Posted on 06/06/2006 4:32:38 AM PDT by LowCountryJoe
Meanwhile, politicians puff sanctimoniously about ``cleaning the streets" and ``ridding the projects of drug dealers
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Proverbs 15:17
Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.
Are you 'SOBER' when you stand in judgement of your brothers and sisters?
Romans 14: 2-3
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
"Whoever thinks he understands divine scripture or any part of it, but whose interpretation does not build up the twofold love of God and neighbor, has not really understood it." St. Augustine
Your unconstitutional and ungodly war does not build up the twofold love
of God and neighbor.
... the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God' (Romans 8:21)
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
You seek a utopia lorded over by DEAmen in black armor and masked in
mystery as they stalk the night knocking down doors and dragging citizens
off to the largest prison population in the entire world for possessing a gift
from God. Utopia?
Romans 14:22
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
We, as a government "of the people", have a right to impose a level of control in our society. It is done through the democratic process.
I know the druggies don't like that, but that's just tough.
We who support a free republic "don't like that" bold 'democratic' bit much either..
The majority does not rule in a constitutional republic.
I didn't say "kids" in that post. I said teens. Aged 12-17 in the survey, if you must know.
"From a state standpoint, the US Constitution does NOT give you unlimited rights at the expense of other's rights. The state has the right to secure the population. We, as a government "of the people", have a right to impose a level of control in our society. It is done through the democratic process. "
Bear in mind this sacred principle, that
though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail,
that will to be rightful must be reasonable;
that the minority possess their equal rights,
which equal law must protect,
and to violate would be oppression."--Thomas Jefferson
It should be a duty for freedom loving Republicans to prevent government from imposing upon individuals, through force and coercion, arbitrary
puritanical beliefs that are contrary to established religious facts, beliefs and scripture. Only this way can we assure the freedom of religion envisioned
in this nations’ founding.
"Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791.
Galatians 6:6-7
Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
I see no reason to prove a fact that you've already acknowledged is true.
Another great point.
In my opinion, until a man commits a crime against another he is innocent and I could care less if he freely chooses to waste his life smoking marijuana or injecting heroin.
why do so many state medical marijuana initiative pass, only to get thwarted by the feds?
Paulsen 'boldly' diverts:
All but two of the medical marijuana initiatives passed by public referendum, not the state legislature -- a process that tpaine has called "mob rule".
False. -- Only initiatives that ignore Constitutional restraints are attempts at 'mob rule'. Restoration of a right to smoke MMJ restrains no one.
These initiatives represented the will of maybe 10% of the citizens of the state, motivated and organized to vote for it. The will of that small minority is thwarted by the will of the national majority, speaking through the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, saying that federal law trumps state law.
Odd that you should quote the supremacy clause paulsen, seeing that you do not agree it applies to our right to bear arms:
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds robby. You have no honor.
Oh, puhleeze.
Indirectly, the majority does rule. New York City does not pass all the laws.
It's a representative republic. The representatives "represent" a certain view of the people, who "hopefully" voted for a person who best respresents their views.
Don't know what you are inferring but I didn't "bold" the word democratic.
Maybe we could kill two birds with one stone and "legalize drugged-up illegal aliens?"
You obviously believe it is your religious right to do drugs.
No use arguing with you. Good day.
Thank you for repeating your point about threshholds and limits. You got me to thinking beyond the norm.
The BAC should NOT be the determining factor in whether you are too drunk to drive. If you are weaving; if you are involved in an accident; if you hit someone or something with your car, that should be used, not some arbitrary number. But with the start of DUI checkpoints, we are reduced to a number and punished accordingly even if no one is hurt in any way. The BAC might be better used as a deciding factor in punishment if you are found guilty, but should not be what says that you are guilty.
I agree. The Feds should not be involved with pot. It's not within their legitimate authority to do so. With regards to threshholds, I think that you be punished for the harm that you cause, not what you are doing when the harm occured. Should we excuse the man rushing to his church Bible study for running over an old lady, but destroy the man who was driving within the limit after having a drink when he hits the kid who runs out in front of his car?
The phrase "killed by a drunk driver" stirs up a lot of emotion, (and not to sound insensitive) but are you any less dead if you got killed by the man who just worked 16 hours and fell asleep or by the one who turned his head to check out the babe in the hot pants?
I am not sure where I stand on legalizing 'hard' drugs. I was as much a drug warrior as some you see here, but then I began to see it as the failure that it is and the damage that is being done to our 2nd and 4th Amendment rights in the name of fighting drug use. I know what we are doing now doesn't work. It's time to try something else.
Oh, puhleeze.
That's the closest the WOD-worshippers can come to reasoned rebuttal: "Oh, puhleeze."
Drug sale and use don't in and of themselves violate anybody's rights.
The difference is that the pot users who go to jail become an expense to the state while most charged with DUI pay thru the nose with higher insurance premiums and lawyer fees. The costs fall on the perp and not on society.
Marijuana users certainly cause less havoc and destruction than alcohol users. And a great deal of the havoc and destruction caused by users of other drugs is motivated by their illegality and consequent inflated price.
Less and less so as time goes on ... which is probably because there's no good reason for pot to be illegal.
I agree with you there are no simple answers. I think that legalization--ending prohibition-- is the beginning. This way..the WOD is a failure. let us really explore ALL the alternatives.
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.