Posted on 01/23/2015 7:13:21 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Remember this is the Tom Jeff of the Readers Digest Version Of The Bible Without Divine Jesus Or Miracles.
He could see no possibility of correction except wrought by man’s hand. He was quite insensible of the actual gospel milieu around him which bore witness that God is an urgent, not just a plausible, object of worship.
He was wrong. That kind of non-gospel scenario will, not might, decay into hell.
He also realizes that since the other 49 still ban it, Colorado gets unwanted attention. It has now become the Las Vegas of pot, the Sin State.
In all the brouhaha, it hardly gets any consideration whether America should have even tried to cork the bottle of drug abuse in this fashion. It tried to cork the bottle of alcohol abuse like that and ultimately admitted failure. Then shortly afterwards, Alcoholics Anonymous came on the scene and showed the world what doctors had been considering impossible — you can leave the bottle that bit you, after all. Incidentally, AA began with explicit Jesus Christ not some nebulous higher power. That always works a lot better!
I’ve seen what God can do through love that He couldn’t do through punishment. If God only wanted people to go to hell, He wouldn’t have bothered with love.
“Park” refers to overall change in environment. For humans that would include change to nearly every aspect of modern society. Not just giving destitute people a piece of concrete to use drugs.
This is a view of what happens when you place the drugs at one corner of the cage. Of course rats who are sick and in pain from the cage will gather and die at the corner where they find relief.
>> The War on Drugs is *NOT* authorized under the Constitution, neither under the commerce clause nor under the defense clause.
>
> Yes it is.
Alright then; lay it out for me, step-by-step, starting with the specific portion(s) of the Constitution that authorize it.
(I don’t believe you, but I’ll let you try to prove it.)
Your story kind of proves my point... get them to try marijuana so they can see that drugs are harmless and then get them hooked on crack.
Doesn’t change the fact that marijuana is harmless and that it should be treated differently than other drugs so that people can learn the truth rather than scare tactics.
Indeed - but no Founding Father ever claimed that government cold make people moral or religious.
You find it strange that freepers can be happy without being stoned?
Your clumsy deceptive omission proves only one thing: the moral and mental deficiency of the Drug Warriors.
I can't agree that altering brain chemistry is ever "harmless;" I certainly agree that marijuana is no more harmful than a great many goods we'd never consider making illegal - and that scare tactics harm people more than protect them.
You presume that if governments take actions to prevent the moral destruction of the society they must be abusive.
Absolute Freedom always leads to anarchy and any thinking person knows that. If man refuses to restrain himself, then government surely will.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams
You find it strange that freepers can be happy without being stoned?
This remains a clumsy deception - WMarshal said nothing about FReepers being stoned or not.
Your clumsy deceptive omission proves only one thing
You
No, WMarshal.
presume that if governments take actions to prevent the moral destruction of the society they must be abusive.
No, he says that banning pot for adults is abusive big government - YOU presume that the absence of such laws would mean the moral destruction of the society.
Absolute Freedom always leads to anarchy
Nobody here supports anarchy - what many of us support is limiting government to protecting individual rights, which are not violated by someone else smoking pot.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams
Indeed - but no Founding Father ever claimed that government cold make people moral or religious.
Nope but it was clear that if the people failed to be moral voluntarily then the Republic would fail and likely a tyrannical leader would arise and enforce their version of goodness.
Where have we seen such happen? Russia, China, Germany......
Thanks for the backup. I missed that I was partially quoted. I find that too many “law and order” types have totalitarian impulses and an impulse to lie and distort the arguments like a lefty loon.
One of the reasons that I am against the knee-jerk response of that type to every problem with “there ought to be a law” is that too many laws lead to abuse by the authorities and contempt for the law from harassed citizens.
I find it hilarious and tragic that the US has draconian punishments for people who make poor personal decisions and then promotes welfare that leads to dependence and provides immunity from the consequences of those same poor personal decisions.
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.