The New Intoxication - part 10b: Conclusion

     This is the final post of the article I've titled "The New Intoxication". In this post I will wrap up the conclusion I began in the last post in this series.

Therefore as the Church, the prophetic voice of God in the world, we must be careful to view such a discussion in light of the transcendent doctrines provided in God’s revealed Word and not by the light of cultural expectations. The Scriptural principle that speaks most boldly to this topic—namely the moderation of the aesthetic and functional enjoyment of substances motivated by recreational pursuits—demands that we consider the use of “non-essentials” such as alcohol, tobacco and the like, with a level of logical consistency, taking care not to condemn their use wholesale while indiscriminately commending the use of other substances when the motivations for their uses may overlap. On the other hand, the use of prescription and other drugs perceived “essential” should likewise be considered, especially since in many cases they are no less intoxicating than the substances used recreationally and in fact, it is their intoxicating properties which lead to their prescription in order to affect mood-alteration, behavioral change, or ease physical pain. While being guided by Scriptural principles we must always remain informed by the current medical wisdom and the needs of a person’s well being. Simultaneously all of us, especially Christians, must resist the temptation to impress our own strictly cultural expectations upon the consciences of others in different and perhaps even opposing cultures, especially where those other cultural expectations only disagree with our own, and are not incongruent with the expectations of Scripture.

Though this is the final official post for this article, I for one am sure my engagement of the study of this topic is far from over. Ever learning, and hopefully, always coming to the truth.

The New Intoxication - part 10a: Conclusion

     In this post I will begin to conclude the article I've titled "The New Intoxication".
I for one do not think there is enough Scriptural evidence to warrant a command of the universal abstinence of any substance in particular. The issue is far too nuanced for that. It isn't like sex before marriage or polygamy where we can make moral pronouncements that apply to humanity as a whole, transcending time and cultures. This principle should govern our thoughts at least on the topic of the consumption of substances motivated by recreational use, such as it should for the use of psycho-active drugs prescribed by neurologists, psychiatrists and other qualified medical specialists. The issue here will be one of legality and the general consensus of current medical wisdom. Because of its high-profile character, the degree of intoxication it causes with minimal use, and its recent enjoyment of some medical application, I'm considering in the use of marijuana for pain relief, glaucoma, or whatever other use medical professionals deem appropriate. Bearing in mind this substance in particular, I don't think we can sustain philosophical consistency while we reject (all legal aspects of the discussion aside) any and all medical uses of THC. Likewise, in cultures where cannibinoids are legal, we should be careful not to condemn their use absolutely but instead, the Church should maintain that drunkenness is the sin, not consumption. So in the end why are chemicals such as THC and alcohol not functionally interchangeable with prescription anti-depressants? Though the Church should take care not to speak hypocritically or inconsistently on the matter, I do believe there are good reasons to say that the two chemical substances (as they represent similar medicinal and recreational substances) should not be treated the same regarding their use. Several reasons: the different ends of the spectrum of synthesis that they occupy—anti-depressants typically on the highly synthetic end and alcohol typically on the more natural end. Anti-depressants have very little if any aesthetic value while alcohol has a great deal of aesthetic value. Alcohol for instance is a more commercial product promoted as functionally and aesthetically recreational, so its use tends to be recreational. Prescription anti-depressants and other such pharmaceuticals, though they too now are advertised, cannot be bought at the local grocery store and do not have aesthetic value through flavor or aroma, they do not compliment a meal; they do not have an aesthetic value of that sort, thus their use tends to be more clinical on the popular level. Culturally speaking then, alcohol and prescription drugs are not interchangeable at the point of their use. However, the distinctions I’ve just made do not transcend all cultures, but the principles in the Bible do.

In the next post in this series I will wrap up my conclusion to this article.

The New Intoxication - part 9: Assessment

     In the last post in this series I concluded my plea for consistent thought regarding the topic at hand and in this post I intend to make a brief assesment of the Church's consideration of the topic of the consumption of intoxicating substances.

One of the greatest problems surrounding the American Church’s consideration of the topic of intoxication seems to be one of classification and legalization. The legal restrictions of a substance’s use capitalize on, or necessarily create and reinforce its cultural taboo. While at the same time, these restrictions also generate rebellion. Alternatively, the legal permissiveness and the accepted medicinal efficacy of a substance tends to legitimize its use, even in the face of information that might prove it to be of more physical, emotional and thus societal harm than good. So when a substance is illegal then it is difficult for us to see any medicinal value it may have and when a substance is regarded by the popular culture as medically necessary then it is difficult for many of us to accept its possible negative repercussions. In yet other cases a substance may become illegal in a society solely because it has first become culturally disapproved. This very article and the promotion of similar philosophies in other venues, some would argue, lends to the legitimization of the use of substances which in their view should remain forbidden in all cases—consider for example the perception of tobacco use in America. As the Church considers the topic of intoxication, we must also remember the largeness of our world and know that simply because a substance in one country is illegal or culturally disapproved, or both, doesn't mean that its use is universally immoral. Even so, we also must concede that it is immoral to break laws to use a substance which may, even wrongly so, be scheduled as illicit—it isn't likely that being asked to refrain from any substance would be equal to asking one to sin. Also, just because a culture condones the moderate use of a substance does not mean that it is rightly permitted or that its use is universally moral.

In the next post in this series I will begin a two part conclusion to this article, "The New Intoxication".

The New Intoxication - part 8b: A Plea for Consistency

     In the last post in this series which makes up the article I've called, "The New Intoxication", I began to make a plea for consistent thought when it comes to the way we, the Church in particular, address the consumption of intoxicating substances, regardless of motive. In this post I will conclude that plea.

Though it may seem so, I'm really not trying to make the case for the use of any of the substances I’ve mentioned. I am merely trying to make the case for a biblically consistent philosophy regarding these matters when it comes to the prophetic voice of the Church. It is of paramount importance that we, especially when we must be involved in the condemnation of even the moderate use of a substance, attempt to remain as consistent as possible when we counteract cultural practices. Essentially, and from God's perspective, hypocrisy is no less a sin than addiction. So the Church's' voice is tainted in the eyes of our culture when we maintain blatant inconsistencies. Not to suggest that our doctrine and practice are to be tailored to cultural expectations, but there is no need in adding offence to the message of the Cross, especially when even Christians disagree over an issue such as this. This question has thus been begged: is it inconsistent to insist that the medically motivated use of prescription drugs, for albeit controversially diagnosed illnesses, is permissible while even the moderate consumption of alcohol or tobacco, for recreational reasons is in all cases forbidden? Perhaps that category of professed believers who claims both of the above items does not exist—a category in which persons are "T-totalers" when it comes to certain substances but fully agreeable when it comes to the medical use of others. For instance, when the same group denounces the use of alcohol for any reason yet supports the use of prescribed pharmaceuticals for depression or hyper-activity, I think the possibility for inconsistency blossoms. Conversely when a group, for theological reasons, condemns the use of any psychoactive drug yet sees no reason to condemn the use of alcohol or tobacco for recreational reasons, inconsistency in that case may tend to lead to hypocrisy. So I say yes, it is inconsistent to insist on abstaining from the use of alcohol while at the same time, obliging the use of prescription drugs for depression and hyperactivity.

Bearing all that in mind, I believe it is the wisdom of God that tells the Church that adding offense to the most offensive event of human history, the life and passion of Christ the God-Man and to the good news He brings the world is unnecessary, not to mention wrong. But I must admit the guilt of adding such offense to the gospel, if not surrounding this topic, then certainly involving some other topic where I've used my personal preferences like we are supposed to use God's Law.

In the next post in this series I will make an assesment of this topic based on the discussion I've presented so far.

The New Intoxication - part 8: A Plea for Consistency

     In the last post in this series I took a look at the motivation to use intoxicating substances with which this article primarily deals—medical reasons. At this point I'd like to begin to observe the inconsistency with which most of us approach this topic and make a plea, for the Church anyway, from the special revelation of God, for us to consider this topic very carefully; and for the rest of the world, by the revelation of God's wisdom that all can enjoy through what we know to be true in nature, to make the very same careful considerations.
     In addition to the motives behind use, it is also the purpose of this article to compare and contrast the "nonessential" ingestion of drugs to what is increasingly alleged as their "essential" use for the purpose of what is professed to be an improved quality of life. So in light of the Scriptural teaching of the moderate use of alcohol (and by extension, other “non-essential” substances), how is the Church to view the use of medically “essential” substances such as mao inhibitors or even medicinal marijuana? And as related inquiries: why don’t we tolerate the use of alcohol as an antidepressant the same way much of the Church tolerates the use of Prozac or Paxil? Is it unacceptable to use those drugs in moderately recreational ways as alcohol is used? Why also, where legal of course, is it objectionable to moderately use marijuana to modify mood or behavior, or to ease the bitterness of those who are suffering physically and emotionally, or to anesthetize the dying? As we consider these questions we must also admit that it is different to suggest or condone the use of a substance such as marijuana as a mood altering medication than it is to suggest its use in a situation where a person is dying of cancer and the pain is lessened in some small way by its use. Mood-alteration lends itself to the highly subjective “art” of trying to improve one’s quality of life, while the use of pain killers and other such drugs during death is a less speculative way to ease one’s suffering at a hopeless stage, and is widely accepted in nearly all cultures which probably lends credibility to its wisdom via “creational” or general revelation. Additionally, in the case of marijuana in particular, the method of use must also be considered. There is a substantial difference in the inhalation of its smoke and taking a pill containing THC isolated from the plant. In the case of alcohol, coffee and tobacco, as I mentioned earlier, they have an aesthetic value that synthetic anti-depressants and other mood-altering drugs such as Ritalin do not have. So it also is with substances such as marijuana, cocaine, opium, heroin, and the like. Though they have a functionally recreational value (right or wrong) they do not have in my estimation—which I believe to be grounded in Scripture—any aesthetic recreational worth. Also, due to the degree and quality of intoxication that is produced by their minimal use (which in a sense causes the tendency for their abuse) those substances are almost impossible to use moderately. And I am not speaking of moderation in the sense of occasional use, but moderation in the sense of limited intoxication at even one use. As Americans I believe we tend to think of and accept medicines as being more likely synthetic and substances that are intended for aesthetically recreational use are less likely synthetic. What is more is that substances such as cocaine, heroin, morphine and opium are further down the spectrum of synthesis thus making their use more culturally accepted in medical applications than in recreational applications; whereas less synthesized substances such as alcohol and tobacco, due in some measure to their intrinsic properties, are more likely regarded by the culture as recreational—both in the functional and aesthetic sense. This would, in addition to the limited application of their function, tend to delegitimize the use of synthetic medications as aesthetically recreational, both from a cultural and biblical perspective. Some cultures that are less consumer-driven or which do not have the same taboos in place may not see a functional distinction between the use of alcohol and say, Prozac. If the fact that Prozac and Paxil and other prescription drugs are synthetic does play into the cultural consideration, then we should all ask if humanity wasn’t better off fighting melancholy and anxiety with an occasional glass of wine or mug of beer. But to exhaust that inquiry would of course require the entire scope of another article.

The next post will conclude the plea for consistency.

The New Intoxication - part 7: Motivation by Medicine

     In the previous post in this series I discussed the issue of being motivated by aesthetic and functional recreation. In this post I will address what is likely my most controversial treatment of motivations to the use of intoxicating substances, namely the motive of medicine. I will close this portion of the article "The New Intoxication" with a few concluding thoughts on motives.
Motivation by Medicine: a growing number of Americas at least, find themselves in this category. This is the motive that this article primarily intends to look into. The use of psychoactive drugs as the medically prescribed treatments for a variety of ailments has grown in popularity in countries where their people can afford such treatment, but at least in the United States it has generally been supplemented in the last 40 years by some form of psychiatric treatment, the evaluation of that treatment on the whole will be left for the consideration of another article. In any case I think it can be said that more and more people have personally been prescribed or know someone who has been prescribed a controlled substance in order to effect some sort of desired change in mood, state of mind or behavior.

I think it can be said without controversy that, individuals who consume intoxicating substances, from caffeine to morphine, do so for a variety of reasons. In fact, there are legitimate reasons for consuming a variety of substances. But it can also be said that one person’s use is usually backed by a combination of motivations for which they consume prescription drugs and other chemicals, illicit or not—depending on the cultural setting: one may take a “prescription” drug for medical or for recreational reasons; similarly another person may take an illicit or culturally disapproved substance for either recreational or medical reasons.

In the next post in this series, I will begin to discuss the inconsistency with which both the Church and the unbelieving world address the topic of the consumption of intoxicating substances.

The New Intoxication - part 6: Motivation by Recreation

     I believe this is probably the most popular reason for useing intoxicating substances, at least in Western societies. This post has to do with the motive of recreation.

Motivation by Recreation: this category can be broken down into two classes, functional and aesthetic. The driving purpose behind this person’s desire to consume certain substances may be functional—for reasons of celebration or even purely for one's own physical pleasure, providing a means to "feel good" or drunkenness. Still others find that certain substances provide an aesthetic pleasure as a food product harmonizing with and complimenting a meal. While the aesthetic classification is probably limited to beers, wines, certain liquors, cigars and the like, the functional category could even extend to, and most likely is, one’s motivation to use drugs that are found on the United States list of Schedule I controlled substances, of which chemicals it is the general medical and psychiatric opinion that their potential for abuse is very high.

     In the next post in this series I plan to discuss the use of intoxicating substances motivated by medical reasons.

The New Intoxication - part 5: Motivation by Sustenance

     The last post in this series considered the desire to use intoxicating substances as motivated by ritualistic practices. In this post I will discuss the motivation by sustenance.

Motivation by Sustenance: in other parts of the world, not so much now but very broadly in the past, persons had been motivated to consume alcoholic beverages because the drinking water was so widely contaminated that it was much simpler to consume products preserved by fermentation than to try to decontaminate a water source. It might be reasonable to say that this form of motive has lead in some cases to the motivation by culture, but is not reasonable extended in principle to other chemicals such as tobacco, caffeine or opiates.

     The next post in this series will consider motivation by recreation.

The New Intoxication - part 4: Motivation by Ritual

     In the last post in this series I opened up the discussion of possible motivations for the use of intoxicating substances. As I continue now with the discussion of the motivation by ritual, I'd like to point out that this list I've generated is by no means exhaustive. As I believe I already said, there are probably as many motives for an action as there are persons acting.

Motivation by Ritual: this type of motivation is closely linked to the motivation by culture and in some ways would be a sub-category of it. Often referred to as the ethnogenic use of drugs, many people in the past and today are enticed to drug use through their implementation in religious ceremonies. Many such substances involved in these types of rituals are illegal in the US (Opium, marijuana, Peyote, DMT, and Psilocybin Mushrooms) and others are culturally discouraged (Salvia and others). Historically, and for obvious reasons, these substances had been extracted by interested persons from plant material. This motivation is also closely related to the motivation based on physical sensation because in such ritual use it is believed that the chemical alteration of the state of mind and the feelings induced on the body have an element of supernatural or otherworldly cause. Those using certain substances in a religious manner may try to explain the experience this way: that some supernatural being or force uses the drug as a means to communicate through its effects. This motive is not exclusive to cultures in third world countries or secluded villages in New Guinea or Central America. Knowledge of such practices, likely combined with other motives, has generated sub-cultures even in the US in the last 60 years or so. In both the Beatnik and Hippie movements (which have experienced a sort of revival in the last 20 years) one would find individuals who use drugs (illicit or otherwise) to induce an altered state of mind, coupling it perhaps with some other sort of shamanistic or even Eastern religious practice such as transcendental meditation.

      In the next post in this series I plan to discuss the motivation by sustenance.

The New Intoxication - part 3: Motivation by Culture

In the last post in this series I endeavored to describe the core topic that this article purposes to discuss., and in the next several posts I will outline a few of the motives that may be behind the use of intoxicating substances. This post will be the first, wherein I attempt to uncover the motivation by culture.

The first issue to address in the line of questioning set before us at the end of the last post is the motivation behind taking any drug. Note here that the purview of this article however is not to condone or condemn the consumption of the substances mentioned, but it is to, in large part; examine the variety of motivations that lead to that consumption. Realistically speaking there are probably as many motivations for an action as there are individuals acting, but for the purpose of this article I will attempt to boil them down into several major categories.

Motivation by Culture: particularly in other parts of the world: Italy, France, Germany, Spain and even parts of Asia, individuals will find themselves having a glass of wine or a beer at dinner simply because of traditional or environmental reasons. They have no preconceived notion that it would be wrong to have a drink at dinner, and their parents did the same thing...it simply isn't taboo.

      In the next post I will take up another motive: ritual.