Posted on 02/24/2005 6:27:01 AM PST by Happy2BMe
Nope; correct analogy. The speaker was stating a sincere resentment of being persecuted because he had to put up with the presence of damnable heretics who would surely bring down Divine wrath upon all (and it's hard to get less harmless than Divine wrath).
Personally, I prefer a humble opinion to a condescending one.
All your analogies assume Marijuana is a harmless substance. Take a ride with a drug enforcement cop some day. I'm done with this conversation. I have no time for ignorant asses who preach the legalization of drugs. They are either dopeheads themselves or they are ignorant fools who have no idea what these substances do to people and societies.
I'm going to tell you right now. The illegality of drugs has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their destructive effects on society. Until you've seen 13 year old girls whoring themselves for a hit, mothers trading their food stamps for pot and crack while their babies lie naked in their own filth, you can sit there at your computer screen and pontificate all day about the evils of the drug war on personal freedom and earn nothing but contempt and disgust from people who actually understand what an unbridled evil drugs are.
You and Clinton are just a couple of authoritarians who try to garner power over others using different political parties.
We have laws against murder precisely for the reason Bill Clinton stated.
Strawman arguments are a dime a dozen. No one opposes the law against murder.
Ditto laws against certain kinds of narcotics.
Wrongo, but nice try at tying two totally different things together.
The fact is, there is no such thing as unbridled freedom,
Captian Obvious to the rescue.
Please name a group that advocates unbridled freedom.
Push a libertarian on it, and you'll eventually get them to admit that what they want is unbridled freedomg for THEMSELVES, and everyone else can just go to h*ll.
Name one. You made that up. A total fabrication.
Libertarians advocate a strong government. One that defends the rights of the citizens, and leaves them alone after that.
"...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." - Thomas Jefferson
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?" -- Thomas Jefferson
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: This is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson, first Inaugural Address; March 4, 1801
Nice attempt at a red herring. I didn't use the word democracy. I said representative government, didn't I? A good representative government has checks in it to reduce the effect of tyranny of the majority. That being said, there is still nothing wrong with a self-governing people enacting moral issues into law.
Well, duh.
"Someone sitting in their basement getting bent does no direct harm to you."
800,000 marijuana arrests last year. How many would you guess were sitting in their basement getting bent when they were arrested? One, maybe?
The other 799,999 were out and about, affecting my life and the life of my children. I consider that harmful and detrimental to my efforts at raising them drug free.
Well, therein lies the rub, no? What you may consider a moral weakness in another person might not be a moral difference between you at all, but rather, a difference in what you both consider acceptable behavior over which rational, well-intentioned people may disagree. For example, is there any moral difference between a peaceful citizen getting intoxicated by drinking liquor or getting intoxicated by smoking marijuana? Both instances involve behaving a certain way in order to achieve, more or less, the same desired effect---they are, to me, morally equivalent, though legally, they're very different. How does a rational person justify using the force of law, which is often permanent, to make a moral judgment either way?
Except that the statements are not mutually exclusive. The irony is that radical individualism will lead to tryanny because it leads to anarchy, and when the only two choices left are anarchy or tyranny, people will choose tyranny because tyranny is safer. At least in Tyranny you can live if you kowtow properly. In anarchy, there is nothing you can do to be safe.
If they are smoking or growing it on their private property, then yes you must endure it. It is the proper role of governemnt to COERCE you into repecting the rights of another individual. And believe me, there ARE people in your neighboorhood smoking pot.
No they don't. But if a man smokes it it doesn't violate your rights.
Take a ride with a drug enforcement cop some day.
No thanks. I'd rather see police defend people's rights.
I'm done with this conversation.
Good decision. When you are in a hole, stop digging.
I have no time for ignorant asses who preach the legalization of drugs.
Namecalling is stock in trade for those who have nothing left to say.
The illegality of drugs has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their destructive effects on society.
Wrong, the illegality created the profit motive that caused the growth in the use of harmful substances.
Until you've seen 13 year old girls whoring themselves for a hit, mothers trading their food stamps for pot and crack while their babies lie naked in their own filth, you can sit there at your computer screen and pontificate all day about the evils of the drug war on personal freedom and earn nothing but contempt and disgust from people who actually understand what an unbridled evil drugs are.
And since the WOD has not only not fixed this societal problem, but made it worse, and since it's been an abject failure in every conceivable way, maybe it's time for you authoritarian, immoral thugs to get out of the way so society can make some real progress in stopping the carnage that you caused.
Thanks for stopping by Kevvie.
In other words, "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!"
The new battle cry for conservatives everywhere . . .
Really? Then why is assisted suicide in Oregon now legal? Why is partial birth abortion still legal? Why are there movements to legalize euthanasia?
Your position is factually false.
Persoanally, who cares what you prefer?
How come you haven't called for the mods yet?
Must be some good weed.
Hey Kev! For the first time, you are correct. I was just thinking of the plain old garden variety of murder. But I forgot the murder of children and other types of murder advocated by many Republicans.
You left out "regular" abortion, any reason for that?
Raids on private residences are common.
The other 799,999 were out and about, affecting my life and the life of my children.
How many have you and your children witnessed using pot?
I consider that harmful and detrimental to my efforts at raising them drug free.
You can't raise your children drug free without government force? Is that you Hillary?
Have your children ever asked you if you have used drugs in your life?
Perhaps you can then define for me "speech", "arms", "unreasonable search", a "speedy" trial, "excessive" bail, .... you get the point yet?
"among the several states", "regulate", "commerce"?
The original intent of the Founding Fathers in giving Congress the power to regulate comerce was to remove the trade barriers between the states, a major problem with commerce at the time. Was that the sole intent in writing the commerce clause?
If that were the sole intent, the Founding Fathers could have simply restricted the states from doing so by placing this restriction in Article I, Section 10 (No State shall...), along with all the other state restrictions.
Thomas Jefferson, as President, along with his Secretary of State, James Madison (who drafted the Constitution, and the commerce clause) used the Commerce Clause as their authority to restrict trade with Europe (''Jefferson's Embargo'' of 1807-1808). Starting in 1842, Congress used the Commerce Clause to prohibit all kinds of foreign commerce.
In 1884, the exportation or shipment in interstate commerce of livestock having any infectious disease was forbidden. A statute passed in 1905 forbade the transportation in foreign and interstate commerce and the mails of certain varieties of moths, plant lice, and other insect pests injurious to plant crops, trees, and other vegetation.
You're saying that Congress doesn't have this power over interstate commerce? That since the "original intent" was to remove trade barriers, that is, therefore, the only thing Congress may do?
The original intent of the claw hammer was to drive and remove nails. You say I'm not allowed to use it for any other purpose?
An opinion based on ignorance or incorrect information is always humble. And this is an open forum in case you hadn't noticed.
No doubt you're a libertarian...as they - like liberals - get bent out of shape if everyone doesn't cow-tow to them...and if you don't agree with them, It's "Katy bar the door."
More humble opinions based on incorrect info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.