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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment