THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.religion.wicca
From: Paul Hume 
Subject: Re: CAW and drug abuse
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:47:12 -0500

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