Posted on 05/16/2024 8:54:34 PM PDT by VAFreedom
Show me where I said that. We were talking about your claim that regulating drugs like alcohol, plus educating people about drugs would ensure safety, and somehow you went off on a tangent about the Founding Fathers, and what you think their meaning of the word freedom is, when it comes to drug use. What you're doing is what every liberal does, trying to twist their own interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to fit a specific issue they are pushing. The Constitution isn't a living document. It doesn't change with the times. It's static. Everybody has the right to screw up their own lives. What they don't have is the right to screw up anybody else's.
"It doesn’t matter how a person conducts themselves, in exercising their freedom."
Oh really? If that's the case, then why is this country governed by laws? You can violate the laws if you choose, pursuing what you consider to be your freedom, but it can, and will eventually come back to bite you in the arse. You can have your freedom to do whatever you want, but if it infringes on my freedom, or adversely affects me or my family, then watch out. There are limitations to everything. And it's up to the individual to know what their own limitations are when making decisions.
"Nobody says you have to do drug and we should inform people of the risks."
If people want to do drugs, it is their own responsibility to educate themselves on the risks. It isn't the job of the government, and especially not with taxpayer dollars. The government isn't their nanny, nor should it be. That's your Canadian opinion based on the nanny state you live under. That crap don't fly here. The Founding Fathers certainly didn't believe that the government should be involved in every aspect of people's lives. They believed in smaller government, not bigger government. Personal responsibility has to be front and center. Nobody else is responsible to educate me on anything. It's my own responsibility to educate myself, and to accept responsibility for my actions. The problem with today's world is that nobody wants to accept responsibility for their bad behavior. They instead try to look like a victim, and place the blame on someone else.
Because you have an issue with drugs and the freedom to use them.
I am on the position of freedom, but regulating what is harmful. That is what we do with socially unfashionable activities.
You want to know what their definition of freedom was, in regard to drugs? This what their definition of freedom was when it came to drugs, they used them themselves.
https://mountainside.com/blog/alcohol/the-founding-fathers-on-drugs-and-alcohol/
They used the drugs that were available in their day for recreational use and they drank whiskey by the litre. They were fine with drug use. They also grew marijuana.
I am an absolutist in regards to the Constitution. As Alito said, the Constitution says what it means. If it didn’t mean what it said, it would say something else.
Yes, a person had the right to conduct themselves as they wished, as long as they didn’t hurt anybody else. If they came to a bad end, the expectation is for you to step over their body.
The intention of the Founding Fathers were only to have the laws that were necessary, not wanted. If you wanted a law that would unduly fringe on another person’s freedom, they would have said no.
At most, if we are to respect freedom, is to inform people of the risks. If they are stupid, you are to allow them to come to a bad end if that is what they insist on doing.
I have far more respect for America, then some here do. When you argue against what the Founding Fathers wrote, I have more respect than you do for America’s founding.
The Founding Fathers didn’t want government involved in the lives of the people.
Again, show me where I said that. What I have a problem with is you saying the government needs to educate people about the risks of using drugs. I've already given you my response on that.
And you've already posted that stupid link to "The Founding Fathers on Drugs and Alcohol." Reading the title, one would think that the article provides the personal opinions of each Founding Father on those two topics. It does nothing of the kind. All it does is claim that they drank alcohol and accessed the drugs available at the time to resolve health issues.
What this article fails to report is that people have been drinking ale, hard cider and wine for hundreds, if not thousands of years, mainly because the water that was available was poisonous and could kill you. Everyone drank a watered-down version of those beverages for breakfast, because they had to work all day, and needed their wits about them, and they drank the watered-down stuff throughout the day to quench their thirst. Their supper would consist of several pints of full brew ale, wine, or hard cider, not the watered-down stuff. There were brewers who specialized in brewing ale for home use. Many of them were pub owners. Ever hear of an Ale Wife? That term goes back to the 1300's. People went to pubs to drink the real stuff too, when they weren't drinking it at home. Even kids drank the watered-down brews all the time, because like I said, the water could kill them.
So the Founding Fathers drank that stuff too, for the same reasons, because the water was polluted. Whoo-hoo! Even Victorian London didn't have clean water available to everyone. In 1854, several publicly-used water pumps in London were found to be the source of the Cholera Epidemic that was on-going. Those pumps were getting their water from businesses that took the water directly from the Thames, which was being used by everyone as their personal garbage disposal. That outbreak was part of a Cholera Pandemic that was going on world-wide between 1846 and 1860. Up until that time, it was thought Cholera was air borne, so nobody thought it could be germs in the water causing the disease. Once they realized that lack of sanitation was the problem, the city constructed better sanitation facilities, and the Cholera problem receded.
The Founding Fathers used the same medicinal drugs such as laudanum and opium derivatives to relieve pain, or treat other ailments which at the time were recommended by doctors and commonly used. The Chinese have been using opium for medicinal purposes for thousands of years. And medicinal drugs created by pharmaceutical companies today come with a long list of possible side effects or adverse reactions. Just because something is legally made for medical use, doesn't mean it's safe for everybody to use.
Just because the Founding Fathers drank alcohol because it was considered to be better for your health than polluted water, or used doctor-recommended drugs that were later deemed to be habit-forming, doesn't mean they thought people should have the freedom to use them for recreational purposes, which is something you seem to think they did, especially as it relates to types of alcohol and drugs that weren't even around when they were. There's nothing in that article that proves that.
That article does not provide the Founding Father's definition of freedom when it comes to drugs as you claim. All it does is claim that this Founding Father or that Founding Father drank alcohol or used drugs for medicinal purposes. So did everybody else at that time. They weren't unique in that practice. Also, that article doesn't provide any original source material, or links to the sources they used to write the article. In other words, they make claims of people doing this and that, but they provide no sources to back up those claims. As a historian myself, I find that appalling, and the article severely lacking.
I said that in my response, and you stole it, but when you advocate for the government to educate people on drug use, that's exactly what you are proposing. But you don't see that you are doing that.
You keep talking about it. That’s why I say you have an issue with it. If you didn’t have an issue with it, you’d be fine with people dying on the street due to their foolish decision to take drugs.
I do believe in informing people, so their are making a conscious decision to take them knowing the risks, but I don’t believe in stopping them.
The Founding Fathers did not have a problem with people taking drugs, because they took them themselves. Their opinions are evident in their actions. They took the drugs themselves. They drank booze by the litre, hard booze and not just ale.
You may not like drugs. I don’t like drugs. I don’t take drugs. I have no need to be hopped up on something, but I believe in a person’s right to be stupid. I would tell them about the risks, but leave it to them to decide.
Just like they couldn’t predict atomic theory, although they knew that arms would improve, they still allowed people to carry what they could bear, their position would have been the same about drugs. Let the people live their lives.
They didn’t put limits on freedom. They trusted the people to govern themselves. If the people wanted to be stupid, it was the Founding Father’s position to let them be stupid.
They don’t have to define freedom, because defining it limited it. They didn’t want to limit it. Their position was natural law and weeding people out.
They would have been hypocritical to drink booze by the gallon, but take the position that people shouldn’t drink booze by the gallon. What they did with themselves, they supported the right to do it.
If you said that, I overlooked it. That I can apologize for.
The only limit I advocate for is education of risks. I do not advovate for people to be limited in their choices.
If you want the government to not educate the people, I’m fine with that.
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.