Man Tells Cops that his Pot was Stolen!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Frogman
Too bad you can't get high on dandelions.

So I take it you've never heard of dandelion wine? I've never tried it, but I know it can be done.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Apparently he was high and things got out of hand. Stuff like that happens when you're high.

Things get out of hand when people are perfectly straight. If someone's a hot head to begin with, it doesn't matter if he/she is taking anything or not, there's going to be trouble. But I think you'd find that there is a definite tendency for people to lose it a lot more when they're under the influence of alcohol rather than marijuana.

[Berzerker]

Zylka -

They were chewing raw leaves with the coca solution naturally diluted - A difference of high and potential for abuse in comparison to modern administrations in the thousands of percent

True, but they did have ways of concentrating coca in beverages and there are people today who've used modern administrations without becoming addicted, so it still depends on the user.

This little bit makes about as much sense as saying "a 12 gauge metal slug to the face isn't harmful, it all depends on the user!"

Oh c'mon, how many people can take a 12 gauge metal slug to the face and survive? You really want to compare that with the millions who've used coca or cocaine and lived?

Strangelove -

(1) Sorry, people do actually murder other people to get pot. We had a case around here recently where a young man murdered another because he thought his pot had been stolen.

Sorry, that wasn't someone committing murder to get pot, that was someone committing murder because he thought someone ripped him off. That can happen when the laws don't respect property rights. If you thought someone stole your car and the legal system didn't give a rat's a$$, you'd be more prone to seek justice yourself.

People have also been murdered haggling over the price or in the process of stealing weed.

First, it isn't murder if you kill someone who is trying to steal your property. If you killed a burglar, would you call that murder? Second, provide an example of someone committing murder over price haggling.

People have also committed murder while under the influence of marijuana.

Did the pot cause the murder or was there a catalyst like attempted theft? People who don't use drugs have murdered people, but I don't see you claiming sobriety is a cause of murder.

(2) Marijuana definitely impairs coordination and judgement.

Old age impairs coordination and judgement, you want to imprison old people?

It clearly interferes with the user's ability to operate vehicles and machinery.

So does fatigue, jail tired people too? Btw, this "interference" depends on the user as well, I've driven plenty of miles under the influence of pot and never caused an accident.

While impairment by alcohol generally parallels blood levels, and alcohol has a simple linear excretion rate that makes it possibler for a user to reasonably temper his consumption to avoid impairment, marijuana's effects don't simply parallel either blood or urine levels, and its elimination is not linear, making moderation more difficult.

And yet alcohol-related traffic fatalities far outnumber all other drug related deaths.

Nailing stoned drivers would be harder than nailing drunks because testing for marijuana in the field would be more difficult.

Ah! But according to you, it should be easy for a cop to tell if someone is too stoned to drive with a simple coordination test. But you know that's much more difficult because pot doesn't impair coordination nearly as much as alcohol. Ever wonder why the government will do tests by inviting people to drink booze and drive on a closed course but not with pot? It isn't because pot's illegal, it's because those tests would blow the claims of the drug war pushers out of the water.

(3) The results of one radio program is hardy a scientific survey.

And yet you portray your personal experience as a valid criterion.

Here in the US during the last election a number of pro-weed propositions were offered in a variety of states, and every single one was defeated.

And? Several have passed in prior elections.

In the past the minions of NORML have succeeded because no one made an effort to counter them.

Nonsense! What do you call all the government propaganda we've been subjected to over the decades?

Prior to the last election a concerted effort was made to counter their propaganda. The results were gratifying.

The results were immoral. We saw politicians and bureaucrats go to Nevada and tell people there would be more traffic fatalities. In other words, all the people who don't drive under the influence are still being punished because of those who do.

(4) What kind of arguement is: "well if alcohol is legal then pot should be too"?

It's an argument that exposes the hypocrisy of banning one and not the other.

We've got one legal intoxicant already. why do we need another.

It's called freedom. Why should the people who like booze be allowed to legally enjoy their drug while others who don't like booze can't legally enjoy a drug they do like? You think anyone wanting to catch a buzz should be required by law to use only alcohol? Who the **** died and made you king?

Do you honestly think that legalising pot will reduce the number of drunks?

Who made that argument?

Legalising dope just adds to our problems.

How? Criminalising pot has added to our problems, not reduced them. Can you cite actual evidence showing that pot consumption is lower with prohibition? And when you're done supporting your position, we can look at all the problems you've helped create with prohibition.

Oh, wait, I need the work. You know business has been slow because more people know that they don't need antibiotics to treat their common colds. Go ahead, legalise pot, and I'll fix you up when you need it....for a price.

Why would we need you to get pot?

Apparently he was high and things got out of hand. Stuff like that happens when you're high.

"Apparently"? Yup, stuff can get out of hand when someone steals your property and the courts don't care. The reason vigilante justice is frowned upon is because the safeguards put in place to prevent mistakes aren't in place because of prohibition. That's why we no longer hear about alcohol dealers having shootouts in turf wars but we see that happening with illegal drugs. Think about that... With voters like you trading our freedom for "security", it's no wonder crime rates are so high.

[alva]

A couple of good points Berzerker, but one still shouldn't drive while under the influence of pot, the same rule as with alcohol applies here.
Yes, I have done so too and 'survived', but that doesn't mean you should.

[alva]

(1) Sorry, people do actually murder other people to get pot. We had a case around here recently where a young man murdered another because he thought his pot had been stolen. People have also been murdered haggling over the price or in the process of stealing weed. People have also committed murder while under the influence of marijuana.

Are you saying hat if this person wouldn't be smoking, he would be a sain, agreeable, lovable person?

[Frogman]

Originally posted by alva
A couple of good points Berzerker, but one still shouldn't drive while under the influence of pot, the same rule as with alcohol applies here.
Yes, I have done so too and 'survived', but that doesn't mean you should.

The problem isn't surviving, its remembering where you're going

[Willem]

Originally posted by Frogman


The problem isn't surviving, its remembering where you're going

Especially after you pass a 7-11 store or a MacDonald's.

[Dis]

Is illegal property still not property?

[Ben Kenobi]

willem

There's barely enough money to support the enforcement laws as it is.

Perhaps we need to spend less on 'bilingualism' boondoggles.

The money's there if we make this a priority.

It's a gateway drug only in the sense that the people who control the trade in cocaine and heroin also have their hands in the marijuana business. Seperate those ties to the black market, who have a vested interest in getting people addicted to more dangerous drugs, and you remove the temptation.

So where do we draw the line? Look at what the government has done with alcohol and cigarettes. Making the government responsible is not going to reduce the harms, it merely reinforces the addiction the government has to these particular revenue streams.

Well for one thing, it's not physically addictive, or at least if it is, it's very mildly so. I just had proof of that myself recently. I'm a daily toker and I just spent 10 days at my sisters with nothing to smoke. And I didn't feel one bit of discomfort at not having my "fix", physically or psychologically. I just didn't care.

So personal testimony should equate with public policy? People vary in their tolerance, and addiction to drugs.

Plus it doesn't destroy families the way alcohol and other addictive substances do.

Perhaps pot use is simply not as widespread so the problems are less noticeable. I've seen a friend toss away his life when he started to use pot. No motivation whatsoever.

Berzerker

Which means less law enforcement to catch murderers, pedophiles, rapists, robbers, and terrorists. Did Jesus tell you to run around caging people for using pot?

Does Jesus teach us to approve of what is wrong? It's not a question so much of enforcement, because a little bit of enforcement can lead to a much larger deterrent effect. Legalise pot, and many who are not users will begin to use.

No, it means the kind of person who is attracted to dangerous activities will try different dangerous activities and the person who avoids dangerous activities will likely continue avoiding them.

Assumes people are fixed. People can change their minds, occasionally being risk-takers while generally avoiding risks. These are the people likely to suffer from legalisation.

If you advocate punishing a million pot smokers because there are 10,000 pot smokers who "harm society", then you are punishing a million innocent people for the "crimes" of 10,000.

We pay through the nose for our medical system. Yes, we already pay for the drug use and needles of other people, through our socialist medical system here in Canada.

Neither is harmful, it all depends on the user.

So why regulate any substance, such as alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or cocaine? Do you advocate ending all controls?

[Straybow]

Ever wonder why the government will do tests by inviting people to drink booze and drive on a closed course but not with pot? It isn't because pot's illegal, it's because those tests would blow the claims of the drug war pushers out of the water.

Wrong on all counts. There have been coordination tests with marijuana. Tests don't show it to be harmless.

The Airline Pilots Association (or whatever their proper name is) did one about 20 years ago, very rigorous. Quantifiable measures of loss in coordination, attention span, etc., and the duration of effects after use, convinced them that off duty use of mj should grounds for removing pilots.

That's the test that usually gets cited in these arguments, and I find it difficult to believe that you haven't heard of it many times. Or perhaps you read these kinds of things and don't remember? A little too much weed, hmmm?


Thirdly, a local police department and news might stage a cone course test on alcohol effects. But clearly no such public demonstration can be made with pot because it is illegal. If you think otherwise, again I'd say your intake might be effecting your reasoning processes.

(On second thought, a few years ago the police department here did a breathalizer demonstration. One of the volunteers disappeared into the bathroom and allegedly smoked a little weed, just to show that pot doesn't affect the diffusion of alcohol from the blood into the lungs. Not quite the same…)

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

The money's there if we make this a priority.

And what other priorities will we have to scarifice in order to increase the enforcement of something that obviously can't be enforced? Education and Health Care? They're already under strain. Shall we take money from those areas in order to stamp out something that does minimal damage to society?

So where do we draw the line? Look at what the government has done with alcohol and cigarettes. Making the government responsible is not going to reduce the harms, it merely reinforces the addiction the government has to these particular revenue streams.

Do alcohol users and smokers automatically become cocaine or heroin addicts? Your argument was that marijuana is a gateway drug. Prove it! Why is it that I, and many people I know, have smoked it for decades but aren't junkies at the same time? If that argument is as valid as you seem to insist, I would have been sticking needles in my arm a long time ago. I don't and have no intention of doing so.

So personal testimony should equate with public policy? People vary in their tolerance, and addiction to drugs.

My personal testimony only corroborates the findings of the LeDain Commision of the Government of Canada, who's findings were released in 1972, and by pretty much every study since then. The bottom line of their findings was that the harm done by marijuana was minimal and that there is no reason why it should be illegal, from a both a medical and societal viewpoint.

Perhaps pot use is simply not as widespread so the problems are less noticeable. I've seen a friend toss away his life when he started to use pot. No motivation whatsoever.

You're spending to much time in church these days. Believe me marijauna use is widespread. Go to almost any bar and you'll find someone who has some or knows where to get it. In fact if you hang out long enough, you'll probably see a few people heading out to the back alley to have a few tokes. And as I mentioned, there's now three stores here, in a city of about 400,000, that deal exclusively with grow equipment and supplies.

[Ben Kenobi]

And what other priorities will we have to scarifice in order to increase the enforcement of something that obviously can't be enforced?

Can it be enforced? You assume that it cannot be enforced.

Look at it from this perspective. How can the government have any credibility whatsoever with regards to restrictions, when they clearly want to get into the business of selling pot? They are even starting their own grow operations. Who is going to listen to them when they say that it is wrong to toke?

That's why it's a joke to consider the current environment as 'restrictive.'

Shall we take money from those areas in order to stamp out something that does minimal damage to society?

How much will it cost to enforce? I suggested using some of the money earmarked for 'bilingualism'. We are spending lots of money on social programs beyond health care. The problem is not the money, but the lack of desire from a government more inclined for tax income.

Do alcohol users and smokers automatically become cocaine or heroin addicts?

No. But this is off-topic for two reasons. One, we are discussing marijuana, and not alcohol and tobacco. Secondly, my argument rests upon the percentage of cocaine and heroin users who also used marijuana.

This is a better indicator of marijuana use as a gateway drug, than to ask for the number of marijuana users who do not use cocaine and heroin.

Proof? See the end of the post.

The bottom line of their findings was that the harm done by marijuana was minimal and that there is no reason why it should be illegal, from a both a medical and societal viewpoint.

Please cite the source if you can.

You're spending to much time in church these days.

Aaah. Ad hominem. Glorious.

Believe me marijauna use is widespread.

As widespread as tobacco and alcohol? I don't think so.

http://www.connectwithkids.com/archi...feb26/pot.html

Here's a good site.

http://www.samhsa.gov/centers/csap/csap.html

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Straybow

Quote:

Ever wonder why the government will do tests by inviting people to drink booze and drive on a closed course but not with pot? It isn't because pot's illegal, it's because those tests would blow the claims of the drug war pushers out of the water.

Wrong on all counts. There have been coordination tests with marijuana. Tests don't show it to be harmless.

The Airline Pilots Association (or whatever their proper name is) did one about 20 years ago, very rigorous. Quantifiable measures of loss in coordination, attention span, etc., and the duration of effects after use, convinced them that off duty use of mj should grounds for removing pilots.

That's the test that usually gets cited in these arguments, and I find it difficult to believe that you haven't heard of it many times. Or perhaps you read these kinds of things and don't remember? A little too much weed, hmmm?


Thirdly, a local police department and news might stage a cone course test on alcohol effects. But clearly no such public demonstration can be made with pot because it is illegal. If you think otherwise, again I'd say your intake might be effecting your reasoning processes.

(On second thought, a few years ago the police department here did a breathalizer demonstration. One of the volunteers disappeared into the bathroom and allegedly smoked a little weed, just to show that pot doesn't affect the diffusion of alcohol from the blood into the lungs. Not quite the same…)

The DOT has done such tests, and has demonstrasted that marijuana can indeed impair driving as much as alcohol. Pro-weed advocates don't quote them because......... well, honestly, what do you expect?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by alva

Are you saying hat if this person wouldn't be smoking, he would be a sain, agreeable, lovable person?

You don't have to be any of those three things not to kill someone. Marijuana impairs judgement and removes inhibitions, which may be enough to tip the scales in someone who isn't sane, agreeable and lovable but still has enough presence of mind to restrain himself from doing something that he'll regret for the rest of his life.

[alva]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


You don't have to be any of those three things not to kill someone. Marijuana impairs judgement and removes inhibitions, which may be enough to tip the scales in someone who isn't sane, agreeable and lovable but still has enough presence of mind to restrain himself from doing something that he'll regret for the rest of his life.

If pot can throw him off balance then just about anything could. The moment that person get's fired/dumped/drunk the outcome is likely to be the same.
No need to ban pot for this. We can't just ban everything bacause of a (few) instable people.

[Berzerker]

Straybow -

Wrong on all counts.

I read through your post and noticed "all counts" were yours, not mine. You didn't address what I said, you addressed what you said.

There have been coordination tests with marijuana. Tests don't show it to be harmless.

Excuse me, but did I say that no coordination tests have been done with pot? Wrong on your first count. I said they don't show us the results of tests with motorists on closed tracks like they do with alcohol. Btw, it isn't harmful to have your coordination diminished, that depends on what else you're doing at the time and a harmful outcome.

The Airline Pilots Association (or whatever their proper name is) did one about 20 years ago, very rigorous. Quantifiable measures of loss in coordination, attention span, etc., and the duration of effects after use, convinced them that off duty use of mj should grounds for removing pilots.

Strange, a pilots association or the FAA? And wouldn't the outcome of a test be moot anyway since pilots could not legally smoke in their off hours and such illegal behavior would be grounds for dismissal? Also, I doubt it was a pilot's association since they wouldn't likely conduct a test to allow for the firing of pilots, their own members. That's like a teacher's union giving tests to justify firing teachers. Having played baseball and other sports under the influence of pot and "clean" is all the proof I need to know whatever "quantifiable" loss of coordination is miniscule wrt to myself.

That's the test that usually gets cited in these arguments, and I find it difficult to believe that you haven't heard of it many times. Or perhaps you read these kinds of things and don't remember? A little too much weed, hmmm?

Since you can't even remember the "proper", i.e., accurate, name of the association, maybe you shouldn't be talking. But I like how you created a strawman and used it for a "joke", albeit a very tired one. I don't smoke pot and haven't for more than a decade. And in all the debates I've been in on this issue, I never saw a reference to this test inspite of your difficulties, so don't make convenient assumptions about what arguments I have or have not read.

Thirdly, a local police department and news might stage a cone course test on alcohol effects. But clearly no such public demonstration can be made with pot because it is illegal. If you think otherwise, again I'd say your intake might be effecting your reasoning processes.

Oh goody, another "joke". If you had read my post, oh wise one, you would have seen I mentioned the fact that the illegality of pot does not prevent government sanctioned tests with people. I did not limit my statement to or mention local police and media so consider that another strawman exposed. Btw, pot has been legalised from time to time in certain localities and the only obvious reason the feds would not want others conducting and publicising such a test is because they wouldn't be able to show some guy on pot weaving around knocking down the cones like with booze. Oh, one more point, you just claimed some "pilot's" association did a test, how did they get around the illegality of pot if local (or state) police can't?

On second thought, a few years ago the police department here did a breathalizer demonstration. One of the volunteers disappeared into the bathroom and allegedly smoked a little weed, just to show that pot doesn't affect the diffusion of alcohol from the blood into the lungs. Not quite the same…

Hey, remember when the Partnership for a Drug Free America (now there's an organisation prone to fantasy, you should send in your resume) put out an ad purporting to show the brain wave activity of someone on pot compared to a "normal" person? The pot smoker was flatlining! They later admitted the ad was a lie, the machine hadn't been connected to a pot smoker. Now, maybe you should check for that test of yours and let us know what involvement the feds had in conducting it so we'll know if the alleged results are to be taken with a bit of skepticism.

[Ben Kenobi]

Btw, it isn't harmful to have your coordination diminished, that depends on what else you're doing at the time and a harmful outcome.

The fact that marijuana inhibits coordination is a symptom of the overall physiological effects of marijuana.

This inhibition is a reduction of normal functioning. Could this not be construed as a 'harm?'

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Look at it from this perspective. How can the government have any credibility whatsoever with regards to restrictions, when they clearly want to get into the business of selling pot? They are even starting their own grow operations. Who is going to listen to them when they say that it is wrong to toke?

You need to come down from your moral pedestal and start understanding what the ordinary person thinks. I have a brother-in-law who's a retired OPP, and even he feels that it silly to keep it illegal. As far as many people are concerned, the government is dragging it's heels. This whole fiasco over the medical marijuana issue is making them look like idiots.

"Sure you can smoke it to alleviate your symptons, you just can't buy it. And we're to incompetent to grow it ourselves."

How much will it cost to enforce?

The bottom line is sticking a policeman in every single basement in Canada, but that's how easy it is to grow it yourself. Would that be a worthwhile cost for you?

Secondly, my argument rests upon the percentage of cocaine and heroin users who also used marijuana.

And what percentage of those same people also use alcohol and tobacco? Does that make them gateway drugs as well? Should we outlaw those as well? An addictive personality will engage in almost all forms of substance abuse at some point, and quite often with several at once.


This is a better indicator of marijuana use as a gateway drug, than to ask for the number of marijuana users who do not use cocaine and heroin.

Please cite the source if you can.

Look it up yourself. It's a well known study that has been around for decades, and was sponsored by the federal government. They recommended in 1972 that at the very least, small amounts of marijuana should be decriminalized, and they indicated that they felt no objection to full legalization. Here it is 30 years later and we still have not acted on that report.

Aaah. Ad hominem. Glorious.

No, an observation. Hanging around Christians tends to give people a narrow view of what life and people are really like. Life on the street is much different than that of the pulpit, and it's much more commonplace.

As widespread as tobacco and alcohol? I don't think so.

A study done a few years ago and published by our local paper, (sorry I can't find a source now) put marijuana use right behind that of alcohol and tobacco. A full 1/3 of people responding to the survey had at one point in their life smoked pot. I don't recall all the details but that figure really stood out for me.

And that's not really the point. If someone wants pot they can get it. If not as many people use it as alcohol and cigarettes, it's not because of a lack of availability, but of choice. And because it's not physically addictive.

[alva]

Originally posted by obiwan18


The fact that marijuana inhibits coordination is a symptom of the overall physiological effects of marijuana.

This inhibition is a reduction of normal functioning. Could this not be construed as a 'harm?'

Maybe, but so does sugar, cafeinne....etc..(which at some point have been illegal too btw.)

Come to think even a rollercoater does this, is that harmfull?
Does it even matter that it is harmfull? (to the individual)

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

The DOT has done such tests, and has demonstrasted that marijuana can indeed impair driving as much as alcohol. Pro-weed advocates don't quote them because......... well, honestly, what do you expect?

I expect HONESTY. Why haven't they shown us motorists on pot traversing a closed course of cones? They do that with booze, so why not pot? Because what you just said is BS. The pot smoker might take the course slower, but they can't show us a pot smoker knocking down multiple cones and looking like a buffoon. Anyone who has gotten drunk and used pot knows quite well the difference between the two.

You don't have to be any of those three things not to kill someone. Marijuana impairs judgement and removes inhibitions, which may be enough to tip the scales in someone who isn't sane, agreeable and lovable but still has enough presence of mind to restrain himself from doing something that he'll regret for the rest of his life.

I regret playing hours and hours of basketball. But since your standard seems to be banning any behavior that can be engaged in by insane people to their detriment, just what would be left for the rest of us to do?

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

This inhibition is a reduction of normal functioning. Could this not be construed as a 'harm?'

If I'm sitting on my butt smoking a joint while I hang out on my computer, how could I possibly harm myself? And believe me, my loss of coordination on pot is far less than if I have a few beer. I can play my guitar when I'm high, I can't if I'm drunk. And it doesn't take very many beers before I start to notice it. I could smoke several joints and the worst I get is forgetting the lyrics or a chord.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

The fact that marijuana inhibits coordination is a symptom of the overall physiological effects of marijuana.

The fact fatigue inhibits coordination is a symptom of the overall physiogical effects of insufficient sleep.

This inhibition is a reduction of normal functioning. Could this not be construed as a 'harm?'

If that qualifies as harm, then virtually everything we do in life "harms" us. How many hours of sleep do you need every day to be at your optimum? Would more or less constitute "harm"? If you work for a living, would you count your labor as "harm" since it wears down your body over time?
How about the stress many people suffer for a variety of reasons? Pot can diminish stress, so is the pot a good thing and the stress "wrong"? How much exercise will allow for this "normal" functioning? How about that soda or candy bar with it's sugar? You can see the problems with claiming anything but "normal" behavior is "harm" when normal behavior includes all kinds of "harm".

Does Jesus teach us to approve of what is wrong?

You didn't answer my question, did Jesus tell you to run around caging others for using pot? You're avoiding the question by asserting that pot use is "wrong" without proving it is wrong according to Jesus. Jesus obviously considered adultery to be wrong, but did he tell others to cage or kill the adulteress? Nope... he defended her from punishment. Explain that if you think Jesus wants you to cage pot smokers because you say it's "wrong".

It's not a question so much of enforcement, because a little bit of enforcement can lead to a much larger deterrent effect.

You're still ignoring my question. If you're a Christian, shouldn't you have some scriptural basis for hurting others who've done nothing to you (or anyone else for that matter)?

Legalise pot, and many who are not users will begin to use.

Really? So was pot legal in Jesus' time and did he demand it be made illegal? And what proof do you have for that assumption? Pot was legal in this country up until around the 1930's, would you really like to compare the per capita number of users now with the pre-1900's?

Assumes people are fixed. People can change their minds, occasionally being risk-takers while generally avoiding risks. These are the people likely to suffer from legalisation.

As opposed to the suffering of the millions put in cages? I don't assume people are "fixed", do you deny people who seek adrenalum rushes from risky endeavors are more likely to take further risks than people who avoid risks?

We pay through the nose for our medical system.

Blame the people forcing you to pay thru the nose.

Yes, we already pay for the drug use and needles of other people, through our socialist medical system here in Canada.

So you blame pot smokers for what others are doing to you? No wonder you have no problem punishing millions of people for the behavior of a tiny minority.

So why regulate any substance, such as alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or cocaine? Do you advocate ending all controls?

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said, but the only control I advocate is to prohibit false advertising and fraud. Will you now answer my question concerning Jesus?

[Shi Huangdi]

"This inhibition is a reduction of normal functioning. Could this not be construed as a 'harm?'"

But what right does the government have to stop them from harming themselves?

As Christians, we would probably both believe that a person is doing a form of harm to themselves if the leave Christianity and become an atheist. Should the government have the right to intervene in that instance?

[Berzerker]

As Christians, we would probably both believe that a person is doing a form of harm to themselves if the leave Christianity and become an atheist. Should the government have the right to intervene in that instance?

Hmm...quite good. On a related note, I believe Obiwan is doing himself "harm" by committing a severe violation of Jesus' teachings in the name of Jesus. So now we can use government to punish non-believers and the believers who give Jesus a bad name. We keep this up and we'll all be spending time in jail.