As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Religion and the Drugs
ege02
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
Combining two sensitive topics in one thread. Oh boy!
Anyways, I'm not sure if this has been brought up in previous religion or drug threads, but this question was presented to me today:
Is it okay -- or should it be legal -- for people to use drugs that are otherwise illegal if it is a part of their religious practice?
Wikipedia has the following section:
Anyway, my personal opinion is yes, it should be allowed. Even though I'm not a religious person, I respect other people's beliefs, and freedom of religion specifically says people are free to practice whatever they want (although it doesn't say anything about the means of practice, as far as I know).
One possible strawman or hyperbole is that if we allow people to use whatever drugs they want in their religious practices, should we allow them to hunt down, capture, and sacrifice human beings as well? The answer is clearly a no, but it does show that the line is somewhere in between.
Thoughts?
Anyways, I'm not sure if this has been brought up in previous religion or drug threads, but this question was presented to me today:
Is it okay -- or should it be legal -- for people to use drugs that are otherwise illegal if it is a part of their religious practice?
Wikipedia has the following section:
Many indigenous and shamanistic religions of the Americas, Asia and other continents use entheogenic drugs to make contact with the divine as part of their religious rituals. Most commonly, these are used in shamanistic practice in healing rituals.
Cannabis is been widely used in India by Hindu gurus and Middle Eastern sufis. Salvia Divinorum and psilocybin mushrooms ("Magic Mushrooms") are used in the Oaxaca region of Mexico. Ayahuasca is used ritually among South American (Brazilian) Indians. The Fly Amanita or Amanita Muscaria mushroom has a long shamanistic use in Europe and Russia. Also, in Europe Damiana, various Nightshades (Solanaceae) like Datura, Brugmansia, Belladonna and other plants have been used. Peyote ((Lophophora williamsii)) and other Mescaline containing cacti has a widespread use among Mexican and some North American Indians. Aztecs used the LSA containing seeds (similar to LSD, but not as potent) of the very common Morning Glory (Ipomoea violacea) creeper, and the related Hawaiian Baby Woodrose, present in other places than Hawaii despite its name, has also had use among indigenous people because of its LSA-containing seeds. In some places, even frogs and fish are consumed for their intoxicating effects.
In many Eastern countries, including China (which is said to be dominated most by Confucianism), opium has been used, especially by the elderly, without many social problems. In countries like Thailand (Buddhist) and Bali (Hinduist), the leaves of Kratom tree have been used as an ingredient in a mild stimulant tea.
Anyway, my personal opinion is yes, it should be allowed. Even though I'm not a religious person, I respect other people's beliefs, and freedom of religion specifically says people are free to practice whatever they want (although it doesn't say anything about the means of practice, as far as I know).
One possible strawman or hyperbole is that if we allow people to use whatever drugs they want in their religious practices, should we allow them to hunt down, capture, and sacrifice human beings as well? The answer is clearly a no, but it does show that the line is somewhere in between.
Thoughts?
ege02 on
0
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Either I can declare myself religious in some way, make up a religion out of whole cloth as it were, and do whatever drugs please me and the government can't do anything to stop me, or we have the government declaring some religions valid and others invalid.
Also, this brand of "freedom of religion" gives religious people special rights that make them essentially more legally free than both people of more restrictive religions and people who aren't religious at all.
but if something is not legal it should not be acceptable just because someone calls it part of their religion.
But not the growing, the creation, the traffiking, and whatnot. Illegal drugs, at a minimum, would fall under the category of a 'controlled substance'. If these groups could find a legal supplier and show the neccessary credentials, then go ahead.
What, like show them their religion card? Why are they exempt from the law?
The same law also supports freedom of religious expression, though. So it contradicts itself.
And again, the question is whether something should be the case. I don't see the argument that makes it reasonable to have religions above and exempt from the law.
So I must logically be against religions being allowed to use drugs simply because they are a religion.
I am for legalization of almost every drug product, I just don't see how "oh, it's my religion to get stoned and roam around like a fuckhead!" is more valid than "I feel better when I smoke weed!" I've known people who claimed to be Rastafari that were total assclowns and people who were at their best when they self-medicated with marijuana.
If you make it okay for one group, you can't make it not okay for everyone else or it becomes the state sponsoring religion by not prosecuting growers and suppliers.
However!
Somebody who uses drugs in a ritualistic manner in the context of a recognized organized religion is more likely to put some thought into their drug use, they're more likely to do it in the presence of somebody experienced with that drug, they are more likely to prepare their environment appropriately, and they are more likely to be psychologically primed for having a certain type of experience. Consequently, they are more likely to use drugs responsibly and less likely to behave in dangerously erratic ways.
In addition, there are certain drugs - notably most of the famous psychedelics - that I would like to see decriminalized, but not so unregulated that you can buy them at any 7/11. An acceptable state of affairs for me would be for a drug like, say, peyote to be decriminalized for possession, but a misdemeanor for cultivation and distribution of small amounts, except in the case of religious use.
Then it would be expected that those who manufacture it for religious use would see a small amount diverted into the "black" market and made available to seekers... but only those who are willing to put thought and effort into finding it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Really? I don't believe you.
unfortunately, me neither.
and if you were going to legislate drugs based on the responsible-ness of the user, you'd have to make it licensed.
If you expect to have experience X versus experience Y, you are more likely to have experience X. Self-fulfilling prophecies are, like, Hallucinogens 101.
So somebody doing a psychedelic experiencing to see the great spirit by staring into a fire for four hours, they're probably going to stare into a fire for four hours until they see the great spirit. It's not rocket surgery.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
b) I don't see how lighting up with some good friends, which, though I've never used anything beyond booze, I know happens rather frequently, for the first time is "putting less thought into their drug use". If anything, they're probably less likely to believe that the "great spirit" or whatever they might see is real after the drug wears off. I would consider this "more thoughtful" most of the time.
c) I don't see why having one particular experience over another (or even an essentially random one) warrants religions being above and exempt from the law.
I would say that that's implied in the very use of the word "ritual." If it doesn't involve preparation or an arranged environment, I struggle to see how the word "ritual" applies.
Non-ritual users are going to run the gamut from very thoughtful users to very impulsive users. You're going to have people who won't do a drug unless they've done several weeks of research on the Internet, carefully arrange their home, and invite over a sitter. Then you're going to have people who buy some tabs off a stranger and pop them at a party two hours before they have to drive home.
However, religious users are, by definition, only going to use them in certain contexts. There is less variability in religious users than non-religious users.
So my comments should not be construed as a jab at the non-religious user.
I don't get what this has to do with anything.
The most common objection to the legalization of psychedelics is that they can cause users to behave in unpredictable, possibly dangerous, ways. What they believe (other than how their beliefs affect their actions) is of no consequence to us.
See above.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not disputing common characteristics of rituals. I am disputing that every ritual is as innocuous and peaceful as you painted in your example. Similarly, it is not clear to me that every ritualistic user is going to be thoughtful. I would suggest that individual practices depend on both the personality of the individual as well as the actual practices involved in the ritual, which vary across religions.
Sure, there's probably less variation among religious rituals than individual users because there's fewer religions than people. But that in no way implies that those religious rituals are all in the same spectrum of thoughfulness and preparation, and that the individual's personality doesn't come into play.
Besides, if the argument is that religions should get a pass because their users are less likely to have unfortunate reactions because of specific practices (which, again, is a claim I dispute), doesn't that just mean that secular users who are cautious should have the same rights?
For the purposes of our discussion we have to assume that there is no right to drug use (which happens to be the position our legal system takes anyway). If there is a right to drug use, then the notion of a religious exemption is meaningless.
And just for the record, I am highly sympathetic to the notion that there is a right to drug use - which means that I am also highly sympathetic to the possibility that this whole conversation is moot. I also have the personal belief that drug use should be kept special - 'sacred,' if you will. (And by that I don't necessarily mean a religious or superstitious use of the word 'sacred'.) If psychedelic drugs were legalized and became even a fraction as commonplace and casual as alcohol or tobacco use, I would be very sad, and I'd almost prefer that they be kept illegal. I am aware that these two positions are in conflict. I'd like to see some compromise between full legality and full illegality, and my interest in there being a 'religious exemption,' if you will, has less to do with religion and more to do with the possibility that drugs manufactured for religious purposes might be diverted into the black market for the purchase by people brave enough and savvy enough to find them.
Yes, this is true. However, if we acknowledge that drug use, per this discussion, is a privilege and not a right, then it is a privilege that can be granted or revoked on a case-by-case basis. If the practitioners of a certain religion prove to be incapable of promoting drug use in a safe and responsible manner, then their drug privileges can be revoked.
Again, the notion of "ritual" implies, by definition, preparation. I agree that there is going to be variation in the amount of preparation, but not so much variation as in the absence of ritual.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This is sort of an aside at this point, as it's not incredibly pertinent to the discussion from the OP:
Anyways, given that we are assuming that there is no right to drug use, I don't see a coherant case made for a religious exception that doesn't throw the entire anti-drug law into question.
Also, I just stumbled across this discussion, which is incredibly relevant to this thread: http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=352&cid=2061
a) no one should get special privileges because of religion.
b) drugs cause people to act differently, sometimes violently, that's why they're illegal in the first place. Responsibility of the user has nothing to do with it...people find ways around license laws, too. Note the gun control policy.
c) the right to freedom of expression does not include breaking the law. If I were to steal a TV and claim it was a ritual in my religion to steal something, I'd still be arrested.
http://thornsbook.com online novel
Right, but when you steal something, you're affecting other people negatively.
When you use drugs in a religious ritual, you are -- for the argument's sake -- either by yourself, or with people who are -- for the argument's sake -- there by their own, full consent.
The same can be said of people using drugs in nonreligious ways much of the time.
One that springs to mind is "Should kosher abatoirs be exempt from animal welfare laws and humane slaughter regulations?"
Whether the thread's scope is expanded or not, my position should be quite well known to everyone. A big glass of suck-it-up for the religious.
You're right...I suppose my main point was that the law was in place for a good reason, and religion shouldn't be a loophole. Drugs aren't illegal because they always bring harm to others, but I always got the impression they were illegal because they can, and do.
There will inevitably be people who will use the drugs irresponsibly. If communion wafers got you high, you'd see a lot more stoner teenagers in church. People might pretend to be part of a religion that offers drugs, and that might lead to more people doing these drugs for nonreligious reasons, and possibly harming others. Not only is this dangerous, it leads to a horrible cheapening of the religion in question.
I say if you're going to ban something, ban it for everybody.
http://thornsbook.com online novel
I don't see how they're owed any reverence at all.
Yes, we all know your stance against religion, Loren.
For the purposes of the discussion, however, we're assuming that every discussion participant is respectful towards people's beliefs.
Why are we assuming that?
If we're assuming that we should be respectful, then you're half way to assuming your conclusion which largely defeats the point of most of this discussion.
I do hope that includes being respectful towards Loren's belief that saying "my imaginary friend says it's OK" is not deserving of any more reverence than "this is my conclusion based on the facts at hand". Loren is simply applying the "do unto others..." philosophy and invites anyone to critique his ideas using fact and reason.
I believe that, as a free sovereign individual, I should have the right to alter my body's chemistry in any way I see fit. If I impinge on another's sovereignty I should be punished for the act and not the content of my bloodstream at the time of the act.
If I replaced the words "I believe" with the words "God says", the previous statement would not be deserving of any more reverence.
Why?
I mean, I feel the same way, basically, about laws being intended to discriminate against specific religions, but I don't see how laws treading on religions as side effects are necessarily worrisome.
Doesn't the US government already do that (ruling on the validity of a religion) in regards to which churches are grante tax-exempt status?
But I also don't think that most drugs should be illegal.
whooooooooops!
From what I got from the article it looks like being religious isn't the reason why they get tax exempted, but that they serve a public good.
Anyway, in regards to the OP, unless taking some peyote is going to make my local priest start pulling loaves and fishes out his buttock, either legalize for all, or for none.
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Yeah, government and the courts already determine what is and is not a valid religion in the eyes of the state (christianity = yes, freemasons = no).