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 ...
did this description come from the great epic "Reefer Madness"
He has ever right to live there. He has no right to put his neighbors at risk. Do I have a right to stand on the edge of my property and aim a loaded gun at my neighbor on his property?
I don't want to be in charge, I just don't want impaired (by whatever chemical or psychotic reason) on the same streets and highways as me and mine.
I don't think we're in disagreement, by much. Stay home, and do what you want. Don't endanger others.
See post 178 by OrthodoxPresbyterian. Anything there you disagree with? Me neither.
You don't think that given enough Bible-thumping abortion doctor murderers that the government might start banning your Bible?
At least your right to firearms is protected under the Constitution. If we ever get to the point where the common consensus is that the Bible is just a form of hate-speech, good luck on having your right to use a Bible be protected...
From personal experience, I have known and witnessed many hard drug users. I have not known one single HARD drug user that I would have said was acting responsibly and with reason while high on the narcotic, at any level of use. Whereas with alcohol, only those who consumed VERY VERY high amounts of it, were acting the same way.
I figured you would try to spin this.
Implicit in this statement is that if a parent breaks the law then by definition the child comes to injury. Is it possible that it might not be true in some cases?
I can not count all the times my parents and grandparents broke the law, and even asked me to keep quiet. Especially when it came to the game warden. I can remember being explicitly told to duck if I saw the brown pick up they drove. A particular bird was a protected bird under the Endangered Species Act, but had not been removed once their numbers had returned. They had become so numerous that they were pests, so I was directed my the men in my family to kill as many as I could, and not get caught.
Let's see, what else. I learned to drive at an illegally young age on back country roads with parental approval. Just don't get caught. I can think of two handfulls of things I was allowed to do, even ordered to do and told not to get caught doing.
Not if they got rid of the anti-gun laws at the same time. There'd be some adjusting, but things would soon "normal out".
Not pretty to think about, though.
And there's the rub. To really validate the theory, there needs to be a comparison of the overall number of users (say of cocaine or heroin) to the number of users who have committed other crimes. Unfortunately, both numbers are uncertain. Still, I'm open to facts, if they're out there.
I have not known one single HARD drug user that I would have said was acting responsibly and with reason while high on the narcotic, at any level of use.
May I ask which hard drugs you are referring to?
LOL! You've clearly never driven in Washington D.C. metro area.
The fact that the states require drivers to be licensed does not result in competent drivers.
Well, you know what I mean, too.
I'll try to give a good faith answer to your question in the hopes you won't try to spin it out of control. The answer is that it is the parent's job to teach the children right from wrong. If a child knows right from wrong, and knows that his parent is committing a crime, the child will go to the police to turn his parent in of his own accord. If the parents aren't honest people, and do not teach their children right from wrong and raise little criminals, whose fault is this? Whose job is it to see this children are taught right from wrong? Most importantly, should we have the school teach children to report their parent's actions to the government as a matter of habit? Is this how to properly deal with bad children and bad parents?
The parents. I don't wish for government overseeing parenting. My statement was that many children report their parents drug use because they see the harm of it, and hope that if they police know that they can get their parents to stop.
When they came for the Jews, I didn't complain since I wasn't a Jew.
I was never putting that forth as an argument. A spade's a spade. I call 'em as I see 'em.
Hold the phone. That is a Liberal term. Your liberal colors are starting to show. If you are really going to try to explain the state sodomy laws as a result of homophobia, I see no point in arguing with you. That is pure ignorance. You were shot down, because they obviously did not support the right to do ANYTHING with your body on your property.
Homophobia is a liberal only term? It refers to people who do not like gays purely for the fact that they are gay. State sodomy laws were put in place because people did not like gay people, and they did not like what gay people did, that is sodomy. Sounds pretty straight forward to me. You still have not given me your source that says the Founding Fathers directly supported sodomy laws. I'm waiting.
I'm pretty sure that if it was legal to keep private nukes in your basement that there would be a great many that would never ultimately harm those around it. That doesn't change the risk factor.
Apples and oranges. Here's the flaw with this straw man argument. When nukes are used, they always cause damage. If this nuke was used within the privacy of ones own home, unless one is isolated in the middle of nowhere, the nuke would damge others and iniate force against their right to life. Now a person who does a line of coke harms no one by this act. If this person then goes out and harms someone, then they will be dealt with. Your arguments make an a priori assumption that every person who does a recreational drug will go on to harm another person. This is flawed.
My goal is to stop hard drugs from being sold, not go into people's houses and arrest them for use.
People wouldn't sell drugs if people did not want to buy them. This isn't a supply problem, it's a demand problem. People want to "bend their minds". They will bend their minds wether its legal or not. So let see what changes if we allow the legalization of these substances. Will people still use drugs? Yes, nothing changes there. Will our Constitutional rights stop being stomped on by jack-booted thugs who can get away with practically anything in the name of this stupid War On Drugs? Yes. The alternative here? People still using drugs but the shredding of our Constitution continues in the name of fighting this WOD. Which do you think is the better position to take?
So? That would do me no more harm than a drunk living next door. If he did find a way to do me harm, I would deal with that problem directly, rather than agitate for Prohibition. Outlawing all drugs or booze or whatever is a very inefficient way to solve a problem being caused by my neighbor.
Ok Uriel, lets go back to Romans 13 where you incorrectly draw this conclusion. The verse, in NO WAY, limits government to anything less than punishing EVIL. The enumeration in Romans 13, of certain sins, shall not be construed to deny the government the ability to creat laws to punish other wrongs.
Get this dumb notion of "at risk" out of your head, Tex. You put yourself "at risk" every moment you live. You do not have a right to live your life without "risks". No one, no person, no government can guarantee that no one will harm you. That is why we have laws to punish people for HARMING you. That is the governments duty - to protect rights through the impartial punishment of violations. It is not the governments job to hold your hand and make sure you are safe from "bad people". It can't do that. It can only protect you through punishment of violations of YOUR rights.
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.