[drjimmy]

What points DID I address in my post? What was the core of the argument I made?

The core of your argument was that drinking alcohol and taking drugs are not immoral, drinking too much caffeine is bad for your health, and it is okay to sometimes break the law because a sign that says "No Negroes" is immoral.

Your statement that alcohol and drug consumption is not immoral is your opinion, not some established fact. Many people hold a different opinion, and with regard to drugs, most conservatives hold a different opinion. No one is investigating whether Rush Limbaugh paid his maid to buy alcohol or caffeine from some dealer in a parking lot, so those particular drugs are irrelevant to this issue.

It is laughable to compare Rush's plight with someone who would defy a "No Negroes" sign. In one case, it is a moral imperative to defy a clearly immoral law. If Rush had a moral imperative to obtain drugs illegally, I'd be interested in hearing his (or your) explanation.

The bottom line is that you entirely missed the point of MY posts. I wasn't ragging on Rush for using drugs. I was ragging on his defenders who use the same arguments to defend him that Democrats have used to defend Clinton and his ilk. That's the moral relativism.

[bvw]

it is a moral imperative to defy a clearly immoral law.

Not in all cases. This being one. Here's another. The laws in Massechusetts that will come about beacuse of that wild State Supreme Court ruling will be immoral laws. Yet how does one defy them?

Total prohibition is immoral. Why? Because morality requires, at times, drinking. What? That is you've already said "What?!" to that assertion.

But there it is in Genesis. Noah's grapes, Noah's wine. To drink an appropriate amount of wine at times is a moral action, and it is a religious obligation.

Do you divorce morality from the Creator's Law, like some secularist? If so, by such libertarian impulse, surely you'd find that a total prohibition is immoral, even on a libertarian or secularist's "morality".

If not, howso? What a confused muddle of morality you'd then have-- and by that muddle where clarity is required -- an immoral "morality".

The Prophet and King Solomon -- a most wise man -- tells us "There is a time and a place for everything under the sun." Under a total prohibition, G-d's full bounty "under the sun" is denied, is impaired. A denial of G-d, in effect. That is immoral.

Is a partial prohibition moral? Sure. Is tis case one? In my read, no. Immodesty is imoral, and a Government that looks over the shoulder of every action of adult men and women is by that immodest, disrepectful oversight, immoral.

And our FEDERAL government is bound and limited by honest contract, by charter, by it's LIMITED charter. We call that charter, that limited charter -- the Constitution. It has been seriously run afoul of, been broken by those in power. All branches, unfortunately. Hardly a Federal Pensioned Soul respects the limitations, nor respects to adequate degree the due regard to the free and private actions of adults in our Republic.

Why the PROSECUTORIAL class brag as to how they can "Indict a Ham Sandwich"! There's a clue of tyrannnic impulse where we need it least. The fruit of the damn "drug wars".