Posted on 06/16/2010 9:58:48 AM PDT by logician2u
No, nobody drinks without getting even a little “high”, either.
“Drunk” is a relative word that moves past “a few drinks” and makes it easier to get around the hypocrisy.
You must think that one joint makes a person fall over, as if blowing .15. Is this your “personal experience and observations”, because it’s extremely limited, if so.
That, sir, is a PROVEN fact.
Watch your six.
Neither does just owning drugs... Now *using* them...
But then, using guns can lead to death or serious injury, too.
There’s absolutely NO Constitutional authorization for Congress to tell us what we can and can not put into our bodies.
Vin Suprynowitz points out that, in the 1910s, everyone acknowledged that Congress had no Constitutional power to prohibit the production and sale of alcohol, and that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to allow it.
Yet, in the 1930s, while alcohol Prohibition was being repealed, no Constitutional Issue was perceived when Congress passed the FDA Act, which prohibited the use of drugs without Fedgov permission.
I stopped reading at this point.
I've been an NYC cop for 7 years. John's just lying here. Or he's an idiot. Either way, I won't waste my time with this bunk.
Take that a little further and if the government implanted remote control chips into people’s brains, then no one would hurt anyone.
Think of all the children that could be saved from pedophiles, all the drunk driving accidents avoided, all the murders stopped.
Just sign over your free will and let the government control your private life.
And is it just the severity of the different drug molecules, or also a matter of the amount of drug molecules?
For example, a small enough dose of PCP would cause no euphoria or hallucination effect at all.
Yes, it's unpleasant to think of Americans dying like a yellow dog alongside the road, but they made choices........
Bingo!
And how?
They want to stay loaded, kick back, collect the welfare (paid for by me and YOU?)
So where do the issue separate?
Wow. You can’t separate government handouts from drug abuse?
Can you really think that the only way to end one is to end the other?
There are plenty of drug users/abusers who aren’t on welfare and plenty of welfare recipients who aren’t on drugs.
So you can’t see doing anything about the problems with the war on drugs until we can get get welfare reform?
Or is it that you can’t advocate welfare reform as long as there are people using drugs?
I’d like to see both reformed but won’t link reform of one to reform of the other.
Your stance is just and excuse to do nothing.
It doesn't really matter what you think. If one chooses to get drunk it isn't any of your business unless the person violates your rights and unless you favor places where drunks congregate, then you shouldn't have any problems at all.
And if you do favor places where drunks congregate I have no sympathy for you.
Then you will have to eventually support legalization. Until legal, all manner of evisceration of constitutional rights will continue to occur in the name of the "War."
And before you go off on some personal attack tangent, I'm law enforcement and don't do drugs....
“I never accused or implied Jesus was getting drunk. “
I appreciate that, I was trying to point out the Jesus would never try to get anyone else drunk, either. Since drunkenness is a sin.
“
Take that a little further and if the government implanted remote control chips into people’s brains, then no one would hurt anyone.
Think of all the children that could be saved from pedophiles, all the drunk driving accidents avoided, all the murders stopped.
Just sign over your free will and let the government control your private life.”
In this corner, we have the totalitarian state you describe above.
In this corner, we have the anarchy equals freedom crowd, where anyone can do anything up to and until it violates another person’s physical space. Forgetting the the vulnerable can’t really even make that known, and that the less vulnerable are still severely violated, often to death, before “justice” is meted out.
And here in the middle, we have reasonable restraints on demonstrably anti-social behavior with plenty of personal freedom still intact. That’s where I am.
“
No, nobody drinks without getting even a little “high”, either.
“Drunk” is a relative word that moves past “a few drinks” and makes it easier to get around the hypocrisy.”
I disagree with that, obviously. I know it is possible to have a drink or two or sometimes three without getting impaired. And that is what most people usually drink over a decently long period of time.
If people just took one toke or two, from low THC stuff, I might concede your point. But NO ONE takes just one toke or two, and it’s usually very high THC stuff, as you know.
“Drunk” and “high” are relative words, and I understand that. Society comes up with certain thresholds, after seeing certain results, over time. Just like “mature” or “adult” is relative - we settled on 18, pretty much, even though there is an over/under.
If we can’t make thresholds we can’t make laws of any kind.
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.