Posted on 09/26/2002 5:32:04 AM PDT by Pern
Edited on 04/12/2004 2:10:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A new species is appearing more frequently in Sequoia National Park: marijuana. During the past month, park rangers and law enforcement officials have uprooted 19 marijuana gardens from the Mineral King and South Fork areas of the park. Officials disposed of more than 35,000 plants -- with an estimated street value of more than $140 million -- in an undisclosed Tulare County site.
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
Enough that the "powers that be" will keep ratcheting up their efforts to maintain the status quo as more people change their opinions in favor of de-criminalization. Notice the sappy BS "Drugs Cause Terrorism and the Murder of Whole Families" ads now running on TV. The motivation behind these ads are not to keep people from smoking pot, it is to keep other people in favor of locking them up ,the longer the better. Lawyer job security, thats all it is.
I told you why it is not now. Did you read my post.
Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccl. 8:11
I don't see how you get "the death penalty is a reliable deterrent" from that passage.--->"So you shall put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously." Deut. 17:12-13
There is many forms of punishment and many included death. If you can't see that, there is no use of me throwing my pearls in front of you anymore.(Mat. 7:6)
Christ’s apostles asked Him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard [Your] saying?" (Mat. 15:12). . How did Jesus respond? He said to ignore the complaints of the unbelievers: "Let them alone. They are blind," (Mat. 15:14).
God mocked the Midianites when He defeated them after sending a nightmare to them that they were being attacked by a loaf of bread (Jud. 7:13-14). Elijah, just prior to executing 450 prophets of Baal, "mocked them" as the Bible says, telling them to yell louder to their god so that Baal could hear their prayers since he was either on a trip, sleeping or in the restroom (Hebrew, "private place," 1 Ki. 18:27; and 2 Ki. 6:8-20).
God, however, does not condemn those who "rebuke the wicked" (see Prov. 24:25).
God mocked Jeroboam, who "stretched out his hand from the altar" and ordered the prophet arrested. "Then his hand, which he stretched out toward him, withered, so that he could not pull it back to himself" (1 Ki. 13:4). God mocked the Philistines when they found Dagon their god "fallen on its face before the ark of the Lord. So they took Dagon and set it in its place again" (1 Sam. 5:3). The next morning they found Dagon toppled again, but this time he had lost his head (1 Sam. 5:4). God mocked the idolaters who cut down a branch, and with half of it they make a god to worship and with the other half, they make a fire to cook lunch (Is. 44:14-17). Another carves an idol of stone and says to it "wake up" (Hab. 2:18-19).
When a harsh word is needed God uses a harsh word. This is true in the Old and New Testaments. Herod beheaded John the Baptist for "rebuking" the king for "all the evils which Herod had done" (Luke 3:19) and for condemning the tetrarch for incestuous adultery (Mat. 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18; Lev. 18:16; 20:21) with "Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife" (Luke 3:19). Jesus warned of "the leaven of Herod" (Mark 8:15). When notified that "Herod wants to kill You," (Luke 13:31), Christ responded without respect, "Go, tell that fox, ‘I cast out demons’…" (Luke 13:32).
"The face of the Lord is against those who do evil" (Ps 34:16). God "loves righteousness and hate[s] wickedness (Ps. 45:7). There are six things "the Lord hates," including "a heart that devises wicked plans… a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren" (Prov. 6:16-19). And God reminds us "All their wickedness is in Gilgal, for there I hated them. Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more" (Ho 9:13). As Moses wrote of God, "if you do not obey Me... My soul shall abhor you" (Lev. 26:27-30).
"Every tongue which rises against you in judgment you shall condemn" (Isa. 54:17). Jesus taught that human beings will condemn the wicked. "The men of Nineveh will rise in the judgment with this generation and condemn it" (Mat. 12:41). Jesus said, "For God so loved the world." Then two verses later He added, "but he who does not believe is condemned already" (John 3:18). By today’s Christian standard, no unbeliever would know that he is condemned, because most believers will not communicate this vital truth. John 3:16 is nice. John 3:18 is not nice.
Jesus too said, "The men of Nineveh will rise in the judgment with this generation and condemn it..." (Mat. 12:41). And as Solomon wrote, "jealously is a husband's fury; therefore, he will not spare [the adulterer] in the day of vengeance. He will accept no recompense nor will he be appeased..." (Prov. 6:34-35). God gives the responsibility for vengeance, condemnation and judgment to His servants for "every tongue which rises against you in judgment you shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord…" (Isa. 54:17).
I told you why it is not now.
I didn't make myself clear. The fact that the death penalty was a reliable deterrent in B.C. Israel does not prove that it CAN BE a reliable deterrent in modern America.
I don't see how you get "the death penalty is a reliable deterrent" from that passage.--->"So you shall put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously." Deut. 17:12-13
There is many forms of punishment and many included death.
I don't see how you get "the death penalty is a reliable deterrent" from that, either.
Childish yes, but since they cannot justify with words their mindless devotion and trust, this is all they are left with.
example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/756004/posts?q=1&&page=1
Yes. Absolutely.
And that there are many people who do not tend to excess and thus are at relatively low risk of getting addicted if they smoke marijuana?
Yes. I have met people who were just occasional users. They didn't seem to have an intense desire to escape into the high. I can't testify that there were "many", though. I guess it depends on where you're at in life, and your personal makeup (including what type of potsmokers you congregate with).
So why should the former be legal but the latter illegal?
The caprice of history, I suppose.
The caprice of history, I suppose.
I asked why SHOULD this be the case, not why IS it. Or to put it another way: what justification is there for maintaining this caprice of history?
what a waste of my tax dollars.
Where in the Constitution is the Fed Gov't allowed to run ads of any sort? (one can make a case for military recruiting, I guess)
marijuana smoking is not a crime.
To me, plenty. To you? I don't think it would matter if I listed all the common sense objections hashed and rehashed ad nauseum on these threads. Obviously none of them resonate with you. You reject them all.
I don't have to justify its illegality, Mr. Leroy. You have to justify legalizing it. The burden is yours.
From a purely practical standpoint, you are correct. But you make my practical burden much lighter by not shouldering your equal philosophical burden; I have made quite clear that there is no sound reason for allowing alcohol while banning less harmful drugs, and if your only response is to hide behind the skirts of the status quo, my practical victory becomes more likely.
...trying to defeating the trifecta...
I promise it had nothing to do with the Starbuck's.
I don't use alcohol or tobacco, and I strictly limit caffeine---that's as much of a "defeat" as I have any ethical authority to accomplish. What other adults choose to do must be up to them.
what "sound reason" do you have to ADD another problematic substance to the mix?
The sound reason is that our liberties are in no danger because alcohol and tobacco are legal for adults, which bolsters the case that legalizing other drugs will not endanger our liberties.
I'm glad for you, but you missed my point. I knew from reading all your posts on this thread that you are not a user. What I meant is you repeatedly point out the harmful aspects of alcohol and cigarettes, (and to a lesser extent caffeine) over against marijuana. If they are bad, why are you campaigning to introduce yet another harmful substance? Why not try to limit the reigning trifecta instead?
The sound reason is that our liberties are in no danger because alcohol and tobacco are legal for adults, which bolsters the case that legalizing other drugs will not endanger our liberties.
This reply is circular and doesn't answer my question "What 'sound reason' do you have to add another problematic substance to the mix?" We were speaking of the damage potential of the drugs in question were we not? How did "liberty" come up?
Because adults should be free to engage in activities that harm only themselves.
Why not try to limit the reigning trifecta instead?
Same answer.
We were speaking of the damage potential of the drugs in question were we not?
Only for the purpose of demonstrating the unsoundness of the "damage" argument for anti-drug laws.
How did "liberty" come up?
Liberty must always come up when discussing U.S. domestic policy.
Nonsense.
I said the above was circular (begging the question) and you say my assessment is "Nonsense." Try it this way:
"Because alcohol and tobacco are legal, our liberties are not in danger." This right here is the argument you have to prove; you can't state as proof what you must prove (circular logic).
Why are our liberties "in danger" if certain things are illegal? All kinds of things are illegal and all kinds of people accept this as a simple fact of life without thinking of themselves as unfree.
We're back to you having to prove why prohibiting some (not ALL, Mr. Leroy! There are plenty of fun things to choose from in life that aren't illegal...) substances endangers our liberty.
You haven't made the case.
Eliminating $5*1010 from the Fed budget and laying off say (no one really knows) 100,000 bureaucrats. Also removing a source of fed, state and local corruption.
Also, the more people who switch from alcohol to pot, the better off we all are, simply from the decrease in violence.
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.