Replies

There was very little pot smoking before the sixties, except for the fringes of society. There was not a drug culture before the sixties even though you could probably find anything in a few amoral fringe groups that were correctly labelled as such.

Whatever, it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making about the injustice of drug laws that treat equal behaviors unequally.

Are you saying that since Rush or Bill Bennett are not perfect they cannot be opposed to any moral vice? Rush can't oppose abortion because he smokes cigars?

Of course they can be opposed to vice. All I'm saying is that it is wrong to criminalize vice. Regulate it (like we do alcohol), yes. Prohibit and criminalize it (like we do pot), no. Again, unequal treatment before the law for the same behaviors incorporates injustice into the law.

Tell me who in the history of the United States was ever morally perfect?

Can't thing of anyone. And I never argued otherwise.

What is your criteria for a man being able to stand against moral vice?

For the most part, not being a hypocrite with regards to the vice he opposes will do.

Is moral perfection your standard?

Actually, it's just the opposite. Because none of us are perfect, we need to be very circumspect in the power we give to the government in all matters, including vice. After all, one man's vice (alcohol is of the devil), could be another man's virtue (God gave us beer to make us happy). Who's right? Who knows? Do we really want to jail people merely because we don't approve of their personal moral choices? Should people who reject normative Christian morality be jailed because their actions (vice) are reflected in their rejection of Christian moral norms?

As none of us will ever agree in total as to what is vice or what is virtue when it comes to our personal moral choices, it's best that we leave each other alone, while setting reasonable boundaries for public safety (DUI) and keeping the peace (drunk and disorderly). Certainly, some will self-destruct from their indulgence in vice. In that case, the sin is its own punishment. Vice laws haven't changed that and never will change that.

Vice laws don't stop sin, it merely turns sinners into criminals. Preach agaisnt vice, abstain from vice, but don't criminalize ordinary human weakness. The laws of man will not save sinners, that is the purview of the Almighty.

I will give you a larger response when I get some time.

I know that you and I disagree on some important issues. Your actual point is not a legal one but a philosophical about how we decide right and wrong and we can investigate this further when I have time, sorry. For the time being I will say in brief that we do decide right and wrong and we always have since long before and after the articles and the constitution.

The laws of man will not save sinners, that is the purview of the Almighty.

I am not sure who gave you the idea that laws could save sinners.

To help you to understand what law was/is for let me remind you that the law is only for the unrighteous. If men were angels we would have a different reality, but men are not angels.

The law is designed to discourage certain behavior, either because of public concerns, safety etc. and the law is also a great teacher to instruct people that certain behavior is unacceptable or wrong. The law was never intended to make people righteous, I hope this has helped your understanding of the purpose of the law.