Posted on 03/04/2012 4:08:27 AM PST by iloveamerica1980
Opinion piece:
So do we have the right to put into our bodies whatever we want?
Ron Paul fans have attempted to rebuke me in my response to Dr. Paul's recent statement "Why is it we can’t put into our body whatever we want?" in my previous post here
I suggested that not everything available to put in our bodies is beneficial nor wise to ingest. The Bible says: With freedom comes great responsibility. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20
To which a commenter named Paul responded: "Of course what Paul might ask is where in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 does the text say we are responsible for what *someone else* puts into their bodies? Does mandated good behavior bring people closer to God? Does Jesus teach us that we gain righteousness by behaving well? By believing in laws to make us good? Christianity is based on our own good behavior no matter what others do around us or to us. There is no command that we make others behave well."
I answered: "The Christian has the responsibility to live out God's Word as written and tell others the truth within it. Dr. Paul used the word "we" including himself. Isn't he also a Christian? We cannot command others to behave well, but the Christian should certainly not encourage people to put in their bodies whatever they want!"
In fact, Dr. Ron Paul is a self ascribed Baptist. Taking Dr. Paul's comment to it's logical and eventual conclusion, those who continue to put "whatever they want" into their bodies will have an affect on the rest of society. Just take a look at the unrestrained society of Sodom and Gomorrah if you doubt this. Many lifestyle choices lead to serious health issues, death of self as well as the unintentional deaths of others who "got in the way". Everyone should agree that the Government has the right and responsibility to "interfere" with the rights of individuals for the common good at a certain point. At which point, we will never entirely agree. Hence, the purpose of democracy.
Politically, I agree with Dr. Paul on quite a bit and admit that even he would be a better alternative as President than out current leader who I believe is governing against the will of the people. (My current favorite is Rick Santorum.) But like any politician, Paul must be held accountable for his ideas and values when they extend beyond the perimeter of public safety and the greater common welfare.
What do you think?
James R. via Dittos Rush 2-18-12
Libertarianism is based on an educated and informed society sharing mutual respect. Where is such a place? The USofA fell for Obama. Meth is a national game changer. Let them have it? Huh Ron?
It’’s like Obama stating “they can talk about class warfare all they want”, as though he addressed the issue. Ron Paul's libertarian sophistry is sugarcoated idiocy.
Ron Paul's idealism is just as stupid as Obama’’s Marxism .
As I grow a little older, my views are starting to evolve.
I now agree with Ron Paul about this. Once a person reaches the Age of Consent, they should have the freedom to do what they want to do to themselves.
Drugs? Sure. Gay marriage? Go for it. It’s your life - screw it up, or make something of it - but at the end of the day, LIBERTY is the ability to make the choice instead of having other people try to control your actions.
Some people will learn to be responsible, and some people won’t.
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Ron Paul: Why Can’t We ‘Put Into Our Body Whatever We Want?’
Actually you can.
You want to drink alcohol? Go for it. You can.
You want to drink that alcohol and drive my kids school bus? Now we have a problem!
You want to smoke that joint? You can. Go for it. You want to pick my daughter up in your car to go on a date? Now you and I have a life changing problem!
Get it yet Mr Nutbag?
You can pretty much do whatever floats your boat. As long as it does not interfere with my boat
maine yankee, I refer to “interference” like demanding we all drive on the same side of the street as opposed to we all drive a Volt. Common sense/ safety laws like this.
My liberty extends to the end of my driveway.
Which is where you authority stops.
I believe that anyone that wants to determine what I say, think, feel and do, as long as I do not in any way infringe upon someone elses civil rights, is at best a socialist, at worst a communist...
I do not care which side of the political spectrum you desire to rule me from, which side you draw laws from. Socialist is as socialist does.
This is why the country is continually drawn to the left... commmunists with to impose their laws and beliefs upon us.... but, the so called social(ist) conservatives with to impose their laws and beliefs up us also... only difference between the two is the side of the political spectrum they wish to impose upon us...
Here is a better idea, how about we live by the constitution, AS WRITTEN?
The constitution had been bastardized by both the liberals (communists) and social(ist) conservatives for so long, that there is just a very small group that realizes what it truly is, what it truly does, and what it truly represents. The author of this article mentions “Democracy”... well we do not live in a democracy, nor is our system of government a “Democracy”. We are a costitutionally mandated federation of indepenedent states. The authors ignorance of the very root of our system of govermnent is typical for a controller.
I do not need or do I desire to have a communist force their world and moralistic views upon me ( would you want bill clintons morals made law, have you forced to comply or face prison?). Nor do I want a social(ist) conservative forcing their world and moralistic views upon me.
I am a free and independent person, with the right to do what I want in my home, free from swat team raids. As long as I do not infringe upon your rights, you have no right to infringe upon mine.
Flame away...
"Dope" is merely a by-product of the debate. Doesn't matter if drugs were completely legalized as of March 5, 2012, we would still be stuck with a massive police force at all government levels who would just train their gaze upon other liberties they could rally the fools around to create a cause.
OK all you whole milk enthusiasts, you who want dairy fresh milk legalised start screaming.
See how easy that works?
The question is not about dope, but if we are still free.
I thought this thread was going to be about that Fluke slut.
He takes the boday as a temple out of context - if you read a few bits before it, it's obvious that it referes to sexual morality and not ingesting "substances" or even about exercising (another area where folks use a false rendering of the temple deal). At any rate - he who will pervert the Bible to make a point isn't to be listened to except to ascertain who cannot be trusted.
Erase all laws that deal with drugs and say with a straight face we do not already have laws in the books to handle (sober or intoxicated) one citizen infringing on the liberties of another citizen.
DUI and Drug laws are nothing more than feel good legislation with the primary result of the Government exerting more power over the individual and filling its coffers with "fines" that make the MADD crowd giddy with excitement (same thing with the drug warriors).
There is a very common misconception on the Right that the Founders were libertarian. This is because they set up a FEDERAL government with limited powers.
However, the Constitution put very few restrictions on the powers of each state over its citizens. In fact, many pre-Civil War states had laws that we would today consider unconstitutional, including egregious violations of the Bill of Rights (which did not originally apply to the states).
The Founders would in all likelihood have been fully in favor of banning "drugs." They just would have insisted it be left up to each state.
All things in moderation - including moderation.
Depends on whether you think our bodies evolved to handle a Paleolithic or Neolithic diet.
People (in most of the world, anyway) had no consistent access to long-chain carbs before agriculture.
The question is therefore one of how quickly we evolved physically after they became available.
A pre-agriculture diet would be much heavier on protein. Most types of carbs would be available only intermittently, not as a regular part of the diet.
100 million Americans can't be wrong.
I agree with you 100%, the old saying that “freedom ends where your neighbor’s nose begins”ought to be applied. I’d think the “war on drugs” has cost as many lives as abusing drugs.
And, while I might not want my tax dollars spent on hospital bills and rehab centers for those who abuse, how many tax payer dollars have been spent on this so-called “war on drugs”?
I don’t know if all currently illegal drugs ought to be legalized or not, but I think some changes in law ought to be considered.
How serious is the government about enforcing drug laws when they arm the cartels? And whose dollars were spent on
that? And what is being done about that?
There just isn’t an easy solution.
LOL
“Once a person reaches the Age of Consent, they should have the freedom to do what they want to do to themselves.”
Would you teach this to your son or daughter, both the good and bad things in life? Would it make you happy if they chose the “bad”? Why or why not?
Not necessarily. Our methods of hunting involved chasing down beasts for hours at a time. You’re looking possibly a whole village chowing down on a single deer.
The evidence is that, from what I’ve read is that we choose from a wider range of foods than even good diets consist of today. Amongst the foods back then would be called weeds today, like Dandelion stalks.
But, if you want to experiment, you could always cut back or increase your intake of proteins and see if that works for you.
When your son or daughter is killed or almost killed because of direct involvement with drugs, you’ll sing a different tune. Since when in America do we give up fighting a worthy cause? I’m taking about hard drugs here. Sorry, but this fight is a worthy one.
If you want to talk about a waste of money, let’s talk about negative ad campaign expenses. Now that’s some serious change!
Before agriculture the human diet varied wildly by location. People didn’t eat what they wanted to eat, they ate whatever was available.
But grains, dairy and other specifically agriculture-produced foods weren’t part of that diet. Grains were available, in some areas, but only seasonally and in relatively small quantities. Same with most other types of plant foods. Except in the tropics and arctic, what people ate varied wildly over the course of a year.
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.