Don't Legalize Drugs

It always amuses me to read bleatings like this one from what T.P. Beh calls a "professing Christian."

Elsewhere in this blog, Beh has a post ripping State Sen. Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) as a "fool" for supporting elimination of spending control. I don't share Heath's position either, so I am inclined to agree with Beh on that.

However, too often the professing Christians who have been an important constituency favoring conservative (read, limited government) public policy are flagrantly inconsistent when it comes to private behavior they dsapprove. They become the most energetic advocates for government action.

You can't have it both ways. If you wish to live in a country where liberty is prized, you have to put up with the knowledge that others are doing things you don't approve of.

When exercising one's liberties leads to harming others, like causing an automobile accident while DUI, etc., then the government has an obligation to step in and punish. Enforcing sobriety isn't a proper role of government, but protecting another's right not to harmed through exercise of that liberty surely is.

Professing Christians and others need to think carefully about this question: Should we look to government to enforce moral behavior?

I say, No. We should look to government to protect our rights. Murder, rape and robbery, to name just three, are immoral by most people's standards, but an individual's right not to be a victim of any is reason enough for government to define and punish it as a crime.

There is nothing inconsistent with Tom Tancredo's being a professing Chrsitian and the views he has expressed on drug use.

Jackie Tumbarella

John/Jackie,

Allow me to “bleat” on a bit more about why it is inconsistent for professing Christian Tom Tancredo to support the legalization of drugs.

In the first place, all laws are expressions of (someone's) morality. Whether it's murder or having to buy "green" cars, somebody or some group's moral values are behind every piece of legislation. If, as you seem to be saying, drug use ought to be legal, it is based on your apparent moral view that using drugs, while perhaps unhealthy, doesn't hurt anyone. That's fine if you're a libertarian, but not for a Christian.

As I stated, the Bible condemns drunkenness and by extension anything that distorts ones ability to think clearly and act "soberly." (The Old Testament even uses words that link drug usage with sorcery and occult practices.) According to biblical morality it is wrong to rely on anything as a substitute for God in order to find peace, joy or happiness. While you may believe that “moderate” drug use is harmless, the Bible does not. It recognizes that things like drugs have a negative effect on people—spiritually, morally and physically—and upon society. It is always morally wrong, and almost always ends up costing the individual and the culture dearly.

A wise nation does not encourage behavior that is destructive to itself or to its members, especially when that behavior frequently leads to addiction if not to greater abuse. For a Christian to encourage laws that have the effect of approving what the Bible considers immoral, regardless of how the government may profit from it, is terribly misguided.

I would suggest that the government is too large and spends too much money, and that we ought to be looking for ways to reduce its size and power instead of finding additional sources of revenue to feed it. Not only is Tancredo’s position inconsistent with biblical morality, but with genuine conservative principles.

T.P. Beh

John/Jackie,

Allow me to “bleat” on a bit more about why it is inconsistent for professing Christian Tom Tancredo to support the legalization of drugs.

In the first place, all laws are expressions of (someone's) morality. Whether it's murder or having to buy "green" cars, somebody or some group's moral values are behind every piece of legislation. If, as you seem to be saying, drug use ought to be legal, it is based on your apparent moral view that using drugs, while perhaps unhealthy, doesn't hurt anyone. That's fine if you're a libertarian, but not for a Christian.

As I stated, the Bible condemns drunkenness and by extension anything that distorts ones ability to think clearly and act "soberly." (The Old Testament even uses words that link drug usage with sorcery and occult practices.) According to biblical morality it is wrong to rely on anything as a substitute for God in order to find peace, joy or happiness. While you may believe that “moderate” drug use is harmless, the Bible does not. It recognizes that things like drugs have a negative effect on people—spiritually, morally and physically—and upon society. It is always morally wrong, and almost always ends up costing the individual and the culture dearly.

A wise nation does not encourage behavior that is destructive to itself or to its members, especially when that behavior frequently leads to addiction if not to greater abuse. For a Christian to encourage laws that have the effect of approving what the Bible considers immoral, regardless of how the government may profit from it, is terribly misguided.

I would suggest that the government is too large and spends too much money, and that we ought to be looking for ways to reduce its size and power instead of finding additional sources of revenue to feed it. Not only is Tancredo’s position inconsistent with biblical morality, but with genuine conservative principles.

T.P. Beh

The United States is founded on the rule of law, with the U.S. Constitution as supreme law of the land. Liberal fascists -- Wilson, FDR, JFK (albeit briefly), LBJ and now Barack Obama would like to dump all of that.

The Christian Right would, likewise, like to impose their Bible-based morality in place of that Constitution. Islamofascists would rather impose Shariah Law.

The unalienable (i.e., God-given) right to liberty means that one owns himself and, therefore has an unalienable right to stupidity or self-harm. Two consenting adults have a right to sell and to buy heroin if they wish and agree. Two consenting adults have a right to sell sex and to buy sex if they wish and agree. Two consenting adults have a right to marry, even if of the same sex, if they wish and agree.

Morality cannot be legislated. There is, methinks, an inverse relationship between the health of a society and length of its penal system.

First, congratulations to drpete for a fine double entendre in his conclusion!

I have deep and abiding respect for the Bible as a source of insightful observations of human behavior and sound advice gleaned from those. Where is it written, however, that laws in the United States are to be written to carry out biblical dicta?

Further, I don't suggest that no one ever makes a claim to morality as the basis for some law or other he or she proposes. Beh's example of "green" cars is certainly apt, as it springs from organized environmentalism which, contrasted with those of us who simply want to be good stewards, perfectly meets the dictionary definition of "religion."

We're too often disappointed, even outraged, by the conduct of many in positions of public trust. That's because, at bottom, we want to believe our elected officials are people whose own behavior is principled. Moral if you will.

However, that is clearly distinguishable from wanting them to enact laws to compel citizens' conduct consistent with someone's view of morality.

If Beh can show me any reason that murder need be judged immoral in order for it to be deemed a crime, I'll eat my hat. I'll suggest again that murder is a crime because he is entitled as a matter of right to government's protection against my killing him. In fact, some out there consider some murders to be a moral obligation (think Islamofascist) but murder's still a crime.

Even if endorsement of drug use is un-Christian, as Beh somewhat tendentiously claims, Tom Tancredo didn't transgress as he has made no such endorsement. I'm always skeptical of those like Beh who would tell us exactly what are and aren't "genuine conservative principles."

Jackie Tumbarella

but you communicate it terrifically.

As a police officer and detective, I learned how much crime was caused by prohibition/war on drugs (circa 70% of all felonies). I also saw how my profession became completely bonkers on making a pot bust vs a DUI arrest. (pot bust equals easy bust, good overtime and possibility of civil asset forfeiture: all a DUI arrest did was save a life)

With all due respect to T.P. Beh he should know that drug prohibition is a nanny-state liberal policy whereby the govt threatens adult citizens with punishment and backs it up w/ govt police, prosecutors and prisons. I respect the liberal positions like Beh's but I do disagree with it. D

IMO, drug policy should be based on individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited/cost-effective govt and States Rights. T.P. Beh believes the opposite.

For fiscal conservatives what part of a 1.1 trillion spent in 40 years do you feel good about? Drugs today are cheaper, stronger and easily available to our children.

Someone tell me one positive outcome of Modern Prohibition. For T.P. Beh how do you balance the morality of your position with the fact that children are shot every day in America because the policy generates a job option which today means 900,000 teens are employed as drug dealers? Is it not immoral to have a policy which offers a job option for 13 y/o which gets several killed every week?