Posted on 06/20/2014 9:08:47 AM PDT by xzins
Pope Francis condemned the legalization of recreational drugs as a flawed and failed experiment as he lent his voice Friday to a debate that is raging from the United States to Uruguay.
Francis told delegates attending a Rome drug enforcement conference that even limited steps to legalize recreational drugs "are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects."
Likewise, Francis said, providing addicts with drugs offered only "a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon."
"Let me state this in the clearest terms possible," he said. "The problem of drug use is not solved with drugs!"
Francis has described drug addiction as evil and met addicts on several occasions. When he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, he devoted much of his pastoral care to addicts.
To reject illegal drugs, he said, "one has to say 'yes' to life, 'yes' to love, 'yes' to others, 'yes' to education, 'yes' to greater job opportunities.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Again, do you read your own posts?
Not to chuckle at myself; I really hope you will see the virtue of capping that bottle of vitriol.
I can advise you of something, when you see a libertarian using God and faith, and holiness, I’m so devout, etc, to promote a libertarian view of opposing drug laws, then you might want to question whether that same libertarian trick is used on other issues at FR, such as on abortion and gay marriage.
I assure that it is.
Hardy har har go ahead check it out!
Find out where I ever urged anything close to that. If you can, you big bottle of vitriol, you. Full libertarianism would affirm the right of the baby to live from conception, and would also affirm that we can no more legislate gay marriage than we can legislate that a dog has five legs. It never called for the imposition of NONSENSE on a people!
In the meantime let conservatives fight for laws to preserve life and outlaw abortion and elect presidential candidates that will stop abortion at the federal level.
Yeah... let the alcoholic keep clamoring to drown his woes in drink, and quacks keep slapping band aids on cancers.
Libertarianism is not the only possible political philosophy under which Christianity can manifest, but it is probably the most accommodating one.
If you ever actually saw the love of God in action you’d realize... you’ve been doing things the wrong way all along. You’ve been trying to impose through tyranny what freedom was wooing humanity to embrace through love.
But the enumeration of powers delegated to the federal government is. (See amd 9, 10)
Therefore, like many things it is controllable. Driving is controlled via licenses. FISHING is controlled via licensing.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal governemnt the right to license fishing, driving*, or even alcohol.
Alcohol is controlled by ID checks and by greater potency alcohol being sold in state stores (at least in Ohio).
That would likely be a state, county, or other local executive action, not a federal one.
In my opinion, some things should be by prescription BUT available. Others should be in state stores. There should be DUI laws. There is no such thing as access that makes it ok to harm someone else, either through intoxicated acts or thoughtlessness.
Who said anything about making it ok to harm someone else
? I didn't; nor has anyone else here.
That's the flipside of the idiotic modifiers to laws "if a gun is used" — the gun is only a tool, it should have no bearing on the acceptability/legality of the action in the first place; likewise, being drunk or high is not a justification for some action.
* Driving
is intentionally conflated between the legal meaning (for profit transport; e.g. taxis, buses, freight-shipping) and the colloquial (operation of a vehicle). The same is done with "motor vehicle" — US Code, Title 18, Section 31, subsection A, #6, Motor vehicle: The term ‘motor vehicle’ means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
I mean... I wish you well if you CAN confirm such attitudes in law, but as a practical reality to really get it to STOP, you won’t be able to do it that way. You are going to have to get people to start caring about lives again before they can get into a high dudgeon about wrongful deaths.
Conservatism is the politics most Christians rightfully support, libertarianism is anti-Christian and naturally doesn't attract many Christians.
You again beg the question in favor of tyranny.
Your knowledge of “Christianity” is as buggered as a gay marriage, I fear.
Tyranny, is making abortion illegal?
If you're implying that Republican
= conservative
you're an idiot — they've shown that they have no intention of pursuing the party-platform; IOW, they're about pulling a fast one on those gun-hugging, bible-loving, rubes
.
I fear you really mean self-righteously, and that read into other Christians by you far more frequently than is actually present!
Until you can regard the life of the fellow who just did something very rude to you, as being worth as much as the baby carried by the pregnant woman walking into the abortion clinic, you won’t care about lives with the care that God has. You will be seeing things from a worldly viewpoint. (Neither is really innocent; remember original sin?)
If this looks a whole lot like liberal to you... well you’ve just been presented with CLASSIC liberalism. That is what existed before the godless embraced selective crying causes in order to excuse being godless. They then called that “liberal” which is as ironic a misnomer as calling homosexuality “gay.”
Tyranny, is in the attitudes you are attempting to harness to bring about the end of abortion.
Can’t turn sows ears into silk purses.
It has devolved into selfishness.
I’m not a republican and never have been, I said conservatives.
“You really can’t imagine someone avoiding pot because it is illegal, or succumbing to temptation and enjoying it but deciding against breaking the law to make it a habit, or not hanging out with drug users because of the work they do, or the aspirations they have?
You haven’t known young people who saw that breaking the law for drugs would interfere with a chosen field of work, or truck drivers and GIs who quit because of the laws, or professionals who realized the risk and ended that youthful carelessness?”
I have met people who don’t use because their line of work requires random urine testing and/or a polygraph. I don’t really consider this law because they can quit that job or fail a test without legal consequences.
Outside of law enforcement, security or some entry level jobs nobody cares about a drug possession record. Especially for regarded professionals in an in-demand field. I could have multiple felonies on my record and my phone would still be ringing off the hook because I’m known for quality work.
The only law that would reduce drug use is requiring ALL people to take random urine or polygraph tests with imprisonment as a consequence. Would you consider that acceptable in what remains of our once free nation?
Again, you wrote: “Quite a lot... he does not understand biblical boundaries.”
And I’m asking. . . Such as? Tell me how he doesn’t understand “biblical boundaries.”
You look like you’re just going to clobber me over the head with some clericalisms, so why should I take that bait?
These are great conservative pro-life victories, not "tyranny".
On January 22, thousands gathered on the National Mall in Washington for the annual March for Life that takes place on the date that Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court.
The same week, the Republican National Committee decided that it was time for the national party to wade back into the pro-life waters after a perceived hiatus from using it as a platform issue. A “Resolution on Republican Pro-Life Strategy” formally re-established abortion as a 2014 election issue for the party and seeks to push back on the “war on women” rhetoric that Democrats have made synonymous with the pro-life movement.
The RNC clearly believes once again that a prominent pro-life position plays well with voters. Perhaps the national party has taken note of what’s happening at the state level. Twenty-four states enacted 53 anti-abortion measures in 2013 alone.
Research from the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute shows that in the last three years, states have enacted an unprecedented 205 different abortion restrictions. This was made possible by the fact that over half of the states in the union have pro-life governors and pro-life majorities in their legislatures.
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.