Most people react similarly to opium, heroin, etc... actually they just "zone out", and you'd be lucky if you could get them to kill a cockroach, let alone a human being.
But some people react to hard drugs by getting violent. And hard liquor is certainly as powerful a contributor to their violent tendencies as most any other kind of "hard drug" (and as mentioned above, moreso than most).
But the Bible does not justify any State invasion of their Property. None whatsoever. They are held responsible for violent actions, not intoxication.
become victims of homosexual rape, members of violent criminal gangs, and proficient street thugs ~~ So because our prison system is out of control we need to allow criminals to walk? And yes hard drug users are criminals, they use an illicit drug, deemed illicit by their community and they also thereby endanger their neighbors.
The same could be said of 190-proof Everclear, because you have no rational reason whatsoever for excluding it from the community of "hard drugs".
You choose to make "hard drugs" (defined as, "any drugs other than the ones which Texaggie79 has used") illegal upon Private Property -- a choice for whcih you have no Biblical Justification whatsoever -- and thereby "sanctify" your choice to subject non-violent users of "hard drugs" (defined as, "any drugs other than the ones which Texaggie79 has used") to become victims of homosexual rape, members of violent criminal gangs, and proficient street thugs unable to get a job because of a criminal record but completely calloused towards human life -- while you wash your hands of the whole mess and say, "I didn't do it, I just voted for it!".
Nuthin' for nuthin', but that attitude is Pharisiacally sanctimonious, Ethically hypocritical, and downright sick.
The Spiritual Life is the Political Life. ~~ You know what, as much as I hate the notion of paying for other people's irresponsibility, i.e. medicare, welfare, ect. I don't think God gives a good crap. THERE are billions of unsaved lives out there, and God is going to be concerned that some guy is freeloading off the gov? You have your priorities WAY screwed up.
You think that God doesn't "give a good crap"?
That's nuts.
God is intimately concerned with every sparrow that falls in the woods. He is intimately concerned with the revolution of every electron around every proton in the universe.
Yes, tex, He most certainly does "give a crap" about how we subject our Political Philosophy to Biblical Law (much as you hate that notion).
Ron Paul is a great Man, largely because he is a great Libertarian. t he is also a realistic man, by running within the Rep. party. He is also a reasonable man because you hardly hear any crap about legalizing drugs from him. That is nowhere near the top of his list.
Bullhockey.
Ron Paul's speeches contain plenty of condemnations of the insanities of the "War on (some) Drugs". I could post a dozen such excerpts if you liked, but you know how to use a search engine, and you know I'm right.
And he does not go around telling people how much he "outclasses" them.
Ron needs your vote.
I don't.
I don't mind telling you that you're dead wrong.
but imagine that by "voting" for such Assault and Battery, it becomes morally "Okay". You guys are SOO propaganda driven. Should we commit assault and battery on a person that does not pay his traffic tickets? But we should arrest them right? Your analogy is horrendously off.
Traffic tickets are the result of an individual's refusal to obey the "usage rules" of public property -- essentially, they are trespassing.
Biblically, not only can you ethically employ Force against a trespasser, you could even shoot them if they resisted.
By contrast, you are trying to pretend that you may ethically trespass onto another man's property, and commit Assault against him thereupon because he is using "hard drugs" (defined as, "any drugs other than the ones which Texaggie79 has used"), so long as you "vote" that action to be morally "Okay".
That attitude is Pharisiacally sanctimonious, Ethically hypocritical, and downright sick.
I have not ever promoted breaking into user's houses.
So police may not break into user's houses?
So in other words, the police may not invade a man's Property - ever - unless they have reason to believe that the individual is committing an Aggressive Harm against aomeone else thereupon?
Then what are you whining about? I've already acknowledged that so long as Public Commons are Public Property, you may legislate "usage rules" concerning "public intoxication" even without unanimous covenant, on the basis of public ownership.
If you believe, OTOH, that police should not break into user's houses, then you are admitting the Biblical sanctity of Private Property -- which essentially grants my entire argument.
In which case, glad you finally came around to the Biblical position. Thanks for the debate.
If you are breaking the law, it sure as hell does.
The same could be said of 190-proof Everclear, because you have no rational reason whatsoever for excluding it from the community of "hard drugs".
I absolutely do. One who drinks it to an extreme usually passes out. Then when they awake, they are back to normal. However a heroin addict is never the responsible person they were before they were addicted.
God is intimately concerned with every sparrow that falls in the woods.
You are so right, he is deeply concerned that you are not able to legally obtain and use crack. Your a goof man.
Ron Paul's speeches contain plenty of condemnations of the insanities of the "War on (some) Drugs".
I condemn the federal WOD. So, what's you point? RP does not go around as you and beg to allow crack heads to do their habit legally.
By contrast, you are trying to pretend that you may ethically trespass onto another man's property,
His property is not sovereign unto itself. It is subject to the same laws as anyone else's property.
A god that would not allow communities to set standards would be a foolish god. My GOD is not a foolish one, but an all knowing and understanding one.
Then what are you whining about? I've already acknowledged that so long as Public Commons are Public Property, you may legislate "usage rules" concerning "public intoxication" even without unanimous covenant, on the basis of public ownership.
I hold the same position on hard drugs as I do on child porn. It should be supremely illegal to buy, sell, make and trade. But I don't want cops going around breaking into people's houses on the chance that they might have some. The authorities should concentrate on the sellers and producers of it mainly. As for the users, they pretty much get away with it anyway. I don't want to lose my freedom in order to find them. But the fact still remains, that the state, technically can stop you, on YOUR property from doing illicit drugs and BIBLICALLY so.