Posted on 03/11/2014 4:58:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the first two parts of this series, I explained the comparative dangers and health risks of alcohol and marijuana. To elevate one over the other is like saying a plain doughnut isn't so bad as a glazed one. The point is that neither of the drugs is good for us or our culture.
We examined both of their addictive natures, the withdrawal symptoms and the hazards they create when those using them operate motor vehicles. We then looked at what science has concluded about their effects on our minds, bodies and relationships. (Of course, there are many other arenas that are impacted by alcohol and pot use -- especially if the latter is legalized in even more states -- such as health care and places of employment.)
Despite its risks and dangers, however, many proponents ask regarding marijuana: "But isn't legalizing pot really an issue of freedom and removing government tyranny over our choices?"
First of all, we can play the freedom card on any issue under the sun -- from polygamy to pedophilia and heroin use to smuggling. But some form of societal civility must be enforced, lest the combustible mixture of hedonism and liberty lead to societal mastication.
Second, we must bear the weight of ensuring societal safety and handing down a republic that is preserving its posterity rather than placing more obstacles in its way. The nanny state is one problem, but so is the guise of liberty that is in reality rampant licentiousness.
Thomas Paine once wrote, "The rights of minors are as sacred as the rights of the aged." But he -- like our other Founding Fathers -- believed not in throwing our youth to the wolves and whims of culture but rather in developing young people into well-rounded moral and responsible citizens.
Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who helped to establish five universities and colleges and is known as the "Father of American Medicine," wrote about the importance of not exposing young people to corruption before they can handle it. He noted, "In order to preserve the vigor of the moral faculty, it is of the utmost consequence to keep young people as ignorant as possible of those crimes that are generally thought most disgraceful to human nature."
Of course, developing responsible youths is not about keeping them in a monastic bubble. However, it is about possessing enough parental wisdom to expose them gradually to society's amenities and temptations and give them the tools to overcome and control them. But when a hedonistic culture bent on personal license overexposes adolescents to nearly everything in culture, should we expect them then to bear the baton of discipline and responsibility?
Many know George Washington as the general of the Continental army and the first president of the United States. But few know that at just 14 years of age, Washington wrote out in freehand of his own volition "110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation." At 17, Washington's first official position was as surveyor of Culpeper County, Va.
Washington epitomized responsibility, service and courage his whole life. Some were frightened by signing the Declaration of Independence, but Washington was on the front lines battling for its tenets. He faced his fears and endured grave hardships, repeatedly staring death in the eyes while helping others to do the same.
I think Washington's greatest challenge was when he stepped away from public service and warned America what could happen if future generations drop their guard and discard the pillars of our country's foundation to justify self-indulgence. He was concerned that freedom would be turned into an excuse for licentiousness. With the founders counting on religion in our republic to bridle barbarianism, Washington was profoundly worried that such a great pillar would be discarded and open the floodgates for individual immorality and societal decadence.
So as Washington bid adieu to his presidential office and public service, he extended this challenge to our entire country -- one that echoes even now from his grave at Mount Vernon:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
So what message does legalizing pot send the youth of America? And what are we expecting young people to do with such a universal decree? Do we really think the elimination of our drug laws is the type of constitutional liberty for which our founders purposed and paid the price?
When liberty becomes licentiousness, it's time to reconsider why we're doing what we're doing. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. If that were the case, what other illicit passion would be next in the lineup of legalization?
Maybe it's time we start fighting to show America's kids that life can be good on its own merits without altering reality with any drug. Rather than drive their lusts toward satiation and self-indulgence, maybe it's time we help redirect their passions to understand the power of restraint and discipline. Maybe it's time we raise the bar and expect them to write on their own volition works such as Washington's list of rules.
Though they were wise and great men, I don’t believe our Founders were exactly what we would refer to as ‘saintly’ people in their personal lives. Of course, WHO is?
Which has hurt or killed the least # of people?
1. Romney’s gay marriage imposition against the Mass.
Constitution and his imposition of RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE
or
2. Obama’s fast&Furious, Benghazi MANPAD transfer,
Syrian rebel arming, ....
or
pot?
1. Romney’s gay marriage imposition against the Mass. Constitution and his imposition of RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE
or
2. Obama’s fast&Furious, Benghazi MANPAD transfer, Syrian rebel arming, ....
or
pot?
Yeah, let's go with that as a justification. Yeah, that's the ticket.
So when is ol' Chuck going to propose re-criminalzing alcohol? Because we are way past that point with the boozers.
I couldn’t get past the donuts ... sorry.
Let me add, ‘Hmmmm, Donuts’.
Legalization of marijuana is no different from any other issue. The original intent of the founders was that issues such as these were to be dealt with by the states, not the federal government. Colorado and Washington have now legalized marijuana. It should not be within the purview of the Federal government to do anything whatsoever about this. What is the point of the tenth amendment otherwise? Other states may or may not follow suit, depending on the outcome in Colorado and Washington. That’s how it is supposed to work.
Do we believe in following the Constitution or do we only believe in doing so when by so doing we get the outcome we desire? Let’s not be hypocritical. There is no authority in the Constitution that permits the Federal government to prohibit the use of marijuana, heroin, alcohol, or any other drug. There should not be a war on drugs, at least on the Federal level.
By Chuck Norris
03/01/2010
-snip-
Particularly apropos here is the feds’ health-care violation of the 10th Amendment, which is part of our Bill of Rights and was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Of course, the feds’ rebuttal to anything that constitutionally prohibits their agenda is: “That doesn’t apply here.” They are not alone. Many today say that the 10th Amendment is irrelevant and nothing more than an implied suggestion or general rule of practice.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/126506/
__________________________________________________________________
This FR thread should be retitled 'Chuck Norris vs the 10th Amendment'
So ... what's the difference between:
a) blaming a gun for a shooting and justifying gun control on the premise that making outlaws of those who own guns necessarily translates as less crime
b) blaming a substance (alcohol, pot) for a life gone sideways and justifying its prohibition on the premise that making criminals of those who drink alcohol/smoke a weed that literally can grow wild in a vacant lot, necessarily translates as fewer lives gone sideways
Answer: There isn't. The justification for outlawing pot or alcohol is exactly the same as the justification for outlawing guns. Blaming the substance for the results of its abuse, is EXACTLY THE SAME as blaming the gun for the results of its trigger being pulled by a thug.
Alcohol/pot is no more responsible for the screw-ups in the lives of those who abuse it, than guns are responsible for crimes. The church is what protects ANY society from having its youths "thrown to the youths." THE GOVERNMENT OVERSTEPS ITS BOUNDS WHEN IT PRESUMES TO USURP THE CHURCH'S ROLE AS MORAL SHEPHERD.
Chuck Norris IS A STATIST. If I want more government, I'll vote Democrat. Go back to Hollywood, Chuck. Shut up and act.
Amazing, the hypocrisy of so-called "respecters" of freedom.
Make that: The church is what protects any society from having its youths “thrown to the wolves.”
Imho, if we were a vastly moral, responsible, and disciplined society, decriminalizing this poison (when abused, all of this stuff is poison), our drug abuse/crime/death rate would go DOWN, and there would be less government corruption.
5.56mm
“The original intent of the founders was that issues such as these were to be dealt with by the states, “
That concept worked OK until slavery and Jim Crow. Then we swung into Federalism.
Getting high is not a civil right so it probably should go the states UNLESS people start arguing that it should be legal all over because it is legal in some states.
Except the right to bear arms is explicitly declared in the Constitution.
Like most RINO’s, Kaslin, you attempt to defend the
indefensible.
You are wrong, Kaslin,
Statism, ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE, arming al Qaeda,
Imposing “laws” against Constitutions,
Endless state control, Fast&Furious,
and the Benghazi Atrocity are EVIL,
and not “blah, blah, blah....”.
If it wasn't, then you'd believe in gun control on the premise that guns cause crime?
Alcohol vs. Marijuana (Part 1)
Alcohol, Marijuana and the Youth of America (Part 2)
Besides he did have a column in Townhall.com about it with the same title.
Obama vs. the 10th AmendmentChuck Norris | Mar 02, 2010
I suggest you stay of the weed
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.