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, a Government may morally make possession of Bible illegal, as there is no constraint on the Civil Law?
Balderdash. The Second Table of the Ten Commandments is the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law, as explicitly stated in Romans 13. Any deviation therefrom is therefore illegitimate and UnBiblical, always and without exception.
Yeah just ask starbucks. They only sale the mild stuff. LMAO!!!!!! 292 posted on 12/13/01 1:38 PM Pacific by Texaggie79
If it were necessary to smuggle Coffee on account of some caffeine prohibition, you may be confident that the stuff would be as concentrated as cocaine inside of 20 years.
The economics of smuggling necessitates concentrated product. Ergo, the more prohibited the drug, the more concentrated it will become.
WHAT, you're a jackboot then, becasue that's exactly how I feel. Forced treatment for hard drug users, no jail. And Severe punishment of those that SALE it.
This following statement speaks VOLUMES to me, and should to anyone with a brain. I knew and know MANY MANY alcohol users. Only a few are destructive. Of the few hard drug users I know, EVERY SINGLE ONE is destructive to themselves and those around them.
Because they are LEGAL. The reason so many continued using alcohol after prohibition is becasue society has used alcohol since near the beginning of society. You cannot instantly de-normalize it. Illicit hard drugs are not normal because they are illegal. Look at society's view of them via the 60's vs the 2000's. Drug laws did that.
Have you been watching a bit too much Bill O'Reilly?
I watch him every now and then, but I have never seen him speak on drugs. I have read his books though, and his thoughts on them there. But I do happen to agree with him there. Alabama utilizes treatment VERY well. And if we shot more towards that instead of locking up users who will just find drugs in prison is much better.
By that line of logic, we should then legally be able to prevent young, black men from walking on the same side of the street as elderly, white women. They might FEEL threatened.
Hate to break it to you, but your FEELINGS of being threatened (a.k.a., being a chicken) have no relation to another person's rights.
Silly, silly point to make.
They just started with pedophilia, but you are a blind man if you can't see that homosexuality is normalized now. Sure people are still against it, but not anywhere near the amout that used to be. Even defenders of it on FR are growing.
Bullshit.
Just because you think a person high on crack is not a threat gives you no right to force me to be threatened by him.
He has no right to threaten you, however, his "being high" can in no way to be a threat, if you are on your property, and he is on his.
It is a THREAT of direct force.
Bullshit. To inject a needle in my arm is not even remotely close to me pointing a gun at you or running at you with a bat. You would not even know if I was living next door to you, shooting smack in my house. How can something be a threat to YOU if YOU do not know about it? A threat is so easily identifiable because the action is a threat EACH AND EVERY time! Not just when you want it to be
You are a tyrant if you think you can force the people of my state to be put in harms way by allowing hard drugs to be freely sold and used.
So you have redefined tyrant to mean one who allows freedom. Interesting! Freedom is slavery; slavery is freedom. I get it! And you still, after two hundred posts, have made no case that drug use poses a threat. I would venture to say that less than a one-thousandth of a percent of "drug use" leads to a crime.(Oh, and the math is simple - every person who has ever used a drug x every time they used a drug = significantly < than 0.001 crime rate).
I don't take kindly to TYRANTS.
Now thats truely funny - Redefine "tyrant" to mean what you want, and say "I don't take kindly to tyrants". Where did you learn that technique?
I'll give you 1 million to prove it. That is pure idiocy. Walk in to a freaking bar and show me that every single one is destructive. Jeez man think,.
Feelings have nothing to do with it. Smoking crack IN FACT threatens those around you.
You really can't stand that people make decisions that you don't want them to, can you?
I addressed that somewhere in here. It was a joke, I forgot the smiley face. I was making fun that you knew LSD users because I knew tons of them as well.
And other drugs are ILLEGAL because ... they're ILLEGAL ??
Look at society's view of them via the 60's vs the 2000's. Drug laws did that.
But did that really made a significant dent in the overall use of drugs? Unlikely. And the supply is greater and cheaper than ever, despite ever more draconian laws.
Yet, according to the drug war purists (I'm assuming you're not one, because you support MJ legalization) we need tougher laws, more law enforcement, more jails, etc. to "win" the war on drugs and create our shining city on the hill of a "Drug-Free America".
Can't you see the folly in that kind of utopian, socialistic thinking?
No, you and other wussy's FEEL that you are threatened by someone smoking crack. Real men, on the other hand, use legitimate, defensive force to beat the living hell out of someone who comes on their property, intoxicated or not, and threatens him or his family.
Great retaliation, now if only you could change the drug use statistics of current criminals in prison that were high while committing a crime. Also the threat is also to the users family. NO person has the right to destroy the ones around them. No one has the right to take a substance that takes away their ability to function as a resposible human.
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.