[pen2l]

By and large substances that alter human consciousness have been frowned upon since the dawn of civilization. Religions tend to tell you to avoid them (Islam expressly forbids all mind-altering substances, Christianity and Judaism say ok to alcohol but only within limits of sobriety).

In current times it seems especially prudent to resist openness to marijuana lest it serve as a gateway to harder drugs. Because, we are sort of going through an opioid crisis of epic proportions: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm

When I'm driving home from work, I have to pass a certain intersection which is filled with folks on hard drugs, and sometimes they're very brave in that they like to walk into oncoming traffic while barely alert, you have to basically be _super_ careful and ready to brake hard in an instant to make sure you don't kill them, and that really irritates me. And I can't help but think that this is the result of the recent openness to drugs, including by our libertarian-inclined peers in the tech sector. Somehow or other the comedians and edgelord warriors won this one, and everyone thinks marijuana is cool, even when the science is out on its harm: long-term usage causes memory and general cognition impairment, usage by adolescents and pre-teens results in even more serious and lasting damage.

It kind of makes me want to pull all of my hair out when you have streets like this in every other large city it seems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi1Kf-1qd6Y What a shameful and irresponsible thing to do, to be defending recreational drugs in any manner at this point.

[tptacek]

Alcohol is fundamental to mainstream Christianity. It's a central part of the story of Christ. Which is no surprise, since the faith comes from the region and culture that invented brewing. For Catholics, imbibing is almost a sacramental requirement (you can skip the chalice if you want now; I'm not sure if that was always the case pre-V2; consecration of wine, though, is I think an actual requirement).

[dctoedt]

> you can skip the chalice if you want now; I'm not sure if that was always the case pre-V2

IIRC from childhood, before Vatican II only the priest drank the consecrated wine; the congregation received the bread only.

In the Episcopal Church, all hands get both bread and wine — indeed, when the Church of England broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, Article 30 of the C of E's Thirty Nine Articles of Religion (1571, and still in the Book of Common Prayer) included the following: "The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike." [0]

[0] https://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/109014/Thirty-Nine-A...

[tsol]

I mean Mormons don't drink-- wine appears in the Bible but imbibing isn't exactly integral to the belief system

[psyc]

That's because "integral" would be understating it. Catholics consider the Eucharist the most important sacrament, at the very center of Christian life. Quite seriously the one sacrament to rule them all and bind them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology

(I'm well aware that getting buzzed is not by extension at the center of Christian life. The above comment was simply too ironic not to respond to.)

[tptacek]

Which kind of makes my point for me, given how idiosyncratic Mormonism is. Meanwhile: imbibing is, in fact, integral to the belief system of what might be a plurality of Christians (Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans).

Add Judaism to the roster as well; wine is an integral part of the Seder.

[pen2l]

But hey, neither would be okay with imbibing to the state of inebriation, so the point that leading religions advise against mind-altering substances is still valid in... a technical sort of way.

[tptacek]

Yes, I do remember when Yeshua Ha-Nozri transformed water into wine at the wedding ceremony in Cana of Galilee, he followed the miracle up by saying "please enjoy responsibly".

[psyc]

Paul, Solomon, and a few prophets weren’t too keen on wine. Jesus, the only omniscient one in the bunch, clearly anticipated this very thread:

“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

[mickotron]

You’re looking at history through a very Western lens. In other cultures, some substances were ritualistic and culturally important.

[rayiner]

Or an East Asian lens: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/ljzg/zfbps/t127411.... ("The Chinese government believes that drugs are a worldwide public hazard confronting the whole of mankind, and drug control is an imminent and common responsibility incumbent to international society.")

Or a South Asian lens: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bangladesh-drugs/banglade... ("Bangladesh sets death penalty for drug offences in draft law")

Or an African lens: https://fileserver.idpc.net/library/Drug-laws-in-West-Africa... ("In Nigeria, the death penalty for drug-related offenses was replaced by life imprisonment in 1986.")

[mickotron]

Either way, the comment I replied to tried represent a whole of humanity stance on something, since the dawn of civilisation, that is clearly false.

We can both come up with examples to suit our viewpoint. I didn’t say that person was wrong. I just said that person was being selective.