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
Oh they were.
Australia used to treed, from coast to coast, but the original inhabitants burned them all down in hunting the animals.
(/s)
A nomadic tribe needs about 50 sq miles per person to provide enough for their personal needs. Brain studies show that we’re good for about 150 people, before we have to break up tribes.
Yeah, most of us live in unpleasent urbanity.
Well, that and the fact that Australia lies mostly in a natural desert zone ~ the parts with lots of rain are overgrown with jungle.
Actually, OZ was probably inhabited a good deal before the Americas. I stated otherwise in an earlier post. My bad.
Varies greatly by environment.
Yours is the progressive’s point of view.
The parts the original inhabitants didn’t get around to burning down yet, you mean. :)
I’m personally aware the aboriginals were unlikely the first inhabitants.
Of course.
The particular environment can affect how wide a range one needs.
(Here are some atypical arguments that should be considered.)
There are several problems with trying to use religious arguments against drugs.
The first of these is that, if you look at the membership of anti-drug organizations like DARE, you’ll note that the vast majority of its members do not, and never have used drugs. They just don’t do that sort of thing in their family, and their only potential for addiction is if they are injured and become addicted to legal pharmaceutical painkillers.
For them, this is a MAJOR threat, and one which will get worse in the future, as at the most current drugs have of their active ingredient is something like 20%, but approval has been given for it to be increased to 100%. While superb for extreme pain relief, its potential for addiction is very dangerous. (By comparison, the 20% drugs are about equivalent to heroin in strength.)
On the other end of the scale is marijuana, which may actually be “helpful” to many. For example, for years the government was certain that there would be a gigantic increase in the number of lung cancer cases from marijuana use, but it never happened. The reason is that while marijuana does have some cancer causing agents, it also has many agents that help to prevent cancer.
In Israel, marijuana is now used as an effective therapy against PTSD, something of very great concern in the US because of the enormous numbers of military personnel suffering from PTSD.
The very best argument that can be made against marijuana, especially to children, is that it makes a person “dull”, dampens their motivation and ambition, and makes them dimwitted long after the obvious effects have worn off.
While this doesn’t sound like much of an argument, it is impressively persuasive, since the vast majority of children want to live a “normal” life, in which they are rewarded for their work. As well, it is reinforced by even marijuana users, who generally agree.
Much of the objection to drugs by the religious is due to the tragedy involved with the few “good kids who go bad” because of drugs. In a stark parallel, it is like the tragedy of children that become homosexual, something that is also very hard to accept.
And this leads to the most painful supposition at all.
It is the easiest thing in the world to imagine that drugs and alcohol make people weak. What is far harder to accept, is that those people who are naturally weak are far more prone to seek out drugs and alcohol.
It has long been known that the human brain does not physically mature until the early 20’s. Before then, it is far more physically flexible and adaptable. So the earlier a person is exposed to *any* addictive substance, the more likely they are to both become generally more susceptible to *all* addictive chemicals; and the harder it will be for them to break out of addiction.
The closer they are to physical brain maturity, they less likely it will be that they will either become addicted to anything, and it will be far easier for them to break out of their addiction.
But there are also many people who are naturally weak, and this handicaps every part of their lives. Others cannot really force them to be strong, as well. Such efforts will not build them up, but tear them down even more, and faster. They will be at their best only if they spend their lives conserving their strength. Under stress they find relief only with drugs and alcohol, so it is best if they are not stressed, even with the demands of a normal life.
The bottom line is that the best argument in support of Dr. Paul is that people are individuals, and as such to attempt to use a broad brush with public policy with such tremendous diversity is to guarantee harm and abuse to many.
While society yearns for simple, blanket solutions to individual problems, these blanket solutions are far too often worse than accepting that individuals are individuals, and must be treated as such.
We cannot legislate away mortality or immorality, stupidity or poverty, criminality or corruption. Just clean up after.
Interesting how all the liberty people only seem to show up when it’s about illegal drugs. Taking illegal drugs to escape reality is cowardly. “Courage is the foundation of all the other virtues.” Cowardice leads to ruin. “No man is an island.” Nobody, and I’ve seen the people living in huts and caves, is truly on their own. Most of the people pushing to legalize drugs are doing it because they think they will get cheaper illegal drugs to use. Others want to legalize to grab taxes off it. Still others don’t mind ruined lives as they think that their children can then have a better chance of grabbing more money. If you truly don’t care what other human beings do, then go live in a zoo. I would rather live in a nation filled with people who have the courage and gumption to change their lives for the better than a nation full of cowardly, stupid and lazy illegal drug users and their greedy dealers and enablers. Saying that discouraging drug use is going to cause the government to take away all liberty is a disingenuous and foolish argument. If you truly don’t care about other people using drugs, then why are you posting as an advocate of ignoring cowardice on a conservative website? If you think that discouraging cowardly behavior is intrusive, than why post your intrusive thoughts on a conservative website? Sit in your cave and twiddle your thumbs. If you’re a libertarian for drugs, then be an honest libertarian and hide in your room. If you can’t, then how much money are you making off of illegal drugs, or how much are you using?
Let’s take a look at two opposing views that neatly sum up the arguments for each side:
Jonty30 said:
“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.”
Maine Yankee said:
My liberty extends to the end of my driveway.
Which is where you authority stops.”
Jonty30, that is the same argument that progressives have been making for over 100 years in everything they do to expand government and interfere with individual freedoms.
Maine Yankee, congratulations. You have shown yourself to be a true conservative and champion of individual rights and individual responsibility. Carry on.
They are the source of trees throughout most of Southern California ~ else that place would have little but sage and scrub.
It's noteworthy that there's a crowd in San Francisco who want to REMOVE all the invasive species from the state and return the Southland to the barren desert it resembled when first discovered.
Uh, it didn't just resemble a desert ~ IT WAS A DESERT and a great deal of it STILL IS A DESERT. I've been there. It's dry. It's sandy. It's got exposed rock. It's got these animals that get up on the highest rock and urinate if you get too near.
The rich upper class folks in Central America generally oppose good land title registration.
They also run the drug trade.
“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?”
I *do* teach this philosophy to my daughter.
I don’t think anyone wants ill for their child - to end up battling hard addictions like heroin, or being gay, etc.
But that is largely the role of responsible parenting, and teaching kids about consequences and actions.
To answer your question, of course it would make me unhappy if my daughter made poor life choices. But I think that would be more of my failure as a parent instead of relying on the government saying what’s ok and what’s not.
It’s the parents role to teach children how to be responsible in their lives. Whether we are discussing drugs, same-sex relationships, or what have you.
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I’d rather deal with the problems of having too much liberty than the problems of not having enough.
There were TWO different groups that settled in Australia. That’s been known for a long time. They both came by boat. There are people still trying to figure out how to get people to Australia other than by boat though ~ they refuse to believe any human being could have built a boat earlier than 12,000 years ago.
Pity them, don't imprison them.
Without the artificial prohibition prices, they wont need to steal to acquire their poisons.
Bring it out into the light for everyone to see the truth. Stop hiding it in the shadows of criminality.
A lesson as old as the garden of Eden.
When you deny your brother his ability to choose, you become a jailer and a THIEF.
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.