3 ms·

> Sure we could do drug treatment for less money and more social benefit, but how does that punish the baddies? If we give them free treatment and forgiveness,

> Sure we could do drug treatment for less money and more social benefit, but how does that punish the baddies? If we give them free treatment and forgiveness, what does that say about me? I was good and they did the bad thing, and yet you want to throw a feast for your prodigal son. Taxes are high enough already, too high to give money to those fallen souls. It's ironic that Christianity says they should do exactly that.

robertlagrant 4y ago
I don't think it says that. The younger son comes back and yes, a one-off feast is thrown, and the son's betrayal is completely forgiven, but the dad tells the older son that everything he has is his. He doesn't say, "Give your brother some more cash". I don't have a strong position on drug laws, as I don't live in a city that's devastated by drug use. I just wanted to weigh in on the meaning of that parable.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- alexvoda 4y ago
  I argue that in this context money spent on a one time feast can be interpreted as money spent on drug rehab. Rehab after all is meant to be a process, even if lengthy, that results in one no longer being dependent and hopefully not relapsing. Rehab is not a process of feeding the vice (unless there are various corporate interests and the process is perverted). The point is to contrast retribution and discrimination with rehabilitation and empathy. Christianity very much endorses the latter option at least as long as the other is part of the in-group. But maybe the in-group and out-group separation is very much the point of these laws since the war on drugs (started by Nixon) is a direct continuation of slavery after peonage was ended by FDR during WWII.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    > the war on drugs (started by Nixon) is a direct continuation of slavery after peonage was ended by FDR during WWII Do you have any justification for this? It seems an utterly bizarre take on the face of it.
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      If you mean the first part then here is a quote from John Ehrlichman, the White House Counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon: > “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” Family members of Ehrlichman reject the veracity of the quote but I see no reason to since it is not about himself, it is about Nixon and his policies. There are some more voices questioning whether he was lying but even those voices admit Nixon was racist. I think it matters not whether introducing those laws had racism as a primary purpose, or whether they "coincidentally" aligned with a hidden agenda. Prohibition might not have had the purpose of creating a mafia network but failure to foresee that and failure to promptly react when the negative side effects of a law become apparent still matter. Prohibition in the US lasted 13 years, the US war on drugs is ongoing since the 70 even after other countries like Portugal demonstrated it is cheaper and more efficient to focus on rehabilitation. If you mean the second part, see FDR's Circular 3591 from 1941-12-12. September 1942 is when the last slave in the US was freed. Nixon was elected a few decades later. Feel free to explain which part is an utterly bizarre take.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > which part is an utterly bizarre take I don't know which is; it just appears that way. It would be that the war on drugs was a continuation of slavery, which I don't think you've mentioned

robertlagrant 4y ago

I don't think it says that. The younger son comes back and yes, a one-off feast is thrown, and the son's betrayal is completely forgiven, but the dad tells the older son that everything he has is his. He doesn't say, "Give your brother some more cash". I don't have a strong position on drug laws, as I don't live in a city that's devastated by drug use. I just wanted to weigh in on the meaning of that parable.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
alexvoda 4y ago
I argue that in this context money spent on a one time feast can be interpreted as money spent on drug rehab. Rehab after all is meant to be a process, even if lengthy, that results in one no longer being dependent and hopefully not relapsing. Rehab is not a process of feeding the vice (unless there are various corporate interests and the process is perverted). The point is to contrast retribution and discrimination with rehabilitation and empathy. Christianity very much endorses the latter option at least as long as the other is part of the in-group. But maybe the in-group and out-group separation is very much the point of these laws since the war on drugs (started by Nixon) is a direct continuation of slavery after peonage was ended by FDR during WWII.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > the war on drugs (started by Nixon) is a direct continuation of slavery after peonage was ended by FDR during WWII Do you have any justification for this? It seems an utterly bizarre take on the face of it.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    If you mean the first part then here is a quote from John Ehrlichman, the White House Counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon: > “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” Family members of Ehrlichman reject the veracity of the quote but I see no reason to since it is not about himself, it is about Nixon and his policies. There are some more voices questioning whether he was lying but even those voices admit Nixon was racist. I think it matters not whether introducing those laws had racism as a primary purpose, or whether they "coincidentally" aligned with a hidden agenda. Prohibition might not have had the purpose of creating a mafia network but failure to foresee that and failure to promptly react when the negative side effects of a law become apparent still matter. Prohibition in the US lasted 13 years, the US war on drugs is ongoing since the 70 even after other countries like Portugal demonstrated it is cheaper and more efficient to focus on rehabilitation. If you mean the second part, see FDR's Circular 3591 from 1941-12-12. September 1942 is when the last slave in the US was freed. Nixon was elected a few decades later. Feel free to explain which part is an utterly bizarre take.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      > which part is an utterly bizarre take I don't know which is; it just appears that way. It would be that the war on drugs was a continuation of slavery, which I don't think you've mentioned