So ITL believes in banning soft drinks and Big Macs and video games and riding motorcycles and sky diving and mountain climbing and sun tanning and . . . . avoiding my question.
Why not? They're all dangerous products or activities that people willingly choose to consume or engage in that can cause them serious harm or even death.
I believe that proper debate etiquette consists of answering questions you've been asked by your opponent before going on to pose another question to your opponent.
Now for the third time . . . cui bono? If you need a translation cui bono means . . . "who benefits".
In other words I'm asking you who benefits from the prohibition of drugs?
Anyone can make a law out of anything and turn someone into a criminal. It's just silly to blindly agree that someone is a criminal because they broke a law, when the law could very well be unjust. When someone is punished for practicing Christianity in a place that criminalizes it, why aren't you singing the same tune? After all, a law is a law.
Consider whether the law is a broken one before you consider someone a law breaker.
There is no command in scripture to smoke pot and it has no redeeming qualities only negative ones. It places those around people who spoke it in danger and deteriorates society.
The same can be said about tobacco and yet it's legal.
What do you suppose would happen if we declared a "war on tobacco"?
Cancer patients might disagree with you about pot not having any redeeming qualities and while we're on the subject the hemp plant has tons of redeeming qualities and no narcotic effect at all and yet it is illegal to grow in the USA, why?
Who beneifits from keeping this miracle plant that has so many positive uses God created for our benefit illegal? Can you tell us that Rev? Would you tell us if you could?
I don't care. First intentionally lighting something on fire be it cigarettes or pot and intentionally inhaling the smoke from it is just foolish. Such behavior goes against all common sense. However, cigarettes do not alter the mind. And it certainly would be unbiblical for Christians to smoke pot.
And by the way not being able to smoke pot is not unjust.
You are partly rightly right about this Rev the prohibition of drugs was never mean to protect us from ourselves. It was never meant to protect us at all. But that is what the law now attempts to do.
Can you tell us why pot and cocaine were outlawed? Would you if you could?
Man has been using drugs for thousands and thousands of years before any of them were made illegal and yet society remains. How do you explain that?
Using your logic society should have collapsed long ago. Why hasn't it?
If you think you can make such a generalized statement without the details of this history being discussed then you are mistaken. It would be in error to assume this so called historical drug use has always been the same.
I have not avoided anything. That is a false accusation. You brought up the history yet provided no specifics about that history to make your point and then you attempt to hold me to providing the very specifics you brought up but never provided yourself.
First. These are two simple questions I asked you directly Rev, so would you like to recant your statement now or do you prefer to go on being seen as dishonest?
Second. I believe you are afraid to answer these questions. And If I were a betting man I'd wager more than a few reading this thread see it the same way.
Third. At least you answered one of them. Would you tell us if you could? Your answer . . . no!
Fourth. At least you're willing to admit facts don't matter to you. :smilewinkgrin:
I have never seen those questions. If you have I missed those posts.
I am not afraid of them. In fact I will concede that there are some who have ulterior motives for this.
This is just a dishonest statement. It is not just that facts do not matter. It is that those, even if they are actually factual, do not play into my decision making one way or the other. Maybe you should drop the debate tactic.