Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DEA "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" Claim 6- a rebuttal
(self) | Jan 4, 2013 | (self)

Posted on 01/04/2013 1:21:20 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies

The DEA Web pages on "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" are linked with some regularity on FR. They're full of errors in fact and logic; since I couldn't find a comprehensive rebuttal online, I've started creating one. Here's my rebuttal to their "Fact 6;" more to come as time permits. ("Fact 1" rebutted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2858443/posts; "Fact 2" at /focus/f-bloggers/2861557/posts; "Fact 3" at /focus/f-bloggers/2864032/posts; "Fact 4" at /focus/f-bloggers/2893202/posts; "Fact 5" at /focus/f-bloggers/2932390/posts.)

Claim 6: "Legalization of Drugs will Lead to Increased Use and Increased Levels of Addiction. Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably."

  • Claim: Legalization proponents claim, absurdly, that making illegal drugs legal would not cause more of these substances to be consumed, nor would addiction increase.

    Fact: As is typical, the DEA provides no direct quotations in support of this claim about what legalization proponents say. And it's unlikely that addiction would rise in lockstep with use; illegality both discourages use by non-addicts more than use by addicts and incentivizes behaviors that can increase the likelihood of addiction, such as getting as high as possible at every instance of use. When the mind-altering drug alcohol was illegal during Prohibition, anyone who drank set out to get thoroughly drunk - witness the increased popularity of hard liquor relative to wine and beer (http://www.prohibitionrepeal.com/history/bb_roaring.asp).

    Claim: They claim that many people can use drugs in moderation and that many would choose not to use drugs, just as many abstain from alcohol and tobacco now. Yet how much misery can already be attributed to alcoholism and smoking? Is the answer to just add more misery and addiction?

    Fact: Is the answer to decrease misery and addiction by criminalizing alcohol and tobacco? Has the DEA ever heard of Prohibition?

  • Claim: It's clear from history that periods of lax controls are accompanied by more drug abuse and that periods of tight controls are accompanied by less drug abuse.

    In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal - and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor's care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed.
  • During the 19th Century, morphine was legally refined from opium and hailed as a miracle drug. Many soldiers on both sides of the Civil War who were given morphine for their wounds became addicted to it, and this increased level of addiction continued throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal - and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor's care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. That is twice as many per capita as there are today.

  • By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict.

    Fact: As FReeper Ken H has pointed out:

    "So we had 400,000 opium addicts in 1880, many of whom were addicted Civil War veterans. The population of the US in 1880 was around 50M. That works out to an addiction rate of 0.8% in 1880. Now, in 1900 the addiction rate to either opium or cocaine was 0.5%.

    "So in 1880 there were 0.8% addicted to opium vs 0.5% to either opium or cocaine in 1900. The DEA is telling us that addiction declined substantially between 1880 and 1900, despite these drugs being legal."Claim: Among the reforms of this era was the Federal Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which required manufacturers of patent medicines to reveal the contents of the drugs they sold. In this way, Americans learned which of their medicines contained heavy doses of cocaine and opiates - drugs they had now learned to avoid.

Fact: So the DEA admits that Americans modify their drug use in light of information - undermining its claim above that it's laxity or tightness of drug policy that determines rates of abuse and addiction.

The Alaska Experiment and Other Failed Legalization Ventures

 


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: dea; drugs; drugwar; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 01/04/2013 1:21:32 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I worked for 20 years in the ER of a major hospital located in a large city.In that time I saw,day in and day out,the breathtaking damage that drugs have caused to individuals...and to society.Any calls to “liberalize” drug laws (funny how it’s mainly “progressives” who support that effort) fall on deaf ears with me.And *always* will.


2 posted on 01/04/2013 1:34:36 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (When Robbing Peter To Pay Paul,One Can Always Count On Paul's Cooperation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

but drugs are illegal. how can this be happening?


3 posted on 01/04/2013 1:38:19 PM PST by RitchieAprile (the obstreperous gentleman..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
I worked for 20 years in the ER of a major hospital located in a large city.In that time I saw,day in and day out,the breathtaking damage that drugs have caused to individuals...

Ever see the damage done by the legal drug alcohol? Do you support banning that drug?

and to society.

"Society" came to your ER?

Any calls to “liberalize” drug laws (funny how it’s mainly “progressives” who support that effort)

Plenty on FR have noticed that the War On Drugs is another utopian feel-good Big Government policy.

4 posted on 01/04/2013 1:41:21 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
When Nixon waged his “War on Drugs” about 75 percent of funding went to education and treatment with 25 percent going to interdiction. It's no surprise that today that ratio is reversed. Law enforcement has greater lobbying power than the drug/alcohol treatment industry. The “drug war” is a great funding boom for police at all levels of government. Why would they ever want it to end?
5 posted on 01/04/2013 1:44:11 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

I worked in ERs and ICUs in hospitals thoughout the country from 1979 til the 90’s and saw more deaths due to either tobacco or alcohol individually than all illegal drugs combined.


6 posted on 01/04/2013 1:44:19 PM PST by fattigermaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

high-capacity hypos and Wayne LaPierre’s fault!


7 posted on 01/04/2013 1:56:27 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv4x2pRMamE


8 posted on 01/04/2013 2:10:54 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
They'd have to get real jobs!

That's racist!

9 posted on 01/04/2013 2:12:28 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("More law, less justice." --Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Any thread about legalizing drugs should immediately draw the head slap guy.


10 posted on 01/04/2013 2:18:00 PM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
"The “drug war” is a great funding boom for police at all levels of government. Why would they ever want it to end?"

You are correct, that is why I will predict that Washington and Colorado, will again make Pot illegal, unless other states follow suite soon.

It is all about dollars, these states will lose a lot of federal dollars for funding their police forces.

11 posted on 01/04/2013 2:26:52 PM PST by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv4x2pRMamE

Not enough time this afternoon to address all the bogus logic in that video - but pause it at 5:51 and read the sentence immediately after the highlighted one for a sample of Crowder's dishonesty.

12 posted on 01/04/2013 2:38:54 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Guess the basic question is, does one have/should have the right to do with their physical body as they see fit at their own expense and peril? In a supposed free society, do we own our bodies?


13 posted on 01/04/2013 3:04:30 PM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
Any calls to “liberalize” drug laws (funny how it’s mainly “progressives” who support that effort)

Nah. There are a lot of libertarians and conservatives, too. We understand that the state cannot and should not protect us against ourselves and then we see how many of our constitutional rights we've given up to fight the drug war.

And, finally, we see more drugs on the streets than ever and realize that it's just as much a fool's game to ban drugs as it is to ban guns. Open your eyes.

14 posted on 01/04/2013 3:14:06 PM PST by BfloGuy (Money, like chocolate on a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
Open your eyes.

My eyes are wide open.And they were wide open for every....single...one of the hundreds,HUNDREDS, of heroin ODs I've seen.How many heroin ODs have *you* seen? Nearly one would be my guess.

Remember...deaf ears!

15 posted on 01/04/2013 3:21:36 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (When Robbing Peter To Pay Paul,One Can Always Count On Paul's Cooperation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

And in your opinion, the death of heroin addicts is a detriment to society in what way?


16 posted on 01/04/2013 3:33:05 PM PST by FredZarguna (The fundamental question is: how is stopping people from destroying themselves part of governance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Using recreational drugs to escape reality is cowardice. No culture values cowardice.


17 posted on 01/04/2013 3:38:32 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
My eyes are wide open.And they were wide open for every....single...one of the hundreds,HUNDREDS, of heroin ODs I've seen.How many heroin ODs have *you* seen? Nearly one would be my guess.

I have two questions for you.

1. Which article of the constitution permits the Federal government to legislate abortion?

2. Which article of the constitution permits the Federal government to legislate drug use?

Your argument against the dangers of drugs [with which I concur] is the same used by the advocates of abortion. They think abortion rights are necessary; you think drug prohibitions are necessary.

What we "think" is not a satisfactory argument. There must be a constitutional basis for the law. What is yours?

18 posted on 01/04/2013 4:54:56 PM PST by BfloGuy (Money, like chocolate on a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

You should see the ERs and morgues overseas that are a result of the US war on drugs. You only saw half the result.

I used to support it until I saw what we are doing. Now, I believe people own their own body. If they want to destroy it, I consider it their right.


19 posted on 01/04/2013 4:56:23 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

Viagra is a recreational drug too...............


20 posted on 01/04/2013 4:59:05 PM PST by Species8472 (Stupid is supposed to hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

” No culture values cowardice.”

No, but ours values freedom... Including the freedom to be wise or stupid, the free choice to be a coward or be brave, etc.


21 posted on 01/04/2013 5:00:17 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
How many heroin ODs have *you* seen? Nearly one would be my guess.

Oh, forgot to answer that part.

Last February, my sister's 26 year old son, Matthew, died of a heroin overdose. He'd been in and out of jail and boot camp three times. He was a smart and handsome boy. We all miss him terribly.

So, don't presume to lecture me about that.

All the drug laws in the world [or even New York State] couldn't make him stop taking drugs. If laws don't work, then why keep them on the books? As I said, open your eyes.

Laws aren't magic. I don't use drugs. If they were legal, I still wouldn't use them.

Though they are illegal, many still do use them. What's the point? Laws can only specify the punishment for breaking them. They cannot stop people from doing what they make illegal.

22 posted on 01/04/2013 5:05:38 PM PST by BfloGuy (Money, like chocolate on a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

A few humble questions, if you would permit me.

If I’m not mistaken, it seems to me that you’re suggesting that criminal laws do not restrain activities that are deemed to be criminal offenses in the eyes of the law.

So I’m curious, do you think should we have criminal laws, or no criminal laws at all ?

If you do think we should have criminal laws, please explain why we should, i.e., what purpose do criminal laws serve ?


23 posted on 01/06/2013 12:00:54 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
the hundreds,HUNDREDS, of heroin ODs I've seen.

The War On Drugs contributes to ODs by increasing the variability of heroin's potency - even within a single batch if the 'cutting' isn't properly done.

People OD on the legal drug alcohol with some regularity - should we ban that drug too?

24 posted on 01/06/2013 1:31:33 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen; BfloGuy
what purpose do criminal laws serve ?

Laws against real crimes with actual victims are much more successful than laws against acts that harm only willing participants - because the former, but not the latter, have victims who avoid and resist the crime before it occurs and who cooperate in investigation and prosecution afterward. According to the FBI , two out of three murder cases are cleared; in contrast, the number for drug sales is assuredly no more than two out of three-thousand.

Also, real crimes with actual victims are the legitimate business of government, whereas acts that harm only willing participants are not (the opposite point of view leads to banning Big Gulps ... and beyond).

25 posted on 01/06/2013 1:42:17 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
If I’m not mistaken, it seems to me that you’re suggesting that criminal laws do not restrain activities that are deemed to be criminal offenses in the eyes of the law.

So I’m curious, do you think should we have criminal laws, or no criminal laws at all ?

If you do think we should have criminal laws, please explain why we should, i.e., what purpose do criminal laws serve ?

I'm not terribly convinced that laws do have a deterrent effect. It is upbringing and societal pressure that have traditionally served as deterrents to criminal behavior. Laws simply spelled out the penalties for engaging in it.

We have misunderstood the relationship between laws and behavior and increasingly expect the police and the courts to maintain the ordered society we remember fondly. They can't do it. They can't ride herd on society any more than teachers can impart an education to children who don't want one.

We certainly should have criminal laws. We still need to punish behavior that harms others. But drug laws, I think, should be limited to bad behavior while using drugs -- not the use itself.

It's how we treat alcohol. We punish, for example, driving while drunk, but not the drinking itself.

Very good question. I hope I answered it satisfactorily.

26 posted on 01/06/2013 1:57:26 PM PST by BfloGuy (Money, like chocolate on a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Also, real crimes with actual victims are the legitimate business of government, whereas acts that harm only willing participants are not

Yes. Seat-belt and helmet laws spring to mind.

27 posted on 01/06/2013 2:21:10 PM PST by BfloGuy (Money, like chocolate on a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Laws against real crimes with actual victims are much more successful than laws against acts that harm only willing participants

So, in that vein, should prostitution be legal ?
28 posted on 01/06/2013 9:07:57 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

do you need to ask, some of these liberturdians would legalize kiddie porn


29 posted on 01/06/2013 9:09:40 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

do you need to ask, some of these liberturdians would legalize kiddie porn


30 posted on 01/06/2013 9:11:14 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
I'm not terribly convinced that laws do have a deterrent effect.

Laws do have a deterrent effect. I would not make a right turn on a red signal if it was illegal. Where it is legal, I do it. When something is "against the rules" and merits a punishment, people avoid doing that something more than if the something is legal. Children know this, but adults who want something legalized refuse to admit it.

Beer and wine have been food for thousands of years; their purpose is not only to become drunk. It is quite common to have some wine with a meal and not get drunk. The beer and wine have a flavor that can be tasted; the idea of a good meal is to have food and drink in such a combination as pleases the palate. If one overindulges in alcoholic drink one becomes drunk, but it is quite common for people to drink and not become drunk.

Drugs, however, are only taken to become intoxicated on the drug, that is, to lose one's mental faculties and to escape reality. Also, the more people do this, the more they entice other people to do it (most of us have seen this firsthand). And usage typically increases over time; very few people can control their use to mitigate the destructive effect on their lives (again, most of us have seen this firsthand). Drugs and promiscuity go hand-in-hand, and promiscuity is also destructive of society as it leads to increases in fornication, children born out of wedlock and spread of disease. This is extremely counterproductive and destructive of society and has no redeeming benefits.

The Biblical argument is simpler - the Bible exhorts us to refrain from drunkenness.

As far as how the legal system works as of now, I think there are a few flaws, for example, overuse of SWAT teams. Large fines for users would do a lot more to get rid of demand, and could be processed through the system without SWAT teams. Sellers will leave the business as buyers stop buying. IMHO, it seems as though the system wants the game of cat and mouse to continue, instead of making drug use obsolete, and thereby getting more work done.
31 posted on 01/07/2013 7:05:17 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
Also, real crimes with actual victims are the legitimate business of government, whereas acts that harm only willing participants are not

Yes. Seat-belt and helmet laws spring to mind.

Yup. I could support laws requiring beltless drivers and helmetless bikers to be bonded for the cost of cleaning up their carcasses after an accident - but beyond that, if government may ban activities to protect adults from their own choices, then there is no such thing as limited government.

32 posted on 01/07/2013 8:08:58 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
Laws against real crimes with actual victims are much more successful than laws against acts that harm only willing participants

So, in that vein, should prostitution be legal ?

Yes - as has successfully been done for years in Nevada.

33 posted on 01/07/2013 8:13:30 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; PieterCasparzen
Laws against real crimes with actual victims are much more successful than laws against acts that harm only willing participants

So, in that vein, should prostitution be legal ?

do you need to ask, some of these liberturdians would legalize kiddie porn

Child porn must remain illegal because children are unable to meaningfully consent to do porn - unlike adult participation in drugs, prostitution, or porn.

Funny how some will grossly smear others without even pinging them on the smear - while pretending to be guardians of morality.

34 posted on 01/07/2013 8:17:04 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen; BfloGuy
If one overindulges in alcoholic drink one becomes drunk, but it is quite common for people to drink and not become drunk.

It is also quite common for people to drink and become drunk.

Drugs, however, are only taken to become intoxicated on the drug,

That's how the drug alcohol was used when that drug was illegal.

And usage typically increases over time; very few people can control their use to mitigate the destructive effect on their lives (again, most of us have seen this firsthand).

What some of us have seen is certain individuals not controlling their use - some of us have also seen individuals controlling their use. And even someone who has seen only the former should understand that their personal experiences are not randomly selected and so are not reliably extrapolated to the population at large - and that since users who control their use are also careful to not be seen breaking the law, not seeing them doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Biblical argument is simpler - the Bible exhorts us to refrain from drunkenness.

But not to ban alcohol. Thanks for the pro-legalization argument.

35 posted on 01/07/2013 8:24:41 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
The Biblical argument is simpler - the Bible exhorts us to refrain from drunkenness.

But not to ban alcohol. Thanks for the pro-legalization argument.


The only purpose to taking drugs is drunkenness. Alcoholic drinks are part of eating and drinking, drugs are not. Drugs have one purpose - getting drunk.
36 posted on 01/07/2013 8:31:03 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Federal law requires the office of the Drug Czar to oppose any attempt to change current drug laws.

IMHO, there's something very wrong with the idea of the government of a supposedly self-governing nation using the tax money of it's citizens to pay bureaucrats who's job is to try to prevent them from changing the law.

37 posted on 01/07/2013 8:38:38 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
Drugs, however, are only taken to become intoxicated on the drug,

That's how the drug alcohol was used when that drug was illegal.

The Biblical argument is simpler - the Bible exhorts us to refrain from drunkenness.

But not to ban alcohol. Thanks for the pro-legalization argument.

The only purpose to taking drugs is drunkenness. Alcoholic drinks are part of eating and drinking, drugs are not.

Marijuana brownies are eaten.

Drugs have one purpose - getting drunk.

As I already noted above, criminalizing a substance has been shown to increase the degree to which its use goes beyond mild 'relaxation' to outright intoxication - becasue there's less exposure to legal consequences if one concentrates one's use into as few separate episodes as possible.

38 posted on 01/07/2013 8:59:48 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Laws against real crimes with actual victims are much more successful than laws against acts that harm only willing participants

So, in that vein, should prostitution be legal ?

Yes - as has successfully been done for years in Nevada.


You quote from Zephaniah 3:15 in your tagline; are you a professing Christian ? And yet you argue for laws that are directly contrary to Scripture ?

If you advocate for your nation to legalize sinful acts, God have mercy on your soul.
39 posted on 01/07/2013 8:59:48 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
You quote from Zephaniah 3:15 in your tagline; are you a professing Christian ?

Yes.

And yet you argue for laws that are directly contrary to Scripture ?

Only a law mandating sinful acts would be directly contrary to Scripture.

If you advocate for your nation to legalize sinful acts, God have mercy on your soul.

Lying is generally legal, as is acting unlovingly toward one's spouse and being uncharitable toward the poor. Do you support criminalizing all these sinful acts?

40 posted on 01/07/2013 9:04:00 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Lying is generally legal, as is acting unlovingly toward one's spouse and being uncharitable toward the poor. Do you support criminalizing all these sinful acts?

Biblical law; the crimes and penalties are all there for all to see.
41 posted on 01/07/2013 9:10:51 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
So you believe the civil government should stone to death unruly sons (Deut 21:18-21)?
42 posted on 01/07/2013 9:17:18 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
You quote from Zephaniah 3:15 in your tagline; are you a professing Christian ?

Yes.

And yet you argue for laws that are directly contrary to Scripture ?

Only a law mandating sinful acts would be directly contrary to Scripture.


No, if an act is described in the Bible as a sin that merits the death penalty, and our civil laws do not say that the act merits the death penalty, then our civil laws are unscriptural.

Theft is against the moral law of the Bible and also illegal under our civil laws. But in Nevada, prostitution is legal, however in the Bible is merits the death penalty. We can't pick and choose which moral laws of the Bible we want to codify in our laws and which we choose to ignore or decrease the penalties according to our own tastes, and then rightly claim before God that our laws are compatible with Scripture.
43 posted on 01/07/2013 9:18:20 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I believe that the full quote, being part of Scripture, is commanded by God as revealed in his Holy Word:

Deuteronomy 21

“18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 19, we see this:

“15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;

17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;

18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.”

So if the parents are caught testifying falsely about this, then they would receive the penalty themselves.


44 posted on 01/07/2013 9:26:35 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
My position: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue." - Gal 3:13, 24-25
45 posted on 01/07/2013 9:36:58 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
Awaiting your response to post #38.
46 posted on 01/07/2013 9:41:04 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
The only purpose to taking drugs is drunkenness. Alcoholic drinks are part of eating and drinking, drugs are not. Drugs have one purpose - getting drunk.

You're saying that like it matters or is anyones business except the ones using drugs and alcohol. And the feds don't have any authority under the constitution to make either one of those things illegal. I know you really want it to be there, but it's not.

47 posted on 01/07/2013 9:53:26 AM PST by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

some liberturdians want to abolish the age of consent altogether


48 posted on 01/07/2013 11:07:08 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Such people are nuts (and quite possibly pedophiles).

Anything to say about the subject of the thread?

49 posted on 01/07/2013 11:20:30 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

drug legalization is a retarded idea


50 posted on 01/07/2013 11:25:30 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson