The New York Times‚Äô editorial board on Saturday called on the federal government to legalize marijuana.
Citing alcohol prohibition, social costs and states‚Äô movements, the board argued ‚Äúafter a great deal of discussion‚ÄĚ that ‚Äúthe balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúWe considered whether it would be best for Washington to hold back while the states continued experimenting with legalizing medicinal uses of marijuana, reducing penalties, or even simply legalizing all use. Nearly three-quarters of the states have done one of these,‚ÄĚ the editorial said....
Jim Lincoln wrote: Why Mike, that shows the inadequacy of moralism. I would say it would take the whole Supreme Court to stop a wanted law let alone the unwanted ones. Anything of note ends up in front of them. ---
No, it shows the inadequacy of having judges-for-life. No, it takes a 5-4 majority. But thanks for the speedy response.
Why Mike, that shows the inadequacy of moralism. I would say it would take the whole Supreme Court to stop a wanted law let alone the unwanted ones. Anything of note ends up in front of them. By the way there are various groups not just Christian ones that don't want the widespread you some marijuana as pointed out in this very short article, Medical Pot Only OK for Sick Kids Failed by Other Drugs: MDs
s c, I don't support a Christian caliphate. But, just to let the public run amok, like Rand Paul wants to do and my offen stated displeasure with this family should show you that I'm hardly a liberal on social issues, but just again, I recognize The Inadequacy of Moralism
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- The only moralism that a church can really address is morality in the church. As citizens the only effective action on moralism is what a very high percentage of what people support can be put into law, my guess 95% or more? In this country we would consider it child abuse to force a girl 9 or 10 into a sexual relationship with a man, and we have laws against it, (and for a man to have more than one wife) not so in a Muhammadan country.
I think your view is called hiding your light under a bushel. You just use the meeting house walls as your bushel.
As for your percentage figure, it only takes one judge to overthrow a law, regardless of the size of majority supporting it. We have seen this time and again. It's what happens when Christians say they shouldn't be involved.
Thank you, Jim for responding to part of my question. I still respect your posts. So, I'm guessing that since Christians,as you say," can really only address morality in the church..." that coach Dungy's comments are totally irrelevant any way? ...and, just because Planned Parenthood teaches children about sex torture (how to engage in it, no less), then we should just keep silent and allow for looser laws?
SC I could just repeat my last message, see The Inadequacy of Moralism, I put some comments on to that as I did on the latest sermon that is up for Gil Rugh, Responsibilities As Slaves. Now, my comments on those sermons are very, very unofficial additions to the summaries, What I pointed out are in the sermons, however, and actually Gil had more on the topic of social condition than the first 13 minutes of the "Slaves" but also scattered throughout the sermon. So, (while I think ) it is good that you read the comments on the sermons--there was other important points in those sermons as well.
The only moralism that a church can really address is morality in the church. As citizens the only effective action on moralism is what a very high percentage of what people support can be put into law, my guess 95% or more? In this country we would consider it child abuse to force a girl 9 or 10 into a sexual relationship with a man, and we have laws against it, (and for a man to have more than one wife) not so in a Muhammadan country.
Jim, you are a pretty solid poster but as far as laws or prohibition encouraging behavior...?? Man is sinful. Laws are good for restraint. Do you really think that the consumption of alcohol is markedly less because we no longer have prohibition? I heard a fellow just the other day suggesting that because the church considers prostitution and porn taboo that it only escalates the problem. How absurd. As Mike sarcastically stated: "Then everyone would be moral." If laws were lifted on such behavior, then people would all the more be engaging in immoral practices. While many do engage in these activities covertly, the bar would be set even lower opening the proverbial pandora's box and then anything and everything would be legal. Compromise always begets greater immorality as evidenced in the proliferation of hetero sensuality in this country. Once we allow for a double standard, the game is over. Loose heterosexuality bred tolerance for homosexuality...and here we are.
Mike wrote: Just think how the crime rate would fall if we legalized everything! No one would be tempted to do bad things, because there would be no bad things to do. Everyone would be moral, because there would be nothing immoral to them. Except for Jim, for whom moralism is inadequate, so he would be the exception to the rule.
Ah, Mike of N.Y., I was going to say such nice things about your comment -- until I was brought into it. Since I haven't even put a comment on this thread until now. Laws of morality only work when 99% of the people support them vigorously. This is why Prohibition didn't work, something I always had kind words for, but thanks for bringing up http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=118121637304 (The Inadequacy of Moralism). That is oh so true!
well, Mike, you gotta look behind the scenes to see who does the actual drug running. and until people do, they'd rather put Joe down the road in jail for 20 years, garnering hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of profit for the local corporation that runs our jails. incarceration rates go way up when there's a profit for it. one day whatever people that may live here may say that suddenly they don't want an iron grid/war based economy, and get back to things like selling milk. in the meantime the little farmers in Michigan have to dump their tons of fresh food for the swat team, who get their good salaries while Detroit dies of starvation.
Just think how the crime rate would fall if we legalized everything! No one would be tempted to do bad things, because there would be no bad things to do. Everyone would be moral, because there would be nothing immoral to them. Except for Jim, for whom moralism is inadequate, so he would be the exception to the rule.
New York Times statement that prohibition encourages consumption is clearly ill-founded. America should almost be synonymous with alcoholism...Practically everything revolves around it. Could there even be the obsession with sports in this country if there were no beer sales available at the games? People can try to suggest that what is taboo will only encourage behavior, but the truth bears out the opposite conclusion.
there aren't enough jobs to go around. the land needs to be opened up again for homesteaders, get those non violent offenders and get the American people a piece of our land for family development and keep the land from going to the oligarchs! America has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world, the statistics are embarrassing.
The prison industry wouldn't want to lose the slave labor. What good are fathers in the inner city anyways? God had a lot to say about banning substances but nothing to say about the importance of fathers in the home.