Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

End of the culture wars
NY Post ^ | June 27, 2010 | Kyle Smith

Posted on 06/27/2010 3:20:05 AM PDT by Scanian

You know something is changing in American mores when the supposed leader of the culture wars from the right, Sarah Palin, declares that smoking pot is “a minimal problem” and that “if somebody’s gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in.”

Like many other pointless wars, the culture conflict has mainly resulted in exhaustion. Now the troops are laying down their arms and going home.

More and more Americans, particularly in the youngest generation of adults, are shrugging at drug use, gay relationships, pre-marital cohabitation, single motherhood, interracial marriage (which is now all but universally accepted) and gun ownership. More and more people aren’t bothering to lug their church to the voting booth.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: christianright; culturalconservatism; libertarianism; marijuana; morality; palin; youngrepublicans

1 posted on 06/27/2010 3:20:12 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Nonsense.

Next...


2 posted on 06/27/2010 3:25:16 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

What the heck is immoral about interracial marriage and gun ownership???


3 posted on 06/27/2010 3:29:14 AM PDT by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

This article implies at the end that the Republican Party has been using social issues as a way to give themselves cover while they vote for socialism in lock-step with the democrats.

If this is true, and that now Republicans are forced to become more fiscally conservative, then the overall change is a plus. And I say that as an old-fashioned social conservative, but one who is scared to death of the rise of socialism in America.


4 posted on 06/27/2010 3:31:54 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Some time ago I published the following reply which was, of course, directed toward a different article and therefore toward a different author but it nevertheless treats of some of the issues raised by the author of the subject article today:

The author is right in the sense that gay intensity is destined to defeat diffuse resistance by the majority of Americans. But the author fails to tell us why there is a lack of intensity of resistance. He failed to tell us that for a likely for the same reason that he fails to connect gay marriage as an agent of damage to conventional marriage. The chain of causation is simply too attenuated.

By way of personal clarification, I have long been posting on these threads That the Frankfurt School has undertaken deliberately to undermine the institution which save a society from communism and primary among those institutions is the institution of marriage and the family. There is no question in my mind whatsoever that the left would like to abolish marriage, deconstruct the family, especially the role of the father as head of the household. But that does not tell me what the causal connection between homosexual marriage is and the destruction of conventional marriage. So long as this connection is murky, resistance to gay marriage will be increasingly diffuse.

Add to that the fact that many conservatives are quite willing to extend many of the benefits of marriage to gays indirectly by the option of exercising a partnership contract, and the damage to conventional marriage becomes even more attenuated.

There is a libertarian wing of the conservative movement which is very reluctant to impinge on personal liberty as an accommodation to the religious views of others. Libertarians get very antsy when social conservatives seek to use the law to impose their religious tenets on the private conduct of others. When that private conduct does not harm some innocent party, many conservatives such as myself are inclined to side with the Libertarians.

Some decades ago it was against the law in Connecticut to use contraceptives. In my view, this was a perfectly constitutional exercise of power by the state but an equally stupid exercise of power by the state. Eventually this intrusion on the rights of adults engaging in consensual private activity began to gnaw on the conscience of society. The Supreme Court disagreed with my view of the constitutionality of the law in Griswold versus Connecticut. I think the Supreme Court was wrong just as I think the state of Connecticut in enacting the law was wrong. Subsequently, the rationale of Griswold was employed to justify the ruling of Roe versus Wade. In the Roe case we have real victims, in fact, we have about 40 to 50 million dead babies. It is hard to think of how victims could be more real than that.

Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual activity between consenting adults conducted in private may not be criminalized by the state. Shades of Griswold versus Connecticut. Here again, I don't see any causal connection between two consenting adults sodomites buggering each other in private, and harm to me or mine. Yet, I would uphold the constitutional power of the state to regulate the conduct although I do see a great deal of potential harm in an intrusive government.

I would welcome responses that deal with the issue of public harm caused by gay marriage with a careful exegesis of the architecture of the causation.


5 posted on 06/27/2010 3:38:04 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Moreover, when we’ve heard the last Southern pol protest that God didn’t launch humanity with Adam & Steve (no, but if he had, the decor in the Garden of Eden would have been amazing), Republicans won’t be able to hide from their economic positions.

Hide? The whole TEA Party movement isn't about drugs or same sex marriage, it's all about economic positions, as in curtailing government and not spending ourselves into oblivion. It's the left that has to manufacture phony crises, push bills through without reading them, and use the courts to overturn the will of the voters.

6 posted on 06/27/2010 3:38:04 AM PDT by Hugin (Remember the first rule of gunfighting...have a gun..-- Col. Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline

I see little nonsense in this article. He seems to guage the changes in our society fairly accurately. The young are increasingly libertarian in their outlook with significant cohorts who are, either leftist or socially conservative at he edges. It’s the middle that decides elections and that seems to be more and more “live-and-let-live” libertarian.


7 posted on 06/27/2010 3:50:06 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

I find it to be total nonsense. Some kid quoting dubious “polls” to support his contention that social conservatism is dead.


8 posted on 06/27/2010 3:51:57 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline

No one said it was dead; did you read it? It likely is wanning though. There can be little doubt that younger people, you know,the ones that will be here when you and I are gone, are more accepting of the kind of social change that was radical in 1970. They also recognize that socialism doesn’t work. I wouldn’t call this story great scholarship but I think calling it “nonsense” is putting one’s head in the sand.


9 posted on 06/27/2010 4:02:31 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Yes, I read it....and yes, I’m perfectly capable of comprehending the writer’s “thesis”, thank you very much. Anything else?


10 posted on 06/27/2010 4:08:16 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Fortunately, we are still able to vote according to our commonsense ability to foresee the unprovable results of our legislation and presidential choices. SCOTUS is not given this prerogative and so will always be battering down the walls of morality, as social results are not provable.

Griswold is seen by many as a cynical, premeditated attack on the unborn. Start with contraception for married people and proceed penumbra by penumbra to the slaughter of human beings.

Tell me I’m wrong about SCOTUS. I know there are precedents for ruling according to tradition and the interest of the state. Yet these principles are vague and legalistic and therefore don’t stand up to the itching ears of the uninformed and licentious—a winning combination that will cause us to lose as a culture.


11 posted on 06/27/2010 4:28:28 AM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
More and more Americans, particularly in the youngest generation of adults, are shrugging at drug use, gay relationships, pre-marital cohabitation, single motherhood, interracial marriage (which is now all but universally accepted) and gun ownership. More and more people aren’t bothering to lug their church to the voting booth.

Well it's no surprise that any of these issues are viewed as acceptable (except the gun ownership). The present generation is bombarded with teaching, images and words that tell them all of the above are normal healthy life choices. In fact the same images, words and teaching tell them to be socially conservation is the same as being intolerant.

There's no war anymore, maybe a brief scuffle breaks out once in a while. With the social conservative winding up with a bloodied nose after being called an intolerant ignorant bully.

12 posted on 06/27/2010 4:39:01 AM PDT by Fzob (In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Funny how they left abortion off that list.

And who exactly is defending single motherhood as a desirable choice to be encouraged?

And why isn't Obama supporting gay marriage?

The idea that laws don't make for morality is one thing. The idea that the old morality isn't right is another.

It is nice, though, to see the NY Times come out against gun control.

13 posted on 06/27/2010 4:46:17 AM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Funny how they left abortion off that list.

And who exactly is defending single motherhood as a desirable choice to be encouraged?

And why isn't Obama supporting gay marriage?

The idea that laws don't make for morality is one thing. The idea that the old morality isn't right is another.

It is nice, though, to see the NY Times come out against gun control.

14 posted on 06/27/2010 4:46:27 AM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OHelix
About 50 years ago a lot of people in this country thought interracial marriage was immoral and there were even laws passed against it --almost all by Democrats, btw

Up until, well, now, I guess, the NY Times and it's readers have held gun ownership to be immoral.

15 posted on 06/27/2010 4:49:01 AM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OHelix; Scanian
Ouch. This article is from the Post & not the Times
16 posted on 06/27/2010 4:52:10 AM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
...”I see little nonsense in this article. He seems to guage the changes in our society fairly accurately. The young are increasingly libertarian in their outlook with significant cohorts who are, either leftist or socially conservative at he edges. It’s the middle that decides elections and that seems to be more and more “live-and-let-live” libertarian”...

It is a hopelessness..The late Dr. Francis Shaeffer, in Vol. 1 of his Christian View of Philosophy and Culture, states on p. 321..”Weep for our generation! Man, made in the image of God and intended to be in vertical communication with the One who is there and who is not silent, and meant to have communication with his own kind, because of his proud rationalism, making himself autonomous, has come to this place. I would end this chapter with a quotation from “Satyricon” by Fellini. Toward the end of the film a man looks down at his friend who is dying a ridiculous death, an absolutely absurd death. With all his hopes, he has come to a completely absurd end. Modern man, made in the image of God and meant to be in communication with God and then with his kind, has come to this place of horrible silence. In the film Fellini has the voice say, ‘Oh, God, how far he lies from his destination now.’ There was never a truer word!”

17 posted on 06/27/2010 4:58:37 AM PDT by jazzlite (esat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

In my neck of the woods, one is and one isn’t.


18 posted on 06/27/2010 5:19:58 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Once I determined that legislating morality is a losing endeavor, I hooked my wagon to libertarianism.

Immorality is best fought by churches and individuals and the powers of persuasion and prayer. Government is a very poor vehicle for promoting decency and reformation as the Chicago slimeballs who are attempting to rule over us prove every day.


19 posted on 06/27/2010 5:24:11 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

I, for one, intensely dislike the idea of linking the tea party movement with Republicanism.


20 posted on 06/27/2010 5:27:59 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Why does the government have any involvement with marriage whatsoever? This is in the purview of the Lord.

Our government was designed to function with an inherently moral people not to provide morality. The idea of government bringing morality to a people is anathema to logical thought - you may as well ask Satan do do it.

21 posted on 06/27/2010 5:32:43 AM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (Fear God and Government - especially when one tries to become the other!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

He mentions Roe but his statistics regarding public support of it are rather questionable.


22 posted on 06/27/2010 5:46:31 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

At one time in the not so distant past in the United States one could go down to the local drug store and by cocaine. Think Coca-cola. The current drug laws are all recent. The US operated for about 150 years with no problems with the drug laws. Think about it.


23 posted on 06/27/2010 5:58:19 AM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (Trust but verify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

mark


24 posted on 06/27/2010 6:07:48 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Palin/Hunter 2012 -- Bolton their Secretary of State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

The author doesn’t seem to grasp the simple fact that pot smoking in private is very different, in a moral sense, from gay marriage and abortion.

Sure, there’s been an erosion of moral values in our society, as a result of the calculated plan by the America-hating cultural marxists of the Frankfurt School and the effects of television. But I’m of the opinion that this erosion is actively supported only on the left. The cultural divide remains.

To believe that views on issues like gun control and interracial marriage are related to the same moral principles as those regarding gay marriage and abortion is sort of dumb.

And to turn a comment by Sarah Palin about pot into the “end of the cultural wars” is just another example of a liberal misunderstanding reality.

Whether or not gay marriage is widely supported doesn’t depend on which political group people have decided to join, or which party they think should oppose it. Or even whether morality can be legislated. The reality of the cultural wars is found in the heart of the individual.

Common sense tells us pot smoking and abortion are not the same thing.


25 posted on 06/27/2010 6:21:30 AM PDT by reasonisfaith ("Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
I think the problem with the Supreme Court goes back farther than Griswold vs. Connecticut, I think it goes back to the Garden of Eden. The biblical allegory tells us that man is perpetually in rebellion against God because he would be God. That is the sum and substance of the first and second Commandments and the essence of the Christian message which provides a prescription for that condition. Because one wears black robes and sits on the Supreme Court does not exempt one from this universal and immutable law.

Professionals and practitioners of the legal arts are members of a guild who have fashioned their own vocabulary and adopted their own folkways. They have even adopted their own eschatology. And the more they can obscure their doings the more they get to play God.

This is the battle the originalists are waging against the God players on the court. Scalia says there is a higher authority, a higher secular authority, which is the United States Constitution. His adversaries on the court, the God players, regard the Constitution as an impediment, an obstacle, to their ability to do good. So, Laws in Connecticut against contraception are absurd and it is an intolerable remnant of the dark age to criminally prosecute anyone for practicing safe sex. When the urge to do good becomes strong enough, they cast about for competing authority to justify their predelictions. Today there are flirting with international law. Yesterday they examined penumbras. But every day they are intellectually dishonest because they are working backwards from their own prejudice.

Like any Pharisee, a Supreme Court justice is wonderfully skilled at masking what he does. He resorts to all of the mind games conveniently provided to him by The Frankfurt School which in effect writes political correctness into the Constitution as a new and super amendment. Not the least of these tools available to a God playing jurist is resort to stare decisis which, after 200 years with accretion after accretion and subtle amendment after subtle amendment, distorts the document 180° away from its original intent, as you suggested. Properly used, stare decisis is a legitimate tool to seek out and preserve the purpose of the Constitution. But when it is perverted to justify the opposite, it becomes an effective weapon in the hands of a God player like Justice Ginsburg.

I see Supreme Court Justices who impose statism on us to be only less plain spoken exemplars of the same art practiced against us by leftist politicians.


26 posted on 06/27/2010 6:31:59 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

They can have my culture when they take it from my cold, dead hands...


27 posted on 06/27/2010 6:37:18 AM PDT by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
"To believe that views on issues like gun control and interracial marriage are related to the same moral principles as those regarding gay marriage and abortion is sort of dumb."

And of course Abortion and Gun Control are two different things but a tolerance for individual choice, even when it tolerates infanticide, is based upon the live and let live attitude anathema to the Left. If we can educate the young to see that tolerating the intolerable is wrong but tolerating individual choice, even when that choie is destructive to the chooser, is the basis for freedom, we will have recaptured a Madisonian America

28 posted on 06/27/2010 7:07:35 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
End of the culture wars

Uhuh and communism is dead too!

29 posted on 06/27/2010 7:30:10 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Yet I can’t find my way to agree that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional in its inclusion of private businesses. I had a long argument with the libertarian candidate for governor about this, told him it could come under defense of one-eighth of the population. He wasn’t buying it. He saw me as being in that group you describe, wanting to do good and scrounging through the Constituion for backup.


30 posted on 06/27/2010 7:51:47 AM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

***What the heck is immoral about interracial marriage and gun ownership???***

If you were a 1870s-1970s DEMOCRAT,both, by Blacks, were bad!

If you were an 1960s-today’s DEMOCRAT gun ownership by whites is bad, and marriage is good ONLY IF YOU ARE GAY!!


31 posted on 06/27/2010 11:48:21 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Viva los SB 1070)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
A Supreme Court which can read the commerce clause broadly enough to justify the 1964 civil rights act constitutional can read the Constitution narrowly enough to require the return of runaway slaves or to authorize separate but equal facilities for the races.

I believe the country got to the right result with the 1964 civil rights act but by the wrong path. We are now faced with an arrogation of power by the executive which I can only describe as an usurpation. The only thing that stands between the president of the United States and the power by the flick of his pen to stop drilling for oil across the whole continent, is a federal judge. Soon, the president will be able to shut down the whole Internet. He can set Wages for whole swathes of our economy. In instance after instance the Congress of the United States has abdicated its responsibilities to legislate and passed the prerogatives over to the executive under a much expanded rule-making and regulatory power.

Unless we can undo these constitutional distortions at the ballot box, the only institution that stands between us and a growing tyranny is the judicial branch. The judicial branch is not there to do good and it is not there to advance the popular will. It is there to do constitutional justice.

Do we want to be ruled like the European Union by a host of bureaucracies like the Federal Reserve Bank, or the Atomic Energy Commission, and other agencies operating through unelected czars? Once a matter becomes a question of regulation the scope of judicial review is severely circumcised. The bureaucrat is unelected. The czar is unaccountable, except to Obama. Somehow, as a nation we must get these things straight: it is not the business of Congress to legislate whether every pump on every oil rig is safe, that is the job of a regulator and inspector. But it is not within the job description of the executive to declare all drilling in America to be too dangerous to continue, that is a prerogative of the Congress acting with the consent of the Pres. (assuming his veto is not overridden) and subject to being approved as constitutional by a third independent branch. That is the way the system is supposed to work. But we have confused the inspection of rigs and pomps with the regulation across the board of an entire industry. We have abandoned the legislative prerogative to the executive. That very same executive is trying now to stuff the courts.

It has been the pattern of the left seek a more receptive forum to get its way. It tries to move the issue from the local, to the state, to the federal,to the international arena. It tries to move the procedure from voting, to litigating, to treaty making, always seeking a method or a procedure by which it can impose its will. The court should be the guardian of the Constitution and it should be the responsibility of the courts to put the issue in the right forum and keep it there and it should be the responsibility of the court to measure the attempt against the Constitution and not against the new flavor of the week served up by the left to justify its predilections.

We now see with the last two appointments by Obama to the court that he has utterly no regard for these considerations, in fact, he has explicitly stated his view of the Constitution and how it should be twisted to accommodate a redistributionist view of the world. When the Constitution, like American politics, gets mixed up with race the Constitution often goes out the window. This has been true both for and against the plight of the African American for more than two centuries. This one more reason why I quote Nathan Bedford's maxim ad nauseam:

all politics in America is not local but ultimately racial.


32 posted on 06/27/2010 12:13:16 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jazzlite

I know and love that film. You are absolutely right. Thank you.


33 posted on 06/27/2010 12:42:14 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline

Not nonsense at all. It’s dangerous to reflexively dismiss this news. I see it all around me everyday. What is more, I sense it.


34 posted on 06/28/2010 1:43:18 AM PDT by NucSubs ( Cognitive dissonance: Conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between beliefs and actions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

No, it’s nonsense.
Let me know when the Democrats succeed in making “Fisting for Fifth Graders” a normal part of government school curriculums outside of Massachusetts.


35 posted on 06/28/2010 1:47:02 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
It's not nonsense if his measures of opinion square with reality and it sounds to me like they do. I can believe what you want to be true or my own "lying eyes" and ears.

His guage of opinion among the young cohort he references is very much what my experience with people that age seem to feel. You can complain about it but your complaint has little effect on what is real.

36 posted on 06/28/2010 3:13:32 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

There are 3 legs to conservatism: social, economic, defense.

While I think an argument can be made that the Republican Party might have to de-emphasize social conservative issues, that does NOT lead to your conclusion that libertarians provide a sound electoral choice for conservatives.

Many conservatives believe as I do, that the defense leg is the most important of the 3. Libertarians fall way short on defense. Defense of borders, defense of America and defense of our allies. Libertarians (many in a haze of pot smoke) somehow see the world as safe enough, with no need for defense. (Hey, man, who would want to hurt us if we just get in the groove and act peacefully, you know, man, like, wow, give peace a chance.)

Libertarians are dead wrong on defense.


37 posted on 06/28/2010 3:29:08 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Thanks. Interesting answer. Everything you say sounds spot-on. And that is what I felt too about the Civil Rights Act: right result, wrong reason.

It’s nice to see someone knows how to spell “ad nauseam.”


38 posted on 06/28/2010 5:56:32 AM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

I don’t let man decide my moral issues.


39 posted on 06/28/2010 11:11:52 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Communism has arrived in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

PS End of this discussion.


40 posted on 06/28/2010 11:13:05 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Communism has arrived in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

PS End of this discussion.


41 posted on 06/28/2010 11:23:04 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Communism has arrived in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine

All these things were sold in stores. Cocaine, cannabis, heroin.

Then pharmaceutical companies got skilled at making artificial drugs. They realized that they could make a lot more money by creating artificial drugs and then patenting them and selling them than they could by refining natural substances. After that, most of the natural drugs were made illegal. The artificial replacements are available by prescription.


42 posted on 07/11/2010 11:20:47 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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