Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: ServusSpiritusSancti on May 13, 2011, 09:02:05 PM
-
I was wondering what people's thoughts on him were. I know he's a Catholic, but I don't know much about his political views. The main reason I ask is that as of right now I'd be somewhat reluctant to vote for Donald Trump or Ron Paul. Trump I'm on the fence with, and while I like Ron Paul I cannot overlook the fact that he's for giving freedom to gαys and for legalizing weed. So, any thoughts on him? Thanks.
-
He's Catholic (NO, but conservative) and very pro-life. Also very anti-gαy marriage, anti-euthanasia. Solid on all social issues. On other issues he's your standard-fare establishment Republican.
-
Thanks for the info. I'll consider him getting my vote, so far he seems like a good candidate.
-
SS, the former Senator Santorum is from my state, PA. His father and paternal grandparents were Italian immigrants. He is a conservative NO Catholic and their family attends Latin Mass. They have 7 children, 6 which are living. Their youngest daughter has Trisomy 18. Their youngest son was diagnosed in utero with severe health disorders and was born prematurely. He died shortly after birth. He was baptized Gabriel and they brought him home for the children to say hello to their brother before they buried him. Karen Santorum wrote a book about their experience.
As far as policies go, Rick Santorum takes a loud voice on social issues. He is about your average Republican politician I suspect. It's hard to trust these guys because, regardless of the letter after their name, they are often out for their own political gains.
Locally, there was some stink about the children's education a few years ago. PA has what is called a state funded "cyber" school. This is a home school program chartered out through the public school system. IOW, it is public school at home. Many families choose this option because it is free, classes are on-line with a teacher web cast, and yet they are at home with the parents. This is the option that the Santorum family has always used but when the family moved to Virginia, some people complained, an investigation was called, and they were charged about $70K by the school board. At that time they removed the children from the program and chose another homeschool program.
During his re-election campaign in 2006, he gave a speech where he took a lot of flack for being a "conspiracy" theorist, an Islamophobe, and a racist. He said that the real reason behind the attack on the Twin Towers was to bring the 12th Imam out of hiding, or something like that.
He ticked A LOT of women off during his re-election because he brought attention to women working outside the home and how detrimental that was to families. During a debate, when the working women attacked him, he had to back pedal a bit and claim that he wasn't really offended by working women, that his mom had worked as a nurse, and that a lot of his staff were women.
My take then is the same as now: Traditional Catholicism is not a ritual, it is a way of living and thinking and it is not compatible with politics. Eventually one will have to compromise something. He will get a lot of criticism and flack and he will lose.
Could you vote for him with a good conscience? Probably. Is he a better choice that the Donald? Definitely.
-
The third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, conservative Rick Santorum (Pa.), plans to introduce so-called "ideological diversity" legislation that would cut federal funding for thousands of American colleges and universities if those institutions are found to be permitting professors, students and student organizations to openly criticize Israel, which Santorum considers to be an act of "anti-Semitism."
And as a loyal "conservative" republican, he is, of course and foremost, a Zionist.
-
Legalizing weed, in my opinion, is a lot better than the feds criminalizing it. You can't be hooked on weed and it actually has anti cancer effects. The reason the feds want it illegal is to put people in prison, making another excuse to tax the people. In my opinion, it's harmless, compared to the "legal" drugs prescribed by the doctors, and people locked up for $30 worth of weed for 7 years doesn't seem to make sense to me.
As for "giving rights to gαys..." he never said he would give them anymore rights than we have.
He said the government should STAY OUT OF MARRIAGE, and it is up to the Churches, not to the state, to determine who is married. He wants the government ENTIRELY OUT OF MARRIAGE. PERIOD. This will stop the fighting. He doesn't want the gαys to impose their standards on us, and he doesn't want the government to impose their standards on us, and we still can maintain our position that they're not married (because they're not in the eyes of GOD.)
I don't get why people want to paint him as some anarchist. He thinks that the GOVERNMENT should stay the heck out of it!
-
Trump I'm on the fence with, and while I like Ron Paul I cannot overlook the fact that he's for giving freedom to gαys and for legalizing weed.
You mean to tell us you don't know weather or not mass human sacrifice is by far a greater evil than smoking a joint???
FWIW, the Indians who were smoking MJ for at least 600 years are still here. Those who sacrificed their people are not.
-
I can certainly agree with cutting funding to many academic institutions for a variety of reasons but not a specific one for being critical of the 'religion' that is basically out to get us. And support of zionism should not be being made synonymous with 'patriotism' (patriotism as putting nation before God is another issue).
This is pure hypocrisy and favoritism to another nation that is giving us grief and interfering in OUR OWN religion. It is outspoken against us as a group and discriminatory against us and interfering with free speech besides.
:geezer:
-
Thanks, CathMomof7, that really helps. I haven't actually decided yet that I'm going to vote for him over Ron Paul, but I am considering it. Sanctorum is atleast anti-gαy, Paul is not.
parentsfortruth, I don't really get why we should legalize weed. Smoking it can cause damage to your body. Just look at a certain person here who smokes it, he cannot stop talking about it. Anyway, I agree with most of Ron Paul's views, i.e keeping the government out of marriage and other things, but his views on gαy marriage are wrong. He may not be for giving them more freedom than us, but he claims to be a Christian yet here he is wanting to allow them into the military. I'd vote for him over Obama any day, but as far as voting for him in the 2012 election, I don't know yet.
Darcy, where did you see that Sanctorum is a Zionist?
-
Trump I'm on the fence with, and while I like Ron Paul I cannot overlook the fact that he's for giving freedom to gαys and for legalizing weed.
You mean to tell us you don't know weather or not mass human sacrifice is by far a greater evil than smoking a joint???
FWIW, the Indians who were smoking MJ for at least 600 years are still here. Those who sacrificed their people are not.
I never said that mass human sacrifice wasn't more evil than smoking pot. The fact that Ron Paul wants to give freedom to gαys actually bothers me more than him wanting to legalize pot. If you took his stance on gαy marriage out of the equation, I'd most likely vote for him in a heartbeat.
-
Not only should marijuana be criminalized it should be made as strict as heroine possession. It is THE drug that gangs use to get children into sin.
Marijuana causes loss of rational thought, it causes one to lose control and has halluncinogenic effects. It also causes a loss in IQ. It leads people down a dark path, I know I was on the path of drugs many years ago.
It is a sin to promote it, and scandal to make someone think it is ok to use it. Scandal is a mortal sin, you get the double effect, you get the penalty of the sin you commited (Scandal) and the penalty of the sins you caused the other person to do.
This goes for the sodomites too, if they even so much as make it seem like sodomy is ok, when it is a gross sin and an abomination before God that leads to hell you're at the very least commiting indifference to sin, and probably scandal.
When it comes to voting, you are however allowed to vote for the lesser of evils I am told. This is not fact, it is from what I understand of it.
Lastly, try not to judge what is or is not a worse sin.... since all sins of a mortal nature lead to hell if not repented. As a religious(I think he is a Brother of the SSPX) said at a breakfast gathering to a group of us in debate once, that I really liked "The Devil dosn't care how you get to hell, as long as you arrive"
-
I agree with you on marijuana, LP. You get a thumbs-up.
Although, it's my understanding that voting for the lesser of the two evils is usually not a good decision. Such as in the case of McCain and Obama. Vote for what we got with Obama, or vote for a man who is war-crazy and and has a woman by his side trying to push the career woman movement. A lose-lose situation, really.
-
I agree with you on marijuana, LP. You get a thumbs-up.
Although, it's my understanding that voting for the lesser of the two evils is usually not a good decision. Such as in the case of McCain and Obama. Vote for what we got with Obama, or vote for a man who is war-crazy and and has a woman by his side trying to push the career woman movement. A lose-lose situation, really.
I made a point of stating that that wasn't fact, it is hotly debated from what I have seen. I voted for Prime Minister Steven Harper and his conservative party up here. His is the only pro-life party, and is in line with most things. But I could find fault such as his belief in pushing for freedom of religion which is a masonic belief. I know Mr. Harper is a Protestant which is alot better then the socialists and whatnot the other parties have. I could of not voted but I felt that supporting a conservative majority(Which we have not had in 20 years) was important to start pushing the people here in the right direction.
But once again, I don't know your politicians like you do, I would never presume to tell you who was better or less evil or even if it is better to not vote at all.
Simply put I am not a moral theologian and I do not know. I prefer absolute monarchy, then you either obey or not and there is not other decision :)
-
Thanks, CathMomof7, that really helps. I haven't actually decided yet that I'm going to vote for him over Ron Paul, but I am considering it. Sanctorum is atleast anti-gαy, Paul is not.
parentsfortruth, I don't really get why we should legalize weed. Smoking it can cause damage to your body. Just look at a certain person here who smokes it, he cannot stop talking about it. Anyway, I agree with most of Ron Paul's views, i.e keeping the government out of marriage and other things, but his views on gαy marriage are wrong. He may not be for giving them more freedom than us, but he claims to be a Christian yet here he is wanting to allow them into the military. I'd vote for him over Obama any day, but as far as voting for him in the 2012 election, I don't know yet.
Darcy, where did you see that Sanctorum is a Zionist?
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/against_free_speech_268.html
-
Thanks, CathMomof7, that really helps. I haven't actually decided yet that I'm going to vote for him over Ron Paul, but I am considering it. Sanctorum is atleast anti-gαy, Paul is not.
parentsfortruth, I don't really get why we should legalize weed. Smoking it can cause damage to your body. Just look at a certain person here who smokes it, he cannot stop talking about it. Anyway, I agree with most of Ron Paul's views, i.e keeping the government out of marriage and other things, but his views on gαy marriage are wrong. He may not be for giving them more freedom than us, but he claims to be a Christian yet here he is wanting to allow them into the military. I'd vote for him over Obama any day, but as far as voting for him in the 2012 election, I don't know yet.
Darcy, where did you see that Sanctorum is a Zionist?
If we're going to outlaw a naturally growing plant, then we should also outlaw prescription drugs. Do you have any idea who runs all these pharmaceutical companies? nαzιS. So, of course, they want to outlaw anything that can be made easily by anyone else. MANY "legal drugs" have the SAME calming effect (but with HORRIBLE SIDE EFFECTS) as weed.
I don't use it. I've never used it. I never will use it, but to have the government stepping on people's ability to grow it and smoke it or eat it if they want to, is really just a control mechanism for the government so that BIG PHARMA can push their poisons with no competition.
There's a lot of research, both pro and con, for the weed. I happen to think that we'd save tons of money legalizing it, rather than locking someone up for years over it. Keeping it illegal is the reason it's pushed on children. If it was growing in many people's backyards, and they were using it, there wouldn't be as much of a desire to DO BAD by using it. Many people would try it once (or maybe not), and not use it again. The only reason it's desired is because it's illegal. Make it legal, you won't have that problem, you won't have full prisons full of people that didn't do anything violent and you could use the resources we have to prosecute and LOCK UP PEDOPHILES AND MURDERERS AND RAPISTS FOR GOOD and they won't get off on "good behavior" because NON VIOLENT people like people that use weed, wouldn't be in those prisons taking up unnecessary space.
We have the biggest prison population in the world. Wonder why? MONEY.
As far as gαys go, he doesn't believe in hate crimes. If you allowed gαys to go in the military, and you took away hate crimes, those gαys would get the message that they're not wanted there, and you would see a vast fleeing of gαys from the military. So if you look at it logically, it's not a bad thing he's a proponent of.
Also, as far as gαys being "married," he doesn't think it's the government's JOB to define marriage. That's the job of the Church. Sorry, but I agree. The government has no business issuing "marriage licenses" because why is it any of their business in the first place? I totally understand the position.
Sure, it's not a Catholic position, but tell me, is PERPETUAL UNJUST WAR a Catholic position? Is USURY a Catholic position?
I find these things FAR MORE REPREHENSIBLE than outlawing a plant, or letting gαys get their butts beat in when hate crimes are disappeared, or keeping the government out of marriage and letting society deal with that problem by VOTING WITH THEIR FEET and leaving "churches" that allow such things. Remember, he doesn't want anyone IMPOSING THEIR STANDARDS on us, and in a "free society," that makes sense.
Until we get a Catholic Monarch, we'll never get a decent leader. I think Ron Paul is the best choice in the interim with the choices we've been given thus far.
-
I like how Ron Paul is against hate crimes, but it doesn't change the fact that he's not totally against gαys. Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of his views. But I still have an issue with him giving gαys freedom and for legalizing pot. I understand what you're saying about legalizing it, but I don't know, then you'd have to worry about more than twice as many people being high and doing bad stuff. Just my 2 cents...
-
I like how Ron Paul is against hate crimes, but it doesn't change the fact that he's not totally against gαys. Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of his views. But I still have an issue with him giving gαys freedom and for legalizing pot. I understand what you're saying about legalizing it, but I don't know, then you'd have to worry about more than twice as many people being high and doing bad stuff. Just my 2 cents...
He's not for giving gαys MORE freedom than anyone else has. Where are you getting that from?
gαys have as much freedom as we do right now. They are US citizens and commit sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. The Bankers in this country are afforded EXTRA protections... more privacy, and they ALSO commit sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Abortion is the "law of the land" and so, women get MORE rights to murder (which is, as well, a SIN THAT CRIES OUT TO HEAVEN FOR VENGEANCE.) Ron Paul wants to get rid of the minimum wage (which is a vehicle for employers to defraud the laborer of his just wage, and THIS IS ALSO a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.)
Ron Paul does NOT want to extend MORE rights to gαys than they already have, however, others want to do that by saying there should be hate crimes. That is unconstitutional, because everyone should be treated the same under the law. He wants to get rid of hate crimes, and put marriage where it belongs: OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT and into the hands of the CHURCH. What is so wrong with that? They won't be able to put "married" on their IRS form because it's a CHURCH issue, not a federal issue, :) Because he wants to totally ABOLISH the IRS from their tax on WAGES which is totally a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance (ties in with defrauding the laborer of his just wage.)
I don't think legalizing pot will make MORE people high, I think it will have exactly the OPPOSITE effect. I think it will make it so easy to get, that people won't be trying to get their hands on it as much, and the feds won't be locking everyone up that's using it. The feds are ENABLING in and PARTICIPATING in getting it into the country in the first place, to give out to blacks (not a racist thing, just a FACT) to keep them down. If they were allowed to grow it in their own yard, and it wasn't a big money making operation for them anymore, it wouldn't be WORTH it for them to PUSH it anymore, hence LESS people would be using it, LESS people would be wanting it, and for those that have a medical desire to have it, won't be buying it illegally anymore.
Taking weed is NO WORSE (actually it's not even CLOSE) to someone going down to the grocery store, and buying a 12 pack of beer, and getting behind the wheel of a car. Well, you know something, the part about getting behind the wheel is illegal, but not the substance itself.
I think if we made it legal, put penalties on people that are committing VIOLENT CRIMES on it, and you'd have the problem solved, but leaving it illegal makes no sense, costs us more money, and causes violence and fighting among people trying to illegally make money on it.
Does that make more sense to you?
-
I'm sorry but you have obviously been corrupted by liberalism. People do not buy things 'because they are illegal' that is contrary to all economic theory, it is also contrary to why gangs sell it.
Gangs do not sell things unless there was already a demand for it. The demands comes from kids telling other kids that they got high and that the high was fun. They generally don't mention the side effects of the bad trip, hallunicinations etc because they think it'd be funny to see it happen to someone.
I am reformed, but I was gang connected a decade ago or so. I also was involved in drugs. I tried marijuana when I was 15, and it wasn't 'because it was illegal' it was because others were doing it and I tried it. This led to a very bad and violent life.
The belief that those who smoke marijuana are pacive is a very recent propaganda. When you here stories about gang bangers shooting someone you should remember that they smoke marijuana every day. I have seen those who were hooked on marijuana who have snapped on people violently to the point of near death. I have seen them steal to get more. I have seen them use marijuana and progress to harder drugs and get more and more into sin. I have seen guys who use marijuana to make girls "easier" as in to sleep with.
You belief that it is hard to obtain marijuana is laughable. If it's harder to get in the USA then it is in Canada that is GREAT news. In Canada it is illegal and common everywhere. In some places in my country the police do not crack down on it anymore because of liberal pressure and statements like the one you made. Marijuana usage went up every year since then. It has not gone down.
It is an epidemic and it must be stopped. It must be made harder to get. In my area I know where to get almost anything illegal. The police know too, but the liberal laws prevent them from going after the people without hard evidence.
Prohibition wasn't effective because the police didn't enforce it. The police wanted to drink too. If they wanted to crack down on it they would have and could have. If noone knows where to find something illegal then those who are selling it will quickly go out of business. EVERYTHING that is illegal can be found with ease. Whether the person will trust that you are not a cop and sell it to you is another story.
So please, enough with the liberal propaganda in support of something that is a sin to consume in any amount, the whole 'taking the pain away' is a not like aspirin, it is a result of losing the sense of reason and being half concious. Without that effect it wouldn't 'take the pain away' as it were.
Even if it cured cancer, which I highly doubt since it contains 70 times more carcinogens then ciggarettes, it would still be a mortal sin to consume as you cannot do an evil for a good to result. That is catholic dogma so don't contradict that bolded line.
-
I think if we made it legal, put penalties on people that are committing VIOLENT CRIMES on it, and you'd have the problem solved, but leaving it illegal makes no sense, costs us more money, and causes violence and fighting among people trying to illegally make money on it.
Does that make more sense to you?
This makes no sense, gangs will always exist where money can be made on something that is illegal and thus costs more. The only thing you'll accomplish is making marijuana less expensive to buy.
Furthermore by your example then we should legalise everything the gangs make money and do violence for? Cocaine, Heroine, Prostitution, Slave trade(Yes this exists), G(Rape Drug), Exstacy, katamine, LSD, Magic Mushrooms, Extortion just to name a few. They make money on all of these aswell other ventures and white collar crimes. But apparently you think crime should be legalised. This is a very liberal statement, I think you should recollect WHY things are made ILLEGAL.
-
Wow, your situation in Canada sounds pretty bad, LP. There's alot of people in the US who are high on MJ and other drugs (including roscoe, who lives in LA). I agree with you, legalizing it would only make things even worse than they already are. parentsfortruth acts as if though smoking pot is really no big deal as long as one doesn't become addicted or get high on it and do something bad, but it is a very dangerous drug.
-
I'm sorry but you have obviously been corrupted by liberalism. People do not buy things 'because they are illegal' that is contrary to all economic theory, it is also contrary to why gangs sell it.
Gangs do not sell things unless there was already a demand for it. The demands comes from kids telling other kids that they got high and that the high was fun. They generally don't mention the side effects of the bad trip, hallunicinations etc because they think it'd be funny to see it happen to someone.
I am reformed, but I was gang connected a decade ago or so. I also was involved in drugs. I tried marijuana when I was 15, and it wasn't 'because it was illegal' it was because others were doing it and I tried it. This led to a very bad and violent life.
The belief that those who smoke marijuana are pacive is a very recent propaganda. When you here stories about gang bangers shooting someone you should remember that they smoke marijuana every day. I have seen those who were hooked on marijuana who have snapped on people violently to the point of near death. I have seen them steal to get more. I have seen them use marijuana and progress to harder drugs and get more and more into sin. I have seen guys who use marijuana to make girls "easier" as in to sleep with.
You belief that it is hard to obtain marijuana is laughable. If it's harder to get in the USA then it is in Canada that is GREAT news. In Canada it is illegal and common everywhere. In some places in my country the police do not crack down on it anymore because of liberal pressure and statements like the one you made. Marijuana usage went up every year since then. It has not gone down.
It is an epidemic and it must be stopped. It must be made harder to get. In my area I know where to get almost anything illegal. The police know too, but the liberal laws prevent them from going after the people without hard evidence.
Prohibition wasn't effective because the police didn't enforce it. The police wanted to drink too. If they wanted to crack down on it they would have and could have. If noone knows where to find something illegal then those who are selling it will quickly go out of business. EVERYTHING that is illegal can be found with ease. Whether the person will trust that you are not a cop and sell it to you is another story.
So please, enough with the liberal propaganda in support of something that is a sin to consume in any amount, the whole 'taking the pain away' is a not like aspirin, it is a result of losing the sense of reason and being half concious. Without that effect it wouldn't 'take the pain away' as it were.
Even if it cured cancer, which I highly doubt since it contains 70 times more carcinogens then ciggarettes, it would still be a mortal sin to consume as you cannot do an evil for a good to result. That is catholic dogma so don't contradict that bolded line.
First of all, this country is not under the crown of England. It's under the constitution, and until that changes, we basically have no one to represent us that has a snowball's chance in hell to win the presidential election. Ron Paul is the closest we're going to get in the meantime. You have anyone better to suggest, Mr. Canadian? You believe I've been infected by liberalism, because I think the arguments Dr. Paul is making are BETTER ONES than the opponents that think that mary juanita is WORSE THAN ENDLESS WAR. I beg to differ.
What I think you should do, is go watch this movie. It's called "American Drug War: The Last White Hope" and tell me what you think of the "war on drugs." Now I know you've had personal experiences, but just LOOK at how the GOVERNMENT is actually PUSHING people to use illegal drugs by enabling DRUG TRAFFICKERS, DEALERS, and punishing the USERS ignoring the people that are really creating the problem here.
Here's the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CyuBuT_7I4
If you can fairly watch this video, and tell me still that what I'm saying is entirely "liberal" then please do. I'd like your take on the situation.
Also, I'm not affording evil anything here. People can drink arsenic anytime they want, and it's illegal to kill yourself, but the substance itself is not illegal.
People can drink cyanide anytime they want. It's illegal to kill yourself, but the substance itself is not illegal.
Just like you can drink until you're stupid. It's illegal to be publicly intoxicated, but it's not illegal to drink.
You can smoke until you get lung cancer. Cigarettes are not illegal (yet.) That doesn't make it LESS OF A SIN FOR PEOPLE WHO DO SMOKE!
I'm saying, not to tell people, "OH GO USE THIS IT IS SO GREAT YOU WILL GET WINGS AND FALL IN LOVE!" I'm saying, "Let's make it NOT illegal, to empty out the prisons of the NON VIOLENT offenders, and make it just like alcohol. If people want to commit violent crimes on the stuff, then let's lock them up for what they DO, not for actual possession of the substance, or the fact that they use it."
It's like every other POISON (legal OR illegal). The SAME EFFECT can be found on "legal drugs" like, "anti psychotics" or "anti depressants" or "pain killers" so don't give me this line about how mary juanita is WORSE than these chemical laden drugs that DO ACTUALLY KILL PEOPLE and that have the "approval" of the "FDA" as "safe" because you should know as well as I do that the "FDA" has no interest in the health of the people in this country. All they are there for is to PUMP UP THE PROFITS OF THE GIGANTIC PHARMACEUTICALS.
-
Wow, your situation in Canada sounds pretty bad, LP. There's alot of people in the US who are high on MJ and other drugs (including roscoe, who lives in LA). I agree with you, legalizing it would only make things even worse than they already are. parentsfortruth acts as if though smoking pot is really no big deal as long as one doesn't become addicted or get high on it and do something bad, but it is a very dangerous drug.
Different substances have different effects on people. You agree that NOT EVERYONE HAS TO DRINK excessively, yet SOME PEOPLE DO. Does that mean we should prohibit people to drink alcohol because it IS addicting (to some people) and some people are VERY VIOLENT on the use of it? (Oh wait... we tried that... didn't work)
I'm saying... how about people take some responsibility for their ACTIONS instead of blaming it on a substance? This is where the real problem is. People want the government to babysit everything they do instead of letting people be accountable for what they do. "Just make it illegal. That'll solve everything." Um... not really.
Actually making alcohol illegal actually made MORE people die when they were drinking the 'moonshine.' They would make it out of insane substances that were obviously MORE TOXIC than anything that was being manufactured for the "enjoyment" of people.
For some people mary juanita has no effect on them but a kind of tranquilizing effect. For OTHERS, it makes them more violent, perhaps, but isn't that similar to what people do consuming AN EXCESS OF ALCOHOL?
Seriously, I'm not "liberal," and it should be treated like any other potentially dangerous substance. Why is that "liberal" for me to say that?
-
I didn't call you "liberal" PFT. I simply stated that weed is dangerous. It's true that it has different affects on different people, but we shouldn't legalize it just because some people claim they'll use it responsibly. Doing something that damages your body (or more importantly, your soul) is sinful. I'd go as far to say that it's mortally sinful. A person can't smoke pot and tell me "Oh, but I'm not mis-using it". It doesn't work that way. Drinking doesn't have the same devastating affects that MJ does. You can drink responsibly, even though I myself rarely do (I'd only drink wine, not any other drink that can cause you to get drunk). But it's not possible to smoke responsibly. I don't care what you smoke. It causes damage to your body and it isn't good. Of all the things that get people "high" I'd be willing to bet that marijuana is second on the list behind only alcohol, with cocaine a close third.
-
I didn't call you "liberal" PFT. I simply stated that weed is dangerous. It's true that it has different affects on different people, but we shouldn't legalize it just because some people claim they'll use it responsibly. Doing something that damages your body (or more importantly, your soul) is sinful. I'd go as far to say that it's mortally sinful. A person can't smoke pot and tell me "Oh, but I'm not mis-using it". It doesn't work that way. Drinking doesn't have the same devastating affects that MJ does. You can drink responsibly, even though I myself rarely do (I'd only drink wine, not any other drink that can cause you to get drunk). But it's not possible to smoke responsibly. I don't care what you smoke. It causes damage to your body and it isn't good. Of all the things that get people "high" I'd be willing to bet that marijuana is second on the list behind only alcohol, with cocaine a close third.
Tell that to the native Americans who have been smoking for centuries. The Spaniards didn't tell them that smoking was sinful. That's a modern creation to try to accentuate the fact that people CAN OVERDO it. I have to disagree here.
Can we agree on one thing? "A substance, in and of itself, is not evil."
Yes/No
-
Yes, I agree that substances in themselves are not evil. However, why legalize something that is constantly over-used? You say that MJ shouldn't be illegal just because it CAN be overused, but in our society it sadly is overused. Why do you think so many people break in to houses, commit ѕυιcιdє, and commit murder? Most of them are high on drugs, usually cocaine or MJ. A person who gets drunk usually does not commit such mortally sinful crimes, but MJ and cocaine damage the brain.
Smoking doesn't affect the brain, but it affects the lungs and can also cause cancer. Why smoke if you take such a risk? God tells us to love ourselves, too. Smoking isn't a good way to take care of your body.
-
Yes, I agree that substances in themselves are not evil. However, why legalize something that is constantly over-used? You say that MJ shouldn't be illegal just because it CAN be overused, but in our society it sadly is overused. Why do you think so many people break in to houses, commit ѕυιcιdє, and commit murder? Most of them are high on drugs, usually cocaine or MJ. A person who gets drunk usually does not commit such mortally sinful crimes, but MJ and cocaine damage the brain.
Smoking doesn't affect the brain, but it affects the lungs and can also cause cancer. Why smoke if you take such a risk? God tells us to love ourselves, too. Smoking isn't a good way to take care of your body.
Does that mean we should outlaw junk food or soda because more than 60% of the American people are obese? Should we outlaw spoons because they contribute to making people fat? Should we outlaw guns because SOME people (criminals) use them to kill people? Should we outlaw pencils because some make spelling mistakes with them? Come on. How far do you want to go with the outlawing stuff?
There is no argument that people CAN overuse the weed, but you can do anything in excess. You can take too much alcohol, you can take too many painkillers, you can eat too much, and the list of stuff goes on. I think de-criminalizing it would empty out the prisons of NON VIOLENT offenders, and stop those that ARE a danger to society from being released early, because of the prisons being full of people that have a FEDERAL drug charge.
-
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/archgenpsychiatry.2011.5
http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/07/marijuana-linked-with-earlier-onset-of-schizophrenia-in-research-review/
-
Yes, I agree that substances in themselves are not evil. However, why legalize something that is constantly over-used? You say that MJ shouldn't be illegal just because it CAN be overused, but in our society it sadly is overused. Why do you think so many people break in to houses, commit ѕυιcιdє, and commit murder? Most of them are high on drugs, usually cocaine or MJ. A person who gets drunk usually does not commit such mortally sinful crimes, but MJ and cocaine damage the brain.
Smoking doesn't affect the brain, but it affects the lungs and can also cause cancer. Why smoke if you take such a risk? God tells us to love ourselves, too. Smoking isn't a good way to take care of your body.
Does that mean we should outlaw junk food or soda because more than 60% of the American people are obese? Should we outlaw spoons because they contribute to making people fat? Should we outlaw guns because SOME people (criminals) use them to kill people? Should we outlaw pencils because some make spelling mistakes with them? Come on. How far do you want to go with the outlawing stuff?
There is no argument that people CAN overuse the weed, but you can do anything in excess. You can take too much alcohol, you can take too many painkillers, you can eat too much, and the list of stuff goes on. I think de-criminalizing it would empty out the prisons of NON VIOLENT offenders, and stop those that ARE a danger to society from being released early, because of the prisons being full of people that have a FEDERAL drug charge.
ANY amount of marijuana causes loss of reason, stop using rhetoric, make a case with facts.
Comparing one thing to another unrelated thing is part of the con game.
Marijuana 'works' by impairing reason, if it dosn't impair reason the effect will not happen. Marijuana causes all sorts of problems and leads to only sin. Alchohol is safe in moderation, marijuana is not safe at all. All 'studies' to the contrary are propaganda from the left. They want a bunch of stoned out zombies with lowered IQ's, impaired reason and commiting immoral acts so they can better enslave them in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
I fail to see a corralation between putting dangerous offenders in jail and marijuana, offences such as willful murder of innocents, rape and other such crimes should be punished with the death penalty.
-
What LP said. Come on, PFT. Questioning if spoons should be legal or not has no ties to this argument. That's totally immaterial.
-
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/archgenpsychiatry.2011.5
http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/07/marijuana-linked-with-earlier-onset-of-schizophrenia-in-research-review/
Hmm, from the last link you provided.
The meta-analysis found that people who smoked marijuana developed psychotic disorders an average 2.7 years earlier than people who did not use cannabis. But the review also found that people who used any illegal drug suffered psychosis two years earlier than non-users, not a large difference.
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/07/marijuana-linked-with-earlier-onset-of-schizophrenia-in-research-review/#ixzz1MxNqc4B9
I can quote other studies that say the exact opposite. Here's a NYT article on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/18/us/government-study-of-marijuana-sees-medical-benefits.html
GOVERNMENT STUDY OF MARIJUANA SEES MEDICAL BENEFITS
By SHERYL gαy STOLBERG
Published: March 18, 1999
The active ingredients in marijuana appear to be useful for treating pain, nausea and the severe weight loss associated with AIDS, according to a new study commissioned by the Government that is inflaming the contentious debate over whether doctors should be permitted to prescribe the drug.
The report, the most comprehensive analysis to date of the medical literature about marijuana, said there was no evidence that giving the drug to sick people would increase illicit use in the general population. Nor is marijuana a ''gateway drug'' that prompts patients to use harder drugs like cocaine and heroin, the study said.
The authors of the study, a panel of 11 independent experts at the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, cautioned that the benefits of smoking marijuana were limited because the smoke itself was so toxic. Yet at the same time, they recommended that the drug be given, on a short-term basis under close supervision, to patients who did not respond to other therapies.
http://www.naturalnews.com/029780_marijuana_cancer.html
Marijuana Benefits Cancer: Two Studies You Probably Never Read About
Monday, September 20, 2010 by: Tony Isaacs
(NaturalNews) In February 2000 researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis. The study was later published in the journal Nature Cancer Review. Chances are that you have never heard of this study, the same as you likely never heard of a previous similar study. There has been a virtual news blackout as well as a concerted government effort to suppress such stories and studies for over thirty years.
The study by Manuel Guzman of Madrid Spain found that cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibited tumor growth in laboratory animals by modulating key cell-signaling pathways and thus causing direct growth arrest and death of tumor cells. The study also found that cannabinoids inhibited angiogenesis and that cannabinoids were usually well tolerated and did not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies.
According to neurologist Dr. Ethan Russo, the Guzman study was very important because cancer cells become immortalized and fail to heed normal signals to turn off growth and die on cue. In addition, the other way that tumors grow is by sending out signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels. Cannabinoids turn off these signals as well.
Normally, any story that even suggests the possibility of a new treatment for cancer is greeted with headlines about a "cancer cure" - however remote or improbable it might be. However, if marijuana is involved, don't expect any coverage from mainstream media.
News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness would seem indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors.
The previous study which indicated that marijuana could be effective against cancer was conducted in 1974. In that study, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice - lung and breast cancer, and virus-induced leukemia.
The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reported on the events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes". In 1976, President Gerald Ford ended all public research on cannabis and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who unsuccessfully attempted to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver the medical benefits without the "high."
In 1983, the Reagan/Bush Administration attempted to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reported Herer. He stated, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."
On March 29, 2001, the San Antonio Current printed a story by Raymond Cushing titled, "POT SHRINKS TUMORS; GOVERNMENT KNEW IN '74" which detailed government and media suppression of news about marijuana cancer benefits. Cushing noted in his article that it was hard to believe that the knowledge that cannabis can be used to fight cancer has been suppressed for almost thirty years and aptly concluded his article by saying:
"Millions of people have died horrible deaths and in many cases, families exhausted their savings on dangerous, toxic and expensive drugs. Now we are just beginning to realize that while marijuana has never killed anyone, marijuana prohibition has killed millions."
But it causes psychosis, you say? I can find another study that shows the opposite.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8179
Patients With Schizophrenia Report Subjective Benefits From Marijuana, Study Says
May 6, 2010 - New Brunswick, Canada
New Brunswick, Canada: Male patients diagnosed with schizophrenia report obtaining subjective benefits from marijuana, according to survey data published in the March issue of the Canadian Journal of Nursing Research.
Investigators from Edmundston Regional Hospital, Psychiatry/Mental Health Department in New Brunswick, Canada surveyed eight men with schizophrenia who had a history of current or past cannabis use.
Researchers reported that subjects consumed marijuana "as a means of satisfying the schizophrenia-related need for relaxation, sense of self-worth, and distraction."
Survey data published in 2008 in the International Journal of Mental Health Nursing also reported that many schizophrenic patients obtain relief from cannabis, finding that subjects consumed cannabis to reduce anxiety, mitigate memories of childhood trauma, enhance cognition, and "improve their mental state."
The findings may help to provide insight as to why several recent studies have identified a non-causal association between the use of marijuana and schizophrenia.
And for you to say, "Lord Phan" that ALL STUDIES ARE PROPAGANDA FROM THE LEFT, is absolutely 100% biased and absurd. That's like saying that anything that anyone says from the pharmaceutical companies is 100% correct, and anyone that contradicts their findings are FROM THE LEFT.
Bologna.
-
PFT, sorry but those studies are not very impressive. People have been saying for years how dangerous of a drug it is. I don't appreciate you trying to paint it as an almost harmless drug, roscoe does the same thing (only to a more extreme level) and it is really irritating. To say that it is useful for treating pain and some medical conditions is a load of crock. Vitamin D3 is MUCH more affective for treating and/or preventing numerous things, including cancer, the flu, heart-related medical conditions, etc. And the government REFUSES to tell people about this vitamin, instead they promote their extremlely harmful shots which actually CAN cause cancer and numerous other ilnesses and medical conditions.
I'll be happy to post sources that show just how affective D3 is. I gaurantee it is 50x more affective than marijuana could ever hope to be. The research you provided is laughable at best, it provides no concrete evidence to back it up. And how do I know D3 is so affective? For starters, I had bumps on my hands that I had for years that suddenly went away when I started taking D3. Do you have any evidence that MJ can do that? No, the doctors who say it should be used to treat pain are idiots who don't know what they're talking about.
-
PFT, sorry but those studies are not very impressive. People have been saying for years how dangerous of a drug it is. I don't appreciate you trying to paint it as an almost harmless drug, roscoe does the same thing (only to a more extreme level) and it is really irritating. To say that it is useful for treating pain and some medical conditions is a load of crock. Vitamin D3 is MUCH more affective for treating and/or preventing numerous things, including cancer, the flu, heart-related medical conditions, etc. And the government REFUSES to tell people about this vitamin, instead they promote their extremlely harmful shots which actually CAN cause cancer and numerous other ilnesses and medical conditions.
I'll be happy to post sources that show just how affective D3 is. I gaurantee it is 50x more affective than marijuana could ever hope to be. The research you provided is laughable at best, it provides no concrete evidence to back it up. And how do I know D3 is so affective? For starters, I had bumps on my hands that I had for years that suddenly went away when I started taking D3. Do you have any evidence that MJ can do that? No, the doctors who say it should be used to treat pain are idiots who don't know what they're talking about.
See, I'm totally not going to disagree with you here. The government makes vitamin manufacturers (through the BIG PHARMA CONTROLLED FDA) that they have to put a disclosure, "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA to treat, prevent, or cure disease," when STUDY AFTER STUDY PROVES that they DO all these things.
And we want to continue to criminalize the weed? Do you see how this is totally contradictory?
There's no disagreement that the FDA is corrupt, but the DEA, the ATF, and the CIA, and the FBI are ALL INVOLVED in the trafficking, and making LOADS of money, and using it themselves.
Want some examples? Here's a case where the POLICE PLANTED DRUGS IN THIS LADY'S BELONGINGS, and now they're BUSTED and she is free. How many times has THIS happened to others and they're still rotting in prison for it? This lady lost 3 YEARS OF HER LIFE because of them. 33 PEOPLE SAT PRISON SENTENCES BECAUSE OF THESE COPS PLANTING DRUGS ON THESE PEOPLE. And they're recommending PROBATION for these cops?!?!?! The pictures and the stories are here.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110518_11_A1_CUTLIN579643
Hillary Clinton made a telling statement regarding the "war on drugs." I'll let you listen to it. This needs to be de-criminalized NOW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXLkQVcpjmY
In an interview with Mexican television, she said that the United States can't legalize drugs "because there is just too much money in it."
Apparently, Clinton doesn't understand that there's so much money to be made selling illegal drugs precisely because drugs are illegal.
-
That's not exactly in line with what I was saying. It doesn't matter if vitamin manufacturers will say on thier products "This hasn't been aprroved by the FDA". It doesn't change the fact that D3 is far more affective in treating and/or preventing ilnesses than shots or marijuana could ever hope to be. The government will of course monopolize the vitamin industry, pretty soon they'll start selling their own vitamins which will contain all sorts of junk in them. Bottom line is that D3 is good to prevent cancer and such medical conditions, MJ does nothing but rot a person's brain. I gaurantee you that if I started using MJ daily I wouldn't be capable of thinking straight.
-
i knew a pothead once who was incrediably lazy. he looked like a stumpier version of hulk hogan. i wasnt even very good friends with him but he came up to me one day and asked me to pee in a cup so he could get a job at the casino. i guess i was the only person he knew who wasnt on some drug.
-
That's not exactly in line with what I was saying. It doesn't matter if vitamin manufacturers will say on thier products "This hasn't been aprroved by the FDA". It doesn't change the fact that D3 is far more affective in treating and/or preventing ilnesses than shots or marijuana could ever hope to be. The government will of course monopolize the vitamin industry, pretty soon they'll start selling their own vitamins which will contain all sorts of junk in them. Bottom line is that D3 is good to prevent cancer and such medical conditions, MJ does nothing but rot a person's brain. I gaurantee you that if I started using MJ daily I wouldn't be capable of thinking straight.
Still doesn't mean it should be illegal. Perhaps you don't trust yourself to be smoking the weed, but I'm sure a lot of Native Americans, and Mexicans have no problem doing that, and can do it responsibly. Goes back to my point that a substance, in and of itself, is not bad. It should be de-criminalized, just like alcohol.
I'm sure a lot of Native Americans that are addicted to alcohol, and have the tendency to get drunk easily, would be thrilled if alcohol were illegal. Does that mean it should be because THEY can't handle it? NO! Same goes for ANY substance.
It all goes back to personal responsibility. A doctor gives you a bottle of pills considered to be a dangerous drug, you have a CHOICE to take more than what you should. If you consume too much of it, you can't go back and blame the doctor for giving you those pills can you? Just like the weed. If you smoke it, then you should be accountable for your actions. Don't blame it on the weed. Blame yourself, and suffer the consequences.
So sick of people continually blaming a substance for their problems.
If you get behind the wheel of a car and are high on LEGAL drugs, you get thrown in prison for that. If you get behind a wheel of a car, and you are drunk, you get thrown in prison or hit with a very stiff penalty (at least here you do.) Should be the same thing with people smoking it. If you get behind the wheel of a car, it should be considered an OWI (operating while intoxicated) and you should be thrown in jail. But if you're IN YOUR OWN HOUSE, SMOKING IT, AND NOT HURTING ANYONE, WHY should you get thrown in prison for that? Goes back, again, to a substance, in and of itself, is not bad.
-
I found this. All cannabis is NOT the same.
Marijuana typically is high in THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) -- the compound responsible for the plant’s notorious psychoactive effect -- and low in CBD (cannabidiol) content. Both THC and CBD are known as cannabinoids, which interact with your body in a unique way I’ll describe later.
What’s interesting, however, is that CBD has been shown to block the effect of THC in the nervous system. So, marijuana plants are typically high in THC and low in CBD, which maximizes their psychoactive effects.
Hemp, on the other hand, is typically high in CBD and low in THC, as it is bred to maximize its fiber, seeds and oil, the items for which it is most commonly used. For more information on the difference between hemp and marijuana, there is a comprehensive article on the topic from the North American Industrial Hemp Council (NAIHC).
from Dr. Merola you have to google and find it on his site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI
disclaimer: I don't advocate for this (yet) but I do read Dr. Mercola.
-
PFT, why make pot legal just because there are people out there who would it responsibly? And quite frankly, it would be darn-near impossible to smoke pot and not become addicted to it at some point. Alcohol can atleast be used in moderation and it does not affect the brain or one's actions as long as too much is not consumed. Until you can present me with one heck of an argument that weed should be made legal, I will continue to hold it as a dangerous drug that should be illegal.
-
PFT, why make pot legal just because there are people out there who would it responsibly? And quite frankly, it would be darn-near impossible to smoke pot and not become addicted to it at some point. Alcohol can atleast be used in moderation and it does not affect the brain or one's actions as long as too much is not consumed. Until you can present me with one heck of an argument that weed should be made legal, I will continue to hold it as a dangerous drug that should be illegal.
Um, for the same reason we legalize alcohol. You seem to be telling me that you're not close to an alcoholic. Well, if you were, you would see why SOME people think it would be an AWESOME idea to make it illegal. Seriously. It messes up your mind more than you think, if you do it in excess. Some people CANNOT NOT do it in excess, because they become ADDICTED. The same thing can happen with pretty much ANY substance. Even caffeine!
(Letting you know that this is not racist for me to say) There are certain races of people that SHOULD NOT EVER DRINK ALCOHOL. EVER. Did you know that in parts of Alaska that ALCOHOL IS ILLEGAL among some of the Eskimos up there because they become HORRIBLY ADDICTED AND AGGRESSIVE on it? Go look it up! Yet, they can have the weed in their house and smoke it, and that's just fine.
You can say anything is dangerous. My argument stands: A substance, in and of itself, is NOT BAD.
-
History of Alcohol control in the state of Alaska.
http://www.dps.state.ak.us/abc/history.aspx
1959 - Present
The First Alaska State Legislature creates a three member Alcoholic Beverage Control Board appointed by the Governor.
The alcoholic beverage laws that are adopted are based on the Territorial liquor laws.
1970 - the Board is increased to five members. By 1978 there has been so many amendments to the alcoholic beverage laws that they are contradictory and in many cases unenforceable. Even the Board's staff often doesn't understand them.
1979 the Alaska Legislature adopts a comprehensive revision of the alcoholic beverage laws. Provisions allowing communities to prohibit sale or sale and importation of alcoholic beverages are included.
1986 the law is amended to allow communities to prohibit possession by local option election.
1995 Barrow is the largest city in Alaska to ban possession of Alcoholic beverages.
In 1975, Alaska removed all penalties for possession of cannabis under 28.349 grams (one ounce) in one's residence or home. Sale of less than 28.349 grams is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and up to a $5,000 fine; at the time, in most states sale of less than 28.349 grams was a felony offense.
With the 1975 Ravin v. State decision, the Alaska Supreme Court declared the state's anti-drug law unconstitutional with respect to possession of small amounts of cannabis, holding that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution of Alaska outweighed the state's interest in banning the drug. Ravin continues to be followed since the Alaska constitution has not been amended to prohibit, or permit the prohibition of, less than 28.349 grams of cannabis, an anti-cannabis initiative passed in 1990 and an anti-cannabis piece of legislation passed in 2006 remain inoperative. This allows possession of fewer than 25 plants in one's residence or home. The sale or delivery of marijuana is still considered a crime.
But they have STRICT CONTROL of alcohol, and there is SEVERE BOOTLEGGING going on there, to the point that the Natives are locked up for ALCOHOL crimes more than they are for anything else, and it's tied to the VIOLENT CRIME RATE, and not associated with the weed. Hmm... that's a pretty strong argument.
-
PFT, I have already agreed that a substance in itself is not bad. I can see exactly why one would want to make alcohol illegal. But there's always going to be some form of it that people will use to get drunk off of (like wine, which you can't make illegal). Weed is just one substance, make that illegal and problem solved except for those who illegally buy it or whatever.
-
People wouldn't illegally buy it if it were LEGAL.
:alcohol:
-
But then even more people would get high on junk.
:alcohol:
-
But then even more people would get high on junk.
:alcohol:
You basically are saying that you think you should be able to police other people's bad behavior because you don't like it.
I don't like when people I know that have a DRINKING problem keep doing it, but I can't police their behavior one way or another. THEY are going to have to be accountable to God for it. All I can do is warn them that drinking in excess is sinful. Making it illegal will make the problem WORSE. That's the real argument here.
It's the same thing with weed. We'd empty out prisons of people that are NON VIOLENT offenders, and put more resources towards people that are actually DANGEROUS, instead of lightening their sentences.
You do understand these "mandatory sentencing laws" for drugs are PROBLEMATIC, and are causing people that commit REAL crimes to get off leniently because the prisons are FULL of people serving using drug sentences, while the traffickers are allowed to run rampant, with no charges lodged against them, while the BATF, the FBI, and other agencies are actually WANTING the drugs to come here to have excuses to lock more people up and fill prisons.
Curious, did you ever watch that docuмentary I linked?
-
PFT, saying we shouldn't "police other people who smoke pot" is like saying we shouldn't police those who speed or who rob banks. Same concept, basically. And sorry, but I don't remember you posting a link.
-
PFT, saying we shouldn't "police other people who smoke pot" is like saying we shouldn't police those who speed or who rob banks. Same concept, basically. And sorry, but I don't remember you posting a link.
Wrong. Those who exceed the speed limit could be putting people in danger. There are laws on the books to stop people from speeding with a car, especially in school zones because children tend to run out in the street and could get hit. That's in the best interest of the public. People that do not go by the law, get points against their license, and get it revoked if they continually drive IRRESPONSIBLY. They are not OUTLAWING CARS because they can hit people.
Those who rob banks are STEALING: taking something that doesn't belong to them. We're not outlawing banks (we SHOULD!) because people could rob them or especially because the people running them commit the MORTAL SIN of usury. We're not outlawing guns because people use them to rob banks. We're not outlawing water pistols because someone can hide them in their coat and pretend they have a gun when they rob a bank.
So no, it's not the same concept at ALL. Not at all the same concept.
Weed is a substance, that can be used responsibly, or abused. Just like guns are an object that can be used to hunt, or used to kill someone. A type of baseball bat has been OUTLAWED in New York because (LORD FORBID!) http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/03/15/new-york-city-bans-aluminum-baseball-bats/ people use them to kill people. They've outlawed firearms in Chicago because of all the murders (and now, only the COPS AND ROBBERS have the guns and the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ARE DEFENSELESS) but SMARTLY, the Supreme Court DISMISSED that law as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Here's the link to the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CyuBuT_7I4
-
People who use weed can put people on danger as well. Use too much of it and it rots your brain. Cars can be used both responsibly and unresponsibly as well. Many things can. But cars don't rot your brain, nor do they cause you to do things without thinking.
-
People who use weed can put people on danger as well. Use too much of it and it rots your brain. Cars can be used both responsibly and unresponsibly as well. Many things can. But cars don't rot your brain, nor do they cause you to do things without thinking.
People who use alcohol can put people in danger as well. Use too much of it, and it rots your liver and impairs your faculties and judgment and puts MANY in the occasion of sin, incites violent behavior, and causes people to act like someone they're not. Cars can be used responsibly and irresponsibly as well. Many things can. But cars neither rot your brain, nor do they cause you to do things without thinking.
See? I can do that too. Alcohol is legal. Weed should be too.
Did you watch that video?
-
Yeah, I watched as much as I had time to. After watching it, I can see where there may be some over-reactions regarding certian drugs and/or scenarios...but it doesn't grasp the full picture. Why give people the right to use something that affects their brain even though they MIGHT use it responsibly? Alcohol works differently than pot, by the way.
-
Yeah, I watched as much as I had time to. After watching it, I can see where there may be some over-reactions regarding certian drugs and/or scenarios...but it doesn't grasp the full picture. Why give people the right to use something that affects their brain even though they MIGHT use it responsibly? Alcohol works differently than pot, by the way.
Watch the whole thing and let me know what you think. You can't say it "doesn't grasp the full picture" if you didn't watch all of it.
-
I don't have time to watch all 2 hours, unfortunetly. I have something called a life. Besides, I watched enough of it to see where it was going. Their viewpoint is highly debatable.
-
Well, at least you're saying that it's debatable. That's the entire point of this discussion. At least you're saying that the point even has merit, which was the entire thrust of my conversation here.
I happen to agree with that point of view, as does Ron Paul, and I think it's a valid viewpoint. I think if you investigated it a bit further, you would come to agree, perhaps.
-
Probably not. But I thank you for the debate, it's been swell. No need to continue this dicussion, we've already covered much ground. Plus I've been able to brush up on my debating skills. :)
God Bless.
-
May 20, 2011
Israel in Peril
by Rick Santorum
Like Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s, Israel is a small nation and it has never been in more danger of disappearing. Today, Israel is surrounded by an armed alliance of Jihadist fundamentalists and nationalists, from North to South to East. Its West is the Mediterranean ocean, where Israel’s enemies would like to push her Jєωιѕн population. And Pres. Barack Obama has just put Israel’s very existence in more peril.
{cut}
One can only hope this dangerous turn in our foreign policy will change. In the meantime, it is the duty of each and every American citizen who abhors terrorism and supports freedom to stand up and say, “I support Israel.”
— Rick Santorum was a United States Senator from 1995 to 2007. He authored the Iran Freedom Support Act and the Syrian Accountability Act.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267797/israel-peril-rick-santorum
-
BTW,
Four GOP contenders are now backtracking on their pro global warming stances.
In other words they are shameless opportunists who can't be trusted.
Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty, and Gingrich.
-
May 20, 2011
Israel in Peril
by Rick Santorum
Like Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s, Israel is a small nation and it has never been in more danger of disappearing. Today, Israel is surrounded by an armed alliance of Jihadist fundamentalists and nationalists, from North to South to East. Its West is the Mediterranean ocean, where Israel’s enemies would like to push her Jєωιѕн population. And Pres. Barack Obama has just put Israel’s very existence in more peril.
{cut}
One can only hope this dangerous turn in our foreign policy will change. In the meantime, it is the duty of each and every American citizen who abhors terrorism and supports freedom to stand up and say, “I support Israel.”— Rick Santorum was a United States Senator from 1995 to 2007. He authored the Iran Freedom Support Act and the Syrian Accountability Act.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267797/israel-peril-rick-santorum
So, if you don't "support" Israel and we all know that means no criticism and give them what they want, then by default you like terrorism and do not support freedom. Good spin, neo-con.