After Falwell, evangelicals at crossroads (younger generation ok with same sex marriage)

Fair enough. I'll close with two things.

First, whether drugs are a problem or eventually become a problem in a users life is ultimately irrelevant by the mere fact that "illegal drug" users are treated unfairly before the law as compared to alcohol consumers. Basically your position is that social engineering expediency trumps equality before the law. I say it doesn't, so you are right, we will never agree.

Lastly, it's my sincere belief that your side of this issue is committing a sin against people involved in "illegal" drug use. NIV Exodus 20:16 "You shall not give false testimony against thy neighbor". As there is nothing inherently criminal in buying, selling and consuming alcohol, by extension there is nothing inherently criminal in buying, selling or consuming "illegal" drugs. As both carry the same moral hazards, differing only in the relative risk factors to one another, they should be treated the same (equality before the law above). Yet you and your ilk choose to call one "legal" and the others "illegal", thereby slandering these other drug users by branding them criminals when the underlying moral hazards and risks are essentially equal to alcohol.

To put it simply, if one isn't criminal the other can't be. If one is criminal, the other must be. To straddle the fence and call one a crime and not the other is to put your side in the position of being morally vs. legally inconsistent, an untenable position. If you don't think alcohol a crime then you are sinning when you call pot a crime. If you call pot a crime, then you are being morally inconsistent by not calling for the same punishments for alcohol possession as pot and alcohol share the same moral hazards.

Moral consistency enhances moral authority. The hair-splitting done by your side on this issue is morally inconsistent and negates the moral authority you claim for your side. And because Christians have publicly supported these laws, they show themselves to be morally inconsistent as well. Sad, sad, sad. While you and those like you may not see your own moral inconsistency on this issue, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the people who live in fear of the drug laws you support see the moral inconsistency and the injustice it engenders toward them as plain as day.

The moral vs. legal inconsistency espoused by Christians on this issue puts Christianity in a bad light. For this reason alone, Christians should tread lightly in politics. But sadly, most can't see it, being caught up in their own self-righteousness.

In a way we've come full circle from my post you first responded to. The big question in all this is whether Christianity should employ the coercive powers of the government to socially engineer things. I say no for all the reasons I've already posted. Your earlier responses speak for themselves.

The big question in all this is whether Christianity should employ the coercive powers of the government to socially engineer things I say no

And I say NO also!

choose to call one "legal" and the others "illegal", thereby slandering these other drug users by branding them criminals when the underlying moral hazards and risks are essentially equal to alcohol.

AMEN!! "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!"

Great post - you clearly showed the hypocrisy when the gov't gets involved. What does the gov't know about truth anyway. It's only what they say is wrong - is wrong and instituted by politicians - who mostly lie for a living. They themselves are guilty of 'use/sin' but are protected by their power. "Illegal" is illegal only when it suits the empty suits, i.e., illegal aliens. The doors are open, opportunities are open, money/jobs are theirs, all our rights are theirs, they have a louder voice than we do, etc., etc. But someone who got addicted to drugs sits in jail and his life and his families are ruined. If he made a bad choice - why is he the only one that gets punished for it.

Why not the illegal alien who wants something a committed an illegal act to get it. Gee, is robbing a bank still illegal? Is the gambler punished - it's illegal only according 'where' it's done. But it's sanctioned with lottery, etc. Much like drinking and smoking - it's just "where' you can do it. So the gov't being in any of these issues is wrong wrong wrong! They want to 'regulate' - it has nothing to do with truth or justice across the board. It's only when the 'get their $hare' of a sin that it becomes OK while making the appearance of doing something - jailing one group of 'sinners'.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.