted person in the backseat who flies forward and snaps my neck? What about the potential risk to others? I also feel that drugs should be legalized and regulated... but it opens a whole can of worms. Where do regulations end? Should a single mother of two be allowed to take herion, considering the possibility of addiction, negligence, and irrational actions? What about the same concerns, with alcohol? There's no question that anybody can get drugs. There's also no question that our government allows the sale of addictive and unhealthy drugs- tobacco being one, alcohol being another. There's also no question that people can easily bypass regulations on controlled substances- it's not hard, for example, to ge oxycontin prescriptions from several doctors and take them to several different pharmacies. It's also not hard to mix and match Rx drugs with alcohol, other Rx, or OTC's to enhance a desired effect. Laws just make it a little more tedious. While I agree that it makes infinite sense to legalize, control, and eliminate the black market, there are also questions that I can't answer, making me question my own position: What about children of drug users? By legalization, do we condone negligence? Is it better to condemn something that we can't enforce, or simply say that it's okay to do? Is it okay for the government to legalize drugs that are severely addictive, and very harmful to our bodies? If we legalize one, do we legalize them all? Do we draw lines? What about national morality? Can we justify legalizing something if a majority of Americans is morally against it? ? |
||
|
Caelestis Junior Member
since 2002-12-10
Posts 12Canada |
If a parent's use of recreational drugs negatively affects their children, then their right to raise children should be taken away, as in such a case, victimization does in fact occur. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Caelestis, when you agree that a 12-year-old doesn't fall under the mandate of "appropriate age and mental ability," you only open a new can of worms. You're admitting that "some people" can't make their own decisions, but apparently assuming we can agree on which ones. In my opinion, a twenty-something person who has yet to come face to face with his own mortality is as poorly equipped to make those decisions as the 12-year-old. I can say that because I used to be twenty-something and thought I would live forever. How's this sound for a compromise? You're old enough to make those decisions AFTER you've watched your parents die from the bad decisions they made? Again, I actually agree with your conclusion, but not with your logic. Marijuana is easier to kick than heroin? Sure. And for the same exact reasons, it's also easier to completely avoid. But people do neither. And yes, if I saw as many people addicted to lobster as I do to pot, I would definitely think it needs to be better controlled. Especially if I knew it affected the way they did their jobs or drove their cars. Hush, most of the scenarios you outline are, indeed, the difference between actual actions and potential reactions. Should a single mother of two be allowed to take heroin? I've often asked myself if a single mother of two should be allowed to work two jobs - until I met one that did and still managed to spend more time with her kids than most stay-at-home mothers manage to do. If a mother is negligent, we need to regulate the negligence and not what we perceive to be the cause of the negligence. 'Cause you know what? Take away a mother's heroin and I have a sneaky suspicion she'd find another reason to neglect her kids. In my experience, drugs influence decisions. They do NOT influence morals. Again, I'm not suggesting that the legalization of drugs should make getting drugs easy. On the contrary, it should make it a whole lot harder. We can do that, I think, by simply making it cheaper. Take the profit out of the black market and the black market will disappear. "Can we justify legalizing something if a majority of Americans is morally against it?" Absolutely! The law should exist only to protect its citizens, not to dictate morality. I know it doesn't always seem like it, but sometimes that principal actually prevails, too. When was the last time you saw class in a public school start with a prayer? That's one of those all too rare instances where protection of the citizens has superceded the will of the majority. As it should. |
||
|
Caelestis Junior Member
since 2002-12-10
Posts 12Canada |
When I say that a 12 year old is not capable, I mean on average. Surely, there are some exceptions, as there would be to any age limit. However, the age of 18 is required here in Canada to consume alcohol, and that seems like a good place to draw the line. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Having been 18, I can say that's not old enough to start making life-affecting decisions. Of course, I didn't believe that when I was 18, and I think most don't. Of course, I'm almost 29 now and sometimes still feel I'm not old enough. |
||
|
Jaime
Registered
MemberPosts 250 |
Just thought I'd say.. it's pretty easy for me to get my hands on weed, E, and heroine - all of which are sold at my school or the schools near by. (There's deinately more, but I don't know of them because I don't use drugs. My friend Sheena could give you a list though.) When I was 14 I was temporarily selling E to help a friend out. My point is that you say that it'd be for people of an appropriate age, but there's nothing that says people who aren't at that point won't get their hands on it. It seems like legalizing it would make it even easier... I could get a few of my older friends to hook me up the way they have in the past with cigarettes and alcohol. I'm not arguing one point or another, but I just thought I'd bring that up. As a kid I thought perhaps I could offer something from this perspective. I'm not good at this arguing stuff anyway.  Oh, and for kids.. I hope we're counting psychological damage too. If I saw my mother snorting and injecting something... well, I have enough of a problem seeing them drunk. Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I don't think that's something a kid needs to deal with. Their friends may do it, but their parents are.. well, their parents. i was here [This message has been edited by Jaime (12-11-2002 09:32 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'In my experience, drugs influence decisions. They do NOT influence morals.' Ron, you are absolutely right. But in the case of the negligent mother, her primary reason for being negligent (in this scenario) is that she's too strung out to know anything from anything. You can't demand that a woman who is sky high (not that I know what it's like to take heroin, but that's always been the impression I get) cook a decent meal for her kids, if she has trouble even standing. The same, of course, applies to a drunk-as-a-skunk mother swigging rum and telling her kids to throw some easy-mac in. How can you properly regulate negligence without regulating the 'perceived' cause of it, even when the direct effect of that cause is negligence? And, Caelestis, how do you know what recreational drug use negatively affects children? Sure, you could say ask them, but you could get the answer that they know lets them stay with their mother... adn what about kids that are too young to ask? How do you legislate that? Back to Ron- '"Can we justify legalizing something if a majority of Americans is morally against it?" Absolutely!' Then why aren't gay marriages allowed in all 50 states? Because a majority of people think it's amoral. Why is prostitution illegal? People perceive sexually provocative women as amoral. 'The law should exist only to protect its citizens, not to dictate morality.' I agree with you, but it still boils down to how dangerous drugs are, and whether the government should just be protecting other citizens from you, or you from yourself. Chris, 'Having been 18, I can say that's not old enough to start making life-affecting decisions.' Ironic, because I think that choosing a college major is (practically speaking) much more life affecting than deciding to have a few drinks. Jaime- you make a good point about psychological damage- but in a society where that kind of behavior is legal, would is affect you the same way? In a society where drugs aren't stigmatized, the actual act of our parents doing them probably wouldn't traumatize us so... But what about the kid who's stuck wiping up their parents' vomit? The kid who has to call 911 when their parents overdose? The kid who has to put school on the backburner because they are so preoccupied with taking core of parents that makes themselves (and keep themselves) sick? [This message has been edited by hush (12-11-2002 10:22 AM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Hush - I don't disagree with you for a second. I've come to believe that many things we ask an 18-year-old to choose are things they're not ready or equipped to do. I can't even count the amount of people I know who either didn't know what they wanted to do with their lives when they were 18, or changed it multiple times afterward, or regretted what they did choose at a later time in life when they were 'stuck' in the midst of the results from those choices. 18 is the arbitrary age of an adult drawn from older times when life held fewer choices and responsibilities differed. |
||
|
Jaime
Registered
MemberPosts 250 |
There'd still be a transition period. No one wakes up one morning and suddenly has no problem with drugs/alcohol/smoking/etc. Whether something is common or not it can still be psychologically damaging. It was common for me to be sexually abused when I was younger.. does that mean if suddenly older people were allowed to molest young children we wouldn't be damaged by it? And as for those kids who have to wipe up their parents vomit and such.. yes, what about them? I think it just pushes the point further. Shouldn't we be dealing with these problems instead of trying to find idealistic ways around them? I'm sorry, but I just think that legalizing drugs would make the problem worse. I see the points made about the black market and such, but I feel that no matter what the motives are of the government the majority of people will handle it differently. The individual perhaps is capable of making rational decisions. The majority? No. I just don't trust the majority. Life is where you look for it. [This message has been edited by Jaime (12-11-2002 07:48 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'I'm sorry, but I just think that legalizing drugs would make the problem worse. I see the points made about the black market and such, but I feel that no matter what the motives are of the government the majority of people will handle it differently.' Jaime, I think one of the main points here is that anybody can get drugs. Anybody can get on the internet and become an expert. People can order drugs online- I'm not sure about more standard illegal drugs making it through, but I now people can order Rx (like narcotics) from the internet. The question I'm posing is whether it is better for our government to condone the negative aspects of drugs, but hold some control, or to stick to laws they can't effectively enforce. 'The individual perhaps is capable of making rational decisions. The majority? No. I just don't trust the majority.' But the decision-making still falls on the individual. A people doesn't do drugs- individuals do. |
||
|
Jaime
Registered
MemberPosts 250 |
I just don't think legalizing drugs would make laws regarding drugs any more effective. I feel that if you want to correct something then you take it piece by piece.. you don't throw in the towel. Throwing in the towel.. yeah, that would be the majority. Life is where you look for it. |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
I think we might like to turn to the original poster's counterargument. He/she reminds us that there is indeed a danger that the drug addict might choose to pursue crime in order to support his addiction. Legalized or not, drugs will always have that problem attatched to them. Perhaps we could emulate the crime associated with drug addiction by obtaining funding for the procurement of drugs for the citizenry of Canada through taxes. That way the general populous could suffer equally instead of just the unfortunate few who are victims of crime. As far as the party line about the government being oppressive is concerned, I think that those who make statements like that might like to visit a country in which there exists a real oppressive government. I have been reading this thread and found it quite interesting. I hadn't thought of the problems associated with parents being drug users before. "If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh" |
||
|
Jaime
Registered
MemberPosts 250 |
When I said majority I meant that in terms of a society. Society is shallow, plastic, and cold. The government may have good intentions, but as a society those intentions would be lost. Something less ideal would take it's place. Life is where you look for it. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Jaime 'I feel that if you want to correct something then you take it piece by piece.. you don't throw in the towel.' But you have to think about it this way- there are two sides to this fight. It's not universally accepted that drugs are bad- or else so many people wouldn't do them. Some people don't think the 'correction' of the 'drug problem' is the cessation of drug use. I don't think drugs are a bad thing, I think, if used responsibly, that it's perfectly acceptable. The problem that I personally see is this- how do you legislate responsible? And, once again, is this responsibility in terms of how you affect others, or your responsibility to yourself? |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"I don't think drugs are a bad thing, I think, if used responsibly, that it's perfectly acceptable." Hush, Can you realistically concieve PCP, Heroine, or Crack Cocaine being used "responsibly"? Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-12-2002 02:11 AM).] |
||
|
Caelestis Junior Member
since 2002-12-10
Posts 12Canada |
Christopher: While I agree that many 18 year olds are not responsible to make these sort of decisions, I do believe that many, including myself, are very capable. The appropriate age, however, does not seem to be the issue, it’s whether or not an appropriate age exists. Jaime: You’re right, if an age limit were set, people under the age would most likely be able to acquire drugs through those who are older than the minimum. However, these people would probably still manage to get their hands on these drugs illegally, otherwise. The difference is that if the drugs were legal, they’d almost certainly be safe (not laced or anything of that nature), and the money would go to the government rather than gangsters. Hush and Jaime: In my country, Canada, we have a government organization called Child and Family Services. I’m sure the USA has a similar organization. It’s the responsibility of these people to ensure to the best of their ability that children receive proper care. If a parent is neglectful, then they will have their children taken away. People who would neglect their children would do so for another reason if they could not blame recreational drugs. Are we to prohibit the entire population from drug use because their legalization may slightly increase the incidence of child neglect? I don’t believe it would make enough of a difference, and if I did, then I would believe we should also ban alcohol. Fractal007: I would be very strongly opposed to the government providing drugs to people using tax dollars. If someone wants to consume recreational drugs, they should pay for them at their own expense, and if it can be proven that it affected their health, then they should have to pay for their own health care (in Canada health care is free for anyone – just a note for anyone who didn’t know that). I’d imagine the number of drug users would dramatically increase if the government gave drugs away for free. “As far as the party line about the government being oppressive is concerned, I think that those who make statements like that might like to visit a country in which there exists a real oppressive government.” While I believe the governments of Canada and the USA are much better and less oppressive than those of the majority of the world’s nations, this does not mean that they could still not be improved, and that we should just be happy with what we have, and not try to make our country better. Stephanos: I can't see many people using such drugs responsibly. However, I do believe it is possible to use these drugs occasionally and in moderation, without causing harm to others. I'm not saying that I necessarily believe it's a good idea to experiment with drugs as dangerous as those listed. [This message has been edited by Caelestis (12-12-2002 03:10 AM).] |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
"While I believe the governments of Canada and the USA are much better and less oppressive than those of the majority of the world’s nations, this does not mean that they could still not be improved, and that we should just be happy with what we have, and not try to make our country better." Indeed, we should be trying to make our country better. My only opposition to the legalization of, at least, Marijuana is the crime factor. We need to improve our country both by finding some way to allow people to indulge in this drug while at the same time curbing the crime committed by some of its users. Government isn't always the only thing responsible for making a country worse off than it ought to be. "If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh" |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephan- My whole point throughout this post has been that if drugs were legalized, the regulation of drug use would be very messy. Can I conceive of herion, PCP, or crack being used responsibly? I guess if there were isolation booths to protect others from one's potentially violent actions, yes. This, of course, is without considering after-effects, addiction, and withdrawal... Do people who use these drugs illegal use them responsibly? I never said that legalization is the east answer- but drug laws are inneffective. Drugs are easy to get. Why perpetuate a 'war on drugs' that can't be won, and furthemore, maybe shouldn't even be fought? Caelestis- I know plenty of children that I grew up with, and people I know now, who were neglected or even abused as children, but not 'taken away.' Why? How many kids do you know that are willing to call the authorities and ask to be taken to some remote foster home, essentially volunterring to be orphans? A lot of neglected children still love their parents, and the line of 'neglect' is a fuzzy one... how about latchkey kids? Should they be taken from their parents? How do you draw that line? How do you enforce it? 'People who would neglect their children would do so for another reason if they could not blame recreational drugs.' I'm not so sure I agree with this. Sometimes drug use starts out mild, but as addiction takes over, the person would be essentially disabled as a parent. I truly don't believe most people intend to neglect their kids, or even believe that they are doing so. And what about older kids, when it's not so much an issue of neglect? Or what about when it becomes an issue of health, and a parent becomes physically incapable of caring for themselves? To play the I-lived-this card, which I usually avoid, when I was 16 I had to call 911 for my mother who had overdosed on Darvocet she had ordered from overseas (I forget where). Do you know what it's like to be told, in the span of a few seconds, "I've been abusing drugs for years, and now if you don't pick up the phone to save me from myself I'm going to die." Do you know what 28 Darvocet does to a person? My mother has never been neglectful, and I love her dearly, but do you have any idea how that feels? How it feels to tell her doctors what happenned, and be reprimanded by my uncle for potentially getting her in trouble? What it's like to have to sign papers and make decisions for my parent when she codes and lands in ICU for two weeks on a respirator? Do you know what it's like when this is a monthly occurence? Do you know what it's like to eyeball a parent suspciously, noting her dry mouth and her level of coherence constantly? To rummage through sock drawers and closets like a cop raiding a junkie's place? To deal with the role reversal, and the worry, and juggling a job and hospital trips and school without even the time to concern yourself with yourself? To check your bank account and see 600 dollars missing? To sit there helplessly when your belligerent and oxygen-deprived mother rants about things only she sees, and throws a fit about going to the hospital? What it's like to try to drag an addict away from oxycontin? To find drugs she'd smuggle into the hospital? Do you know what it's like to listen to her lie to her doctors about her habits, to listen to her lie to you about quitting, only to find another stash the next time around? What it's like to want to believe someone when you know you can't? Her drugs of choice were all legal. I say were because I'm in a phase of believing her. Because I haven't found drugs in her room for a long time, and because she really seems to have quit smoking. But, do you know what it's like to this day to bite my tongue when I see that her doctor has prescribed her oxycontin for pain? What it's like to wrestle with whether her pain legitimately rationalizes the use of narcotics she's addicted to? Whether, even if her use of them is legitimate now, it will become abuse again? Replace Darvocet with legally obtained heroin. My problems sound like child's play. But, then again, replace Darvocet with illegally obtained heroin. So, where's the solution? Do we condone this, or legislate against it in vain? [This message has been edited by hush (12-12-2002 10:05 AM).] |
||
|
Dark Enchantress Senior Member
since 1999-07-27
Posts 1258meet Morgana |
quote: But the fact remains that drugs are/can be harmful to a person's health. It's not about morals. It's about respecting your body. (I'm not complaining about piercings or tattoos with that little statement either.) I think that if the government truly could regulate and control drugs then go for it. I definately do think that a more aggressive action needs to take place. Hmm.. didn't mean to use this screen name. Whoops. Jaime Sanity is in itself enough to make you insane. [This message has been edited by Dark Enchantress (12-12-2002 05:31 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Just wondering if anyone knows statistically... Since Alcohol is legal and Heroin is not... Are there more alcoholics than Heroin addicts? Has the law in the least curbed the incidence of people trying Heroin? I wonder if alcohol were illegal if we would have less alcoholics though a black market might still exist. I have a hard time believing in "Victimless Crimes", and where I stand now, is that drugs should not be legal. The same line of reasoning could be given for embezzling money from well-to-do corporations. If they are rich, is it really hurting them? Drugs hurt family members, friends, neighbors and society in general. Just because laws aren't completely effective is not a sufficient argument for me. Anti-homicide laws are not completely effective at stopping murders either. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Following that logic, Stephen, we should have laws against golf. There are a lot of men I know who use golf to neglect wife and family. It can even lead to divorce and broken homes. The truth is, there are a whole lot of "things" that hurt people and society in the same way that irresponsible use of drug and alcohol abuse do. Peripherally. In fact, just about ANYTHING that is used irresponsibly is harmful to society. Golf, for sure. McDonald's is a prime candidate, as well as any other fast food outfit (fat kills more people every year than alcohol and cigarettes combined). We definitely should consider getting those cars off the road, don't you think? Come to think of it, if you haven't been to the gym this week you should probably face a stiff fine or something? Unless you intend to stick a needle in someone else's arm, the drugs you buy will hurt no one but yourself. That's a victimless crime. If you believe the use of drugs contributes to, say, child abuse, I think you're wrong. Drugs and alcohol do NOT impair morality. The driver who is willing to drive drunk tonight is the same driver you'll see tomorrow morning with a cell phone or putting on makeup. The addict who abuses her children would still abuse her children even without the drug. We need to make the crime illegal, not our perceived cause of the crime. Or at least, if we're going to go that route, let's start at the beginning of the chain rather than in the middle. Let's make low self-esteem illegal. |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
"If someone wants to consume recreational drugs, they should pay for them at their own expense, and if it can be proven that it affected their health, then they should have to pay for their own health care" I would be rather careful with that one. People smoke and overeat. Should we then require them to pay their own medical bills for their irresponsible behaviour? As for paying for drugs at their own expense, we're back to the addiction resulting in crime thing. It would be ironic if Canada decided to tax marjuana[which it would(hopefully) do in the event that our government decided to legalize the substance] and found itself racking in all sorts of sleezy crime money. To be perfectly frank, I'm all for people legalizing marjuana. Just keep me and my loved ones out of it. The minute people who indulge in that stuff start resorting to crime to feed their addictions they involve myself, my family, and every other citizen of this country who is just trying to live a decent life. Then it becomes another of our concerns. Will I come home to find my house robbed and my various posessions sold for drug money? Will I find my bank account mysteriously empty one day? That's why I scoff at the claim that marjuana promotes peace on earth. If anything, it promotes an increased sense of insecurity and a tendency toward irrational acts in order to feed addictions. But then, I don't have the statistics in front of me. Maybe there's a place out there somewhere where everyone lives in peace and harmony worshipping the loving dubie. But in any case, legalized or not, marjuana, along with other drugs, will always have the problem of crime associated with it. "If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh" -- Magus [This message has been edited by fractal007 (12-13-2002 01:15 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, you're forgetting that abusing Heroin for example IS a crime  . I know you are arguing that it shouldn't be. I disagree. I don't think there is a legitimate level of use of taking Heroin for pleasure due to its inherent danger. There are laws that require medically trained individuals to distribute narcotics for pain control, but not laws that allow individuals decide for themselves. Why? Because of the universally recognized danger of abusing narcotics. There is not a legitimate recreational use for narcotics. Why? Because it has been medically proven to be harmful and addictive. Science does not support the detrimental nature of golfing. Every other example you cite, has a legitimate and proper place in society. How epidemic is golf for breaking up marriages? It can be abused. But it clearly has a legitimate use. Let's get off of a philosophy kick for one second... some things are obviously harmful and should be made illegal for that reason. Heroine for recreational use is not legit. It is one of those things that are obviously detrimental to individuals and societies. Ask any psychologist, how harmful addiction is, and how pathological it is both psychologically and physiologically. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime. I am an RN. I work on a med-surgical unit at the hospital and see the devastating results of addiction on a regular basis. People can function and still play some golf. I am willing to say that no one can really function in responsiblity to their families, friends, and employers and do heroin... at least not for long. It is immoral to abuse drugs. It is immoral for the reason of self-harm, and hurting others who care for you. It is far from being a victimless crime. Ask professionals who specialize in treating addicts and see what they say. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-13-2002 02:16 AM).] |
||
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
I happen to find it hilarious that drug use is outlawed in Canada, but suicide is legal. I'm willing to bet suicide is more harmful to one's health, and more devastating to one's peers, than any recreational drug is... |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:I still can't agree with this Ron. If it impairs brain function (which it does), then how can you say that it doesn't affect morality? Where else does morality come from, than the very place where the drug is having its affect? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
I'm having difficulty understanding why anyone would advocate for the right to engage in self-destructive behavior. I suppose there is some benefit in allowing the incurably selfish to remain stoned, getting them out of the way of those who would devote their time and energy to something productive. But once again, it leaves the good work in the hands of the few. Once a person realizes that there are more important things in life than rampant "me-ism," the whole recreational drug debate seems pretty ridiculous. Selfishness, in my opinion, impairs good judgement as much as drug use. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (12-13-2002 08:57 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ron- 'Drugs and alcohol do NOT impair morality.... Let's make low self-esteem illegal.' I certainly think that your logic makes sense. But I also think that drugs can have a reciprocal affect that doesn't necessarily mean neglect or abuse. Generally, I don't think golfing injuries incapacitate a person to care for him/herself as much as drug addiction. Like I said, "My mother has never been neglectful." But I also explained how it feels to have the tables turned in a matter of a few seconds, and be forced into parenting the parent. If it wasn't me, she would have called a neighbor, or one of her brothers. I guess there's a fuzzy line that seperates where self-destruction (I don't think drug use is always self-destructive) ceases to destroy only one's self. When you expect others to pick up the peices for you, that's crossing that line. It applies to drugs that are legal, as well- because I can also tell you how heavily my mother's pack-a-day habit impacted her pocketbook (and consequently, mine) and how many ICU visits she's had for pnemonia. I don't necessarily this line can, or should, be legislated, I'm only pointing out that drugs do affect others. There's a line between recreation and addiction, and there's also a point where the affect drugs have on your health is debilitating. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Because legislating away the right for self-destructive behavior obviously doesn't work, Jim. I'm most emphatically NOT advocating the use of drugs. (If I did, I'd have to edit my own posts, since that's against our Guidelines.) Amy said she doesn't think drug use is always self-destructive, and I'm guessing that Caelestis, who started this thread, and perhaps many others, probably agree with her. I don't. Did you know that alcohol is classified as a poison? Literally. Its recreational effects are only the result of killing yourself "a little bit." Earlier, I compared fat to drugs, making the point that immoderate ingestion of fat kills far more people in our civilization that drugs even touch. But there's a really big difference, too, in that it's impossible to over-dose on fat. I know, because I think I tried this past Thanksgiving. But you CAN kill yourself with most recreational drugs and, in my opinion, you do so "a little bit" every single time you use one. Frankly, I can't personally think of anything quite so stupid as doing drugs. So, does that mean it should be illegal? I maintain that's the wrong question to ask. The right question is, what do we intend such legislation to accomplish? If you answer that you want it to STOP drug use, you got yourself a really big problem. Because, very obviously, it doesn't. You just want to make it harder? Wrong answer again, because many of the posts in this thread only demonstrate how incredibly easy it is for even our kids to get illegal drugs. The ONLY positive thing a law against drug use does is show our collective disapproval. I might even agree that was something worthwhile if it wasn't for the very real negative things that such laws do. Al Capone would never have been an historic figure, and would probably have killed far fewer human beings, had the U.S. government not been so foolish as to abolish the sale of alcohol in 1920. But Prohibition never really ended in 1933, it just abated for a few decades, and the drug laws that started surfacing in the 1960's have simply replaced our earlier mistakes. When the government passes laws against things that people INSIST on doing, it only opens the door for people who don't respect the law to make a huge profit. And because by their very nature they don't respect the law, they do some really nasty things to get their way. When was the last time you heard about a bootlegger gunning down his competition? When was the last time an alcoholic broke into your house to get money for a bottle? Drug dealers and pimps don't just break the law, guys. They are a direct RESULT of the law. Get rid of the law and they, like the bootleggers, will cease to exist. Addicts don't mug you because the drug makes them do it. They do it because our laws have, at once, made the drugs prohibitively expensive and then thrown the addict into a culture where crime is actively encouraged. We aren't protecting people from themselves. We're throwing them into a profit-motivated cesspool from which too many will never emerge. I would love to get rid of drugs, including alcohol. Especially alcohol. But eighty years of history tells me that ain't going to happen. Since our laws don't stop drugs, and don't appear to even slow them down, I would much rather we at least try to control it. Get rid of the criminal element by making it less profitable. We could tax the hell out of marijuana, still sell it at a fraction of the cost a drug dealer does, and then spend the money on education and rehabilitation. Shoot, just saving the money we now spend on jailing over half the prison population would be enough to help some of those families that are being abused every day in spite of our laws. I'm cynical enough, especially in view of rampant alcohol abuse, to suspect our legislators probably wouldn't do it right. But I can't hardly imagine how they could do it more wrong. I don't want to encouraging people to use drugs. I just don't think prohibiting it is effectively discouraging it in any realistic way. Instead, it teaches people to break the law and creates an environment where that attitude then becomes the norm. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I guess it depends on your definition of morality, Chris. Your autonomic functions, breathing and heart beat, for example, are also centered in that same area. By the time those are impaired by drugs, however, you're usually in no position to hurt someone else. I recognize that some definitions of morality include reasoned response, but I consider those to more appropriately be ethics. In my opinion, ethics are usually situational. Change the situation enough and most people will re-think their ethics. John might be unwilling to shoplift at Macey's for a lot of good reasons, not the least of which is fear of getting caught. For most people, that's an ethical question and John could probably think of situations where he would feel justified stealing from the store. How much the situation would have to change is another question entirely. Morality is a much deeper behavioral conditioning that is not so easily subject to the situation. Would John steal five bucks from his best friend? For many people, I think, that question goes beyond ethics into morality. Even if they knew they would never get caught, it would feel very, very wrong to them. I'd like to think it would take more than a fifth of tequila to betray a close friend's trust. That's probably a bad example because, in truth, I know there's not a lot of people who place that much value on friendship. Change the five bucks into a pretty girlfriend and betrayal might not be so easily escaped. But I suspect I've hit close enough to the mark to make my point. I had a friend some twenty years ago who was absolutely paranoid about drinking and driving. Randy just couldn't stomach the consequences of hurting someone. I picked her up one night at the bowling alley and found her absolutely, falling-down smashed -- and then spent over three hours trying to get her home. She refused to get into my car. Randy was too drunk to make the rational judgement that it was safe for ME to drive her home, but not nearly drunk enough to forget her unusually strong convictions. The associations between car and alcohol were buried every bit as deeply as those of breathing and keeping her heart pumping. Drugs might affect what you think, and they can certainly affect what you do, but they don't change who you are. |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
"We could tax the hell out of marijuana, still sell it at a fraction of the cost a drug dealer does, and then spend the money on education and rehabilitation." Ron: That's a good idea. It would certainly solve a problem a friend of mine posed today. He claimed that if we make marjuana legal then the common citizenry of Canada and the US will end up having to pay to keep the stoners alive through welfare. Taxes will be raised in order to compensate for an increased incidence of stoners living as jobless welfare bums. "If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh" |
||
|
Skyfire
since 2000-12-27
Posts 3381Riding |
Stephanos, you said, "Drugs hurt family members, friends, neighbors and society in general." *thinks* I smoke pot. It doesn't hurt my family members. How could it? I don't smoke it around them, and most of them don't even know I do it. Does it hurt my friends? Well if they don't like seeing me high, then I don't go around them when I'm high. Simple as that. Just common decency, in my opinion. How does my smoking pot hurt my neighbors? Society? I'd like to know how MY smoking pot hurts society. Hypotetically, at least I'm not selling myself on the corner to support my crack addiction. That hurts society more than my recreational indulgences does. But that's just my opinion *shrugs* jbouder, you said, "I suppose there is some benefit in allowing the incurably selfish to remain stoned, getting them out of the way of those who would devote their time and energy to something productive." I'm sorry, but that really offends me. I'm in first year University. Passing all my courses, thankyouverymuch. I go out on the weekends and smoke a little bit of pot. Does that make me selfish? If so, why? It's no more selfish for ME to do something I enjoy than for YOU to do something you enjoy. [This message has been edited by Skyfire (12-18-2002 03:07 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Skyfire, I used to smoke Pot myself in my late teens / early twenties ... I am 31 years old now. I am aware how the use of Marijuanna tends to progress toward experimentation with other drugs. It did so with me. It is harmful to your health. It affects the "sharpness" of your mental abilities. Telling me you make good grades says nothing for two reasons. 1) I don't know what your full potential is as a student, so "good" might be not so good for you if you are smart enough. 2) A long term use of Pot might result in a different story for you... your aspirations, goals, and general mental aptitude IS or will be affected by Marijuanna. I know it does, because I've been there and done that. And all my friends smoked too. And what is harmful to you does hurt those who love you. Stephen. |
||
|
Skyfire
since 2000-12-27
Posts 3381Riding |
Hmm... something I'll need to ponder... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Drugs are drugs and extremely dangerous. I think calling them "recreational" tends to make them seem benign, when they are anything but that. I've known people who smoked pot and went onto stronger drugs.....and most are now dead, way too young to be dead. I know people who smoked pot and still to this day only smoke pot. After about 30 years of smoking pot, some on a daily, some on a weekly basis, they couldn't be classified as the brightest bulbs in the box anymore. And some were quite intelligent. They've lost that potential forever. The same can be said for alcohol abuse. It destroys lives, relationships, financial security, but it would cause more ill in society if it were made illegal again. A lot needs to be done in the regulation department, i.e., bars following the law by not serving obviously drunk patrons, etc. (what? and lose money?!), but making it illegal is not the answer. In the same way, I don't think drugs should be illegal. I've long thought that the only way to win the so called war on drugs is to legalize them, and as Ron said, with regulation. Those who want to do drugs will do them whether they are legal or not. Those who won't do them, won't do them even if they are legalized. Legalizing them would take the profit out of it and do away with much of the associated crime under the current system. Just as Prohibition only made matters worse, and criminals rich, so it is in the drug trade. Morality cannot be legislated. It has never worked that way and it never will, in my opinion. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: One could argue, I think, that feeling a need to hide something from your family IS harmful. To them. And to you. As Denise said and I alluded to earlier, there are a lot of similarities between Prohibition and the current War on Drugs. I found a really good Policy Analysis that was published in 1991, with a lot of hard numbers and what I think are some convincing conclusions. One of the things that surprised me in this article was to discover that many Prohibitionists, like Irving Fisher, specifically thought to target the young. "Prevent the young from drinking and let the older alcoholic generations die out." Unfortunately, statistics suggest Prohibition produced exactly the opposite effect, partly because it made drinking more romantic, and partly because those who broke the law running a speakeasy weren't real conscientious about protecting the young. When was the last time you heard of a drug dealer asking for ID? |
||
|
winston Member
since 2002-12-19
Posts 204NW of Eden |
My personal, humble opinion is that drugs, alcohol, and the rest are an evil. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:Not quite sure I agree with this though. I think if I could buy this, the rest makes absolute sense. But these are the exact things the drug affects - right off the bat. Now, your friend, that's awesome, the kind of thing I'd like to hear more often. Perhaps... I don't kow. Still processing this, because it just doesn't make sense to me, is a dichotomy.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Look at it this way, Chris. If you spent five years teaching a puppy to salivate at the sound of a bell, would he still drool all over when you got him drunk? I think he would. What I call morality is a deeply buried behavioral response that cannot be easily escaped. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Drugs are a waste of health, time and money--period. They distract and corrupt people away from intimacy with what is important in life and drive them to serve a base appetite of addiction (s). Nothing can justify drug usage when it damages so thoroughly and there are so many other alternatives for escape. It is like abortion--I will never accept it because there are always better ways to deal with the problem. Killing can never be justified. In a way drugs try to kill an inward problem but never can, they can only hide it for transient moments, but it only becomes larger and the individual strives to hide more and more frequently seeing this but not accepting, only wanting to escape. There are always better things through which to escape. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-19-2002 01:15 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
There you go being extreme again, Essorant. Can't you decide? What happened to your "everything in moderation" theory?  Or does that only get to work when YOU decide the terms? |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
"It doesn't hurt my family members. How could it? I don't smoke it around them, and most of them don't even know I do it." That's good for you. I know a guy[we know eachother rather well, actually] who's been stealing from his family, smoking up in his house believing his family couldn't smell it, and he's dropped out of school from grade 13. I imagine you must be a pretty stealthy person. This guy isn't, and he's pretty much torn apart his family. His family can't leave any money laying around anymore, his they check to make sure their valuables are still around everytime they go to bed, his father is more stressed than ever and it's potentially effecting his marriage. "If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh" |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm sure you'd agree, fractal, that people are responsible for their actions. If this guy wasn't stealing from his family because of pot, he'd just be stealing because of alcohol, or gambling, or women, or to support his comic book habit. People like him always find a reason. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I'm sorrying I spoke a bit rashly. I just see that drugs are more destructive and extreme more than kept within any form of moderation. The individual in almost all cases I think intends on a form of set moderation and control over the drug. But in just as many cases inevitablly the drug will create an addictions that will result in more and more of an inability to retain moderation and control. It is because the inward will beside the drug takes and is taken in the addiction to extremes that we need the outward will of laws to make up for that--the control that is most often not there, where extremes show up more often then don't. There are exceptions, but the chief truth is that drugs are taken by, and take, people to extremes. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-20-2002 10:56 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Denise, you wrote, "Morality cannot be legislated. It has never worked that way and it never will, in my opinion." There are some out there who feel that morality is intrinsic to the whole idea of legislation. Some even go so far as to say that Civil Law is a macrocosm of the individual awareness of "moral law" or the "natural law" within us all. I think there are strong arguments to support these assertions, though some may not agree. I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you believe that legislation is, in fact, not based on moral principles, or that it should not be based on moral principles? If you say that legislation IS not based on moral principles... I would like to ask what are laws against, let's say, murder based upon? And please give support of your answer. If you say that legislation should not be based on moral priciples... I would like to ask what it should be based on, which would also not involve moral consideration. Also, since you are a Christian, what Biblical support can be given for a position that morality should not be legislated? I agree with the fact that legislation or "law", biblically speaking, cannot change anyone's heart or make them truly moral or righteous ... but this is another question entirely separate from a question concerning civil law. I think of how Martin Luther interpreted Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 1:9 that the law "is not made for a righteous person but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine ..." He stated that the law was necessary for the curbing of immoral actions in society. Though they couldn't change their hearts by the law, they couldn't be fully aware of the moral issues without it. What am I saying? Though I agree that legislation is not the final solution to mankind's moral problem, it seems to be an ever present institution to address it and restrain it as long as it is there. Remember the 10 commandments? They are still in legal action. God never rescinded these commandments did he? And some of our governmental laws to this day reflect exactly what is in the old Decalogue... "You shall not murder"... "You shall not steal". Just wondering what your thoughts are here. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-27-2002 01:10 AM).] |
||
|
Caelestis Junior Member
since 2002-12-10
Posts 12Canada |
"If you say that legislation IS not based on moral principles... I would like to ask what are laws against, let's say, murder based upon? And please give support of your answer." Actually, I'd say that the laws against murder are based mostly on logic. A society would hardly function properly if everyone were free to kill anyone they wanted to and could. Hardly anyone wants to be murdered, and thus we have created laws against murder primarly to protect ourselves, though perhaps in part because of morality. The same applies to the laws against thievery. |
||
|
Caelestis Junior Member
since 2002-12-10
Posts 12Canada |
"Drugs are a waste of health, time and money--period. They distract and corrupt people away from intimacy with what is important in life and drive them to serve a base appetite of addiction (s). Nothing can justify drug usage when it damages so thoroughly and there are so many other alternatives for escape. It is like abortion--I will never accept it because there are always better ways to deal with the problem. Killing can never be justified. In a way drugs try to kill an inward problem but never can, they can only hide it for transient moments, but it only becomes larger and the individual strives to hide more and more frequently seeing this but not accepting, only wanting to escape. There are always better things through which to escape." Essorant, you seem incredibly closed-minded. What do you like to do for fun? Do you do these things in order to escape from reality? I admit that there are people who use drugs for this purpose, but a great majority of drugs users take drugs because it is *fun*. These people can have great lives, high intelligence, be valuable members of society -- and they, like everyone else, like to have fun. Although I don't believe it is even relevant wether or not drugs are unjustifiably self destructive, as I think that should be left to an individual's judgement, there is an abundance of proof that marijuana is safer than almost all recreational drugs, including alcohol. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hi Stephen, I've had a really rough day and I'd like to reply in depth point by point to your questions but I can't really think straight right now, more so than usual Have you ever tried to help your spouse hook up a DVD player on an outdated TV?  I think we need an RV modulator and an S output cable? And that was the highlight of my day.Well, to sum up, of course most laws have their basis in morality (some don't have any basis in morality but were just enacted for business/political purposes), and in the West that morality would be the Judeo-Christian ethic based on the Ten Commandments. And, as you said, all people have the natural or moral law within, as well, that forms the basis for civil law. And, to an extent, certain laws do help in restraining rampant immorality by making known the acceptable standards of a given society, but even the best intentioned citizen can only obey imperfectly, at best, thus my belief that you can't really legislate morality, per se. If you could, everyone would be perfect. I guess my point was that legislation doesn't always work as planned, i.e., Prohibition and the current War on Drugs, in particular. I can see the rationale behind both, in that the legislation was/is aimed at eliminating the harm to society of the effects of alcohol abuse and/or illicit drug use. But it doesn't work. In attempting to alleviate one problem, a host of other problems are created in its place that are equally devastating, or more so, to society than the problem that was intended to be eliminated by the legislation that imposed criminal penalties on the undesirable behavior in the first place. Something is desperately wrong when a youngster can stand on a corner and earn $1,000 a day or more selling illegal drugs. There are not enough cops to go around to keep on top of the problem, and even if there were, at that lucrative rate, the drug dealers would find a way to continue doing business. The profit has to be taken out of it, and the only way I see that happening is to decriminalize the industry and regulate it. Take it out of the hands of the criminals. Make staying in school and getting a legitimate job seem like a wise alternative. I am not advocating alcohol abuse or illicit drug use. I am saying that legislation designed to solve the problems didn't have their intended benefit to society. Also, there are numerous immoral behaviors that are not specifically deemed illegal by this or other societies, with resultant criminal penalties for the practice of such immoral behaviors. So, in that sense, I don't see a perfect correlation between civil law and morality. What is the criminal penalty for not honoring your parents? For coveting your neighbors goods or spouse? For not loving your neighbor as yourself? For lying to a friend, for gossiping? Also, civil law, although based on natural or moral law, is still subject to man's understanding of that law, or a society's understanding of that law. For instance, in the 1600's Puritan legislation in England closed the theatres and forbade the performance of dramas (including Shakespeare), recitals, the performance of popular music, dancing, outlawed statues, stained glass windows, etc., in churches and cathedrals. In New England, their counterparts in the New World legislated against the celebration of Christmas (public and private celebrations) because of its pagan influences, with civil penalties meted out for violations, and other societal restrictions that seem outlandish and over-the-top, today, but that to the Puritans, I'm sure, seemed rational and moral. As for the Ten Commandments, as a believer, Christ has fulfilled the requirement of the Law on my behalf and has taken the penalty of my violation of them upon Himself, freeing me from "the curse of the Law", allowing me to live in newness of life because of and through Him. No, for me, the Law has not been done away with, or rescinded, but has been fulfilled perfectly on my behalf by Christ through His finished work on the cross. God's Law demands death for the smallest infraction, we can't forget, not merely a civil or criminal penalty for not pefectly obeying it. And it doesn't count if we "almost" make the grade, or try a little harder than the next guy (the Law doesn't grade on the curve). It requires perfection. The primary purpose for the giving of the Law was and is to show people that they can't perfectly obey it and thus lead them to a child-like faith in, and dependence on Christ, as the one who perfectly obeyed it for them, taking their punishment, and as the one who is more than willing to bestow His benefits upon them, freely, by His grace, "because of the great love with which He loved us". I hope I've beter explained where I am coming from, Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Caelestis, "Hardly anyone wants to be murdered, and thus we have created laws against murder primarly to protect ourselves, though perhaps in part because of morality." Yes. The fact that we don't want to be murdered shows that we feel it would be an immoral action against ourselves, not just a crime against the functionality of society ... but a crime against an individual. I don't see my desire not to be murdered following from mere logic or reason, but rather from my more Dionysian side, the seat of my emotions and the sense of what is just and unjust, right and wrong. Though logic is not a stranger in these type of questions, I just don't see it as the main player on stage. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-31-2002 02:15 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
