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

Skip to comments.

Pope's View on Legalizing Drugs: Just Say No (Francis Condemns Legalization)
AP/ABC ^ | Jun 20, 2014 | NICOLE WINFIELD

Posted on 06/20/2014 9:08:47 AM PDT by xzins

Pope Francis condemned the legalization of recreational drugs as a flawed and failed experiment as he lent his voice Friday to a debate that is raging from the United States to Uruguay.

Francis told delegates attending a Rome drug enforcement conference that even limited steps to legalize recreational drugs "are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects."

Likewise, Francis said, providing addicts with drugs offered only "a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon."

"Let me state this in the clearest terms possible," he said. "The problem of drug use is not solved with drugs!"

Francis has described drug addiction as evil and met addicts on several occasions. When he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, he devoted much of his pastoral care to addicts.

To reject illegal drugs, he said, "one has to say 'yes' to life, 'yes' to love, 'yes' to others, 'yes' to education, 'yes' to greater job opportunities.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: drugs; francis; pope; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-242 next last
Let's legalize alcohol for the young before we condemn this moral stand by Francis.
1 posted on 06/20/2014 9:08:47 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Let’s legalize alcohol for the young before we condemn this moral stand by Francis.


2 posted on 06/20/2014 9:09:06 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The Roman Catholic segment of the church has long known a close association with the state, and does not always have a good sense of where the sacred church ends and secular Caesar begins.

In the short term, attempting to ban easily-abused items could look helpful. In the long term, even the bible identifies this as a fool’s errand.

As with many other things Francis has said, I do not at all doubt the well intention. I do sometimes doubt their alignment with gospel.


3 posted on 06/20/2014 9:19:57 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Legalized drugs WILL get in the hands of children/teens in far greater quantities


4 posted on 06/20/2014 9:21:27 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins

When states raised the drinking age, they raised it from the age of a college freshman (18) to that of a college senior (21). Although lawsuits have finally caught up to colleges and fraternities, it was amazing how, for about 20 years, fraternities were de-facto exempted from the drinking age. Every single public wall in the entire state university I went to was covered, floor-to-ceiling, with bulletins from fraternities offering beer.

The drinking age was not raised. Rather, what happened was that fraternities and sororities were given the exclusive license to provide alcohol to college-aged students. But in order to secure the alcohol, the “customers” had to allow themselves to be subjected to homosexual and promiscuous heterosexual degradation.

Why?


5 posted on 06/20/2014 9:23:02 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

“The Roman Catholic segment of the church has long known a close association with the state, and does not always have a good sense of where the sacred church ends and secular Caesar begins.”

What does that comment have to do with the topic?


6 posted on 06/20/2014 9:23:20 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Why didn’t they do so (”it’s for the CHILLUN”) in revolutionary times? Not a lot of talk about child drunkenness, even.

We’ve substituted crutches for fear of the Lord. And it is sad to see a church luminary do that. Jesus challenged the attitude of the paralytic: “Do you want to get well?”


7 posted on 06/20/2014 9:24:35 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Quite a lot... he does not understand biblical boundaries.


8 posted on 06/20/2014 9:25:00 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Everybody's got a story, or stories, I suppose. I personally saw at an early age (in 1969-70) that frequent marijuana use makes people give up the struggle to achieve adult maturity: they drop out and become vague in the head and no longer give a damn.

That's what I saw.

I would want to prevent it by the Good Book or by the law book or whatever way I could. Illegalizing it didn't seem to stop it, but legalizing it sure ain't gonna help.

9 posted on 06/20/2014 9:27:43 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

“Quite a lot... he does not understand biblical boundaries.”

Such as?


10 posted on 06/20/2014 9:29:02 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Church and society can battle drugs without the help of government.

There was once a societal taboo about drugs and that did more than the law at keeping them at bay. It will return once government gets out of the business.

Furthermore, the solution for folks that do drugs is successful rehab, not prison.

The best reason to avoid drugs is that they are deadly...not that they are illegal.

11 posted on 06/20/2014 9:29:14 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (Obama: Race is his cover...jihad is his game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

To open the door and say nothing else amounts to a nod, wink. That is granted. And it’s what Colorado, California, etc. are beginning to do.

But to reveal God to the people and say okay, we aren’t going to give you any more expensive, leaky band-aids for your folly, you now have a Doctor who will give you total healing... that’s QUITE a different story.

God’s alive. We need churches that will act that way.


12 posted on 06/20/2014 9:30:18 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Quite a lot, if you would research. Rome was handed to the early church on a silver platter. It ought to have refused out of humility.


13 posted on 06/20/2014 9:31:32 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Our technology is so amazing that production and distribution can make this easily at arm’s reach. That is different than most of recorded history. Our technology is so amazing that NEW compounds have been made/created that when used will totally debilitate a person.

Even those who seek legalization should be forced morally to support CONTROLLED ACCESS and not open access.


14 posted on 06/20/2014 9:31:34 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Illegalizing it didn't seem to stop it, but legalizing it sure ain't gonna help.

The solution to substance abuse does not lie with the government; what the government can do is end the ban that (as you noted) doesn't achieve its putative objective - but does enrich criminals.

15 posted on 06/20/2014 9:31:40 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

There was a greater sense of honor — which in turn came from a greater sense of honoring the good Lord. Not the bad lords.


16 posted on 06/20/2014 9:32:53 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

see #14


17 posted on 06/20/2014 9:34:26 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I’ve long wanted to see a middle ground where doctors would be charged with the responsibility to choose what medications are appropriate for people, so long as it is not blatantly intended for harm. That would go for things not blessed by the FDA, as well as medicinal uses of things that are street drugs.

But this is details. What is needed in general is a gospel enlightenment.


18 posted on 06/20/2014 9:35:33 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Our technology is so amazing that production and distribution can make this easily at arm’s reach. That is different than most of recorded history.

Not so much for marijuana - plants grow more or less as they have always grown.

Our technology is so amazing that NEW compounds have been made/created that when used will totally debilitate a person.

And the motivation to make and use these new compounds was provided largely by the ban on older substances.

Even those who seek legalization should be forced morally to support CONTROLLED ACCESS and not open access.

That's what I support, for alcohol and other drugs.

19 posted on 06/20/2014 9:35:52 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Here in Washington State where a few recreational pot stores will open next month, it appears that state-taxed sales will be priced much higher than street drug sales. I think chronic users will stick with their illicit sources and be entirely unaffected by the new law. Sales and possession to/by youth, growing, public smoking/vaping and possession of more than one ounce of dried product per living unit are still illegal.


20 posted on 06/20/2014 9:37:48 AM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I don’t think any true Christian would argue with the need for the Good News to reach people everywhere.

Francis, though, is addressing a particular social problem — drug abuse, addiction.

I, too, think that criminalization hasn’t worked. I saw a piece on the news in the last 24 hours about a kid who had some pot and some pot brownies, and he’s up for life imprisonment...no violence, no drug running, no cartels.

The middle ground is controlled access....things like heroin and crack only through a prescription. Things like pot, only from a state liquor store with all the same restrictions that we have on alcohol, age of purchase, dui penalties, etc.


21 posted on 06/20/2014 9:40:23 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I agree.

We are entering an incredibly dangerous period.

And drugs aren't the only problem. The interaction of technology and pornography is another area where addiction will be out of control.

22 posted on 06/20/2014 9:40:29 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (Obama: Race is his cover...jihad is his game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
Not so much for marijuana

Application of scientific agriculture has greatly increased the potency of marijuana. And we've not talked yet about genetic modification. So the science in the field and in the lab has produced some terrible new choices.

Controlled access is the best answer out there at the moment, imo.

23 posted on 06/20/2014 9:44:55 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: steve86
Here in Washington State where a few recreational pot stores will open next month, it appears that state-taxed sales will be priced much higher than street drug sales.

Some say that, some say otherwise:

'As Washington's so-called "pot czar," UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman has furnished the state’s Liquor Control Board with policy recommendations. [...] Many people in Washington have worried it will be too high, making it uncompetitive with black market pot. [...] Kleiman guessed that once the market stabilizes, producing a gram of marijuana could cost as little as 50 cents. Even adding taxes and profits margins could price it well below what illegal pot costs.' - http://www.kplu.org/post/washingtons-pot-czar-says-legal-marijuana-could-be-too-cheap

24 posted on 06/20/2014 9:49:31 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Application of scientific agriculture has greatly increased the potency of marijuana. And we've not talked yet about genetic modification. So the science in the field and in the lab has produced some terrible new choices.

Potency has gone up - though not by the 30-fold that was tossed around by the feds a few years back. And there's nothing wrong with that so long as it's labeled ... greater potency means less smoke for the same high, so it's less unhealthy.

Controlled access is the best answer out there at the moment, imo.

Agreed: treat it like liquor.

25 posted on 06/20/2014 9:53:05 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Let's legalize alcohol for the young before we condemn this moral stand by Francis.

One thing that I doubt Pope Francis [and, sadly, a lot of 'conservatives'] understands about the US is that legalization is a technical non-issue precisely because the federal government has no legitimate authority to illegalize drugs in the first place.

Consider Precedence:
In order to prohibit alcohol, the constitution had to be amended; no such amendment exists WRT drugs.

Consider the framework whereby the War on Drugs is justified by the USSC:
● The foundational portion is Wickard v. Filburn, wherein the USSC declared that Congress has the power to regulate intrastate commerce via the interstate commerce clause under the laughable justification that local [non-]commerce has some impact on interstate commerce and therefore can be thusly regulated. — incidentally, this is foundational for ObamaCare.
● The ideas above were further expanded in Gonzales v. Raich to cover some item which has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market (see dissent), which makes the federal government one which is unrestricted and unbound by any enumeration of powers.

In fact, there is a line of reasoning which shows the War on Drugs is definitionally, by the Constitution, Treason — the enforcement of the WOD is the waging of war or the assertion of will upon a conquered state.

26 posted on 06/20/2014 9:53:28 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

It will start high and stay high. Supply and distribution will be extremely constrained and will stay that way. Growers can’t even get agricultural water.


27 posted on 06/20/2014 9:54:56 AM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Honest question --- no, really --- would this apply to banning sexual intercourse with an under-age partner? Could we say "It's against our moral code, but don't drag Caesar and 'law' into it: everybody should be free to follow their conscience"?

Kids are everywhere, and they're such easily-abused items. Or--- did I say "abused"? Perp could argue it was user-friendly.

28 posted on 06/20/2014 10:01:19 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("There's no point winning an Oxford debate if the other side wins everything else." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Our technology is so amazing that production and distribution can make this easily at arm’s reach. That is different than most of recorded history. Our technology is so amazing that NEW compounds have been made/created that when used will totally debilitate a person.

Even those who seek legalization should be forced morally to support CONTROLLED ACCESS and not open access.

I'm very uncomfortable with that line of reasoning: it could be exactly applied to firearms — after all, we now have firearms that are superior in accuracy, ease-of-use, portability and (with modern manufacturing, soon to be enhanced/replaced via 3-D printing) availability.

I cannot condone CONTROLLED ACCESS of firearms precisely because those controlling the access will not allow them to be used when/if they should be used against that controlling authority; moreover, to endorse controlled access WRT drugs is to endorse the eradication of free-will and impose infantalization upon society.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
— C. S. Lewis

29 posted on 06/20/2014 10:02:49 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I've got to agree with you about your essential point: if people don't have any sense of the priceless and immortal dignity of their own soul, the moral imperative not to wreck their own God-given design, and the need for a soul-healing Physician, then there's no way "law" can stop dope or many things that are much worse.

I do wonder whether removing the (admittedly imperfect) power of government suppression, though, won't lead to a general insouciance about drugs. It can't be bad, it's legal. It's not only legal, it's government-sponsored. Law teaches: and this is what law will teach.

Legalizing the act of anal intercourse now means it has to be taught to middle-schoolers as part of sex-ed. Yes, there were always people who sought gratification from anal penetration. The law against it could in fact rarely or practically-never be enforced. But now it's "normalized" and therefore part of the way we raise our young.* I can't think that's better.


*

(NOT MY YOUNG!!)

30 posted on 06/20/2014 10:17:57 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("There's no point winning an Oxford debate if the other side wins everything else." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The 2nd amendment is about firearms and not about drugs. “The right to keep and bear drugs” is not in the Constitution.

Therefore, like many things it is controllable. Driving is controlled via licenses. FISHING is controlled via licensing.

Alcohol is controlled by ID checks and by greater potency alcohol being sold in state stores (at least in Ohio).

In my opinion, some things should be by prescription BUT available. Others should be in state stores. There should be DUI laws. There is no such thing as access that makes it ok to harm someone else, either through intoxicated acts or thoughtlessness.


31 posted on 06/20/2014 10:18:34 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: steve86
It will start high and stay high. Supply and distribution will be extremely constrained and will stay that way.

Time will tell. I don't doubt that the state of Washington is capable of screwing up legalization. Colorado seems to have done it reasonably well.

32 posted on 06/20/2014 10:24:46 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Honest question --- no, really --- would this apply to banning sexual intercourse with an under-age partner? Could we say "It's against our moral code, but don't drag Caesar and 'law' into it: everybody should be free to follow their conscience"?

Government does a fair job of dealing with real crimes that have actual victims: almost two-thirds of murders get solved. It does a much poorer job with self-harming vices; the proportion of drug transactions that are even detected (by anyone other than the buyer and seller) is assuredly vastly lower than two-thirds.

Sex with a minor is a crime with a victim.

33 posted on 06/20/2014 10:31:29 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
"Rome was handed to the early church on a silver platter. It ought to have refused out of humility."

I tend to agree with you. When Christianity became the state religion, Christian people would pretend adherence in order to be thought better of by the Emperor. That just about always ends up corrupting people's intentions.

However, that sentence would be clarified a bit if it were noted that the church reformers (I am not talking about the Reformation, I am talking about e.g. the Hildebrandian/Gregorian, Cistercian reforms --- the many reforms before the 16th century )--- almost always had as their object, the reform of the clergy and freeing of the Church from the corruption of benefices and the control of princes.

The control of the State came back with a vengeance in the 16th century Wars of Religion, when the universal church was vivisected along national lines, became precisely identified with nationalism (Church of England, Church of Scotland, Church of Sweden, Church of a dozen German landgraves and princes.)

34 posted on 06/20/2014 10:31:42 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("There's no point winning an Oxford debate if the other side wins everything else." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
The pedo organizations don't say so. They say it's love, sex-positive, practically therapeutic, and with consent.

They're already working on the APA with those suppositions.

I of course say that's crap: a child can't give consent. They respond: the English common law traditionally set the age of consent within the range of 10 to 12, as it was in the United States until the 1880's. (In Delaware it was 7 as late as 1895).

35 posted on 06/20/2014 10:40:31 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("There's no point winning an Oxford debate if the other side wins everything else." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xzins
“Legalized drugs WILL get in the hands of children/teens in far greater quantities”

Have you talked to teens recently? They can already get any popular drug they wish. Usually right inside school.

And so can adults. If you go to any popular night spot and dress right, dealers will give you their business cards and you can get any drug you like delivered faster than a pizza. They obviously have local cops in their pocket.

The drug war is pointless except for the vast transfer of wealth to criminals, bought politicians and corrupt cops. Drugs are far easier to smuggle and hundreds of times more profitable than liquor during the bootlegger era so you will never put a dent in the industry. Even in places where the death penalty is handed down, people still risk their lives to get rich and drugs are available.

I've never met a single person in my life who stayed away from drugs because they are illegal. They stay away because they don't enjoy them or know the consequences of using. All we can do is educate people on the consequences in a real world, educated manner. Something the stupid “anti-drug” campaigns always failed to do. It's almost as if they wanted people to laugh at them and use more drugs...

36 posted on 06/20/2014 11:06:03 AM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: varyouga
"I've never met a single person in my life who stayed away from drugs because they are illegal."
" If you go to any popular night spot and dress right, dealers will give you their business cards and you can get any drug you like delivered faster than a pizza."

I have sure known plenty of people who avoid or stopped using drugs, or associating with drug users, because of the laws.

That second remark is interesting, people can spot you as a drug user yet I don't get pushers giving me their business cards, your entire post sounds like the media figure who didn't believe that Nixon had been reelected in one of the biggest landslides in history, because she personally didn't know anyone who voted for him.

37 posted on 06/20/2014 11:19:19 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: varyouga

I disagree. Strong liquor isn’t in the hands of kids very easily because it is controlled....not illegal.

If you make everything a candy store and open it to everyone, then kids are more likely to enter the candy store.

Beyond that, it’s a moral issue. We do NOT allow our kids to be intoxicated. That’s not what childhood should be about.


38 posted on 06/20/2014 11:40:40 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: xzins

>> We do NOT allow our kids to be intoxicated. That’s not what childhood should be about.

bttt!


39 posted on 06/20/2014 11:46:06 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
“I have sure known plenty of people who avoid or stopped using drugs, or associating with drug users, because of the laws.”

You probably mean that 1% of drug users who got caught and ended up getting randomly tested by the government while on probation. That's not a solution and otherwise nobody cares about the laws. Your chance of being caught is so astronomically low that no users take it into account.

“That second remark is interesting, people can spot you as a drug user yet I don't get pushers giving me their business cards”

It has nothing to do with outwardly displaying you are a user. If you dress wealthy and drive a flashy car to a hot night club, they will try to get friendly with you and give you a card. Most wealthy people who go to these clubs use drugs at least occasionally. These are the dealers for A-listers and celebrities.

40 posted on 06/20/2014 11:59:15 AM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: varyouga

Don’t tell me what I mean, especially something as goofy as what you speculated.

I have sure known plenty of people who avoid or stopped using drugs, or associating with drug users, because of the laws.

Your second remark is just too silly, I don’t think you can see life outside of being an actual user.

What kind of person lives in such a fog that he thinks that normal people don’t care about being busted for drugs and discovered to be drug users, and that normal people are being given business cards by drug pushers.


41 posted on 06/20/2014 12:19:30 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“I disagree. Strong liquor isn’t in the hands of kids very easily because it is controlled....not illegal.”

Yes, control instead of outlawing is better on all fronts. An open, legal, low-tax market for adults takes away the insane profits from criminals (like the bootleggers) and takes them out of the business.

It also makes it pointless for a legitimate business to risk future profits by selling to kids. Drug dealers in an illegal market don’t care who their customers are and will sell to anyone.

“If you make everything a candy store and open it to everyone, then kids are more likely to enter the candy store. Beyond that, it’s a moral issue. We do NOT allow our kids to be intoxicated. That’s not what childhood should be about.”

Kids are even more likely to want something they can’t have and will pay someone of age to get it for them. Humans seem to be genetically wired to go against their elders’ wishes at a young age and try things out on their own. Make a button that says “don’t press” and 90% of people will. The “forbidden fruit” phenomenon is very real.

We need to do a better job instilling morality and knowledge in kids. However, laws do NOTHING in these cases besides making government and criminals richer. A real-world relate-able drug education program would cut drug abuse in half but I don’t think the powers that be truly want that...


42 posted on 06/20/2014 12:22:44 PM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I have sure known plenty of people who avoid or stopped using drugs, or associating with drug users, because of the laws.

The inherent harms of drugs were a minor or non-consideration? Really?

43 posted on 06/20/2014 12:31:47 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I think you pick up on the spiritual hazards to situations like this one. And that’s probably half the battle of keeping one’s spiritual sanity in a church with a stiff institutional hierarchy. If the high officials of the church would concentrate more on helping their church’s Christians be more Christian, they wouldn’t need to be advising the world on what to do. Their laypeople would be advising the world and making it credible because Christ’s spirit would be rendering the advice through them. I have no doubt Francis means well, but he’s not in a place that most of the world can easily relate to. If Francis advised the lay members of the church how to live the life of Christ, then THEY would in turn show the real stuff to the world.


44 posted on 06/20/2014 12:32:32 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

Many may have simply switched intoxicants.


45 posted on 06/20/2014 12:33:03 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You certainly are being a champ at berating.


46 posted on 06/20/2014 12:35:16 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Do you ever read your own posts, and does this mean you are going to start another series of personal attacks about your personal grudge?

How long will this one last?


47 posted on 06/20/2014 12:37:57 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

I have sure known plenty of people who avoid or stopped using drugs, or associating with drug users, because of the laws.

It isn’t a very complicated sentence to read.


48 posted on 06/20/2014 12:39:41 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
The inherent harms of drugs were a minor or non-consideration? Really?

I have sure known plenty of people who avoid or stopped using drugs, or associating with drug users, because of the laws.

Then I can only say that in my opinion most Americans are not as dullwitted as the people you've known.

49 posted on 06/20/2014 12:41:40 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Ah, he who doles out the personal attacks is so sensitive to getting them huh?


50 posted on 06/20/2014 12:43:20 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-242 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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