On Law, Religion, and Morality

I found this quote at

http://www.thomaspaineblog.org

“There are many things which in themselves are neither morally good nor bad, but they are productive of consequences, which are strongly marked with one or other of these characters.”
-Thomas Paine

I thought it very clearly stated something I've been grappling with but haven't quite been able to put my finger on -- a concept that has been a theme in some of my posts. Those of us who believe in some form of organized religion have a code of morality laid out for us. Religion and morality are inextricably intertwined. But how about those who are atheist or agnostic? Surely these people are not amoral. So morality is not the sole territory of religion.

So from where else does one derive one's sense of right and wrong? The laws of the land provide us with clear guidelines about what is and is not legal...what behaviors will and won't be punished. There is clearly some overlap between law and morality, but unlike with religion, issues of law are not always issues of morality. For example, if I exceed the speed limit in my car, I do not feel the need to repent. However, sooner or later it is likely that some kind police officer will point out the error of my ways, and impose a consequence.

Further, for those of us who are Christian, our religion dictates that we follow the laws of the land, insofar as they are compatible with the laws of God. But we must put the law of God before the law of man -- creating quite the dilemma in circumstances where the laws of God and man are in conflict.

hmmm........

So let's apply this to an issue I have put forth:

Drugs -- illegal, (although medical uses of marijuana remain in a grey area); to my knowledge, religion does not speak directly to the issue of drug use; moral or immoral? the demonization of drug use that I have spoken of leaves one with the impression that there is a question of morality here, but I think Mr. Paine's words are appropriate -- drug use in and of itself is neither morally good nor bad, but use outside a doctor's care is a violation of law, and therein lies the moral issue. Given that, I reiterate my position that medical use of marijuana SHOULD be a legal option, provided continued study supports its benefits, and government sponsored needle exchange programs are also within the boundaries of morality.

Sphere: Related Content

Marijuana -- Time to Admit It's not All Bad

Ok, so here's the headline:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318526,00.html

Let me start by saying that I'm speaking as someone who has never taken an illegal drug. Never, not once, not only did I not inhale, but I've never even had the stuff near me.

I do not understand the resistance to the concept of Medical Marijuana. Street drugs -- bad. Illegal drugs -- bad. Abuse/misuse of prescription pharmaceuticals -- bad. But prescription of a chemical substance that can relieve some of the side effects of chemotherapy, or even inhibit the growth of some tumors -- NOT BAD.

I wrote in a previous post about the "demonization" of illegal drugs as it relates to Needle Exchange programs. With that issue, I can at least see the point of the other side. There is the potential downside of enabling drug addicts -- although I still believe the benefits outweigh the negatives. This manifestation of the demonization of illegal drugs, however, mystifies me. We are talking about, people coping with a potentally fatal disease finding some relief from their pain, and perhaps some hope for longer term survival. How is this a bad thing? Morphine, commonly given in hospitals for pain management, is highly addictive. Who is speaking out against morphine? Oxycodone abuse has become an issue in recent years, but it is still prescribed regularly. How about human growth hormone? Major League Baseball will never be the same again. But it is legal to be prescribed in specific situations. So why not marijuana?

It seems to be another example of misguided morality imposing itself where it does not belong. If it can help people, then USE IT. By all means regulate it, but USE IT.

Still not convinced? Check out what the AMA has to say:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13625.html

Sphere: Related Content

Needle Exchange: Good or Evil?

Drug addicts in Washington DC will be allowed to exchange dirty needles for clean ones after a 9 year ban has been lifted. DC has the highest rate of AIDS of any major city in the nation -- significantly higher than the national average. So will needle exchange solve this problem? Statistics show that needle exchanges do have a positive impact in reducing the rate of AIDS in hypodermic drug users. But the question becomes, does that positive impact outweigh the possibility that these programs send the message that drug use is OK. Once again, a practical issue becomes mired in morality. Don't get me wrong -- I believe strongly that morality has its place, and that government does indeed bear some responsibility in this area. But "The War on Drugs" has demonized drug use to the point where practical solutions -- again looking at the greater good -- are criticized based on an overinflated sense of morality imposed on a legal/medical issue. Yes, drug use is illegal, and breaking the law is morally wrong, I get it. But drug addiction is a disease, and this too must be considered. Obviously the ideal would be to eliminate drugs, take away the addiction, and clean things up that way. But the war on drugs isn't going all that well -- DC being a perfect example of our country's failure in this area. Practically speaking, I believe that needle exchange programs serve the greater good. Further, I do not believe that the promise of free, clean needles will lure unsuspecting children into first time drug use. It is a less than perfect solution, but it is a step toward a solution nonetheless. Perhaps we can be more successful in the war on AIDS than we have been in the war on drugs.

Sphere: Related Content