Posted on 04/20/2010 9:37:34 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
If the idea is to create a drug-free America, then we can safely say that after hundreds of billions of dollars spent, millions of arrests, and decades of escalating police and military efforts, the war on drugs is a complete failure.Ditto the war against arson, murder, prostitution, rape and many other crimes. Shall we then eliminate all criminal statutes because, well darn it we still have crime? The drug dealers and their apologists are as morally evil as the slavers, pimps and murders are - they all violate the Natural Law and harm even to destruction the innocent. No amount of posturing can make a drug dealer less than evil or a drug addict more than a slave of evil.
Under the Tenth Amendment, the crimes you listed are dealt with by the states. However, I'm sure we could federalize rape, murder and arson under the New Deal Commerce Clause. After all, they do have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. How about a War on Rape and a Rape Czar?
The drug dealers and their apologists are as morally evil as the slavers, pimps and murders are - they all violate the Natural Law and harm even to destruction the innocent.
The Founders were quite aware of Natural Law, yet there were no federal laws against drugs or alcohol until the early 1900s. Can you cite any writings from the Founders that commerce in intoxicants of any sort was a violation of Natural Law?
“What Natural Law are you referring too? By what principle to you equate Arson, Murder, and Rape with prostitution and taking drugs? Do you think any law passed is just? If the government tomorrow banned the church would you then equate worship of God with that of murder?”
You attempt here a proof by reductio ad absurdum. However, this requires that you (1) make an assumption; and (2) *deduce* an absurdity (a contradiction) from the assumption.
In this case, your assumption is incorrect. You assume that Narses is “equating” one set of offenses with another in a way that allows the inclusion of *anything* that becomes illegal.
I don’t have Narses’ permission to speak for him, but I am sure that he is aware that, as Aquinas said, lex mala, lex nulla (An evil law is no law); and that “What is right is not derived from the rule, but the rule arises from our knowledge of what is right.” (Julius Paulus)
To spell it out, asserting that one category of wrongdoing should be illegal in the same way as another category of wrongdoing is *not* to assert that actions not wrongful should be illegal. You do not, therefore, *deduce* an absurdity from the assumption, but merely assume one on the basis of an incorrect assumption.
It is irrelevant to this argument whether selling crack is as bad as arson, murder, and rape. All that is required is an admission that it is in some way wrongful.
Do you dispute that?
Can you cite any writings from the Founders that commerce in intoxicants of any sort was a violation of Natural Law?Why? They did not Author Natural Law.
Under the Tenth Amendment, the crimes you listed are dealt with by the states.And drug laws are also state laws, but since many drugs ARE imported or cross state lines, a clear Federal nexus exists.
Well said.
Boy, if that’s what you consider tweaking you are full of failure. You got your rear end kicked on every tweak you tried to make.
Unfortunately, while you have decided to answer one question out of 4 and then attempted to guess Narses rational, and have concluded that my assumption was incorrect concerning said rational (which I suspected it was) it didn't further the conversation with Narses. Regardless as you have interjected your own rational for that of Narses let us continue from here.
If the original proposition were only “the law isn't working let's get rid of it”, which it isn't, then Narses’s attempted proof by reductio ad absurdum that, “if any law is not 100% effective in combating a crime it should be removed”, and if he limited his statement to simply that, it would be plausible. This very argument is directly confronted by the article in question, but alas, here we are.
Narses, not satisfied in using an argument answered directly by the article in question, complicates matters furthers by also including examples of crimes and equated them explicitly. Drug use\sale = arson = murder = prostitution = rape = “many other crimes”. Further he states that anyone that is “an apologist” for drug dealers is as morally evil as slavers, pimps, and murderers, and that addicts are basically tools of Satan.
So If all drug dealers are equal to murderers and all murderers deserve long jail terms if not the death penalty then all bar tenders deserve long jail terms if not the death penalty. Either you will consider this a fallacy of extension or simple syllogism; if the latter then you are forced to conclude that this is not a logical position, if the former it's unlikely we are to find common ground from which to discuss this further.
Oh newbie Nate, You don't understand tweaking. I got them all riled up and I just sat and laughed. Made all sorts of statements which may or may not have been true or serious just to watch the results. Since I don't care what the potheads think and since the situation on the national front is never going to change (as to legalizing hazardous drugs) then it's fun to get them spun up from time to time as the mood strikes me.
Have a great day!
Newbie? I’ve been registered here for 10 years :D
After reading your note, I just have one thing to say.
I say it not to insult or attack, but in the hope that it may induce an improvement.
You’re not very good at thinking. Rather, you are terrible at it. Just awful.
Thinking is a learned skill.
look at my sign on date noob.
My favorite was one guy who I ran into who signed up a week after I did. So of course I had to call him a noob. It’s times like these that I miss the huge s###-eating grin smiley. (I’ve got to find me a good one of those)
Victimless.......
I stopped right there.
I see. But your sign up date doesn’t make me a noob, it just makes you ancient :D
Sadly I've been called ancient before. usually by the women I try to date. (insert sound of uncontrollable weeping)
Nah. Kids don’t have to. Weeds cheap and more available so is Ecstasy. Besides, kids today have more disposable income than my generation did 35-40 years ago.
Prior to 1914 the government basically did give a fig what you grew or you ingested. . Morphine, cocaine, opium were more less easy to get. Alot of it was actually prescribed ‘’medicene’’.
You can argue the morality of drug use all you want. We’re thrill-seeking beings we talking monkeys and we’ll always be ‘’curing the soul by means of the sense’s’’. And as such wil be that element looking to break the law to do it and porfit by providing it. Legalize the crap and tax the shit out of it. It’s a commodity, which means money. get control of the money and you get control of the problem. There isn’t one law enforcement officers life worth somebody wanting to either just get a buzz or drown their worthless life in whatever, not one.
I was created in the image of God. God is not a monkey.
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.