War on drugs hits new low

The Austin Chronicle ^ | NOVEMBER 25, 2005 | JORDAN SMITH

[philman_36]

And behind "Door #3" is...the upcoming distraction, misdirection and or obfuscation of the topic.

[JTN]

The term of art is "Roman Catholic."

I am not Catholic. I am a non-denominational Christian.

[robertpaulsen]

Posted here already and here.

[Appalled but Not Surprised]

True enough. Actually the comment was aimed at Philman_36.

[mlc9852]

I think many would disagree that pot lowers the sex drive.:)

[JTN]

Posted here already and here.

This article is dated yesterday. I did a search under keyword "wodlist" and didn't see anything, so I posted.

[coloradan]

He wasn't invoking the Nazis in an argument, he was merely addressing you properly.

[MamaTexan]

No. God created THC in the pot plant as an insecticide--the chemical kills bugs that eat the plant.

Glad you have such an inside track to God's intentions.

The real thread topic is: does the federal government have the right to enforce drug laws, even when drug dealers and libertarian fools who buy their propaganda think they don't?

So tell us....do they?

You've YET to answer any direct question asked by myself or anyone else on this thread.

You make outlandish statements, try to change the subject when backed into a corner, contradict yourself, and source NOTHING to back your assertions. When you question the intelligence of some of the more (obviously) intelligent posters, you only make your argument weaker and yourself look foolish.

I will make this very simple so even you can understand-

Where SPECIFIALLY does the government get it's authority to tell the PEOPLE what they can possess or ingest?

Hint; ...it's not in the Commerce Clause-

_____________________________________

Thomas Jefferson, on February 15, 1791, wrote that the ICC "does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State...but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes."

_____________________________________

OR the general welfare clause-

_____________________________________

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please ... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

_____________________________________

Government can only exercise what it as been expressly given, so where exactly does this 'regulatory power' come from?

[robertpaulsen]

"...it’s well known that smoking marijuana can reduce pressure within the eye, a hallmark of the disease. But the drug may also reduce the blood supply to the optic nerve - the last thing a glaucoma sufferer needs - and it doesn’t seem to prevent blindness. Even if marijuana could save eyes, smoking it enough would take extraordinary effort. ‘In order to substantially reduce eye pressure,’ says Dr. Harry Quigley of John Hopkins University’s Wilmer Eye Institute, ‘you’d have to be stoned all the time.’"
-- Can Marijuana be Medicine?, Newsweek, February 3, 1997

"Glaucoma? It borders on malpractice to give marijuana for glaucoma. While it can reduce intraocular pressure (with huge doses of pot), it also can constrict blood supply to the optic nerve, exacerbating vision problems. There are far safer and better drugs."
-- Pot as Medicine, Washington Post, February 7, 1997)

[philman_36]

I am a Christian evolutionist. Many Christians are evolutionists.
Could you define "a Christian evolutionist"?
That statement raises several questions in my mind such as...If you believe that man was created in the image of G_d then aren't you simply stating that G_d is a monkey since man, in the evolutionary aspect, is purported to have evolved from a monkey/ape?
And...Is that where the expression "monkeying around with G_d" comes from? (that one is more a joke than a real question)
As I queried before..."Isn't that a contradiction?"

[Stew Padasso]

"IQ is precious; there's a shortage of it in the world. Why waste it?"

Because the world needs restaurant workers.

[coloradan]

My dead friends cry from the grave that it is a malum in se.

Suicide is legal, murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, is not. How did they die?

Killing another by drunk driving, which is itself contains elements of multiple crimes, doesn't mean alcohol should be illegal or is intrinsically malum in se.

[JTN]

On this whole "Christian/Evolution" thing, you might find this Reason magazine article interesting - Fact and Fiction on Evolution - Intelligent design's five favorite myths. Here's an excerpt.

Darwinism is a vehicle for atheism and materialism.

Newsflash: Charles Darwin was a Christian. The Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran World Federation, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis have all issued statements that evolutionary science is not incompatible with the basic tenets of religious faith. In Catholic schools, evolution has been taught for years, with no fuss, as part of the science curriculum.

Unfortunately, the author is right that far too many Christians think this way. It's too bad, because it just gives many people the impression that Christians are a bunch of unscientific hillbillies.

Anyway, I don't mean to hijack this thread. Please continue with the drug war posting.

[Appalled but Not Surprised]

That statement raises several questions in my mind such as...If you believe that man was created in the image of G_d then aren't you simply stating that G_d is a monkey since man, in the evolutionary aspect, is purported to have evolved from a monkey/ape? >

We're stating that God is an artist who takes his time. Doesn't it make your personal worth far greater to know that He took 17 billion years to make you out of the stuff of the big bang?

In the immortal words of St. Devo: "God made man and he used the monkey to do it." -- Jocko Homo, from the ARE WE NOT MEN album.

And...Is that where the expression "monkeying around with G_d" comes from? (that one is more a joke than a real question) As I queried before..."Isn't that a contradiction?" >

No. It's a contradiction to be a "literalist fundamentalist" and an evolutionist. Not all Christians are literalist fundamentalists.

[JTN]

Could you define "a Christian evolutionist"?

I don't want to get too deeply into this here. Suffice to say that I am not a biblical inerrantist. Also, the idea that the creation account in Genesis is allegorical is at least as old as St. Augustine.

[Appalled but Not Surprised]

How did they die? >>>

Negligent homicide, involving motor vehicles poorly operated because of stoned operator (or in one case a stoned pedestrian).

[Appalled but Not Surprised]

and it may be a nominal "felony,">>>

Have you ever been inside a federal prison? That ain't nominal, it's as real as a kick in the butt.

[philman_36]

Actually the comment was aimed at Philman_36.
I don't get it.
The term of art is "Roman Catholic."
A term of art, therefore, refers not to the fine arts, but to any specialized field of endeavor. As defined in Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law (James E. Clapp), a term of art is "a word or phrase having a special meaning in a particular field, different from or more precise than its customary meaning."
The language of lawyers and the law versus everyday speech.

Sometimes technical terminology is termed jargon or, particularly in law, terms of art or words of art.

[coloradan]

Wow, what a really hateful and contemptible thing to say! He might have kids yet, or he might have never wanted kids. I can see how you think you have the moral compass that should steer others.