Comments on: Sam Harris, Religion & Drugs

By: Endre

Endre — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:08:22 +0000

I love how almost nobody agrees with this and that it is just an attack on theism. I think both atheists and theists can see as Brent said that the problem’s core eventually finds its way to the overall profit and interest certain industries have in the substance.

By: Brent

Brent — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:26:24 +0000

The U.S. gov’t works hand in hand with the pharmaceutical industry. Marijuana can cripple that industry if everyone in America could grow it on their own. It is about greed and control more than its about Christians imposing their beliefs everywhere. Sometimes, its just about the bottom dollar. If you have to destroy peoples lives for growing a plant in order to maintain control of your industry, you’re most likely not doing anything right.

By: Juliano

Juliano — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 07:56:21 +0000

We surely both agree that the oppressors are totally irrational and are intent on destroying the very web of life, and that therefore we need radical grass roots change to urgently change this worldview.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 01:46:07 +0000

If you actually look closely at my argument, you would see that I am saying that they make money from the War on drugs. Basically, I am arguing that keeping Drugs illegal is an economic decision, and hence if the War on Drugs can pay, it can stay. The basic argument is that a workforce with legal and easy access to currently illicit substances would suffer a loss of productivity, and hence the government would generate less tax revenue. Hence your objection, that the government makes money from their war on drugs, isnt an objection at all; if the government wasnt making money from the war on drugs, my argument would fail utterly.
A small amount of drug use is acceptable, so long as the government can make as much money back on possession fines as it loses on lost taxes. The alternative, widespread legalised drug use, will lead to such an increase in consumption and such a huge loss of productivity that the government simply would not be able to make their money back in sales tax.
From the point of religion however, illicit drugs would seem to be a threat to their spiritual monopoly. The logical step for them to take would be to be the sole supplier of drugs, and hence be the sole arbiter of your spiritual experience. For example, an Opus Dei group at a midwestern university have been caught drugging new recruits with mescaline in an effort to induce a euphoric state that neophytes would perceive as a religious experience. The fact that the church cant monopolise the drug trade SHOWS that it is the government banning it for its own reasons, not the religions.

By: Juliano

Juliano — Wed, 26 May 2010 10:28:02 +0000

I very much don’t agree. They actually MAKE muny from their so-called ‘war on drugs’–that is important to know, but they DEPEND on their system mechanized enslaved work ethic being promoted by propaganda, and for propaganda to work people have to be dumbed down–both rationally and spiritually.
We are not JUSt rational beings, but also dream, have imagination, and spiritual being.
These oppressors seek to both suppress our reason and our spirituality, or consciousness.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 26 May 2010 05:06:28 +0000

I actually believe Harris' argument here is incorrect. If it were true, the logical step for the church to takE would be to manouver itself so that it was the only legal dispensory of drugs. Your priest would become your dealer, thus ensuring that no challenge could arise to the spiritual monopoly of your church. That the religions can't do this for legal reasons suggests that it is the government and not the religions that don't want drug use to become widespread. I suggest that the reason that governments are afraid of drug use is economic, rather than spiritual- a population that is allowed to spend a good portion of it's time off it's face on marijuana will necessarily be less productive and pay less tax than a population for whom these substances are banned. The reason why tobacco is legal is because the government knows it can make so much back in tax from it's sale that it will offset the cost of medical bills for emphysema and lung cancer. The reason why alcohol is legal is because it such an easy drug to manufacture that it costs more money to prohibit than the government would lose on loss productivity, so the government may as well legalize it and make back some of it's losses by taxing it's sale. This explanation has much more explanatory power than the religious thesis.

By: Juliano

Juliano — Sat, 22 May 2010 14:37:31 +0000

If we blame theism, what then is a-theism but a RE-action to theism? What I mean is that theism had already de-graded spirituality by assuming and transmitting that nature was lesser than spirit. hence when science comes along we get this ongoing schism manifest where ‘science’ agree to focus on ‘forces of nature’ and the church in ‘spiritual matters’. Eventually science even dispenses with THAt false idea of religion and we get dragged into the mechanistic-materialistic age where ‘God is dead’ and we become souless glorified computers whose sole purpose is to be cogs in a machine, or computer, and to consume products we dont really need (Edward Bernays), In this destructive soul-dead ‘Wasteland’ we are now!

The atheist above in his defense of people taking ‘drugs’ he sees no harm also in them watching violent hard-core pornography in the privacy of their own home and that any concern about that MUST come from the theists.

But that is not so and the reason that isn’t seen is because as said the a-theist is really the other side of the penny of the theist
There is no sense of any authentic spiritual vision from either camp because for both the whole notion of spirit seems de-graded. Either put up beyond the stars or is JUST scientific conformity. Ie., the a-theist will find fault with ‘belief’ and yet usually cow two the current beliefs of scientism which they will say are NOT beliefs and will often–in my experience–even question the term ‘scientism’. But their religion is science for many. I really felt this vibe at Richard Dawkins forums!
I hear Sam Harris ‘doesn’t take any shit’?.…Oh yes, I know THAt attitude. I have never met such gross disrespectful and closedmindedattitude from others till I experienced some members from the Dawkins forum

I am just pointing this out and hinting we need something ELSE urgently other than a choice of ‘either theist OR atheist?’ hint hint

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:45:00 +0000

You might spend time reading “TIHKAL” and “PIHKAL”. The authors spell it very clearly how government has botched the whole affair when it comes to drugs.

Entheogens have been an integral part of all cultures and it all has been documented.

I submit a perfect example. “Frankincense” and “Myrrh” (oh, and gold), were gifts of the Persian wisemen (astrologers) to “God” (Jesus) who became flesh and lived among us.

If you do a search about these 2 spices you will find that they are both endowed with “psychoative” molecules that were fit for “The King of Kings”.

“Every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus is God and the King.

If it was a gift to the creator, then all society should embrace entheogens. If it is good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for all.

I just would add that to be “moderate” in the use of anything is a good way to live.

By: matt

matt — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:54:29 +0000

in orthodox christian faith the marijuana bud is used as the eucharist.

By: Synchronium

Synchronium — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:27:41 +0000

Didn’t Hitchens get attacked recently?