Amazon has thrown its support behind a GOP sponsored bill - get that, GOP sponsored - that would legalize marijuana on a federal level.
Pardon me as one who dealt with families ravaged by drugs in my ministry days, as well as encountering it far too close in my own family's lines. That's why I don't take drugs flippantly. Along with AIDS, the global death count for the sex and drugs revolution has nearly surpassed WWII. We won't even get into the abortion rates that are needed as a safety net for this era of decadence.
Speaking of Authentically Pro-Life, you have a better chance of baking Kosher ham than claiming the title while giving a nod to the Sex, Drugs and Rock n' Roll revolution that has claimed and ruined so many tens of millions of lives, especially among our youngest.
So naturally the GOP is going to rush forth and open the doors for making drugs legal from coast to coast! Hurray! And I say drugs because I'm not stupid enough to think it will stop here. For those who say, "But Dave, they've had legal drugs in Europe for decades!', uh huh. Let's look at Europe, c. 21st Century to see how that has gone: A civilization more than happy to let let future generations suffer its death as long as they have sex and drugs at their disposable now.
Have I said ours is not the generation that will inspire future epic songs and poems?
First, I want to make it VERY clear that I'm not arguing with you on drugs or anything. I'm a bit of a teetotaler myself who isn't even fond of the caffeine I need to function.
ReplyDeleteNow I will merely point out that Republicans tend to have a very strict constitutionalist principle. And per the constitution, there's a thing called the 10th amendment - if it's not listed, then the issue belongs to the states. Since drugs aren't listed, then by principle, it shouldn't be a federal issue but one pushed down to the states with only the borders and import of them being the federal concern.
Now, you can disagree or dislike the move, but principles that are only used when convenient or give us an outcome we like are not principles at all.
My problem with that is that sometimes a principle must be subservient to another principle, like the common good. Drugs is a killer. Not only individually, but collectively. Legalizing drugs in Europe didn't bring Europeans back from the brink and encourage them to return to the churches and defend civilization. Instead it seemed to make them more willing to say let everything burn, as long as it happens after their lifetimes of drugs, sex and narcissism.
DeleteSame here. It's funny, because we constantly see isolated news reports about this or that problem where pot has been legalized, but never together as a whole to critique the legalization. In addition, pushing toward a more hedonistic population doesn't seem to be helping America any more than it did Europe.
I understand the mentality for some with this issue. But there comes a time when we ask do we say it's the captain's right to plow through the ice field as he sees fit, or should we have some extra universal rules to make sure other considerations are taken into account?
Yes, and much of the debate in politics (heck, 99% of the debates) is which principle is subservient to which. The Left says X should be dominant, the Right says Y. And on the dance goes. The American ideal was set up such that people who agree on which principle should be dominant will sort themselves out into states. Everybody that wants to ban drugs can go be in Utah, those who want to legalize it can be in Colorado, etc.
DeleteCertainly by your logic about the common good, we should go back to prohibition. After all, alcohol kills even more than marijuana and other drugs just by health problems and car wrecks - to say nothing of the harm inflicted by drunken rage.
My instinct is to let the decision be as local to the populace as possible, and if you try to impose one-size-fits-all across the whole nation, that's just going to create worse problems.