Posted on 08/24/2011 1:36:42 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
The Back to Black singer was found dead at her flat in north London on July 23.
The family statement said: ''Toxicology results returned to the Winehouse family by authorities have confirmed that there were no illegal substances in Amy's system at the time of her death
''Results indicate that alcohol was present but it cannot be determined as yet if it played a role in her death.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Basically, they use God to try to justify overturning natural rights that are present in the Constitution and given to us by God. God gave us free will. He gave us the right to try alcohol. He knew some of us would become addicted, and he also knew some of us would struggle with that addiction. That is life. Those who seek to play God will find that they are most disappointed with the result. My tagline really says it all.
Do you think that self-destructive people have the right to endanger the public?
God has given no one the right to endanger themselves and others with their behavior. NOWHERE in the Bible does it state that someone cannot be punished for that kind of behavior. Remember even gluttony is a sin. Excess is not blessed by God.
Twisted and abused, lying there in the street, you will pick up the document again when it serves your purposes, but only in rare circumstances. When you do, you will crow about how the liberals are destroying it (which they are), while ignoring the fact that drug warriors are damaging it as well, and giving socialists an excuse to impose ObamaCare on us.
Fine, I'll answer your silly question, despite the fact that you refuse to answer mine. No, I don't think that self-destructive people have the right to endanger the public. You have to be able to articulate a harm that they are posing to the general public, however, and that harm has to be direct. Murder imposes a direct harm to society. Armed robbery is directly harmful to society. Drug use is not directly harmful to society. Many use drugs (including alcohol) responsibly. Some, unfortunately, do not. I don't believe in collective punishment -- that is to say, punishing the many innocent people for the mistakes of a few irresponsible folk.
If drug users step out of line, like getting behind the wheel of a car or injuring someone, they should be severely punished. If they steal someone's property, they should be severely punished. What they should not be punished for is engaging in a behavior, that while you might find irresponsible, is not harming anyone else. It does not harm you if someone drinks alcohol in their home after a long day at work. It does not harm you if someone smokes a marijuana cigarette in their home after a long day at work. I do not use drugs other than legal alcohol, but I find the damage from the war on drugs to be so reprehensible that I feel compelled to speak up about it.
I have noticed that in some of your other posts to me, you harp on the fact that I am young. While it's true that I'm young, you shouldn't infer that I don't know what I'm talking about. I've had exposure to the perils of drug and alcohol abuse. One of my dear friends died from alcohol abuse in college. I was home for vacation, and he was at his fraternity. He died from alcohol poisoning, because apparently he thought it was a good idea to pound 20 drinks in 2 hours. So I do know what I'm talking about, and do you know what else I know?
I know that it is people from my generation (late 20s) who will be running this country in the next 15-20 years. We are already seeing the effects that young people can have on the political process, both good and bad. A positive effect is that people my age aren’t as beholden to the War on Drugs as the baby boomers like yourself are. We see where it has failed and are willing to make improvements. Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana almost passed in California last November. It failed by a margin of 46.5%-53.5%. Exit polls showed, however, that more than 60% of voters under the age of 30 voted for the proposition. It doesn’t take a math whiz to realize that in 15 years time, propositions similar to proposition 19 will pass in many states. Marijuana will be legal in many states, and we will take a more sensible approach in dealing with the hard drug as well.
b
Read post 220, then show me where God tells you to get government to punish folks for either sinning or giving hyenas like you the impression they’re sinning. You are a disgusting example of what nonChristians point to when they start demeaning us. Your attitude is far, far closer to that of the moslems who are inclined to stone rape victims for “sinning” by being assaulted by some slug. You really need to reassess your attitude and relationship with God.
No, I’m not. And the 60s drug culture did not elect Obama. He got elected with the support of various interest groups (unions, homosexual rights activists, etc.), as well as a a few other groups that have voted for democrats for generations. 77% of my co-religionists voted for Obama. They have voted for democrats by similar margins for generation after generation. If you want to blame people for Obama, blame people like my Jewish grandfather, that has voted for every Democrat nominee since FDR.
And let’s face it....McLame really wasn’t all that much better anyway.
And I'm not playing your stupid game. If you are for legalizing drugs then you are a libertarian and not a conservative. And your statement on your profile that you removed was correct.
That’s true. I think it’s incredibly amusing when people make statements that stoned-out hippies gave Obama his victory. First of all, there’s no indication that they even vote in large numbers. I would assume that they don’t, because if they are so high all day every day, why would they bother to go to the polls?
I called you no names. I will not address someone who wants to legalize drugs so badly they will sling mud.
You have a nice day.
I think our public schools are failing and it concerns me greatly. We must find a way to reform them, perhaps through privatization. Schools must teach courses in basic logic.
I didn't remove my profile, first of all. Secondly, do you think that Thomas Sowell is a libertarian? Some characterize him that way, but I think he'd self-identify as a conservative. Funny, I think he supported McCain in the last election. Funny, I think he wants to seal the border. Funny, I think he supported the war in Afghanistan and has always stood for a strong national defense.
Why aren't you criticizing Thomas Sowell for his principled stand? He is hardly own. People from all ends of the political spectrum are realizing that the Drug War is a failure. There's a group of retired law enforcement officers that are dedicated to end it. I dare say that they know more than you do about the perils of fighting a Drug War, including the surrender of our Fourth Amendment rights.
What do you think about my point that people my age are going to be running this country in 15 years? We will simply outvote you when it comes to the War on Drugs. You won't be able to stop it, so you might as well start getting used to it.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
- Ronald Reagan, July 1975
Withdrawal, perhaps?
Thanks, but I don’t waste my time (or pings) on petulant children...
You can’t answer, can you? Because what I’ve said is truth and you know it. Further, you laugh at and mock those who differ with you, then attack in packs. “Hyena” is not name-calling; it’s an accurate description of your behavior. Except it does a disservice to the animal, who is only acting according to its nature.
Further, I am not interested in relegalizing drugs just because, but simply that such an abomination has no place in a free society OR a limited government constitutional republic. That you think it DOES puts you,Pel-lousy, Reid and Obummer right there on the same page. The page of total government, something you profess to loathe, until it suits YOUR purposes.
I can’t wait to see what happens in 15 years, when my generation is running the country and we succeed in ending the Drug War. Polls show that a substantial number Americans under age 30 oppose it. The cries from the drug warriors will be palpable, and there is nothing they can do about it. Time heals all wounds, and it will also fix mistakes.
I won’t waste time on someone who advocates for legally ruining lives with drug use and then calls ME names.
I hope you’re correct on this. I do NOT want to hand over my grandkids to the sort of evil system we have now. People like dj and no responsibility are really OK with trashing our Constitution, so long as THEIR ends are achieved. But equally, they don’t seem to care whether or not GOD’S ends are served. Because He told us to treat our errant brothers and sisters with LOVING KINDNESS, not with jail cells and disdain. How do you teach someone about God’s wondrous love and plan of salvation when you’re telling them the alternatives you offer are jail or death? God doesn’t work that way; just ask His Son!
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.