4 ms·

I always thought it was more about religion and politics than those.

by Bahamut 12y ago

declan 12y ago
I think <chongil> has it right. In the case of religion, you're confusing a transparent and rarely-invoked justification with the actual reasons for the WoD. In the case of politics, you're confusing the mechanism for prohibition with the actual reasons.
- Bahamut 12y ago
  I disagree - when it comes to drug policy, politicians always pontificate about enforcing bans & leaving them in place, which in the US originate strongly with Protestantism & believing that austerity is the solution to various vices seen in society. The Prohibition era is a perfect example of that, and that attitude has never left US politics, which is fraught with religion driving political agenda.
  - declan 12y ago
    Religion can and does drive political agendas in the U.S., true, but the question is whether the WoDPUD (war on some politically unpopular drugs) is being driven primarily by religion. I know of no evidence for that proposition, and can offer counterexamples. One would be the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, made up of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish clergy, which supports drug law reform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_Drug_Policy_Initiative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_Drug_Policy_Initiati... You're correct that historically, "anti-vice" austerity linked to Protestantism was a powerful force in American society. But the Prohibition era began nearly a century ago, and society may have changed in one or two teeny tiny ways since then. Like the 1960s? Plus the easy availability of Internet porn should give the lie to the concept that "anti-vice" religious mores are dominant. :)
    - Bahamut 12y ago
      You're correct in that it's not as dominant now, and has been slowly losing its power over time, but its strength is still present, especially due in no small part to the Bible belt. Even alcohol is tightly regulated still in various parts of the country. Congressmen still show a reluctance to reverse already existing laws regulating drugs - it's easier to get them to pass new laws than reverse existing ones unless the existing ones are truly broken.
      - declan 12y ago
        Absolutely. That is, you're correct that congresscritters (the preferred politically correct gender-neutral term!) "show a reluctance to reverse already existing laws regulating drugs." But that's adequately explained by non-religious theories of political action, including wanting to appear tough on crime and memories of the Willie Horton attack ad.
deciplex 12y ago
Why is this being down-voted? Prohibition of drugs was a natural extension of prohibition of alcohol, which itself was borne of the Temperance Movement, a movement steeped in religion from the very beginning.
snikeris 12y ago
Some folks feel like the war on drugs infringes upon their freedom of religion. There have been some exceptions made [1], but the general populace is prohibited from using substances that have been used entheogenically for thousands of years[2][3]. It's a shame that our founding fathers didn't explicitly spell out a right to the dictate the contents/state of your own mind. Perhaps it is implicit in the other rights: what good is freedom of speech and religion if I'm not allowed to enter a contemplative state of mind in which I could have significant insights about my life and spirituality? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_A... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote#History [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushroom#Early http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushroom#Early

I always thought it was more about religion and politics than those.

by Bahamut 12y ago

I always thought it was more about religion and politics than those.

I think <chongil> has it right. In the case of religion, you're confusing a transparent and rarely-invoked justification with the actual reasons for the WoD. In the case of politics, you're confusing the mechanism for prohibition with the actual reasons.

Bahamut 12y ago
I disagree - when it comes to drug policy, politicians always pontificate about enforcing bans & leaving them in place, which in the US originate strongly with Protestantism & believing that austerity is the solution to various vices seen in society. The Prohibition era is a perfect example of that, and that attitude has never left US politics, which is fraught with religion driving political agenda.
- declan 12y ago
  Religion can and does drive political agendas in the U.S., true, but the question is whether the WoDPUD (war on some politically unpopular drugs) is being driven primarily by religion. I know of no evidence for that proposition, and can offer counterexamples. One would be the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, made up of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish clergy, which supports drug law reform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_Drug_Policy_Initiative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_Drug_Policy_Initiati... You're correct that historically, "anti-vice" austerity linked to Protestantism was a powerful force in American society. But the Prohibition era began nearly a century ago, and society may have changed in one or two teeny tiny ways since then. Like the 1960s? Plus the easy availability of Internet porn should give the lie to the concept that "anti-vice" religious mores are dominant. :)
  - Bahamut 12y ago
    You're correct in that it's not as dominant now, and has been slowly losing its power over time, but its strength is still present, especially due in no small part to the Bible belt. Even alcohol is tightly regulated still in various parts of the country. Congressmen still show a reluctance to reverse already existing laws regulating drugs - it's easier to get them to pass new laws than reverse existing ones unless the existing ones are truly broken.
    - declan 12y ago
      Absolutely. That is, you're correct that congresscritters (the preferred politically correct gender-neutral term!) "show a reluctance to reverse already existing laws regulating drugs." But that's adequately explained by non-religious theories of political action, including wanting to appear tough on crime and memories of the Willie Horton attack ad.

deciplex 12y ago

Why is this being down-voted? Prohibition of drugs was a natural extension of prohibition of alcohol, which itself was borne of the Temperance Movement, a movement steeped in religion from the very beginning.

snikeris 12y ago

Some folks feel like the war on drugs infringes upon their freedom of religion. There have been some exceptions made [1], but the general populace is prohibited from using substances that have been used entheogenically for thousands of years[2][3]. It's a shame that our founding fathers didn't explicitly spell out a right to the dictate the contents/state of your own mind. Perhaps it is implicit in the other rights: what good is freedom of speech and religion if I'm not allowed to enter a contemplative state of mind in which I could have significant insights about my life and spirituality? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_A... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote#History [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushroom#Early http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushroom#Early