Drugs Vs. Religion

[neversickanymore]

Drugs Vs. Religion
Jerry Newcombe | Jul 30, 2014

Americans are accepting pot in seemingly unprecedented ways. Even as it is becoming legal in more places, such as Colorado by an act of the voters a couple years ago, there are still consequences to face with the widespread use of marijuana. We still reap what we sow.

Just the other day, a headline from the Associated Press (7/26/14) read, "Pot seen as reason for rise in Denver homeless." The article states, "The Salvation Army's single men's shelter in Denver has been serving more homeless this summer, and officials have noted an increase in the number of 18- to 25-year-olds there." Just in the prime of their life, and they already need help.

I find this ironic because last month, comedian Bill Maher said on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show on Comedy Central that he is glad more young people today are getting into drugs versus religion.

Maher said if he were running for office, “… my slogan would be Drugs are Good and Religion is Bad. (applause) …. I think people are coming over to my way of thinking: drugs are good and religion is bad. I’m gonna stick with that!”

continued http://townhall.com/columnists/jerrynewcombe/2014/07/30/drugs-vs-religion-n1872287/page/full

 

[crazybollweevil]

I have read the same article you mention, and my impression was that the homeless youth were already itinerant/homeless, and were moving to Denver for the relaxed and novel marijuana laws and access to cheap weed. I think it was pretty clear that there was no direct link to pot causing their social situation, but rather it was pre-existing/coexisting with pot use. The big picture of poor education and lack of opportunity for marginalized youth certainly was a bigger role in homelessness, marijuana use perhaps just an easy, cheap and relatively low risk way to cope.
The drug use vs. religion idea I like because religion/social conservatism is reactionary and inherently negative, while certain drug use could be seen as expanding world view. Obviously drugs like opiates, and abuse of any category, would narrow one's worldview, but psychedelics/weed (to an extent) create the possibility that people can lose pre-conceived and limiting ideas. Some drugs can challenge fixed, "normalized" thinking, giving a chance for change in consciousness.
Religion is a very barrow and limiting perspective, a religious person is basically forced into modes of thinking by the expectations of their faith. Challenging the status quo is discouraged, and as a result personal and societal growth, or at least the possibility of it, are severely curtailed.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

"Drugs vs. religion" is a false dichotomy. It makes me feel so frustrated and alone at times how few other people seem to be able to see this obvious logical fallacy, and see the relationship between drug taking and religion as inexorably adversarial. I happen to think Jerry Newcombe and Bill Maher are both wrong. People engage in both activities for fundamentally the same reason: to feel connected and make the pain of life more bearable. Despite this common and noble intention, both carry a risk for increasing an individual's alienation and suffering, depending on who he is and what he brings to the table, and what sorts of religion and/or drugs are available to him.

Both drugs and religion are so diverse in how they work and how they affect people. And each person's experience of either one so subjective and unique, that making generalized comparisons of these two entire categories of human experience adds little of value to the human condition, IMHO -- definitely more heat than light.

I'll grant that both Newcombe and Maher address audiences much more used to hearing religious bases for condemnation of drug use (and vice versa) than ideas that the two can can -- and in many communities, did and do -- coexist without any tension.

This all begs two interesting questions, which are sadly seldom asked, but could shed much light:
1. At this point in history, why are religious communities more intolerant of drug use predominant (or at the very least vocal), while ones more tolerant of it on the margins? And vice versa?
2. From a sociological perspective, are pro-drug social circles largely refuges for people who yearn for the connectivity and peace of mind that religion aims for, but who cannot bring themselves to buy into in any form of it they've encountered?