Mormons: The new fascists?

[Tough Grits]

I think it is a fine line.

If we sit back and do nothing then we are guilty of allowing society to decay at an even more accelerated rate than it already is.

But, if we start enforcing laws like crazy...my fear is that eventually the laws will become so strict that somebody may get a wild hair and decide what religion I can/cannot practice.

So what is the trade off?

Letting people smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, in the hopes that nobody ever gets in my face and tells me that I can't be LDS?

That may seem far-fetched...but there are too many governments from the past and that still exist that have gone so over-board in controlling their citizens that is seems criminal.

Just think about the country that limits how many children you can have and even what gender that child can be. I bet NOBODY would have believed that one 50 or so years ago. Nobody would have ever thought a country could or would enforce such cruel and unjust laws. But to them, it is a valid solution to over-population.

At what point is our country going to go down the same path?

I think alcohol and smoking is wrong...and part of me wishes that there was no alcohol or cigarettes. But if there were no alcohol or cigarettes, then it would be something else.

What about the spiritual crimes that are committed every day? What about the things people do to each other that harm others in a spiritual way?

Isn't is worse to harm and damage somebody's spirit, than to endure physical harm?

Just asking a sincere question...

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

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.

Using my definitions as stated, I would totally agree with you 100% when talking about drug ABUSE, however not when talking about drug USE. I defined the terms to illustrate the difference between the two.

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.

Hmmm ditto.

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?

I don't think anyone here is arguing the appeal, addictiveness, or even destructive power of drugs. I think the point is that whether or not they are addictive or destructive, people should have the right to choose whether they want to engage in it.

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

Or a video game?

On a cost per hour of entertainment, buying a movie hits about 7 bucks an hour ($20 per dvd, 2-3 hour movie). Video games around 5 ($50 per game at around 9 hours per game). I could see a hit of legalized and taxed coke running $50 and that would put someone out for at least 9 hours.

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.

There are many recreational drugs that are far more natural than prescription medications or even over the counter medications. Marijuana, as an example, is typically more natural than most of the organic vitamin supplements you buy off the shelf. But that's not the point, as I said before, we're not discussing whether they're dangerous or addictive, but whether they should be legal.

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

Oh much worse than that, just imagine a society where daddy comes home and the whole family sits catatonic in the living room on meth... Not that that would be much worse than the whole family sitting catatonic in front of the television.

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.

People don't eat sugar for the sake of eating sugar? That's what the entire candy industry is founded on and depends on, is people eating sugar for the sake of eating sugar. Many drugs are also used as ingredients in food, what makes them "illegitimate" ingredients is the illegality of the drugs. Cocaine was a legitimate ingredient in Coca-Cola until it became an illegal drug.

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.

There is a LOT of research in the psychological fields about how movies and video games (games especially) artificially affect the chemical balance in the brain. However movies and video games are too mainstream in order to consider making them illegal, thus a compromise is reached by instating a "ratings system" that helps people judge whether or not a movie or video game is going to cause problems for them or their household. This, I believe, is the same kind of system as a minimum drinking age or minimum age to buy cigarrettes, both of which can arguably be demonstrated as effective.

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 suppose on the bright side, if you're taking drugs just for entertainment, it means you have no extant uncomfortable conditions in your human body :) In any case, judging drug legality based upon its danger to the individual taking the drugs is clearly poor methodology when compared to the effects of legal OTC medications.

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.

I agree in principle, however there are enough "gods" in this world to make that impractical. What if a fundamentalist Islamic group wanted to bring the laws of the U.S. more in line with the laws of Allah, and make veils standard issue for American women? And what if Opus Dei wanted to make mortification law?

And what if the laws of OUR god interfere with the laws of someone else's god? Such as the numerous Native American peoples who use "mind altering" plants in their religious ceremonies (ie peyote)?

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.

While under normal circumstances I would argue that anybody who uses drugs recreationally is automatically stupid..... The point here I think is the confusion of the terms "drug use" and "drug abuse", in that "drug use" by definition means that they are not being stupid about it. If they cross the line from responsibility to irresponsibility, they have gone from "drug users" to "drug abusers" and it is there that I would draw the line of legality.

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

Neither would have saved my mom. She was hit head on by an !@#$%^&* who thought he could drive while high. She died, he walked away from the scene (well, ran away, after trying to pawn off a bag of white powder onto some witnesses). He had a long criminal history of marijuana abuse, and I suspect he'd moved on to meth.

In this case (and many others), making the drugs illegal didn't work, and it's likely that any changes at all in the legality surrounding drugs would not have made a difference. The people who abuse drugs and put others in danger will do so irregardless of the laws they may be breaking. The problem here (and with any kind of change in law) is enforcement. If certain illegal drugs were made conditionally legal, would that free up enforcement resources to better track and imprison the more dangerous criminals? Even if it did free up those resources, would they be put to use as we want, or would they be used elsewhere when budget time rolls around?

And yes, I'm OK about my mom, no need to apologize. It gets old fast.

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).

I think perhaps less from a difference in definitions and more from a difference in experience. I have a sister who is a responsible drinker, who never gets drunk and who is always mindful of her higher priorities. I have a brother who is a responsible smoker, who keeps his smoking to a very minimal social level and doesn't smoke when he can't afford it. I have another brother who is irresponsible with both and for all his new age "holistic healing" he's going to kill himself early with it.

Responsible drug use would be the case where a person has completed their other priorities and responsibilities, the chores around the house are done and they have some personal time to relax. Some people choose to watch a movie, some choose to exercise, some get online and debate silly things on forums. An addict may eat ice cream, or play video games, or view pornography. Some people will kick back and have a beer or smoke a cigarrette. Even though they're illegal, some people will use drugs for their entertainment at this time, and as long as they're used as responsibly as movies or video games, I have no problem with making them legal.

And to use the analogy of alcohol, I think the majority of people who sit on their porch in the evening and drink a beer will have someone else drive if the need to run by the supermarket pops up. We often never hear about these "success" stories, not because they are few, but because the "mean drunk" stories make better news.

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.

"Entertainment value" is definitely a form of "valuable renumeration". This is evident in the massive legitimate entertainment industry we have in this country. Music, television, movies, video games; entertainment "stores" such as arcades, mini golf, bowling. None of these have any physiological or monetary benefit to the "user", only entertainment or social value. Many of these things can also be shown to be addictive, and even harmful when abused. If drugs can offer a user entertainment value, then they can be no worse than video games. Both offer ONLY entertainment value, are addictive, and are potentially harmful. And where video games could be used to offer educational value, drugs can be used for medicinal value.

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?

We'll never know the answer to this one unless we take some sort of survey or analyze societies where certain drugs are already legal. I think we can use any country in this article as an example and through analysis of those societies where it is legal, determine whether it has adversely affected their drug related crime rates. Unfortunately finding a similar list of countries for drugs other than marijuana is difficult, so such a study might be biased.

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

Common sense isn't common.

What about the spiritual crimes that are committed every day? What about the things people do to each other that harm others in a spiritual way?

Isn't is worse to harm and damage somebody's spirit, than to endure physical harm?

Just asking a sincere question...

Oh wow you make an amazing point. But that's what religion is for. Civil laws are meant to protect us and our rights temporally. Religious laws are meant to protect us and our rights spiritually. The big point of this whole discussion is that any attempt to use civil laws to enforce any spiritual principle is morally unjustifiable, at least in a mixed and "free" society.

Having lived in Saudi Arabia, I feel that having Islamic laws in a completely Islamic society is perfectly fine. Having Christian laws in a completely Christian society is perfectly fine, and when the U.S. was founded it was a completely Christian society. But it is not any longer, and when considering the laws we vote for, we need to consider that.