From tyagi@bjt.net Mon Dec 30 21:01:33 1996 Return-Path: tyagi@bjt.net Received: from kudonet.com (kudonet.com [165.227.52.1]) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA08960 for ; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 21:01:27 -0500 Received: from kudo20.kudonet.com by kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26914; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:44:33 -0800 Received: by kudo20.kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17041; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:36:09 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:36:09 -0800 Message-Id: <199612310036.QAA17041@kudo20.kudonet.com> To: tyagi@hollyfeld.org Subject: Wicca/9612.sxdrgrr.ph From: nagasiva@yronwode.com (nagasiva) Reply-To: nagasiva@yronwode.com (nagasiva) X-Status: Status: O >From: Paul Hume >Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca >Subject: Re: CAW and drug abuse >Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:47:12 -0500 >Organization: William Blake Oasis >Lines: 122 >Message-ID: <32C54100.116E@lan2wan.com> >References: <01bbf3b3$c1d9e9c0$0c80adcf@dialup.csus.edu> >Reply-To: paulhume@lan2wan.com >NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.177.8.66 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-KIT (Win95; I) Kap - This is a preposterous rant. > > Doesn't CAW support drugs? There are numerous ads for "natural" drugs such > as mushrooms in Green Egg. CAW should take a hard, nonyielding stance on > this. I thought they did - that individuals are responsible for their own actions, and make their own, sovereign decisions. I have little use for CAW and most of Green Egg's editorial policies make me flatulent, but in this I agree with them. >Not only is it illegal(thereby destroying the order created by the > state, which, if founded on good priniciples which it still obeys fully, > keep things good and in harmony) it is dangerous. You are aware that laws against witchcraft were based on exactly the same premises? On an abstract level, the state is incompetent to rule it citizens in matters of how they pursue spiritual matters, yes, even if that includes nasty old drugs. On the concrete level, you cannot be unaware that the present "War on Drugs" is considered many quarters, not just by radicals or recycled hippies like the Zells, to be more destructive of both the common weal and the liberty of the citizenry than legalization would be. 40 minutes up the road from me lies Baltmore MD, where the mayor has been urging a study of legalizing specific drugs for years, or at least backing off the hysterical prosecution of drug cases typified by the War Against Drugs. >Do you really think > smoking some plant, like mushrooms or marajuana, will help you? It is a universal theme in a number of religious systems. Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant. >There is so > much evidence against this that almost every official agency is against > such drugs. That the "official agencies" select the evidence they wish to use to support their stance does not make that evidence substantive. Studies of drugs (ie. "controlled substances") that do not support the official view are vilified, ignored, etc. The current brouhaha about using grass to palliate the effects of chemotherapy is a case in point. Patients on chemo who have used marijuana illegally for years provide a rich field for study but since they are subject to prosecution under Federal law, no formal study is possible - and even on the basis of anecdotal evidence, there are physicians who feel the therapy has merit. Why do you continue to cite the arguments of a bureaucracy which has used fear of drugs to build vast empires, whose interests are patently not based on impartial study or disinterested concern for the welfare of the citizens, to try and support your stance? >Furthermore, it violates the Wiccan Rhede since it does indeed > harm oneself to do drugs. Without going into the issue of why you are trying to apply the Rede to everyone (not everyone is Wiccan, pumpkin), it is also possible to harm oneself with food, lack of exercise, too much exercise, etc. Many drugs are no more harmful than wine (of course alcohol is also a drug, but that argument will simply turn into "everything is a drug," so let it alone). Of course, you are also incompetent to judge for others how to apply teh Rede, but that is such a self-evident point, I will not dwell on it. > Choice can only go so far. Perhaps I even agree with this, but you, nor CAW, nor the government of the United States, are not competent to dictate how far my choices go, until and unless I infringe upon the liberties of my fellow citizens. >I have also read, in a > book by Sybil Leek, that moderation is the key. Sybil taught moderation. There are other approaches out there. > There should not be too > much of anything. If drugs are addictive, then you will end up doing too > much eventually. Non sequitur, here. What about non-addictive drugs? Why do you assume your weaknesses (since you are the only person about whom you can speak with knowledge in this matter) about doing too much or going too far apply to everyone else? Nor is the fable-making, gohst-written astrologer from the UK the final arbiter of what is even witchcraft, much less anything beyond the confines of Wicca. >And what of sex? > It's dangerous! I regret to say that it seems to me you are expressing your own neuroses here. Sex is dangerous, glorious, the most exquisite bond between (or among) the partners involed, callous and casual scratching of an itch, and everything else. What was your point. How dare you, sir, lay your dirty puritanical tongue to one of the most complex, beautiful, terrifying aspects of humanity with the trite formula: "It's dangerous." >We must stress MODERATION in sex, and emphasize condoms and > other measures. Read some William Blake about your precious moderation. As I recall CAW, is very gung-ho about safe sex, so not sure where you got on this soapbox from where you began. But I find I care too little to wonder much. I also note you suggest 'moderation' when you seem to mean denial, abnegation, or restriction. It isn't a synonym for those. With no regards whatsoever, Paul