Mormons: The new fascists?

[JcDean78]

Laws have been made to take our morals as a society away for decades. If they could take our rights, they would do that too. (right to bear arms, free speech, etc). But they haven't been taking our freedoms away as much as we have been giving our freedoms away instead. This is why the Constitution is said to one day hang by a thread.

Well that is the same thing IMO. They are forcing their morals on us which violates our freedoms as well. You are right, they take it away because the masses willingly give them away.

There was a great quote recently by one of the judges in the Heller trial. He said this...

Assuming you can never lose your freedom is a mistake a free people get to make only once. - Judge Alex Kozinski

[NateHowe]

I've read a lot of your posts, and consider you an intelligent and enjoyable poster. I'm surprised at your juvenile quip.

Sorry - the best in me certainly doesn't come out at 3 in the morning. I'll give myself an internet curfew from now on.

[Truegrits]

Sorry - the best in me certainly doesn't come out at 3 in the morning. I'll give myself an internet curfew from now on.

:lol:

[skalenfehl]

Well that is the same thing IMO. They are forcing their morals on us which violates our freedoms as well. You are right, they take it away because the masses willingly give them away.

Yes it is relatively the same thing. The point of my phrasing was an emphasis on perspective.

[NateHowe]

If we're talking about LDS people specifically here, one of the high values we are taught repeatedly in the Book of Mormon is liberty. There is a huge liberty/captivity conflict throughout the book. However, we see in the Book of Mormon that when the voice of the law and the leaders of a people become corrupt, that people loses its liberty and comes into captivity by another group. Instituting just laws that maintain order among the people (no matter what their beliefs) is necessary to maintain the liberty we have.

[skalenfehl]

If we're talking about LDS people specifically here, one of the high values we are taught repeatedly in the Book of Mormon is liberty. There is a huge liberty/captivity conflict throughout the book. However, we see in the Book of Mormon that when the voice of the law and the leaders of a people become corrupt, that people loses its liberty and comes into captivity by another group. Instituting just laws that maintain order among the people (no matter what their beliefs) is necessary to maintain the liberty we have.

Indeed. The Book of Mormon is evidence that Mormons do not hold Fascist views. While the peoples of the Book of Mormon sought to be ruled by kings, the righteous kings sought instead to create a government based on a system of checks and balances using judges and chief judges according to the voices of the people, but they self destructed because of their corruption and because of the greed and secret works of the Gadiantons, which infiltrated and entrenched themselves within the government. We're headed in the same direction, doomed to repeat history.

John Adams said it best: "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

[Tough Grits]

My point is not many people would suddenly devolve to mindless murderers and thieves. To do so would go against our instincts to survive as a species.

I understand that we are all just exchanging opinions, with no hard-core facts to support said opinions, but I wonder if people would start acting crazy.

How many? I don't know. I can't even begin to presume to know what percentage would go bonkers.

But look at the situations in which humans in our country have started riots over a sports team winning or losing a game or championship. Look at the riots that have broken out across the world because of sports (soccer mostly).

Of course there have been riots over politics and religion and such, but isn't it absurd that humans would riot over a game or sport?

I guess my point is this, if people will use the excuse of sport to riot, then what would stop them from rioting and going bonkers if there were no religion, no laws, and no standards of morality (even ones set by society)?

I am thinking of the last days at this point. If a starving family with guns were to go to a house that they knew had food, would they kindly keep walking on if denied that food...or would they enforce the natural law of, "survival of the fittest"?

Just wondering. I am trying to see the other side of this.

I am just wondering how many humans are just "hanging by a thread" now even with religion, laws, and moral standards.

Of course, there is no way to give accurate numbers or percentages on this, but I am curious.

Frankly, I am scared that the last days WILL be filled with people gone bonkers.

Also, if going faster than the posted MPH were not illegal, then boy-howdy I would have that pedal to the metal all the time! So, I guess even I would go just a little bonkers with no laws...going fast in my car would definitely be my downfall. LOL LOL

[skalenfehl]

No, I don't believe people suddenly devolve into mindless murderers and thieves. To evolve or devolve requires time. History is replete, though, with societies and empires that have fallen or become destroyed because they devolved from enlightenment to corruption resulting from pride and greed, not mindlessness. It takes generations. What free society or civilization without God never collapsed? I cannot think of one.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Hmmm,

First I'll say that your boss was very rude to call you a fascist--I mean, honestly! Doesn't he take people's feelings into account? I've never been called a fascist or Nazi, but maybe I've just been lucky. Most people I talk with are curious, or maybe find our beliefs odd, but most also respect that we're entitled to our beliefs and think it's good that we have some kind of standard we try to hold to (last Saturday it was a small discussion of why we don't work on Sunday). I'm sorry about your upsetting experience.

As far as alcohol goes, I know the Church counsels against its members drinking it, but I'm not aware that the Church is in favor of Prohibition. Maybe it was back in Prohibition days, but clearly that didn't work out terribly well.

The way I look at it is that the Church (and all churches) would do well to stay out of politics for the most part, except when it comes to serious moral issues. And in my book, things like war, torture, and denying people their human rights and/or civil liberties are much more serious moral issues than gay marriage.

In any case, I am sorry your boss was so rude, but if it's any comfort, I think the Church does a good enough PR and missionary job that we needn't worry about the general public coming to regard us as "fascists," especially if we ourselves are friendly to people and set a good example.

DH

[Moksha]

Personally, I feel uncomfortable anytime I see the Church blended with politics. It is like they are striking up a deal with Mammon, and that cannot be good for the Church. Even if Church members have gotten themselves entangled with right wing politics, it is better if they do not drag the Church into it.

The Church is an international entity, dealing with diverse groups of people, and whose mission can only be hurt by an identification with American right wing politics. Let if focus instead on being the Church of Jesus Christ.

Just a thought. :)

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

No, I don't believe people suddenly devolve into mindless murderers and thieves. To evolve or devolve requires time. History is replete, though, with societies and empires that have fallen or become destroyed because they devolved from enlightenment to corruption resulting from pride and greed, not mindlessness. It takes generations. What free society or civilization without God never collapsed? I cannot think of one.

Not just time, but pressure. War and economic collapse are probably the two most prominent examples of pressures that can "instantly" devolve a society into anarchy. Combine the two in a world wide pandemic (ie last days) and I think the world might look quite a bit like Grits suggests. It's because of selfishness - looking out for my interests becomes worth killing for when pushed to extremes. But I think the majority of people will still be good people, too bad the poor saps are most likely going to get killed by the bad people.

[Guest Xzain]

So many posts... I'll respond to particularly important points.

Secondly, the Church very rarely takes any political stance whatsoever. There have been notable exceptions, but these have been very few and very rare.

When the vote to rescind prohibition came to Utah, the Church encouraged the members to vote for keeping prohibition. I also remember an official church statement opposing a movement to legalize marijuana in Colorado. (This is mostly from memory- the fact you can't find it makes me wonder how actual it is... I'll have to dig more into it)

Regardless, recreational drug use is most definitely a moral issue- they are extrmely addictive, destructive to your body, adversly affect your life and the lives of those around you, and gives no positive benefits. I believe the fact that that the Word of Wisdom strictly prohibits it, by modern interperetation, cements that fact.

And yes, if you want to make all these things illegal, I'll call you a fascist too :)

... Adding a smiley face doesn't make that statement any less insulting.

I should add that I am for keeping illegal all currently illegal drugs and the outlawing of alcohol. However, I would never endeavor to see laws like that passed and sustained without the voice of the people making it so. I am not a fascist- I do not seek to force people to do as I see fit by violence, but by persuasion and the power of the truth.

I never implied that I would, of myself and against the will of others, enforce my beliefs on them. Your haste to put me in a fascist camp bewilders me- although it sheds some light on other arguments you've put forth.

These are so-called "victimless crimes" where we throw people in jail for disagreeing with us. The D&C says that "We believe that governments were instituted of God .... for the good and safety of society." ( Doctrine and Covenants 134: 1 ). I believe governments should only have the right to criminalize behavior that is destructive to society. Criminalizing behavior that is only destructive to an individual, such as drug use, infringes upon a person's right to the "free exercise of conscience" ( Doctrine and Covenants 134: 2 ) and, in my opinion, is morally wrong and goes against the eternal law of agency and the most basic principles of the Gospel. But this last paragraph is only my opinion and I'm sure I'll catch more than my share of flack for it. Oh well.[/

The idea that drug use is only harmful to the partaker is, simply, ludicrous. I know far too many people who have killed themselves and others, or wasted their lives away, because of drugs.

A 'society' is made up of people- so, whatever is universally bad for any given person is most definitely bad for society. A chemical that destroys any and all organic cells will quickly destroy any organism is is introduced to.

Ask your boss if he’s ever heard of “Godwin’s Law.”

ROFL... I will, if it ever comes up again. Thanks for that.

Now here is the thing though, I support a free society even if those things we are free to do are bad for us. In Church we are given our free agency for a reason. It does not mean that any decision we make is a good decision but rather we are free to make bad decisions or good decisions and then one day be judged. When we start making laws to force our morals on people or take away that free agency then we not only are violating that persons freedom but we are taking away that agency.

Fair enough- but when a government specifically 'legalizes' or 'outlaws' any given action, it is placing a moral condonement or condemnation on said action. Should any governments remove laws against a morally repugnant action, it is in effect declaring as morally valid that which is not.

By the by- in no way is placing governmental laws on an action taking away someone's agency. They are still free to do whatever they want- however, the consequences become more temporally severe and immediate. Governments don't regulate righteousness or agency.

It should also be noted that these things we're discussing are at the very, very bottom of the ladder of morality. They are things that, if legalized and widespread, would guarantee the destruction of society. It would be amoral not to seek to place some ethical limitations on societies. A kite that has no string will quickly crash- yet a kite anchored by a strong thread will remain aloft.

Morality is a rather vague and antiquated notion. Most things that we consider "amoral" are so only out of tradition or custom and we often apply no thought whatsoever to WHY these things are considered "wrong".

... Are you suggesting that our morals are 'old fashioned'? If so, I think that's an understatemend- they're old, old, old, old, old fashioned, stretching back to the beginning of time.

However, to say they are 'antiquated' (implying out-of-date) is a grievous error. The Gospel and Church clearly states why the things discussed in this thread are wrong- for anyone in modern times. That's my thinking as to 'why' they are wrong. Perhaps you'd like to debate on that point?

I suggest you read the treatise by Richard Garriott called "Ethical Hedonism". Here, I'll even link you to it :)

UO Stratics - Books - Ethical hedonism: An introduction, by Richard Garriott

I would, but I can't get the link to work. I found another site- is this the same thing? Ethical Hedonism: An Introduction

If so... You must realize that this man is not arguing from an LDS Gospel standpoint- his reasoning is internally flawed, by our standards. If you care to discuss the matter, I would be happy to on another thread or PM- I don't want this one hijacked.

After gleaning some inspiration from above, I posit that there is a significant difference between what we accept as "right" and "wrong" and those things that truly are "right" and "wrong". I add to this that those things which truly are "right" and "wrong" are all extrapolated from what we call the "Golden Rule", which is nothing more than a reasonable course of action in a social setting.

What you say is most definitely against the teachings of the Gospel. There is a higher law then the "Golden Rule"- that is Christ's Law, made known to us through prophets, seers, and revelators. The only 'true' and 'right' actions are those based on this law. Those based on another law are counterfeit truths.

XZain,

I can understand it can be eye opening. There’s nothing that chips away more at job security than a boss that seems to be sympathetic to drugs!

...

So fascism aside, I simply support the company that has my own values. Once I find a company is way out of alignment, I usually find another job pretty quickly.

Amen- thank you, WordFLOOD. By the way, the company I work for is ACS- thankfully, my boss' opinions do not reflect the company's actual values.

Just because someone believes in personal freedom and individual rights does not make one "sympathetic to drugs".

WordFLOOD was responding to my OP. Your leap in logic is unsound, albeit accurate.

To all those who are wondering- I never claimed to be speaking as an authority of the Church, nor that the illegalization of alcohol and all recreational drugs Church policy.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Xzain

[Redbeard]

Wow, what a great discussion! Seriously, kudos to everyone for keeping everything in line!

Anyway, my $.02-

I can understand your boss hearing your opinion, getting heated, and then calling you a fascist, I could probably see myself doing the same thing in that situation, as I PERSONALY believe your approach to other people's liberty quite appalling. HOWEVER, you were having a simple discussion, and he should not be bringing up a topic of general discussion when it comes to your everyday work. I could understand him coming to you in your free time and asking you questions, or wanting you to clarify things, but calling you a fascist throughout the day is extremely unprofessional, and incredibly rude.

Anyway, I respect your right to disagree w/ recreational drugs (including achohol), but I do not agree with your opinion that they should be banned because you personally disagree with their use. If a person wants to put a mind altering drug in their own body, in their own home, why should you have any say in that?

*Disclaimer* I have never EVER done a recreational drug in my life. EVER. *Disclaimer*

If I were to go home, and smoke a big 'ol bowl of marijauna, how does that effect you at all? How does it effect my family at all?

Some of you are stating that drugs don't only effect the person that is taking them, but everyone around them. So what you are saying is because some people have chosen to do bad things, NOBODY should have the right to make the same decision for themselves. That is incredibly naive, and deffinatly to close to facsim for me. Should we outlaw knifes because people have been stabbed? Guns because people have been shot? Rope because people have been hung? The argument that they can be used to commit a crime is flawed. Not EVERYONE who has used recreational drugs has ruined their life, or the lives of others.

If you disagree with drug use, DON'T DO DRUGS! But telling other people they don't have the right to choose because you don't agree with it is removing agency and liberty from other people.

Sorry for the rant, I'm a little bit woozy still as I've been recovering from a flu for the last few days... nyquil is still a little thick in my blood

Edit: It says I'm a senior member now! Do I win a prize?

Edited June 18, 2008 by Redbeard

[LegendadryPerc]

Many "mormons" are (seemingly obvious from posts on this message board) pro-govt. controlled morals whether they directly affect others or not. But this does not mean that even "most" feal this way. The church has a long standing policy to stay out of politic. I have heard President Hinckly, when he doesn't even state a political opinion, but even something that could be second guessed as one, make it very clear that it is ONLY his personal opinion. The day before voting on a gambling law, we had a anti-gambling fireside at the church, reiterating the churches MORAL stance that gambling is wrong. BUT we were not told how to vote. That line was never crossed. The church's moral beliefs werer emphasised, and we were told to prayerfully consider how to vote.

I don't know if and when the church has ever crossed this line, but it is rare, if ever. Sometimes I suspect that the church's moral statements have been misconstrued as political statements. Being a worldwide church, I don't think something as cultural as our opinion on what laws should and shouldn't control morals, is something the church can or should focus on. In the MTC, we are taught we are there to teach the gospel, not the American, or even Utah, culture.

This said, I would talk to your boss. If he thinks you personally are facist, you can argue about points brought up here, that diferentiate your personal opinion about drugs, from Hitler's opinions on other things. But I feal it very important for you to point out that steryotyping the whole church as such, is blatant prejudice, no matter how much it may "seem" like it's true, from his very small personal experience with "mormons". I have lived in very morally controlling cultures, and also some, like your boss, that go "too far" in the opposite direction, steryotyping (often rudely) whole groups of people as "not open minded enough". I think of this rather amusing irony as severe close mindedness about close mindedness. But it is not fun to have to deal with first hand, especially with someone you come in frequent contact with. It seems to be this rather pridefull, holier than thou at open mindedness, attitude that merely gives people an "excuse" to think of others as less than themselves. Rather silly to have an excuse to do something so hurtfull to oneself. Like having a good excuse to eat poison.

Whether the specific incidence of laws prohibiting drugs, is even "just" a moral law is questionable. There is nothing scientific saying that gay couples, or polygamists, are more abusive than traditional families. Nothing saying that "extremly" gay people are dangerous. We are to welcome them to church meetings, fellowship them, etc. But "extremely" drunk people, or people on drugs, can directly be linked to much higher instances of abuse. Evicting a drunk person from our church meetings, seems like it would be completely reasonable. How to we differenciate between laws that prevent one encountering a drunk/drugged violent person on the street, and ones that say it's OK to be drunk/drugged. I'd rather be pro-active, than merely prosecute those who "cross the line". When a person is "gone" on drugs, it's doubtfull that they will or can rationally think that they'd better not cross some line, or they will be in trouble.

Aside from that delima (which theoretically could be solved, but I'd rather know the solution before I vote to legalize all drugs - It's not fun to be limitted in where in a city one can go, simply to protect other's "freedoms" to make it more likely that they would act in a violent way.) there is the drug pushers, delima.

I have heard the arguement that there would be less incintive to push drugs, if they were legal, but I see so many detrimental things pushed on and accepted by the general public, that I am not comforted. Comercials and advertisements push many, many disturbing things on people who end up using, buying, accepting, them, where otherwise they wouldn't. Not merely rational people being informed that a product or idea is out there, but these products, in the name of money, being sold to those who are conviniently kept unaware of alternatives. I know that drugs are not the cause of this problem, but while it exists, is it safe to legalize them? I like rather simple laws. Regulating when how and where what drugs can be used or sold, seems like it would take a large amount of effort and dead trees (paperwork).

jmho - that although many "mormons" tend to be culturally minded to make laws based soley on morals, keeping drugs illeagal isn't even necisarily one of these. Make it clear to your boss that he is overstepping the line of having a personal opinion about your stance on legalizing drugs, and blantant (misinformed) prejudice against your sacred religious beliefs!

Edited June 18, 2008 by LegendadryPerc

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Wow Xzain, you quoted me a lot... I'm not sure if that's a sign of how much I post or if I'm just paranoid delusional (hey, it could happen).

So many posts... I'll respond to particularly important points.

When the vote to rescind prohibition came to Utah, the Church encouraged the members to vote for keeping prohibition. I also remember an official church statement opposing a movement to legalize marijuana in Colorado. (This is mostly from memory- the fact you can't find it makes me wonder how actual it is... I'll have to dig more into it)

Regardless, recreational drug use is most definitely a moral issue- they are extrmely addictive, destructive to your body, adversly affect your life and the lives of those around you, and gives no positive benefits. I believe the fact that that the Word of Wisdom strictly prohibits it, by modern interperetation, cements that fact.

I do recall the First Presidency taking a stance (writing a letter!) on a legal matter several years ago (here in Colorado) but I don't recall all of the details. I know there have been others as well. My inability to find them may indicate a desire by Church publicity or Church leaders to keep these events low key - or (more likely) I just wasn't using the right search terms.

And I agree that drug use is a moral issue on a personal level. However I believe it's amoral to impose my morals on others, unless their behavior is adversely affecting society. And as Redbeard indicates, there are many people who engage in recreational drug use without adversely affecting even their closest relatives, much less society as a whole.

... Adding a smiley face doesn't make that statement any less insulting.

The smiley is meant to denote sarcasm, a form of jocularity and insincerity. If you're offended by sarcasm, then I'm sorry, but I strongly suggest you ignore me in the future because my posts are just riddled with it.

I should add that I am for keeping illegal all currently illegal drugs and the outlawing of alcohol. However, I would never endeavor to see laws like that passed and sustained without the voice of the people making it so. I am not a fascist- I do not seek to force people to do as I see fit by violence, but by persuasion and the power of the truth.

I never implied that I would, of myself and against the will of others, enforce my beliefs on them. Your haste to put me in a fascist camp bewilders me- although it sheds some light on other arguments you've put forth.

See my above response regarding sarcasm.

The idea that drug use is only harmful to the partaker is, simply, ludicrous. I know far too many people who have killed themselves and others, or wasted their lives away, because of drugs.

There are numerous examples of exactly what you say. However there are also numerous examples of people who have used recreational drugs without doing any harm to themselves or others. Additionally, in most instances of "ruined lives" related to recreational drug use, the "ruin" comes from the illegality of the drugs, not from the effects of the drugs on the body or mind of the user.

A 'society' is made up of people- so, whatever is universally bad for any given person is most definitely bad for society. A chemical that destroys any and all organic cells will quickly destroy any organism is is introduced to.

A body is made up of cells, therefore what is bad for one cell is universally bad for the body as a whole - by your logic. My counterexample will be Prilosec, a proton pump inhibitor. For many people who suffer from chronic recurring heartburn, Prilosec is a Godsend. Without this specific treatment, many people will suffer needlessly and expose themselves to greater and greater risks such as esophogial cancer. However, Prilosec has recently be linked to bone britality, seeming to affect the absorption of calcium in the diet. So since Prilosec is bad for the bones, it's universally bad for the person? Sorry, I can't agree. Just drink more milk.

Fair enough- but when a government specifically 'legalizes' or 'outlaws' any given action, it is placing a moral condonement or condemnation on said action. Should any governments remove laws against a morally repugnant action, it is in effect declaring as morally valid that which is not.

I disagree with your initial statement that laws are a moral injunction. Laws don't address (and are not meant to address) what is "right" or "wrong", but rather they are meant to address what is beneficial or detrimental to society.

By the by- in no way is placing governmental laws on an action taking away someone's agency. They are still free to do whatever they want- however, the consequences become more temporally severe and immediate. Governments don't regulate righteousness or agency.

A choice between getting a bowl of ice cream and getting shot in the head isn't much of a choice is it? Regulationg legal consequences may not remove agency entirely, but it certainly has an effect on it. In some cases (ie murder) this is good. In other cases, it's not.

It should also be noted that these things we're discussing are at the very, very bottom of the ladder of morality. They are things that, if legalized and widespread, would guarantee the destruction of society. It would be amoral not to seek to place some ethical limitations on societies. A kite that has no string will quickly crash- yet a kite anchored by a strong thread will remain aloft.

Denmark has legal marijuana and I don't seem their society being destroyed.... But you're right, there HAS to be ethical limitations on personal actions in a social community. You and I just seem to differ on what limitations should apply.

... Are you suggesting that our morals are 'old fashioned'? If so, I think that's an understatemend- they're old, old, old, old, old fashioned, stretching back to the beginning of time.

However, to say they are 'antiquated' (implying out-of-date) is a grievous error. The Gospel and Church clearly states why the things discussed in this thread are wrong- for anyone in modern times. That's my thinking as to 'why' they are wrong. Perhaps you'd like to debate on that point?

My point could be illustrated by asking your average member of the church why any particular action is bad. Their most likely response will be something along the lines of "Because God (or the church) said so" and most of them will never put any more thought into it than that. It is this unthinking, unquestioning form of "morality" that I believe is antiquated. I would suggest reading "Thus Spake Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche, but I suspect you would miss the point.

I would, but I can't get the link to work. I found another site- is this the same thing? Ethical Hedonism: An Introduction

If so... You must realize that this man is not arguing from an LDS Gospel standpoint- his reasoning is internally flawed, by our standards. If you care to discuss the matter, I would be happy to on another thread or PM- I don't want this one hijacked.

Same thing, yes. And actually I felt that what the man said is very true regardless of your religious standpoint, but especially with an LDS standpoint. The gist of the treatise is that we should behave as we would like others to behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". He also makes the point that this statement is true and leads to "moral" behavior regardless of your religious or moral upbringing.

What you say is most definitely against the teachings of the Gospel. There is a higher law then the "Golden Rule"- that is Christ's Law, made known to us through prophets, seers, and revelators. The only 'true' and 'right' actions are those based on this law. Those based on another law are counterfeit truths.

I think you and I have different interpretations of "the teachings of the Gospel". I'm not sure what you mean by "Christ's Law" but the only example I can infer is that you mean "Love the Lord thy God...." and the second like unto it "Love thy neighbor as thyself". This second law IS the "Golden Rule". And nearly all of our modern laws, regulations, and moral guidelines extend from that Christian statement (or others like it from other religious leaders). The Golden Rule itself extends from the first "Love the Lord thy God", as King Benjamine said "When we are in the service of our fellow beings, we are only in the service of our God."

WordFLOOD was responding to my OP. Your leap in logic is unsound, albeit accurate.

I wasn't aware I took any leaps of logic. My impression was that WordFLOOD was implying that your boss was "sympathetic to drugs", while your initial post only stated that he was sympathetic to a person's individual freedom to choose to do drugs. I wanted to emphasize the difference between the two.

[Guest Xzain]

This thread has quickly come to rotate around two subjects:

1) Should societies outlaw those things which are amoral? If so, to what extent?

and

2) Is recreational drug use, that doesn't directly and immediately harm anyone other than the user, amoral?

Before I would proceed, I would like to answer those two questions succinctly:

1) Yes; societies should only outlaw that which is highly 'contagious', per se, in a social setting and that which is universally detrimental to anyone involved, with no positive outcome.

2) Most decidedly, yes, for two reasons. First, it ruins the efficiency of every person which does effect others in society. Second, its immediate effects have a deep impact on all close relations.

Anyway, I respect your right to disagree w/ recreational drugs (including achohol), but I do not agree with your opinion that they should be banned because you personally disagree with their use. If a person wants to put a mind altering drug in their own body, in their own home, why should you have any say in that?

I disagree with many things that I wouldn't want to see banned, because those things are personal choices but not amoral. Recreational drug use is, in my opinion, highly immoral, that if widespread and socially accepted, would lead to the dissolution of rational society. Hence, why I would want to see it made illegal.

If I were to go home, and smoke a big 'ol bowl of marijauna, how does that effect you at all? How does it effect my family at all?

Thank you for the demonstration. I will assume you are a father with a wife and child (I have no idea; this is now a theoretical example).

1) Extra money spent- money you would not have to provide for your family.

2) Killing your brain cells- brain cells you need to work and provide for your family.

3) Taking time- time you need to spend with your family, working to provide for your family, preparing for your family's future, improving yourself, etc.

4) Getting addicted. Addiction is real, and most people don't realize when they are addicted. Addictions, of any kind, can ruin families and lives. I've seen it happen in my own family.

5) Marijuana is a 'gateway drug'- or, it could very easily lead to something else. If you got hooked on anything else, you can double all the above adverse affects, and add more.

6) Miraculously, if all these things are avoided for now (which I doubt they can be), continued use of marijuana will, eventually, lead to these other things.

Those are the reasons I can think of off the top of my head. If I knew more about marijuana, I could give you a broader list of reasons 'smoking a big bowl' of it could harm one's family- not to mention one's self.

Some of you are stating that drugs don't only effect the person that is taking them, but everyone around them. So what you are saying is because some people have chosen to do bad things, NOBODY should have the right to make the same decision for themselves.

No... what we're saying is that 'drugs don't only effect the person that is taking them, but everyone around them'- not that because some people have chosen to do those bad things, nobody should have the right to do those things.

That is incredibly naive, and deffinatly to close to facsim for me. Should we outlaw knifes because people have been stabbed? Guns because people have been shot? Rope because people have been hung? The argument that they can be used to commit a crime is flawed.

You caricaturize the argument. Knives, guns, and rope are useful as tools in their current states for productive activity. Recreational drugs, when processed for consumption, aren't much good for anything but to chemically alter one's brain activity.

However, in using your own analogy- automatic weapons are outlawed because they are mostly effective for killing other human beings.

Not EVERYONE who has used recreational drugs has ruined their life, or the lives of others.

The fact you put 'everyone' in capitals makes it painfully obvious the very real possibility drugs do have for ruining lives. Legalizing something because a few won't abuse an action isn't logically sound.

(I'm sure the style of this comment was meant as 'sarcasm', but the end product is highly ironic.)

Wow Xzain, you quoted me a lot... I'm not sure if that's a sign of how much I post or if I'm just paranoid delusional (hey, it could happen).

You just post views dichotomous to my own, succinctly and logically stated. That's why.

The smiley is meant to denote sarcasm, a form of jocularity and insincerity. If you're offended by sarcasm, then I'm sorry, but I strongly suggest you ignore me in the future because my posts are just riddled with it.

I'm not offended- I was confused. I believe sarcasm to be an inferior mode of written communication- it doesn't translate well, and often causes confusion when two people are engaging in serious dialogue. Successful use of sarcasm in writing takes much more than a gratuitous smiley face.

I'll be more careful in the future to discern it, however.

A body is made up of cells, therefore what is bad for one cell is universally bad for the body as a whole - by your logic. My counterexample will be Prilosec, a proton pump inhibitor. For many people who suffer from chronic recurring heartburn, Prilosec is a Godsend. Without this specific treatment, many people will suffer needlessly and expose themselves to greater and greater risks such as esophogial cancer. However, Prilosec has recently be linked to bone britality, seeming to affect the absorption of calcium in the diet. So since Prilosec is bad for the bones, it's universally bad for the person? Sorry, I can't agree. Just drink more milk.

Let me rephrase and reemphasize my statement for clarification. If any substance is universally bad (by 'bad' I mean 'ultimately detrimental to the function of') for every organic cell, it is universally bad for the body and should be avoided. Show me a medication that harms every cell it touches in a negative way, and then show the good it does, and then we can have a discussion. Your example only shows that a chemical that has positive effect in one area, and negative effects in another, may be beneficial to a person with a certain disorder.

I disagree with your initial statement that laws are a moral injunction. Laws don't address (and are not meant to address) what is "right" or "wrong", but rather they are meant to address what is beneficial or detrimental to society.

Laws address what is right or wrong, simply because they address what is beneficial and detrimental to society. Morals and ethics exist for a reason- to keep individuals and groups of individuals 'functioning' properly. Church and state need to stay seperate, but morals should be present in both- and if one believes in any sort of absolute truth, one must believe that the morals churches and states should strive for should be identical. Morality is the lubrication in the machine of human interaction and society. Governments are vital to preserve the correct 'chemical formula' of that lubrication.

Denmark has legal marijuana and I don't seem their society being destroyed....

As skalenfehl stated earlier, time is a major factor in the destruction of any society due to immorality.

I don't know about the rest of the political structure in Denmark, so other than that I can't comment on this.

My point could be illustrated by asking your average member of the church why any particular action is bad. Their most likely response will be something along the lines of "Because God (or the church) said so" and most of them will never put any more thought into it than that. It is this unthinking, unquestioning form of "morality" that I believe is antiquated.

The form of 'morality' you are describing is blind servitude, and is contrary to God's design for us. Technically, it is a philosophy of ascertaining what is moral, not morality itself.

I think, though, we agree on this point- we simply have a hard time communicating that fact. I agree every person should search to know the reason behind God's laws of righteousness and not simply follow them blindly.

I think you and I have different interpretations of "the teachings of the Gospel". I'm not sure what you mean by "Christ's Law" but the only example I can infer is that you mean "Love the Lord thy God...." and the second like unto it "Love thy neighbor as thyself". This second law IS the "Golden Rule". And nearly all of our modern laws, regulations, and moral guidelines extend from that Christian statement (or others like it from other religious leaders). The Golden Rule itself extends from the first "Love the Lord thy God", as King Benjamine said "When we are in the service of our fellow beings, we are only in the service of our God."

You are right- by 'Christ's Law' I meant 'Love the Lord thy God'. I also mean the spirit and letter of all of His revealed words. This defnition is far too ambiguous, however, so I will stick with the former explanation.

Please help me understand how, as you stated,

...those things which truly are "right" and "wrong" are all extrapolated from what we call the "Golden Rule", which is nothing more than a reasonable course of action in a social setting.

When you state that the second law (meaning lesser of the two) is the 'Golden Rule'- the first being to 'love the Lord they God', which implies to come to know Him and walk in His paths. This includes learning to abhor sin. It seems to me one should follow more closely the first law, the greater law, as opposed to its lesser (albeit wonderful and authoritative) manifestation. It also makes sense that, if governments were instituted by God Himself for the good of society (a.k.a. 'people'), then they must- by form, function, or both- follow His laws, which would be His higher laws.

Because of all that, I believe all 'right' and 'wrong' are based on the laws and ordinances that God has decreed should be- not man-made extrapolations of the second great law.

I wasn't aware I took any leaps of logic. My impression was that WordFLOOD was implying that your boss was "sympathetic to drugs", while your initial post only stated that he was sympathetic to a person's individual freedom to choose to do drugs. I wanted to emphasize the difference between the two.

Here, the fault is mine- I misread WordFLOOD's original post. My bad.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

This thread has quickly come to rotate around two subjects:

1) Should societies outlaw those things which are amoral? If so, to what extent?

and

2) Is recreational drug use, that doesn't directly and immediately harm anyone other than the user, amoral?

Before I would proceed, I would like to answer those two questions succinctly:

1) Yes; societies should only outlaw that which is highly 'contagious', per se, in a social setting and that which is universally detrimental to anyone involved, with no positive outcome.

2) Most decidedly, yes, for two reasons. First, it ruins the efficiency of every person which does effect others in society. Second, its immediate effects have a deep impact on all close relations.

You are absolutely right that the thread has officially been hijacked, but I think that's ok since I believe the original question you posited (are mormons fascists) has been answered pretty well.

Your second answer gets me. You state the question with the qualification "that doesn't directly or immediately harm anyone other than the user" and then answer the question by saying that it DOES harm others than the user. I think I get what you meant, but the wya you put it is logical blasphemy (sarcasm (does pointing it out help? )).

I disagree with many things that I wouldn't want to see banned, because those things are personal choices but not amoral. Recreational drug use is, in my opinion, highly immoral, that if widespread and socially accepted, would lead to the dissolution of rational society. Hence, why I would want to see it made illegal.

___

As skalenfehl stated earlier, time is a major factor in the destruction of any society due to immorality.

I don't know about the rest of the political structure in Denmark, so other than that I can't comment on this.

The point, I think, here is that your belief that "recreational drug use is highly destructive to rational society" is your opinion. Even if true, I don't think you could find any real world example of a society that has destroyed itself soley through drug use. I should caveat that those nations in turmoil caused by illegal drug trafficking do not count, because the turmoil is directly related to the ILLEGALITY of the drugs they trade. But Skal is right, time is a factor, so I guess with Denmark we can only wait and see.

It'd be an interesting statistic to see how many crimes are committed through drug USE as opposed to crimes of possession or trafficking. I think we'd find the number of people who committ crimes while under the influence is astonishingly low. But I doubt such a statistic would be easy to find.

Thank you for the demonstration. I will assume you are a father with a wife and child (I have no idea; this is now a theoretical example).

1) Extra money spent- money you would not have to provide for your family.

True point. But the same applies towards soda, candy, games etc. Drugs have a significantly higher cost, yes, but this is primarily due to the difficulty in getting them (because they're illegal).

2) Killing your brain cells- brain cells you need to work and provide for your family.

Since we're talking about marijuana in particular here, it's important to note that there have been numerous studies showing that marijuana has no adverse long term effects. None of these studies, however, have been properly done and sanctioned by the FDA (and neither have any of the studies stating the opposite) precisely because marijuana is illegal.

3) Taking time- time you need to spend with your family, working to provide for your family, preparing for your family's future, improving yourself, etc.

Again this can be applied to all sorts of recreational activities, not just drug use. Interestingly, drug use is also a "social" recreation in many cases, especially with marijuana; so with a little stretch of the imagination it could be classified in the same category as Monopoly.

4) Getting addicted. Addiction is real, and most people don't realize when they are addicted. Addictions, of any kind, can ruin families and lives. I've seen it happen in my own family.

While there have been studies that say marijuana is not addictive, let me bring up another point. The FDA classifies sugar (sucrose, fructose etc) as a drug. The long term consequences of excessive sugar consumption, of which diabetes is not the only one, are disasterous. Sugar is also addictive and has a major impact on the chemistry of the brain. Of course you wouldn't suggest the outlawing of sugar, the idea seems ludicrous to you doesn't it?

5) Marijuana is a 'gateway drug'- or, it could very easily lead to something else. If you got hooked on anything else, you can double all the above adverse affects, and add more.

6) Miraculously, if all these things are avoided for now (which I doubt they can be), continued use of marijuana will, eventually, lead to these other things.

Any drug, including sugar, can be considered a gateway drug, and drugs are not the only form of entertainment that causes these problems. Video games and movies are a prime example, and there have even been movements to outlaw or regulate these things. I suppose the logic in this argument would be that "If you make one form of entertainment illegal, you should make all forms of entertainment illegal" but then that's a slippery slope I don't want to claim as my own.

You caricaturize the argument. Knives, guns, and rope are useful as tools in their current states for productive activity. Recreational drugs, when processed for consumption, aren't much good for anything but to chemically alter one's brain activity.

However, in using your own analogy- automatic weapons are outlawed because they are mostly effective for killing other human beings.

Drugs are also useful as tools, hence the MASSIVE pharmacological industry we have in this country. And many of the "useful" drugs we take for granted have horrible side effects. Tylenol (acetaminophen) is deadly if overdosed, and an overdose is NOT very much. Prescription narcotics such as Vicodin are primarily composed of acetaminophen, and it's the acetaminophen that is the toxic factor causing risk of overdose for these drugs, not the narcotic (codeine - hydrocodone); overdosing on Vicodin will kill your liver because of the Tylenol in it, not because of the codeine.

You just post views dichotomous to my own, succinctly and logically stated. That's why.

I'm going to take that as a compliment, thank you :) (no sarcasm).

Let me rephrase and reemphasize my statement for clarification. If any substance is universally bad (by 'bad' I mean 'ultimately detrimental to the function of') for every organic cell, it is universally bad for the body and should be avoided. Show me a medication that harms every cell it touches in a negative way, and then show the good it does, and then we can have a discussion. Your example only shows that a chemical that has positive effect in one area, and negative effects in another, may be beneficial to a person with a certain disorder.

However there are numerous drugs that could not be classified as "universally bad". Even some of the worst drugs available only affect brain chemistry and have little to no detrimental effects on the rest of the body's biology. Not to mention the positive effects of many "recreational" drugs. Opium, a recreational drug, is used to create some of the most common pain medications in use today including Vicodin, Percocet, Morphine, and Heroin (used medically instead of morphine in the UK).

Laws address what is right or wrong, simply because they address what is beneficial and detrimental to society. Morals and ethics exist for a reason- to keep individuals and groups of individuals 'functioning' properly. Church and state need to stay seperate, but morals should be present in both- and if one believes in any sort of absolute truth, one must believe that the morals churches and states should strive for should be identical. Morality is the lubrication in the machine of human interaction and society. Governments are vital to preserve the correct 'chemical formula' of that lubrication.

Right and Wrong are supposed to be universal truths. However societal laws and customs are far from universal. In the Middle East it is often law for women to dress in a certain modest fashion - does that make it immoral to not wear a veil? To them it might. To us, we might consider it immoral to make them wear the veil. My intent is to seperate the morality from the legality so that examples like this one aren't confusing; or that because something is illegal does not make it immoral, and conversely that because something is immoral does not make it illegal.

The form of 'morality' you are describing is blind servitude, and is contrary to God's design for us. Technically, it is a philosophy of ascertaining what is moral, not morality itself.

I think, though, we agree on this point- we simply have a hard time communicating that fact. I agree every person should search to know the reason behind God's laws of righteousness and not simply follow them blindly.

Ditto.

When you state that the second law (meaning lesser of the two) is the 'Golden Rule'- the first being to 'love the Lord they God', which implies to come to know Him and walk in His paths. This includes learning to abhor sin. It seems to me one should follow more closely the first law, the greater law, as opposed to its lesser (albeit wonderful and authoritative) manifestation. It also makes sense that, if governments were instituted by God Himself for the good of society (a.k.a. 'people'), then they must- by form, function, or both- follow His laws, which would be His higher laws.

My point was that when following the second law, we are following more closely the first. Hence the King Benjamine quote.

Because of all that, I believe all 'right' and 'wrong' are based on the laws and ordinances that God has decreed should be- not man-made extrapolations of the second great law.

I would say that "right" and "wrong" are based on eternal truths that have existed long before God was a twinkle in his mother's eye. What we humans THINK is "right" and "wrong" is generally based off of the idea of treating others as you want them to treat you. Sometimes we think wrong, hence my position that we need to actively study WHY something is right or wrong rather than accepting what is given to us.

Like with any good debate, I think one of our problems is we are suffering from a lack of consensus on definitions.

Drug: any substance classified by the FDA (or other parallel organization) as a "drug", recognized in the official pharmacopoeia of any nation. Often any habit-forming medicinal or illicit substance, especially a narcotic.

Drug use: The consumption of a drug.

Recreational drug use: The consumption of drugs for entertainment.

Drug abuse: The excessive consumption of drugs causing disfunction or disability in the user, interfering with their role in society, or endangering the life, limb, or property of other individuals. Also used to describe self-medication by individuals in need of proper treatment for medical, emotional, or psychological problems.

Drug use is, necessarily, legal for many substances, but many are controlled to prevent drug abuse.

Recreational drug use is permitted for a few substances, ie alcohol, nicotine, but is otherwise illegal as pertaining to illegal or controlled drugs. I'm not opposed to legal recreational drug use for a lot of currently illegal drugs. I think most of the users out there would not be stupid about their use. Laws to protect society, such as "driving under the influence" would still be in effect and apply to any legalized recreational drugs.

Drug abuse is a bad thing. Unfortunately in many cases recreational drug use leads to drug abuse. This is often the result of attempts at self-medication for psychological or emotional issues, however alcohol and nicotine are also used and then abused in the same manner. It is my opinion, however, that the majority of drinkers are responsible drinkers, the majority of smokers are responsible smokers, and the majority of recreational drug users are responsible with their drug use. As you said above, "Legalizing something because a few won't abuse an action isn't logically sound," conversely is illegalizing something because a few will abuse it logically sound?

[LegendadryPerc]

My point could be illustrated by asking your average member of the church why any particular action is bad. Their most likely response will be something along the lines of "Because God (or the church) said so" and most of them will never put any more thought into it than that. It is this unthinking, unquestioning form of "morality" that I believe is antiquated. I would suggest reading "Thus Spake Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche, but I suspect you would miss the point.

"antiquated" is merely a way of putting down one way of thinking in favor of your own. Or is it merely meant as an asumption about what thinking is "new" and what thinking is "old". For some reason, it comes across to me as some form of "we know much better now." Logic and having a "reason" to believe something is wonderfull, but it does not make blind faith any less wonderfull. Logic is not some new and better form of thinking we have recently discovered, and we should all dispose of any other way of coming to a conclusion for fear of not being in the "in" croud.

ST Matthew ch. 13

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Perhaps I am grossly misinterpreting your post, but it came across to me as implying that "being converted" and believing and following things "just" because the church, God, His mouthpieces, said it was so, was a bad thing.

"God is no arespecter of persons" (Acts 10:34)

Not all people are given the gift of logical thinking. Many people find it quite difficult. Anybody, no matter their intelectual ability or depth of learning, can know and follow God's word, His mouthpieces, and the gospel taught in His church.

In a conference talk (thinking within the last 5 years) it was emphasised that it was perfectly fine to not have a personal testimony of every aspect of the gospel. We could follow in faith, and this, instead of seeming as a detrimantal thing, was actually an opportunity - a wonderfull oportunity for us to learn and grow. The one thing that the plan of salvation isn't, is stagnant.

Edited June 19, 2008 by LegendadryPerc

[Aphrodite]

At work, my boss and coworkers and I were discussing alcohol and drugs. I brought up the fact that I believe alcohol should be outlawed, along with all illegal drugs.

If this is really what you believe then maybe your co-worker has a point. Just because YOU dont agree with alcohol doesnt mean it should be outlawed. Don't you believe everyone should have freedom of choice?? I would be cringing if I was there listening to that conversation as you can come accross as 'preachy' when things like that are said. Im extremely cautious with what I say to people. I dont agree with smoking or drinking, but I would never deny anyone else the choice to partake of these things. Do we not live in a free world???

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

"antiquated" is merely a way of putting down one way of thinking in favor of your own. Or is it merely meant as an asumption about what thinking is "new" and what thinking is "old". For some reason, it comes across to me as some form of "we know much better now." Logic and having a "reason" to believe something is wonderfull, but it does not make blind faith any less wonderfull. Logic is not some new and better form of thinking we have recently discovered, and we should all dispose of any other way of coming to a conclusion for fear of not being in the "in" croud.

ST Matthew ch. 13

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Perhaps I am grossly misinterpreting your post, but it came across to me as implying that "being converted" and believing and following things "just" because the church, God, His mouthpieces, said it was so, was a bad thing.

"God is no arespecter of persons" (Acts 10:34)

Not all people are given the gift of logical thinking. Many people find it quite difficult. Anybody, no matter their intelectual ability or depth of learning, can know and follow God's word, His mouthpieces, and the gospel taught in His church.

In a conference talk (thinking within the last 5 years) it was emphasised that it was perfectly fine to not have a personal testimony of every aspect of the gospel. We could follow in faith, and this, instead of seeming as a detrimantal thing, was actually an opportunity - a wonderfull oportunity for us to learn and grow. The one thing that the plan of salvation isn't, is stagnant.

I'm trying to recall (and too lazy to look) if I used the word "logic" in the post you quoted, and I don't think I did. I DID use the word "reason", however, but that's a different thing entirely. I optimistically believe that every human being, excepting a few individuals with severe handicaps, has the ability to reason (although many or most don't use it). It is precisely this ability that sets us apart from animals, and it is this ability that God has put us here to develop and use.

Reason (verb): 14. to support with reasons.

Reason (noun): 4. sound judgment; good sense.

From the "synonyms" explantion: A reason is an explanation of a situation or circumstance which made certain results seem possible or appropriate..

reason - Definitions from Dictionary.com

I didn't mean to imply that the search for reasons behind morality should be overly didactic, though for some people it can be. It can also be an intensely spiritual and prayerful process. So long as there's more to it than "because he/she/I/whoever said so". A personal spiritual witness that something is immoral is just as valid (if not more so) as any logical if A then B argument, however it is my personal belief that any true spiritual witness to that effect will include the reason for its immorality.

I'm especially perturbed by the "because _________ said so" or "that's just the way it is" arguments. These are used extensively by many theists, but also abused by many who use them as excuses for letting wrong (immoral) things continue. The song "Just the Way it Is" by Bruce Hornsby illustrates my perspective on this quite well. If people looked for reasons behind morality and immorality, a LOT of the evil in the world would disapear overnight.

YouTube - Thats just the way it is Planet Earth

Edited June 19, 2008 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[skalenfehl]

I'm going to jump in again briefly after skimming some of the posts. There's a lot of heavy discussion here.

The LDS church doesn't involve itself in politics for good reason but is bold in its affirmation of what is right and what is wrong. Yes, it's a religious point of view, but then again, the whole point of the pilgrims coming to America and writing the Mayflower Compact was to be able to specifically practice Christianity according to their conscience. Afterwards came the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that guarantees our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, continuing to guarantee freedom of worship. I realize that there is a separation of church and state, but the Constitution, regardless, was created by middle aged Christian men for a moral society. I stand by our founding fathers and their intention to live in a moral and responsible Republic and standing up for what is right. That was the whole point of declaring independence from England's rule.

That said, I personally choose to exercise my Constitutional right to believe our prophet and adhere to the church's official stance on any subject, especially "The Family-A Proclamation to the World." I am not well versed in Nietzsche, but I am in Nephi, and also our modern prophets who stand up for right. God does not compromise the Law of Chasity because some people would rather be unchaste as long as they aren't hurting someone else. God does not compromise the Law of Tithing because there are people who are not willing to sacrifice. I will not compromise my belief that wrong things should be legal, but I will not deny another person's right to believe otherwise and lobby, petition and vote accordingly. I do not actively participate against gay rights movements and rallies, but I simply vote no when the time comes.

As mentioned previously, people are capable of reason, but I question how far they see reason through, for history is replete of societies that have self destructed or have been destroyed because they did not see reason through to conclusion. We are heading toward that same fate, not only as a country, but as a world. I personally want to do what I can to slow it down as much as possible.

Edited June 19, 2008 by skalenfehl

[rena_goldmoon]

After reading all of this I think the answer is prayer. God knows what is right and wrong for members and non alike. Also I believe that I have a right to vote against something that I feel is wrong just as much as those who dissagree have a right to vote for it. Thats my freedom. I also have a right to vote for what I beleive this country should be headed for. Voting against legalizing drugs states my beleif that drugs are bad. Putting forth something to vote for is asking what your beleif is. Thats what everything in society is based on. Does that mean people who use illegal drugs should die or something as bad? No. I grew up in a school where most of the people I knew did drugs and Ive have seen first hand the adverse affects it had on them throughout their lives and some of them were short. I know a highschooler presently that said he would use harder dugs if they were legal and it is for him I fight. He would still have the choice. I still have the choict to go out and shoot someone. I wouldnt. But its still my choice. Its just adding what I beleive is lesser consciquinces (I probably spelled that wrong) by voting against the legalization of it. Lesser meaning him abusing drugs would be worse physically then being fined or going to jail for a small amount of time. Anyhow this is my oppinion and I thought I'd state it.

[rena_goldmoon]

Also as to the seperation of church and state. Heavenly Father gave us the Church to help us govern our everyday lives. Which infact the Government has a big inpact on. So yes I beleive that God (the Church) wants to vote for our beliefs. Like I said though prayer is key.

[Guest Xzain]

Before I begin, let me say that I am enjoying our conversation

Let me quote and give you my acceptance of your proposed terms:

Drug: any substance classified by the FDA (or other parallel organization) as a "drug", recognized in the official pharmacopoeia of any nation. Often any habit-forming medicinal or illicit substance, especially a narcotic.

Drug use: The consumption of a drug.

Recreational drug use: The consumption of drugs for entertainment.

Drug abuse: The excessive consumption of drugs causing disfunction or disability in the user, interfering with their role in society, or endangering the life, limb, or property of other individuals. Also used to describe self-medication by individuals in need of proper treatment for medical, emotional, or psychological problems.

I agree with the above terms.

Your second answer gets me...

My bad, it was late and I wasn't thinking super clearly. That is also the case tonight. Maybe I should wait until tomorrow?

....

Nah.

Anyway, let me further explain: some have claimed on this thread that drug abuse use only affects the user, as the user is the only one experiencing physical effects from said drug. I was stating that, because of the very nature of drug abuse and their repercussions in the life of the abuser, the actual effects extend far beyond the user, into the lives that touches his/hers.

The point, I think, here is that your belief that "recreational drug use is highly destructive to rational society" is your opinion.

As far as logical proof goes, I will ceed that the above is merely my opinion. However, I must posit that this is the official opinion of the official Church as a whole. Another opinion I hold is that there's safety in agreeing with the prophets of God.

It'd be an interesting statistic to see how many crimes are committed through drug USE as opposed to crimes of possession or trafficking. I think we'd find the number of people who committ crimes while under the influence is astonishingly low. But I doubt such a statistic would be easy to find.

It would be interesting. Here, I must ask a rhetorical question: if drugs are not so appealing and addictive as to drive otherwise rational people to desperate, criminal lengths to abuse them, how could there be such a large trafficking problem?

True point. But the same [high cost of drugs] applies towards soda, candy, games etc. Drugs have a significantly higher cost, yes, but this is primarily due to the difficulty in getting them (because they're illegal).

Can one reasonably believe that recreational drugs, if legalized, would cost the same as a can of soda, or a candy bar?

Since we're talking about marijuana in particular here, it's important to note that there have been numerous studies showing that marijuana has no adverse long term effects. None of these studies, however, have been properly done and sanctioned by the FDA (and neither have any of the studies stating the opposite) precisely because marijuana is illegal.

To be honest, I'm more worried about what stupid stunts might be attempted due to the short-term effects. However, the main issue is a widespread legalization of all or most recreational drugs, not just marijuana.

Again this [time spent on drugs] can be applied to all sorts of recreational activities, not just drug use. Interestingly, drug use is also a "social" recreation in many cases, especially with marijuana; so with a little stretch of the imagination it could be classified in the same category as Monopoly.

The thing about recreational drugs is that they change the chemical makeup of your body through technological means- not natural means that God has ordained to be healthy. When controlled, checked, and monitored by doctors, the effect of perscription (or even non-perscription) medicinal drugs can be beneficial- but the wanton use of them can be absolutely disastrous.

Furthermore, any attempt to classify recreational drug use as a 'healthy family activity' does extreme violence to our system of morals- all logic aside.

While there have been studies that say marijuana is not addictive, let me bring up another point. The FDA classifies sugar (sucrose, fructose etc) as a drug. The long term consequences of excessive sugar consumption, of which diabetes is not the only one, are disasterous. Sugar is also addictive and has a major impact on the chemistry of the brain. Of course you wouldn't suggest the outlawing of sugar, the idea seems ludicrous to you doesn't it?

The fundamental difference is that one doesn't eat sugar just for the sake of eating sugar (unless they have other problems that need to be addressed). Sugar is a legitimate ingredient in a wide variety of foods- illegal drugs are the finished product. Also, anything in excess is disastrous- hence the law of moderation.

Any drug, including sugar, can be considered a gateway drug, and drugs are not the only form of entertainment that causes these problems. Video games and movies are a prime example, and there have even been movements to outlaw or regulate these things.

There are a multitude of reasons that recreational drug use cannot fairly be classified with 'other' entertainment- the main one being a forced change in the chemical makeup of your body by the introduction of alien substances.

Drugs are also useful as tools, hence the MASSIVE pharmacological industry we have in this country.

I agree- my mental and emotional health would be much worse if not for the drugs I take every morning and night.

And many of the "useful" drugs we take for granted have horrible side effects. Tylenol (acetaminophen) is deadly if overdosed, and an overdose is NOT very much. Prescription narcotics such as Vicodin are primarily composed of acetaminophen, and it's the acetaminophen that is the toxic factor causing risk of overdose for these drugs, not the narcotic (codeine - hydrocodone); overdosing on Vicodin will kill your liver because of the Tylenol in it, not because of the codeine.

The simple answer to those examples is 'moderation'. I am not familiar with the effects of (any) drugs on the body. However, there is a fundamental difference between using any drug to counteract an already extant, uncomfortable condition in the human body; and introducing a drug for pure enjoyment and 'entertainment'.

I'm going to take that as a compliment, thank you :) (no sarcasm).

It was meant as one.

Right and Wrong are supposed to be universal truths. However societal laws and customs are far from universal. In the Middle East it is often law for women to dress in a certain modest fashion - does that make it immoral to not wear a veil? To them it might. To us, we might consider it immoral to make them wear the veil. My intent is to seperate the morality from the legality so that examples like this one aren't confusing; or that because something is illegal does not make it immoral, and conversely that because something is immoral does not make it illegal.

Point taken. My position might be better stated thusly:

In an ideal world, the laws of the land would reflect the laws of God. In the real world, this is not always the case- but it does not excuse people from striving to bring the laws of the land more in line with the laws of God. Additionally, many extant societal laws exist because of erroneous tradition or misapplied truth. Because of the nature of man, the nature of right and wrong, and the nature of governments and temporal laws, there must be wiggle room for many areas of individual action. However, actions that violate basic moral principles and, if widespread among the people, would lead to the denegration of society, should be guarded against by government- because it is the nature of man to desire that which is not expedient for him.

Further than that, I don't think there's anything else (relating to the nature of right and wrong) related to the main topic that would bear real fruit by pursuing.

I think most of the users out there would not be stupid about their use.

I must disagree with you here- largely because those who I have seen using drugs in their lives are extemely stupid about their use. They begin to sacrifice things that are truly important (such as an education, family, etc.) and do things while under the influence that put themselves and others in danger.

What boggles my mind is that, those who do survive prolonged, habitual drug abuse, begin to revel in their near escapes from death (and their stupid, stupid stunts doen while under the influence) and begin to require more and more to get the same thrill.

Laws to protect society, such as "driving under the influence" would still be in effect and apply to any legalized recreational drugs.

Would you rather have a fence around the cliff, or an ambulance down in the valley?

Drug abuse is a bad thing. Unfortunately in many cases recreational drug use leads to drug abuse. This is often the result of attempts at self-medication for psychological or emotional issues, however alcohol and nicotine are also used and then abused in the same manner. It is my opinion, however, that the majority of drinkers are responsible drinkers, the majority of smokers are responsible smokers, and the majority of recreational drug users are responsible with their drug use.

As the above is pure opinion, I offer my opinion on the matter.

It is my experience (and opinion) that, for the most part, those who drink, smoke, and abuse drugs are not responsible in their indulgences. Our difference in opinion may result from a differing definition of 'responsible drug use' (which, to me is almost an oxymoron).

As you said above, "Legalizing something because a few won't abuse an action isn't logically sound," conversely is illegalizing something because a few will abuse it logically sound?

It might be. Yet, illegalizing something that by its nature is addictive, offers nothing by way of valuable renumeration, and is harmful (either directly or indirectly) to others might have a case.

I also think that it is important to find out who is the 'few' in this case. Would most people use recreational drugs responsibly, or irresponsibly?

Edited June 21, 2008 by Xzain

[Fiannan]

5) Marijuana is a 'gateway drug'- or, it could very easily lead to something else.

Actually, most research has shown the true gateway drug is tobacco. Also, I have seen no conclusive evidence to suggest that people who use marijuana end up shooting or snorting other drugs due to getting bored with marijuana.

That being said I think the true measure of a law should be on a cost, benefit analysis. Would legalization of marijuana be a good thing for the USA? Perhaps...I mean really, arrest someone for growing a plant that is far less deadly than tobacco use or alcohol? Maybe decriminalization would be best -- get caught with a little of the stuff and get a small fine and no marks on your criminal history. Doesn't legitimize it but keeps things in reasonable check.

Reminds me of an initiative in Lane County, Oregon in the 1970s. Some self-rightious folk wanted to ban skinny-dipping in the area and passed a ballot measure to do it. The local DA, a very devout Christian, started getting cases where some poor couple would be out in the woods on an isolated trail and get arrested for taking a dip naked. Eventually a woman sued saying that since the criteria was "exposure of sexual organs" women could not be violating the law and the DA used this to make sure to tell the law enforcement people not to bring any of these cases before his office unless someone was exposing themselves in a very public place around people who weren't into it. I think the law was taken off the books eventually.

The above shows how stupid laws can become and that common sense needs to be involved.

I think there are some people in the Texas government, particularly involved in Child Protective Services, who are updating their resumes due to trying to impose views on a group of people using government to do so.

Would a law to take away anyone's car who is prosecuted for driving drunk and sell it (using the money earned to help victims of drunk drivers) be justifiable? I think a good case could be made. Is arresting a person for swimming naked in a moutain stream or smoking a joint and having this on their record justifiable? I really don't think so. Believe wat you want in moral terms but if using the government to enforce those views then please have a real good justification for doing so.