Should Methamphetamine be Legalized?

So now you are advocating making fornication a crime? What do you want the punishment to be, hillclimber - capital punishment? Or maybe a prison term - how many years for a first offense?

Do you want to make lusting a crime, too? I wonder how you are going to prove that one. </font>[/QUOTE]You are the one advocating the legalization of evil, not me. Where did I state I wanted to criminalize fornication. Standing for not legalizing evil is not the same as criminalizing it.

And you are the one stating this, Ken:

"A person who has reached the age of majority should be allowed to do with his/her body as he/she wishes and be allowed to suffer the benefits/consequences of so doing."

 

Most evil is already illegal. And advocating the legalization of Meth is just about the stupidest thing I've heard. I see it's devasting effects on people, and even on some Christians. You obviously have not seen it up close or you wouldn't even think of legalizing it. It's as close as one could get to selling their soul.

 

Government shouldn't pay. We should require that those of age of majority status be responsible for themselves and if they need help that they look to private charity. </font>[/QUOTE]If you had read the article, you would see that Government doesn't pay. Society does - meaning WE do in increased healthcare costs and increased insurance premiums. Major hospitals are not allowed to turn away those who can't pay, including illegal immigrants and meth users.

 

That was a well reasoned, humanistic argument
you made to solve the drug problem. But the sad
reality is our economy would suffer if addicts
were givin a cheap alternative to use.

Also, legal drugs are abused. If this stopped,
the pharmacuetical industry, chemical manufacterers and drug farmers/cartels would be affected financially as well.

Offering a cheap, healthier alternative to drugs
will not work unless this economic issue is addressed first. And I doubt the problem will
ever be solved because greed has always existed
in the world.

God gave us free will and the capacity to forgive
others unconditionally. These are His tests. I
can't help but wonder if there is a greater purpose to the war on drugs...

 

Uh-oh. Thanks for making my point for me.

I'm sure you would agree crystal meth is used for evil. That being true, people involved in the meth "business" are not ever, EVER going to respect rights.

-They WILL sell to pregnant women. (BTW, did you know that only one hit of CM is highly likely to cause birth defects? (source))
-They WILL sell to youngsters...without new clients, the trade will go away.
-They WILL continue to peddle poison...why? Because the money's still there.

When the foundation is evil, you won't end up with good simply by decriminalizing it.

And KenH, you HAVE NOT addressed the pharmacological differences that CM entails. Repeating myself: this ain't alcohol. "Recreational usage" of this filth doesn't exist.

You denigrated anyone who didn't think that CM should be decriminalized (we're not "real conservatives" according to you). Thanks for the dig. As someone who actively helps folks caught in this stuff, I find that comment insulting.

Do some objective, scientific/pharmacological/sociological study on this issue (with real research, not some website pushing an agenda), and I bet that if you have an open mind, you'll see this in a new light.

One final question: do you REALLY think that Jesus, if he were on earth today, would be crusading for the legalization of Crystal Methamphetamine?

 

That was a well reasoned, humanistic argument
you made to solve the drug problem. But the sad
reality is our economy would suffer if addicts
were givin a cheap alternative to use.

Also, legal drugs are abused. If this stopped,
the pharmacuetical industry, chemical manufacterers and drug farmers/cartels would be affected financially as well.

Offering a cheap, healthier alternative to drugs
will not work unless this economic issue is addressed first. And I doubt the problem will
ever be solved because greed has always existed
in the world.

God gave us free will and the capacity to forgive
others unconditionally. These are His tests. I
can't help but wonder if there is a greater purpose to the war on drugs... </font>[/QUOTE]I think you misunderstood my post, lomax.

 

That isn't the issue. The issue is that people are responsible for themselves.

They shouldn't. It isn't their business.

 

But if people are responsible for themselves, why do we have traffic laws? There is a point at which personal responsibility overlaps with danger to the general public, and laws must be in place.

Am I for every facet of the "war on drugs?" Probably not. Has it been a success? Certainly not, in some areas. Do I think that legalizing CM would improve the situation? No.

Analogy: You have 100 sticks of dynamite scattered around your yard. One blows up. Because of your "failure" to keep the one from detonating, you go and light the other ninety-nine. That is how I see a total decriminalizaion working.

 

No, that is NOT the issue. The issue is how does a born again believer say and I quote, "Drugs should be legalized....." How does a born again believer say no help should be provided to help those on drugs get off of them.

That is a fine stance to take when we are suppose to treat our body as a living sacrifice, love our neighbor, and help those in need. Romans 12:1 and the Good Samaritan, plus numerous other passages.

Drugs are here, regardless of how or why they got here, or what it was like 50 years ago. People have to be responsible for their actions by law, and we as believers should help, encourage, and do any thing we can to lead that person to Jesus and lift them out of the mess they are in.

I am not sure that is the Libertarian view, maybe a distorted one, but the idea of letting people have drugs then letting them rot, violates both responsibility and compassion.

I do not see one element of Christianity in this idea, in fact it turns my stomach, bordering on pure evil. That combination is the worst our country could possibly experience. But then again, this post is compatable to the common sense, love of this country, and love of others found in the other posts.

 

I cannot believe there are enough people here in favor of legalizing this garbage to sustain the argument! I am a divorced mother whose ex-husband is in prison right now for what we believe to be meth related crimes. I am sick to my stomach when I imagine the danger my 7 year old daughter would face if this were legal. Unfortunately there are people who lack the judgement that keeps them from being involved in such things, thats why we have laws. This behavior effects so many more people than just the user, and the fact that a person will argume that the drug war is to blame for those extended effects and not the drugs/users themselves is an example of satans ability to twist the truth iin order to accomplish his desired results- destroyed lives!!!!!

 

My prayers are with you and your family, macitruth.

 

thank you so much. She doesn't know where he is or why she hasn't seen him. He has had one visit in the past 3 years. He's been in prison for about a year. I struggle with questions that she asks. The good side is that I have remarried, my husband and I have an 8 month old baby. He treats my daughter as his own and we are commited to raising them in a godly home. She has adjusted very well, she put her trust in Jesus last summer at VBS.

 

People are morally responsible before God unless their behavior directly infringes upon someone else's rights. Christians should not be in favor of putting government between God and men.

I didn't say that... if you were answering me. I said that government has no business interferring in people's lives this way. I have also said that churches and private individuals should take care of these people because they will minister to the soul... the root of the problem... and not just the mind and body.

One of the biggest reasons gov't should not be involved is that such interference opposes the gospel by teaching people that they can either reform themselves or else be reformed by government sponsored doctors.

No where in any of those passages will you find a case for voting to take someone else's money so someone can "love" these people for a paycheck. The OPM principle certainly isn't found in the Good Samaritan story.

Moreover, you will not find in those passages that Christians should support the social gospel, doing "good" for the sake of good... much less for the glory of men.

Yes... which means if they choose to destroy themselves through immoral and stupid behavior... gov't should leave them alone.

Absolutely... and our gov't is not a Christian organization nor is it an arm of God's kingdom to fix everyone's life and baby sit them.

No it doesn't. And I didn't say we should just let them have them. We should warn them, evangelize them, and, yes, through the ministries of our churches rescue those we can. But this IS NOT a proper role for the government of a free society.

In fact, it is that underlying desire to evade the direct responsibility to help those around us that makes one support government action like you do. That voice says, "Someone should do something but not me... the gov't should do it... with other people's money of course".

You call turning these poor people over to the compassion of the federal gov't "Christian"?

I do not see one element of Christianity in the idea that we should turn those in need over to a government and its religion of humanism that will perhaps save the body but also teach a person that human goodness can save them... that will tell them that their depraved, sinful behavior is subject to some "cure" contrived by materialistic science.

Government dependency is worse... and one of the biggest causes for the continuing problems we have to include the drug problem.

But then again, this is compatible with someone who thinks they have the infallible ability to read other's motives and thoughts without actually listening to them or considering what they say.

 

Well, Scott, not only are you inept in logic, you are paranoid. Never once in that post did I mention your name, and not once did I say a word about the Federal or any other government helping people.

 

So when you said "No, that is not the issue..."

Who were you referring to? I previously posted: "That isn't the issue. The issue is that people are responsible for themselves."

Nothing in your post that I saw could be construed as an answer to rbell... who posted at 1:40. You posted at 1:43. Your post was probably being written while rbell's was... unless your godlike traits extend to typing as well. He posted first separating our posts.

Further, your next paragraph begins "That is a fine stance to take..." Since this isn't a statement of agreement and you weren't disagreeing with rbell and my post was the last one for over 40 minutes prior to your's and rbell's... it is certainly not paranoid to conclude that a) you were talking to me and b) you were responding to my assertion that government should not be in the business of rescuing addicts.

Now, if you have a better explanation for who you were responding to or some indication that my assumption was not completely reasonable and not paranoid at all... please give it. Otherwise, you've once again exposed yourself in public.

It isn't honest to pretend that something was not true when in fact it was.... so to vindicate your character, who were you responding to if not me?

 

I owe you no explanation. The phrase "vindicate your character" coming from a person who wants to legalize drugs, has no compassion, and pretends to be some kind of great American, is sad, truly sad.

 

BTW, if you were not referring to gov't action... what do the phrases "responsible for their actions by law" and " the idea of letting people have drugs then letting them rot" refer to?

Rather than play this silly game though...

Just answer a couple of questions:

Do you believe drugs should be legalized?

Do you believe the gov't should fund and run programs to treat addicts?

 

No, I do NOT think drugs should be legalized, by your own words, you do. That puts us on opposite ends of that issue.

No, I do not think the Federal Government should be in the business of treating addicts. It is the function of state and local governments to enforce drug laws. Christians and other charitable organizations should be reaching out to those in need to lead them to Christ. You said they should be left to rot, and did not specify the government, just left to rot, "you made your bed now lie in it" mindset. That puts us at the opposite ends on that issue.

And it seems to me, as opposed as you are to the government helping these people, you sure seem to not mind spending billions and billions of dollars to free 25 million Iraqis from a dictator when we have more than that enslaved to drugs in this country. It also seems to me that you praise the government for being over there so much, and fail to in post after post criticize the number one function of the US Government, which is to protect our borders and keep us a soverign nation, which this administration has so miserably failed to do, and you seem quite quick to criticize democrats on various policies when this president (small p) and this congress spend like drunken sailors, far past anything we have ever seen.

 

Then you posted what you did deceptively, right? If you accuse me of being paranoid based on a false premise... then you may not "owe" me anything... but your character can only be vindicated by showing you weren't being dishonest.

But your reaction seems to affirm that you were being dishonest.

I disapprove of drug abuse at least as much as you if not more. I firmly believe that our country was more moral and better governed when we were self-governing rather than looking to gov't to tell us right from wrong.

As stated by someone else, too many people today across the spectrum have associated right and wrong with what is legal or illegal.

That is a lie... and a lie from ignorance. Oh, wait... I must be wrong... you said it and you are all-knowing so I must really not have any compassion...

You have not substantiated this accusation at all. The only thing you could be basing it on is my opposition to government programs since I have repeatedly asserted that helping addicts was a private responsibility for churches, individuals, and charitable groups.

You don't know me nor how I respond to the people God leads me to.

Again, you KNOW everything so I must indeed be pretending to be something I am not