Posted on 12/13/2001 3:32:50 AM PST by CrossCheck
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
On Oct. 25, six weeks after the worst terrorist atrocities in our history, the United States was bombing Afghanistan, Colin Powell was discussing a post-Taliban government, investigators were grappling with anthrax in the mail, and federal agents were . . . well, they were going after pot smokers in California. If John Ashcroft had been around during the Chicago fire, he would have been handcuffing jaywalkers.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
So what!
Some, even sober cause death and mayhem all the time.
Keep 'em off the road, unless it it a complete necessity.
Ban the "Sunday Drive"!!!!
Not where I live.
Et tu, Aggie? We've had civil exchanges in the past; don't start taking debate lessons from Dane and Fred25 now.
I simply wanted to get your opinion on why certain drugs should be prohibited as a result of causing irresponsibility and potential harm to others, while other substances (such as alcohol — a hoary example, I know, but still apt because of the undisputable harm it causes) and behaviors that have the same potential results remain perfectly legal and even acceptable. The question is raised in good faith; respond as you choose.
All on the road are there and choose to put themselves at risk. Children, family, and neighbors of hard drug abusers do not choose to be at risk.
More ad homenem attack from the drug warriors and straw men to boot. You know if you want anyone to take your arguments seriously you might want to leave out the logical fallacy. You see a personal attack is NOT an argument. It's silly, inane banter that does nothing to support or prove your point. You'll need to come with something a little better than that kid.
As to the Founding Fathers, they'd be on my side. I support the inalienable rights of the individual to do what they want with their property, their bodies.
As to God, me and God are just fine. In fact, God is Libertarian. He set up an enviroment where free choice is a necessary requirment of salvation. He made us free agents with natural rights to do what we wanted. He may have laid out some rules concerning how He wanted us to live, but He in no way forces us to live that way. Its our choice.
As for alcohol, tell me another illicit substance that you can sit down at lunch and have a little and not get intoxicated.
So I guess you would be happy as a clam with a crack house next door to you.
When "children family and neighbors" choose to leave their private property, they choose to put themselves at risk. When an uninvited person enters your personal property, they have tresspassed, a right they do not have. You have the right to use defensive force once someone has illegally entered your property.
Of course, you seem as if you would rather have the government punish someone for their behavior rather than let the friends and family make the choice of being around that person any longer. You know, life is full of tough choices. Make them yourself!
A hit off a joint, a small line of coke or speed, a percoset(sp?).
Of course, I wouldn't do any of those - including the booze.
Drinking booze at lunch makes me disoriented and sleepy.
(Maybe you just have a higher tolerance (ie alcoholic)).
Perhaps you should take heed from yourself and stop calling Dane an "idiot" (your words).
As to the Founding Fathers, they'd be on my side.
You guys hate when this is brought up but I must. State sodomy laws. That is all that need to be said. Fully supported by our founders. You, sir, have been shot down.
. I support the inalienable rights of the individual to do what they want with their property, their bodies.
As do I, but your defense of HARD drugs means that you also support the individuals right to put at risk those around him/her.
In fact, God is Libertarian.
You have been talking to Uriel haven't you?lol
God tells us that the government is here to punish those that do evil. Now I will agree with you that things that are simply immoral yet not a violation of others' rights should not be illegal, however, consuming hard drugs violates the rights of those around you.
The children, family and neighbors of people who drink to excess, handle money irresponsibly, have multiple unprotected sex partners or drive recklessly also do not choose to be at risk. Nevertheless, they are at "physical, financial, and psychological risk" when a loved one engages in these behaviors. Where does the distinction arise?
Are you suggesting that marijuana decriminalization in Holland, specifically in Amsterdam, directly lead to state-sponsored euthanasia?
IMHO, it seems that drug legalisation is a core leftwing agenda item and that it is bad for America.
Then why didn't a left wing executive branch of government legalize drugs from 1993-2000 when they had the chance to do so, and when they could've done so by simple executive order---as they "legislated" everything else?
and when I am alone in my living room watching TV, who am I placing at risk if I smoke some pot???
Alcohol contributes to more violent crimes than any other single factor because the impaired judgment of perpetrator, the victim, or both, due to drinking. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, alcohol is the key factor in many violent crimes:
Alcohol is far and away the most socially devastating drug, and always has been.
Yet Biblical Law admits no State Authority for the prohibition of intoxicants... neither the "hard drugs" used by a vanishingly small proportion of the population, nor the vastly-more-harmful "murder drug" known as "alcohol".
Biblical Law does, however, specify the Death Penalty for all crimes against Person listed above, and anywhere from double- to quadruple-restitution (to be accomplished by forced labor if necessary) for all Property Crimes specified above.
Rather than attempting to devise a patchwork Prohibition of our own imagining -- "leaning upon our own understanding" rather than trusting the Law of God -- we ought to reform our laws to be consistent with Biblical Principle (including a robust application of Capital Punishment for all crimes of malicious violence).
Biblical Law provides no authority whatsoever for any State Prohibition of Intoxicants (if it did, the only logical approach would be to outlaw the most deadly drug - alcohol - first and foremost). Rather, Biblical Law treats the citizen as being 100% responsible for his own actions at all times -- intoxication is no excuse.
How do you know that? Misery loves company and since in your world of legalised validated crack, your neighbor could be holding crack parties all day.
But of course you would still be happy as a clam.
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.