[bamahead]

While Thomas Jefferson was only one player in the Founding of our Christian nation (one of the least religious), his actions speak louder than the words you've posted:

I don't argue that Mr. Jefferson was not a Christian at all in his actions my friend, just not in his PUBLIC words and actions. Based on his quotes, he did not support your belief that it is the duty of government to support God's law, an particluarly the moral dictates of certain sects of Christianity. That's the libertarian aruguement against the government legislation of morality, and Jefferson's actions as president are wholly supportive of this notion. A good example is his refusal to institute a national day of prayer while president:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.
But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the US an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it. I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted.... Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the US and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents. -- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

Jefferson thought it best to legistate laws based on morality 'that binds each of us seperately'. And he asbsolutely refused to bind the government with religion in the manner that you suggest. His actions and words prove this. He believed in an absolute wall of seperation when it came to government prescribing religious ceremonies. Jefferson's 'Wall of Seperation' letter (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html), shows he also did not believe in government endorsing the moral dictates of specific sects of Christianity, or any religion for that matter.

Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone.-- Thomas Jefferson

My arguement to you was that the prohibiton of certain substances for consumption is the fruit of specific brands of religous dogma...not God's specific, codified law in the Bible -ie: Thou shalt not kill, thou shall not committ adultery, etc. You haven't really provided any proof to the contrary on that.

Speaking of which - if it's government's job to legislate God's law...why is there no federal statute making adultrey a crime? Since this is more noticably codified in God's law than the consumption of substances...it would reason based on your logic, that there would be a federal mandate against it.

Your question:

In general our society has become one of much less virtue; and you want to open up the floodgates promoting drug usage to our current society knowing the devastation that alcohol use has done to our society?

I'd argue that the level of devestation you speak of friend was caused by alcohol at all. When compared to the alterative of prohibition, which wreaks absoute havoc. Alcohol Prohibition resulted in a 24% increase in the average crime rate in major U.S. cities. And the statistical increase was not based solely on arrests for consumption/possession, nor did it decrease the desire of the citizenry to use it:

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Crime_Rate.htm

The rate of arrests on account of drunkenness rose 41 percent, and arrests for drunken driving increased 81 percent. Thefts rose 9 percent, and assault and battery incidents rose 13 percent. Before Prohibition, there had only been 4000 federal convicts, and less than 3000 were housed in federal prisons. By 1932, the number of federal convicts had increased 561 percent and the federal prison population increased by 361 percent. Over 2/3 of all prisoners in 1930 were convicted on alcohol and drug charges.

How's that for devestation? There is absolutely statistical no proof whatsoever that legislating the specific brand of morality practiced by certain sects of Christianity improves the moral fabric of society. Statistics prove quite the opposite. An overbearing, energetic government that makes criminals out of people for their exercise of free will and human nature what we libertarians refer to a 'moral tyranny', and we have plenty of statistics to back up that notion.

[aSeattleConservative]

Based on his [Jefferson's] quotes, he did not support your belief that it is the duty of government to support God's law, an particluarly the moral dictates of certain sects of Christianity.

Back to Dr. Archie P. Jones' article entitled "Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry:

The teaching, pastoring function of the ruler or magistrate is of crucial importance. We are popularly told today that the government should not seek to enforce morality — especially (Surprise!) Christian morality — because "you can't legislate morality." Clearly, this contention is at best a half-truth, and as such is a dangerous distortion. It is a distortion which fits quite well with the Humanist canard that "you can't mix religion and politics." All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword. The sword and the word are united in law. And because the word commands action by men, the word of law is necessarily a morel teaching, a teaching which seeks to guide the ruled along a particular way of action, of life. This way of life which the law-word commands is what the ruler or lawgiver considers good, and for this reason it is again inevitably a moral teaching, of one sort or another. By teaching men to obey the ruler or lawgiver's commands, via the punishment of those who disobey, who break the law, and by his personal example, the magistrate can do nothing else than teach people moral principles."

I highly doubt that Mr. Jefferson would disagree with that my friend, as the constitutional republic that he help found was based on the rule of law (God's laws, not the whims of man and his laws).

If Mr. Jefferson didn't agree with this statement: "All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword." would that not make him an anarchist?

My arguement to you was that the prohibiton of certain substances for consumption is the fruit of specific brands of religous dogma...not God's specific, codified law in the Bible -ie: Thou shalt not kill, thou shall not committ adultery, etc. You haven't really provided any proof to the contrary on that.

Genesis 9:20-27 A ”man of distinction” and the tragic consequences of his drunkenness. Genesis 19:30-38 Drinking results in Lot’s debauchery of his own daughters. Leviticus 10:8-11 The Lord commanded Aaron and his sons not to drink either wine or strong drink while rendering service for God. Numbers 6:3 The vow of the Nazarite excluded drinking wine and strong drink. Deuteronomy 21:20 "Drinking is one of the attributes of a stubborn, rebellious, and disobedient son." Judges 13:4, 7, 14 Samson’s mother was expressly commanded by the angel of the Lord not to drink wine or strong drink. I Samuel 25: 36-38 "Nabal, an evil, drinking man was smitten by the Lord." II Samuel 11:13 "By the use of strong drink, David led Uriah into a fatal trap." (there's many many more).
Bible and Alcohol

Speaking of which - if it's government's job to legislate God's law...why is there no federal statute making adultrey a crime? Since this is more noticably codified in God's law than the consumption of substances...it would reason based on your logic, that there would be a federal mandate against it.

You know as well as I do that those laws were left up to the individual States:
Adultery - Criminal Laws, Enforcement Of Statutes, As A Defense, Divorce, Cross-references

Regarding your link showing statistics from the 1920's and Prohibition: Remember we were dealing with largely a religious people back then. This was pre 1963 when atheist Madeline Murray O'Hare had God removed from our public school system. Since then, God has been removed from many sectors of public life. It wasn't like that back then. How about we look at what alcohol has done to our society post 1920...more specifically, today:

•In the U.S. on an annual basis, more than one third of pedestrians killed by automobiles were legally drunk.
•As many as 3 million Americans over the age of 60 are alcoholics or have serious drinking problems.
•In the United States, research has demonstrated that continued alcohol abuse is one of the major risk factors for violence in intimate relationships.
•According to recent studies, it has been discovered that approximately 53% of adults in the United States have reported that one or more of their close relatives has a drinking problem.
•Studies have shown that the drinking patterns of employed women are different from those of women not employed outside the home, with less abstinence, increased consumption and greater frequency of drinking occasions observed among employed women.
•There are approximately 14 million people in the United States addicted to alcohol and millions more who display symptoms of alcohol abuse, including binge drinking.
•Low to moderate doses of alcohol can increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse.
•Twenty one percent of workers reported being injured or put in danger, having to re-do work or to cover for a co-worker or needing to work harder due to others' drinking. •Approximately 14 million Americans, about 7.4 percent of the adult population, meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or alcoholism.
•Alcoholism and alcohol abuse are the third leading cause of the preventable deaths in the United States. •Nearly one-fourth of all U.S. people who are admitted to general hospitals have alcohol problems or are undiagnosed alcoholics being treated for the consequences of their drinking.
•In one U.S. study, employees who were in serious trouble with alcohol showed significant improvement in drinking behavior and job adjustment during the months immediately following an intervention to confront the alcohol abuse that was negatively affecting their work.
•American work roles with little or no supervision and those characterized by high mobility are associated with increased rates of problem drinking.
•One of every 130 licensed drivers in the United States has been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
•Up to 40 percent of the U.S. industrial fatalities and 47 percent of industrial injuries can be linked to alcohol abuse and alcoholism.
•In the U.S., 25% of all emergency room admissions, 33% of all suicides, and more than 50% of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol-related. •In the United States, the correlation between the battering of women and alcohol abuse is the highest for men who believe that male control and power over women are acceptable in various situations.
(They always neglect to state one of my favorites: those poor innocent little babies that are born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (I'll spare the pictures my friend).
Alcohol abuse statistics

An overbearing, energetic government that makes criminals out of people for their exercise of free will and human nature what we libertarians refer to a 'moral tyranny', and we have plenty of statistics to back up that notion.

As shown, by legislating something that is against God's word, you only "urge particular actions".

Look at what other unGodly legislation besides alcohol has done to our society: Pornography, hugely responsible for the breakdown of the nuclear family, an institution that is the nucleus of our society.

Abortion: Not only responsible for the murder of 45+ million innocent unborns in the past 37 years, but has also ruined many lives (and marriages) through the guilt that both the women and men involved carry with them.

Man is sinful by nature. We all battle the desire to commit sinful acts; acts that God disapproves of.

The major difference between a Christian conservative like me, and a libertarian like you, is that I don't want to legislate sin.