Or is there a fundamental hypocrisy in this statement?
Jesus, the son of God himself, regularly injested a substance deemed by scientists as more harmful than many current illicit drugs now. You know what I'm talking about; Jesus himself drank wine. And where's it's true that Jesus wasn't drinking himself into a blind stupor every Friday night on Nazareth 2-for-1 tequila shots, the fact remains that instead of choosing water, he chose wine. He even changed water into wine. If we look at Isaiah 55:1, it's positively encouraged
"Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost".
Lets not forget that every week at the Eucharist we drink wine; proclaiming it to be the Blood of Christ. So, ok, I hope that establishes the issue with wine. However, if we can drink alcohol, why not other drugs, considering alcohol is generally accepted to be far more harmful?
What does it say in the bible about drugs? Nothing. So we're forced to make inferences from other passages, such as 'your body is a temple'. This is true, your body is a temple, however, that covers a multitude of things. Do we condemn fat people at church? They're ruining their bodies and risking heart attacks (not to mention the gross greedyness they display). They ruin their bodies; the bodies provided to them by Christ himself. Furthermore, do we condemn them as being unchristian? No. We don't. If your body is a temple; they've set fire to their temple and let a waging bull smash up the interior.
So...the hard stuff. The stuff no one talks about. DRUGS (no, I'm not talking about crack or heroin though). LSD can't harm you; it leaves your blood stream very quickly, neither can ecstasy, neither can mdma, neither will weed, neither does alcohol in moderation... I'm not ruining my body; I don't plan on becoming a coke addict, or spending the rest of my life as an alcoholic. Your body is a temple, true, but I'm not especially damaging it. It's a momentary pleasure I receive, but it doesn't ruin my body in the long run. I'm not sick; I'm not ill. I'm perfectly healthy (much healthier then a fat person who does no drugs and never drinks). So why am I to be condemned? Drugs, in moderation, are not harmful, and we all know it. Leah Betts did not die from ecstasy but too much water (but that's a different issue). My point is... drugs aren not harmful in moderation, so why is it so looked down upon to do drugs and be a Christian. Obviously, becoming a drug addict/alcoholic is bad, but that's not likely to happen unless you're completely stupid about it. Recreational drugs is not harmful.
And further along this thinking, lets look at concupiscence (basically sex outside of marriage). In 2009, do we condemn people who shag outside of marriage? No, we accept they can still be good Christians. Why do people have sex outside of marriage? One word...orgasm. They want to experience pleasure, be it illicit or not, and so they seek pleasure, and they receive it. Where's the problem here? It's not seen as immoral is it? How is drug taking different; done carefully you receive an awesome high without any real harm. There's danger having sex...STIs, there's dangers taking drugs. But there's no real, true, pressing harm with either of them. Do you think ravers would risk their lives every week taking pills? If there was a real risk they wouldn't.
Why is recreational drug use seen as the antithesis to being a good Christian?