I tend to look at drug prohibitions by governments as akin to kosher restrictions. I once heard a rabbi explain why kosher exists. (These are his words, recalled from my memory so certainly not exactly correct.) There is no inherent meaning to the prohibition. Not eating pork doesn't make you a better person, nor does eating it make you a bad person. But by not eating pork you are demonstrating your obedience to God. The law says "do not kill" and for most men it is easy to obey that law. If that was all one needed to do to be a servant of God there would be little point to religion. Your personal faith would rarely be tested. So God tests us in a small way, with kosher laws. These are easy to obey, but also more difficult because the temptation is more common. When you abstain from eating pork you are strengthening your faith and preparing for when you may be faced with a more serious temptation. It is a daily affirmation of your obedience to God.
(end quotation)
So I also think that government prohibitions exist largely to allow governments to assert their authority. If you can't be trusted to follow a simple law like "don't use this recreational drug" then you can't be trusted to follow more serious laws like "don't stab someone in the face".
(Not saying I agree with it. I'm just making an observation.)
I've heard -- and am biased to believe -- there are some practical bases for kosher laws. Some people got trichinosis from mishandled pork, e.g., and prohibition is simpler than quality assurance; Other, non-Hebrew cultures cooked lambs in their mothers' milk as a "sacrament;" not doing so was a practical cultural differentiator.
My suspicion is that it started as an economic move. The Israelites were sheep herders trying to carve a niche in a dominant culture of pig and cattle herders. Telling them they couldn't eat pork and certain sacrifices had to be lambs was a way of subsidizing the sheep farmers. I came to this conclusion after reading a long chapter in the bible that talks about the breeding. Even back then they understood husbandry and economics. I doubt anyone had a clue about germ theory.
I am thinking most laws are not made simply to make laws but probably had a "reason" (however misguided) at the base.
Then, the law sticks around long after the (probably flimsy) initial reason is long gone, making it hard (for instance), to get a good breakfast meat with your eggs at Denny's. I suppose this is the likely the origin of customs and cultures in general.
No it's more like the government's way to have an excuse to be able to go after anyone by making many things illegal. It's a huge power leverage. That's far beyond being petty about what you can eat or wear.
Although it's mostly just inertia. There's little to gain by taking intelligent stances on things. What politician will gain much by appearing to be in favor of LSD? Same for things like seizure laws. Why hurt donors' budgets by pushing back on such laws? And also run the risk of being painted as sympathetic to cartels or terrorists?
Comments
I tend to look at drug prohibitions by governments as akin to kosher restrictions. I once heard a rabbi explain why kosher exists. (These are his words, recalled from my memory so certainly not exactly correct.) There is no inherent meaning to the prohibition. Not eating pork doesn't make you a better person, nor does eating it make you a bad person. But by not eating pork you are demonstrating your obedience to God. The law says "do not kill" and for most men it is easy to obey that law. If that was all one needed to do to be a servant of God there would be little point to religion. Your personal faith would rarely be tested. So God tests us in a small way, with kosher laws. These are easy to obey, but also more difficult because the temptation is more common. When you abstain from eating pork you are strengthening your faith and preparing for when you may be faced with a more serious temptation. It is a daily affirmation of your obedience to God. (end quotation)
So I also think that government prohibitions exist largely to allow governments to assert their authority. If you can't be trusted to follow a simple law like "don't use this recreational drug" then you can't be trusted to follow more serious laws like "don't stab someone in the face".
(Not saying I agree with it. I'm just making an observation.)
So kosher laws and all those other random little mitzvot are God's version of brown M&Ms?
I've heard -- and am biased to believe -- there are some practical bases for kosher laws. Some people got trichinosis from mishandled pork, e.g., and prohibition is simpler than quality assurance; Other, non-Hebrew cultures cooked lambs in their mothers' milk as a "sacrament;" not doing so was a practical cultural differentiator.
My suspicion is that it started as an economic move. The Israelites were sheep herders trying to carve a niche in a dominant culture of pig and cattle herders. Telling them they couldn't eat pork and certain sacrifices had to be lambs was a way of subsidizing the sheep farmers. I came to this conclusion after reading a long chapter in the bible that talks about the breeding. Even back then they understood husbandry and economics. I doubt anyone had a clue about germ theory.
I am thinking most laws are not made simply to make laws but probably had a "reason" (however misguided) at the base.
Then, the law sticks around long after the (probably flimsy) initial reason is long gone, making it hard (for instance), to get a good breakfast meat with your eggs at Denny's. I suppose this is the likely the origin of customs and cultures in general.
No it's more like the government's way to have an excuse to be able to go after anyone by making many things illegal. It's a huge power leverage. That's far beyond being petty about what you can eat or wear.
Although it's mostly just inertia. There's little to gain by taking intelligent stances on things. What politician will gain much by appearing to be in favor of LSD? Same for things like seizure laws. Why hurt donors' budgets by pushing back on such laws? And also run the risk of being painted as sympathetic to cartels or terrorists?