GOP Congress to weigh legal pot in DC

Maybe folks aren’t doing it to get rich!!

I get headaches if I don’t have caffeine, am I addicted and ungodly?

What you are saying, is simply not true.

There will be no LSD like trips, and no hallucinations.

Pure hobbyists? That would defeat capitalism. :)

Ah, another troll shows up on August 22, 2014.

Welcome to FR.

Trying to tell conservatives that coffee and pot essentially the same thing.

Keep trolling, you’ll earn your zot.

No, offering a needed and desired service and turning a modest profit.

You seem pretty unpleasant, perhaps you should spend some time in quiet reflection.

They are not anywhere near the same.

you never ate 3-4 brownies chock full of high potency pot.(or you just got bad info)

trust me....I don’t remember the 60s....which proves I was there.

True, I would stop after the first one, to see what was happening. I have ingested large amounts of hashish and did not have hallucinations or an LSD-like experience.

I was also there, but I remember.

You certainly do have a long posting history of references to Scripture.

At the same time, your posting history also includes this very soft approach to convincing conservatives that pot should be legalized (one of the pet projects of Open Society and other foundations, groups, etc.) as well as rather shallow attempts at pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants. This is one of the big projects that globalist-corrupted Christian denominations are working on.

All in all, the "Fester Chugabrew" id represents almost 15 years of effort in a carefully maintained presence here on FR, which quotes Scripture, rails against islam, is vehemently anti-abortion, etc. that is, Fester fits in very well here on FR, except arguably in regards to drug legalization and illegal immigrant policy. The posting history is there, and I just made a rather brief search; there are some other goodies I found.

So now I may have a better understanding of the "Fester Chugabrew" id and it's seemingly tireless repitition, ad nauseum, and very clever twisting of Scripture.

The gist of the debate here pertains to calling things “sin” when the biblical texts are silent on the matter. Is there a biblical injunction not to feel “giddy?” No.

It was not simply "giddy", it was high. When you take this example which includes both evidence of being high and giddy, then respond and only refer to giddy, and leave out the "high" part, that's deceptive. Reference the whole quote, high and giddy, to avoid the subtle but wicked deception that I am assuming a "biblical injunction not to feel "giddy"". The giddy quote simply emphasizes the irrationality of doing something stupid and needlessly dangerous to self and others - laughing while doing it. Such events are clear and dramatic evidence that an otherwise rational person is not at all in control of their mental faculties.

There are some plants that are, in their natural state, poisonous. Yet the Bible does not mention them. Of course, this does not mean we then should eat the poison plants as part of "Christian liberty".

Twisting the meaning of Scripture:

The history of ancient Israel and the Church is replete with examples where certain actions are explicitly forbidden for a time (dietary laws), and others are established forever (the Decalogue).

Which is another pass at this Biblical doctrine you made use of in post #85:

Christ Jesus explicitly tells the Pharisees: “It is not what enters the body that defiles a man, but what comes out of his heart.”

This doctrine regards man arbitrarily stating that God forbids a given substance, when the Bible does not forbid that substance. This has to do with men claiming rightousness because they then refrain from using that substance.

I am not saying that pot the substance is forbidden by the Bible, it's not. This is a straw man argument.

I am advocating for pot to be illegal under civil law.

I do not advocate this because pot is forbidden in the Bible, or because pot has some status of being sinful or unclean, etc.

I advocate this because of the EFFECTS of pot. It makes the user high, or drunk, in Biblical terminology, and it is sinful, according to Scripture, to habitually be in that condition.

How high is high ? The logic obviously runs to: Can we compare wine, for example, to pot, or is that comparing "apples and oranges" ?

If I can have a glass or two of wine and be perhaps a little relaxed and of good cheer, but not be drunk, is taking a hit or two of a joint the same thing ?

While a very, very few users may take one or two tokes and not get high, and then put the pot down, that is not even close to the honest truth of pot smoking. Almost all pot users get high when they use pot.

The magazine High Times is called High Times for a reason. Because when one smokes pot, one gets high. A fact you seek to deny or hide is that people who smoke pot get high when they smoke it, that is, they enter a state of drunkenness.

No one who is honest about it will say using pot does not get you high. Given the realities of pot use, anyone with any shred of honesty will admit, typically with a chuckle or a bit of sarcasm, that pot users have to be laughing at the ridiculously idiotic argument for pot legalization that "pot does not make one high". Perhaps Cheech Marin and George Soros are the only people who can make that argument with a straight face.

If people like its aroma, and just the aroma could be extracted from the plant, so the plant extract would in no way make anyone high (drunk) at all - then smell away !

So it is apples and oranges.

Pot makes the user high.

It is this state of drunkenness that is sinful, not the plant.

Why then do I advocate that pot be illegal, the reader may wonder. Isn't it enough that public drunkenness be illegal, and let the law drop any reference to pot ? Would that not mirror what the Bible says ?

Only in part; also bearing on the situation is the Biblical concept of the civil government having the "power of the sword" (meaning the mechanisms of earthly justice, including physical force) for the good of all it's citizens, to restrain evil. When this works properly, and restrains evil, this is a blessing, a gift, from a merciful God. Of course, in nations that reject and mock God, there are temporal judgements by God against such nations, and they are given the anti-Christ leaders and laws they ask for.

Pot is extensively marketed and pushed on the public, including the young. It is no longer just a plant the grows in a field somewhere, the production and selling of it is a large operation. The widespread use creates the societal problem of a lot of public drunkenness due to massive efforts to promote the use. These massive efforts, which create such a burden of problems on the public, fall into the category of work of "them that doeth evil".

Romans 13:4 "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Whether it is legal or illegal, the use of the substance has one single effect: to make people high (drunk). This is why the farce of "medical marijuana" has been promoted by the evil people at the top of the drug world, because it gives them one purpose other than getting high that they can claim marijuana is used for, aleit their claim, of course, is false.

Alcholic beverages are specifically warranted in Scripture, wine is even in the Sacrement of the Lord's Supper.

More apples and oranges.

So we have a Scripturally unwarranted substance that induces drunkenness when consumed that is pushed into widespread use by evil elites.

Thus civil laws making pot illegal are good.

The problem we have seen is in enforcement at the top of society's financial elite structure. While we have police-state-style no-knock raids on small time distributors, the money-laundering drug lords at the top are left alone, and in fact, parts of government itself is involved at the top of the illegal drug trade, working hand in hand with the top drug lords, while parts of government pursue smaller violators.

And then those same top financial elites at the top of the drug trade use the problems with the governments efforts as a rationalization for calls for legalization, which would simply create a legal industry that they would continue to profit in.

Thank you for researching my posting history on FR and summarizing it nicely. Public policy regarding use of MJ on a limited basis was the subject of my very first post here. It is one area where I differ greatly from most who participate in this forum. Fortunately, the greater number of them, like you, are reasonable in discussing differences.

You’ve made a fairly good argument for individuals to be allowed, as their conscience is constrained by the Word of God, to grow and make use of MJ privately in their own homes, provided it does not result in harm to neighbors or idolatry.

Are you aware that many people who regularly make use of this substance are engaged in vocations related to creativity that are of great service to others? You do a disservice to people of faith who have self-control just as you do, when you paint their pleasant experiences as sinful while the biblical texts are silent on the matter. If you want to talk about straw men, the suggestion that endorsing consumption of poisonous plants is akin to allowing limited use of MJ is just such a straw man.

The matter of civil policy toward use of MJ is open to debate. As I have often said, this substance should not be without stricture in public realms. Mind altering substances are best subject to legal constraints. In the end, however, it is the heart and mind, as well as actions, that determine was is right or wrong. These are all laid down explicitly and not subject to modification in the Commandments. Repentance and faith are enjoined upon all flesh at all times, and these, like every good gift, are wrought by the Word of God, whereby the Holy Spirit testifies of a righteousness not our own and joins us to the same.

At some point your conscience caused alarm when you looked back on feelings of giddiness and being “high.” Where did the accusations come from? How do you know it is the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit does not testify in regard to feeling “high?” You keep associating “high” with “drunk.” I understand that to some degree, but must also ask: Did you somehow lose complete control of your faculties? If so, no wonder your conscience would bother you.

The most explicit biblical reference to refraining from self-induced altered states of awareness would be this: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.”

So it is critical, whenever and wherever we make use of God’s gifts, that we not abuse them, overuse them, worship them, or assign moral stature to them when the biblical texts are silent about them. We are constrained by the love of Christ to be at peace with all men insofar as we are able.

I’m fairly certain we will disagree about this going forward, but I want you to know that I very much appreciate your concern, your faith, your desire to be guided in paths of righteousness, and your delightfully candid descriptions of personal experience. We both have an Advocate before the Father Who will guide us into all truth, and where we fail, He will hold us up in His mercy.