"Prohibitionists want you to think drugs can make you dirty. If this were true then Jesus would not have said it’s not what goes into a person that makes that person unclean, but what comes out of the person’s mouth." [Matthew 15:10-20, Mark 7:14-23]
I am not a religious person, and generally find that religious people are usually supporters of prohibition. Anti-drug fundamentalism often go hand-in-hand with religious coalitions, and within the US we're mostly talking about Christianity. It can be hard to try to counter arguments for drug prohibition that are religious in nature. Well I came across this site the other day, Christian's Against Prohibition. There is a lot of good writing here on why Christian's should oppose drug prohibition. Here's a sample:It doesn't matter Jesus said, "be merciful," because [the prohibitionists] only apply that to themselves; they judge you based on another saying of Jesus, "be perfect," and if you're not what they consider perfect, then they adjudicate themselves to beat the hell out of you, drive you bankrupt, incarcerate you, or kill you, all with impunity.
Attributed to: Andrew C. Bairnsfather
Commentary: "…all with impunity," until Judgement Day, that is. Then they find out they have not been serving the God of Love, but The Destroyer. And they are tossed out ON Da Crap Pile, which Jesus refers to as Gehenna.
In particular I recommend also this article, The Diseased Theory of Addiction. Here's a snippet:
Dear Drug Policy Reform Advocates,
I would like to see us use another term for addiction other than disease.
Pathogens cause diseases. Drugs are not pathogens.
I do not call drug use a disease. I avoid calling addiction a disease.
Do some people with diseases use drugs? Yes.
Can injecting-drug-users contract diseases from sharing needles with those who are infected? Yes.
Clearly, people called, or calling themselves, addicts can definitely feel uneasy, ill-at-ease, and so forth, even dis-eased, but I am certain that labeling drug use as a disease is playing into the hands of the wrong crowd.
Prohibitionists want you to think drugs are contagions.
Prohibitionists want you to think drug users are diseased and infectious, this gives them the excuse to break down doors with screaming violence in order to isolate them — lock them up — to “quarantine” them, so they can be treated like social lepers.
Prohibitionists want you to think drug users are contagious in harmful ways. If this was true then nearly every undercover officer would also become a drug addict.
Prohibitionists want you to think drugs can make you dirty. If this were true then Jesus would not have said it’s not what goes into a person that makes that person unclean, but what comes out of the person’s mouth. [Matthew 15:10-20, Mark 7:14-23]
What diseases do people contract where their pain, suffering, and/or symptoms go away when exposed to more of the pathogen? None that I’m aware of.
[...]
First, they say addiction is not a disease, so immediately all addicts were outlaws and no doctors could prescribe maintenance doses to them; although those doctors clearly knew their patients had need of medical oversight vs. languishing in coerced confinement.
Now some Drug Warriors and Prohibitionists (ahem, John Walters) are saying addiction is a disease, but what are the constants that haven’t changed?
Using shame and punitive measures.
Despising an intelligent system of regulation.
Ignorantly conflating all drugs.
Completely ignoring the realities of the underground market.
For the time being I don’t have a word that makes me say “this is it, spot on!” And for the most part I even try to avoid using the label of addict or addiction.
Hello! Thank you and I'm glad you liked the above. I've been meaning to revisit the Diseased Theory of Addiction and tighten it up, a few ideas of what to add keep crossing my mind but I've not added them yet.
ReplyDeleteAs far as why it seems lots of Christians are in favor of drug prohibition … first I'd say there are many who are not, but they are hard to notice for a few reasons, they are afraid of all the false accusations sure to be leveled at them, they spin their wheels on other issues, and when they talk it's as though not a person heard what was said.
Now about those prohibitionists. My first thought is that quite possibly the majority of Christians do not even know most of what's in the BIble. In keeping with that, they made it through the first few chapters in Genesis but got burned out in Leviticus with it's endless lists and rules. What this means is they picked it up like a regular book, as opposed to seeing the Bible for what it is, a book of 66 other books.
Of those who made it through Genesis but haven't read what Jesus said they quote Cain (who murdered his brother), "am I my brother's keeper?" And they take that as God's word (vs. Cain's). Jesus said we are not above each other but brothers and sisters. Whoever puts him/herself above others will be put down. Yet, they take the word of Cain over Jesus. So they think they are supposed to be the keeper of others and that includes keeping you from plants God made and keeping people in prison.
Another quick observation is that there are those who are amazingly knowledgeable of the Bible, particularly many in the south. However, those types of people (I've met many and many have TV shows) tend to focus on single passages (typically from the Old Testament) and ignore the many other passages which negate them. Jesus has a saying for this, straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel. These days a similar saying is: following the letter of the law but ignoring the spirit.
Take care, Drew.
As I said I'm not religious (I consider myself agnostic) but I have read the Bible, though never cover to cover. My impression is that many people who call themselves Christian are shockingly ignorant of what's actually in the bible. From what I've read of the Bible many passages (or instructions) are frankly contradictory, though I suppose that is to be expected from a volume containing many different authors throughout different periods in history.
DeleteI think the God's plants argument is a strong one. Plus the plants are almost invariably less toxic to the user. Poppies instead of heroin, coca instead of crack, ect. If God did indeed create these plants, they cannot be inherently bad, but rather should be viewed as a gift that can be misused.
When alcohol prohibition was first proposed it was backed by the powerful Women's Christian Temerance Union. After it became obvious society could not eliminate alcohol and the problems with the black markets became painfully obvious Christian groups formed to repeal Prohibition. I think we may see a similar thing with drug prohibition.
I'm putting together my own thoughts on the disease theory of addiction. Hopefully I'll finish it soon.
Thanks for visiting!
"My impression is that many people who call themselves Christian are shockingly ignorant of what's actually in the bible."
DeleteSorry to say that your impression is backed up by facts. In 2010 the Pew Forum did some research and basically proved this.
Links to study and reporting on it.
"I'm putting together my own thoughts on the disease theory of addiction. Hopefully I'll finish it soon."
I encourage you to take a look at something Stanton Peele Ph.D. said of, "VERY impressive - I like it a lot." and "Yes -- you are developing a comprehensive model of drug use and abuse -- a very sophisticated, accurate one."
It's currently titled "Why Do People Try — Why Do People Use — Drugs? Part 1"
I do remember reading articles about that Pew study when it was first published. I'm not surprised agnostics and atheists scored highest, most people inherit their religion from their parents. I find that atheists and agnostics, speaking generally, have thought and read about religion more so than others who inherit their religious affiliation.
DeleteI read through your post and I agree with Peele, it is a pretty good model. Are you still working on part II or did I miss the link?
Thanks.
DeleteI didn’t originally write it with a multipart approach in mind. The first huge hurdle was brainstorming the whole thing, then there was refining it, then there was writing it … over and over and over … and refining it again. I was pretty drained and was taking a wild stab that my audience was maybe high school aged to adult.
I kind of pooped out; partly because I decided it needed to be written differently for HS vs college vs adults vs experts, and partly because it had taken me a few months of effort. Then I had a brain storm I could stop where I was — that I’d written nearly all of what I had in mind — thus Part 1, and the as-of-yet and vaporous Part 2 which is a kind of deus ex machina. So in other words, when I am ready to pull it from the back burner and focus on it again, I’ll probably flesh out the remaining stuff in my head and wrap it into Part 1, thus making it a single piece.
However, before I can undertake that I need a serious cash infusion to sustain me since that kind of stuff takes a lot of effort and time. And I don’t see any cash infusions coming my way, only wolves. And since my piece is not some “abstinence-only enforced with zero-tolerance” model I don’t predict anyone in govt. saying it meets grant criteria. They are more interested in destroying the planet via prohibition, propaganda, and lies.
"However, before I can undertake that I need a serious cash infusion to sustain me since that kind of stuff takes a lot of effort and time."
Delete*sigh* ...and that is the problem isn't it? The drug reform movement has a lot of enthusiastic volunteers, but until relatively recently (1990's) has lacked real institutional support. Still I do think that passionate amateurs do tend to outperform disinterested (albeit paid) professionals in the long run. Plus it helps that we have the truth on our side. Still it is kind of amazing that prohibition has lasted for nearly 100 years.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete