Force and Agency

[John Michael Kane]

Liquor by the drink = distribution
Sale of liquor to minors = distribution
Prohibition (18th Amendnent) = distribution

18th Ammendment Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

It is not helpful to hold the position that there is a disagreement between the prophets and libertarian principles when there is none. there doesnt have to be a disagreement. No one has to sacrifice their Constitutional principles to follow the prophets. Read the text of the 18th Amendment. It is focused on prohibiting the export, manufacture, transportation, importation and sale. None of the text says that individual use of liquor is illegal.

God and the prophets are on the side of Freedom. Satan fools us into thinking there is a debate when there is nothing to debate.

Of course individual use of liquor doesn't need to be illegal when they can't buy it (no export/import, transportation, sale) and they can't make it (manufacture)....your point was?

[John Michael Kane]

The rules empower us to become like God.

By the way, great topic, and excellent points by all. I haven't finished reading, but I wanted to add a few cents...
The rules/laws were added because of transgression. They will be taken away when we can rightly govern ourselves.

For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; ...Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
...Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

In essence, you tell a 3 year old that they can't touch the matches, (law). But when they have grown to be adults, we expect that they can use the matches correctly and the law/rule is removed. This is NOT how our present earthly governments work.

It has been said that "Obedience" is greater than "Sacrifice". I say that "Morality" is greater than "Obedience" and when we as a society learn that, then there will be no need for laws. (Morality = Do what is right because it is right.)

Laws are imposed to create the illusion of love between people who are not truly loving. All the laws and the prophets are fulfilled when true love has come. This is why God is "love" and we need to become "love" to be like him.

Laws use the threat of force in an effort to PREVENT wrong doing. If you hit your brother, I will send you to your room... When people break the law, they become subject to a predetermine punishment. (Best case scenario.) So the act of breaking the law and receiving the punishment was a choice in itself. So, the law might say, "If thou kill, then thou shalt be killed. If a person were to choose to kill, then they were also choosing to be killed. This doesn't by any means make the law correct, just or moral. And a person may have to break the law in order to be moral. And a moral person may be subject to an immoral law and like Daniel be thrown to the lions or like others be consumed in the fire.

God might ask you to kill your son or cut off the head of a drunk man which can even be contrary to His previous commandments.

Again, do what is right because it is right or "Morality" is greater than "Obedience". Eventually we must learn to call the shots if we are to be like God. According to the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood, No power or even influence can, (and if it can, it ought not to be), maintained by virtue of the priesthood or position in that priesthood, only by "persuasion" and the other principles of righteous leadership. This oath and Covenant also applies to God who cannot not, or ought not, to maintain power or influence by virtue of His Priesthood. God must persuade.

To persuade means to provide enough reason for a person to do a thing so that if you removed all of your influence and let them act according to their free will, they, acting in accord with their own desires, will take the action you proscribed and willingly accept all the consequences of their actions.

As a side note:
You cannot rightly use the instruction God gave to Abraham to Kill Issac without understanding the whole picture. Abraham has received his Calling and Election made sure prior to Issac even being born. The promise was that He would be exalted unconditionally as long as he did not become a son of perdition by committing the unpardonable sin...

The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord. - D&C 132:7

God was asking Abraham to commit the unpardonable sin by murdering his innocent and willing son, thereby loosing his Election and becoming a Son of Perdition. This was not a test to see if Abraham was worthy of his calling and election as some suppose, because he had already the promise. It was a test to see if he could be made a God on the spot.

The intelligences of the universe cannot honor us until they know that we will do what is right because it is right even when other Gods command to the contrary. It is a lesson we must learn before becoming a God.

Killing Issac was wrong no matter how you look at it. This essentially pitted Obedience against Morality. And Abraham showed that he would be obedient rather than moral. Although Obedience is the correct answer in the "Servant" phase of our progression, it is the wrong answer in "Son" and "Friend/Equal" phases of our progression.

This is a lesson which we all must eventually learn before becoming a God. Morality is greater than obedience.

Moses had passed this test and the scripture records,

And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

We see that Moses had no problem with telling God "No" when placed into these Obedience vs. Morality conflicts. (Ex. 32:10)

Except Moses was later cursed for not being obedient and Aaron was taken as well. The reason? They were not obedient in commanding the rock to flow forth water and instead hit the rock with the staff.

[sbsion]

libertarianism vs any other PHILOSOPHY

[davedan]

Of course individual use of liquor doesn't need to be illegal when they can't buy it (no export/import, transportation, sale) and they can't make it (manufacture)....your point was?

Yes, that is exactly my point, illegal Distrubution makes immoral consumption difficult. My point was, that you can institute Constitutional/libertarian principles by criminalizing distribution and make access to sin difficult.

A free society doesn't require free and equal access to sin.

But if someone wants to sin bad enough, they could go out of their way to do it. Why not make people go out of their way to sin?

[jonesde]

Of course individual use of liquor doesn't need to be illegal when they can't buy it (no export/import, transportation, sale) and they can't make it (manufacture)....your point was?

Yes, that is exactly my point, illegal Distrubution makes immoral consumption difficult. My point was, that you can institute Constitutional/libertarian principles by criminalizing distribution and make access to sin difficult.

Unfortunately it also makes moral consumption difficult. Right now there are legal issues with producing ethanol to run your car on because it is human consumable and in many states there are laws against producing your own distilled alcohols (fermented ones are generally less restricted, ironically, as they are not useful for fuels). In some places you can denature it by adding poisonous wood alcohol (or other poisonous fuel to it), but in some states just having the still is illegal.

The problem with these sorts of laws and with restricting behavior that doesn't violate the rights of others (and no, voluntary transactions do not violate anyone's rights) is that who gets to decide? Right now we have a government that believes it gets to decide, and in doing so it gets into all sorts of crazy and actually immoral policies.

For example, what if people decide that moral and good and healthy things are dangerous and should be illegal? There are hundreds of laws and regulations that are like this, and giving power to people to make decisions like this and enforce them with violence opens the way for more.

One way I've heard this put that I like is that whatever the state of a society an overbearing coercive government will only make it worse. If the people in the society are generally righteous they don't need enforcement like this, and chances are those with a weakness for controlling others will get involved with the government and oppress their neighbors with the best of intentions. If the people in the society are generally wicked, then the coercive government just provides an avenue for the most wicked to oppress others and violate the rights of others without fear of retribution or punishment.

[davedan]

For example, what if people decide that moral and good and healthy things are dangerous and should be illegal? There are hundreds of laws and regulations that are like this, and giving power to people to make decisions like this and enforce them with violence opens the way for more.

The Book of Mormon instructs us 1. Do our business by the voice of the people because the voice of the people generally want that which is right except when ripe for destruction ( um like now in the us ) 2. what should be punished a according to Alma 1:17-18 is lying (false witness), stealing, murder which are activities which violate the liberties of others. Let the voice of the people decide what is moral and good and healthy and what is immoral, evil and unhealthy.

The thing with recreational drug use was that a majority recognize that recreational drug use is immoral. Most people generally agreed in 1933 that recreational alcoholic beverage consumption was bad. However they were duped into thinking that "the law shouldn't criminize individuals for drinking".

See, this confused the issue. Prohibition had nothing to do with individual consumption. Prohibition was about the criminalization of distribution only

I have already establishe a moral and legal basis for the criminalization of the Distrubution of harmful substances via the Kevorkian Principle. Selling and distributing sin is more than just private contracts and informed consent just like Dr Kevorkian was acting immorally practicing physician-assisted suicide.

[jonesde]

For example, what if people decide that moral and good and healthy things are dangerous and should be illegal? There are hundreds of laws and regulations that are like this, and giving power to people to make decisions like this and enforce them with violence opens the way for more.

The Book of Mormon instructs us 1. Do our business by the voice of the people because the voice of the people generally want that which is right except when ripe for destruction ( um like now in the us ) 2. what should be punished a according to Alma 1:17-18 is lying (false witness), stealing, murder which are activities which violate the liberties of others. Let the voice of the people decide what is moral and good and healthy and what is immoral, evil and unhealthy.

Both D&C 134 and the US Constitution are better references IMO, as they are related to explicit teachings on how government should operate whereas the BoM mostly refers to historical examples used for specific peoples in a specific context, and not described in complete detail but rather in general principles.

The benefit of the US Constitution is that is places limits on powers of government. Without such limits the a majority (or influential minority, especially in the USA system) could easily use government to violate the rights of others. This would cause the government to be a tool of violation of rights instead of protection of rights.

Besides, morality and rights are what they are... and the scriptures teach us what these are... we don't need to know the opinion of a majority to know what they are. A good enumeration of rights of the people and limits of the government is clearly best, and unfortunately that has been destroyed in the USA as the limits of the Constitution are not enforced, and rights in the Constitution are not respected by government.

The problem I have with what you propose is that the same principles you are talking about to justify this action (which goes beyond protecting natural, negative rights (ie D&C 134:2)), is that those principles can be used to justify all sorts of oppression by government, and they currently are being used for such.

The thing with recreational drug use was that a majority recognize that recreational drug use is immoral. Most people generally agreed in 1933 that recreational alcoholic beverage consumption was bad. However they were duped into thinking that "the law shouldn't criminize individuals for drinking".

See, this confused the issue. Prohibition had nothing to do with individual consumption. Prohibition was about the criminalization of distribution only

I have already establishe a moral and legal basis for the criminalization of the Distrubution of harmful substances via the Kevorkian Principle. Selling and distributing sin is more than just private contracts and informed consent just like Dr Kevorkian was acting immorally practicing physician-assisted suicide.

What does selling a substance have to do with physician-assisted suicide? And, who has agreed with your so-called "Kevorkian Principle"? This seems like a dangerous principle that could be used to justify significant violation of the natural, negative rights.

So, am I to understand that you think that suicide is okay, but that assisting someone in suicide in any way is not okay? Please try to think of this outside of the context of your education and profession, because I know there is a LOT of propaganda, "ethics" training, and government influence in your field related to this question.

As for substances used for recreation, what about other accepted substances such as sugar? More and more research is showing that sugar is far more harmful than many substances we might consume, and is consumed almost 100% for purposes of recreation and pleasure.

Should sugar be illegal?

Conversely, marijuana has valid non-recreational medical and industrial uses. As late as WWII there were even government programs to subsidize production of HEMP. As for medical marijuana, it seems to be far safer and more effective at curing or alleviating symptoms of various modern illnesses.

Who are you to decide what should and should not be allowed?

As for distribution, is not going after distribution and possession simply a way to make things easier for law enforcement, even though it is a particular way of using the substance that you object to? The priority on convenience for law enforcement to detect and deter distribution is one of the main things threatening our Constitutional rights.

So no, absolutely not... no laws against distribution and no rights of government to search and seize based on the flimsy excuses that such laws enable. These are totally unconstitutional and allow government to violate the rights of many people, including those who are innocent of breaking any relevant law.

How is it that you support it?

[davedan]

There is no " slippery slope" in the people telling the government to enforce the prohibition of the distribution of a few illicit substances. The only " slippery slope" is legalizing everything and allowing industry to market and advertise drugs to us. Can you imagine a weed isle at every corner gas station and supermarket. Pretty soon americans will get up from the couch only for a "weed run "


KEVORKIAN PRINCIPLE
1. Do you think suicide is right or wrong? (wrong)
2. If noone elses rights are violated, should a person who attempts suicide be prosecuted (no).
3. Why is suicide wrong? (Death is Gods job)
4. Do you think Physician-assisted should be legal or illegal? (illegal)
5. Can Jack Kevorkian can enter into a private contract with a consenting adult? (yes)
6. However, isn't suicide specified in the contract? (yes)
7. Doesn't a suicide physician then become an accomplice to suicide? (yes)
8. Are another persons rights being infringed upon (yes)
9. Is a proper use of government force to punish citizens who infinge on others rights and liberties and use the fear of punishment as basis for deturrance? (yes)
------------------------
1. Do you think recreational marijuana use is wrong? (yes)
2. Why do you think marajuana use is wrong? (self abuse, stealing a 'high', weakening motivation for productivity, by artificially stimulating psychological reward center in brain without earning the reward)
3. Should a recreational drug user be prosecuted if his actions do not violate rights or liberties of others? (no)
4. Do you think recreational marijuana distribution should be legal? (no)
5. Can recreational drug distributors enter into contract with a consenting adult? (yes)
6. However, doesn't the recreational drug distributor know that the product will be used for self-abuse (yes)
7. If recreational drug use is abuse and thieft, doesn't the recreational drug distributor become an accomplice to the abuse and the thieft? (yes)
8. Are another persons rights being infringed upon (yes)
9. Is a proper use of government force to punish citizens who infinge on others rights and liberties and use the fear of punishment as basis for deturrance? (yes)


The issue here is not "can private citicizen enter into contracts". The issue is should private citizens enter into contracts when they specifically know the goods and services they are selling will be used to infringe on another's rights and liberties. If I absolutely know that my services or goods are going to be for immoral activities, it is my duty to not enter into that contract. In the cases of physician-assisted suicide, and recreational drug Distrubution, the immoral use is specified as part of the contract. In other words, the seller can't say "I sold it to him, but I didnt know what he was going to do with it."

[Jason]

Of course individual use of liquor doesn't need to be illegal when they can't buy it (no export/import, transportation, sale) and they can't make it (manufacture)....your point was?

Yes, that is exactly my point, illegal Distrubution makes immoral consumption difficult. My point was, that you can institute Constitutional/libertarian principles by criminalizing distribution and make access to sin difficult.

A free society doesn't require free and equal access to sin.

But if someone wants to sin bad enough, they could go out of their way to do it. Why not make people go out of their way to sin?

I don't see the point. The whole point of laws is to set a line in the sand. To create constraints and set equal punishment (justice) for the violation of those constraints. Anybody can break any law.

So if it is against the law to buy and manufacture it....what's the difference between that and adding one more law concerning consumption? Knowing that they will have to break a law (buy or manufacture) in order to consume....and just leaving that last one along because what's one more additional law to break when they've already had to break another law in order to obtain it prior to consuming it?

I don't see how what you are saying fits in with any of the libertarian rhetoric that I have seen to date. Libertarians want all the laws removed because they feel it is everyone's individual right to consume alcohol. That there shouldn't be a standard that they can be held accountable to.

[Jason]

The benefit of the US Constitution is that is places limits on powers of government. Without such limits the a majority (or influential minority, especially in the USA system) could easily use government to violate the rights of others. This would cause the government to be a tool of violation of rights instead of protection of rights.

Besides, morality and rights are what they are... and the scriptures teach us what these are... we don't need to know the opinion of a majority to know what they are. A good enumeration of rights of the people and limits of the government is clearly best, and unfortunately that has been destroyed in the USA as the limits of the Constitution are not enforced, and rights in the Constitution are not respected by government.

The Constitution cannot restrain the majority or "voice of the people". Hence all the respective founding fathers comments regarding the utility of the Constitution and righteous people.

Just like all other laws....its only useful as a guideline and the obedience given to that guideline. If people choose as a whole to disobey laws and become a law unto themselves....there's nothing that can stop them. God has given them enough agency to either obtain more or destroy what they have.

[jonesde]

There is no " slippery slope" in the people telling the government to enforce the prohibition of the distribution of a few illicit substances. The only " slippery slope" is legalizing everything and allowing industry to market and advertise drugs to us. Can you imagine a weed isle at every corner gas station and supermarket. Pretty soon americans will get up from the couch only for a "weed run "


KEVORKIAN PRINCIPLE
1. Do you think suicide is right or wrong? (wrong)
2. If noone elses rights are violated, should a person who attempts suicide be prosecuted (no).
3. Why is suicide wrong? (Death is Gods job)
4. Do you think Physician-assisted should be legal or illegal? (illegal)
5. Can Jack Kevorkian can enter into a private contract with a consenting adult? (yes)
6. However, isn't suicide specified in the contract? (yes)
7. Doesn't a suicide physician then become an accomplice to suicide? (yes)
8. Are another persons rights being infringed upon (yes)
9. Is a proper use of government force to punish citizens who infinge on others rights and liberties and use the fear of punishment as basis for deturrance? (yes)
------------------------
1. Do you think recreational marijuana use is wrong? (yes)
2. Why do you think marajuana use is wrong? (self abuse, stealing a 'high', weakening motivation for productivity, by artificially stimulating psychological reward center in brain without earning the reward)
3. Should a recreational drug user be prosecuted if his actions do not violate rights or liberties of others? (no)
4. Do you think recreational marijuana distribution should be legal? (no)
5. Can recreational drug distributors enter into contract with a consenting adult? (yes)
6. However, doesn't the recreational drug distributor know that the product will be used for self-abuse (yes)
7. If recreational drug use is abuse and thieft, doesn't the recreational drug distributor become an accomplice to the abuse and the thieft? (yes)
8. Are another persons rights being infringed upon (yes)
9. Is a proper use of government force to punish citizens who infinge on others rights and liberties and use the fear of punishment as basis for deturrance? (yes)


The issue here is not "can private citicizen enter into contracts". The issue is should private citizens enter into contracts when they specifically know the goods and services they are selling will be used to infringe on another's rights and liberties. If I absolutely know that my services or goods are going to be for immoral activities, it is my duty to not enter into that contract. In the cases of physician-assisted suicide, and recreational drug Distrubution, the immoral use is specified as part of the contract. In other words, the seller can't say "I sold it to him, but I didnt know what he was going to do with it."

1. whose rights are "being infringed upon" in these cases?

2. what is the right of that person (or those people) that is being infringed?

3. if there is no law against an act, how can there be a lot against assisting or collaborating in that act?

[davedan]

Libertarians want all the laws removed because they feel it is everyone's individual right to consume alcohol

I am not arguing that personal recreational drug consumption should be illegal. Like libertarians, I have no problem with that. Smoke all the weed and drink all the booz you want. It's not that hard to make your own beer or grow your own weed. This is not illegal. There is no breaking one more law. However, Libertarians are not anarchists and do not oppose all laws.


According to Libetarian principle, laws should punish people who violate the rights and liberties of others. Recreational drug distribution does violate freedoms because the abusive use of the product is absoluty implied in the transaction. The seller knows exactly how the buyer will abuse the product. Therefore thete is an abuse of freedom. The legal basis for recreational drug Distrubution being illegal is specified above (the Kevorkian principle).

[Jason]

Unfortunately it also makes moral consumption difficult. Right now there are legal issues with producing ethanol to run your car on because it is human consumable and in many states there are laws against producing your own distilled alcohols (fermented ones are generally less restricted, ironically, as they are not useful for fuels). In some places you can denature it by adding poisonous wood alcohol (or other poisonous fuel to it), but in some states just having the still is illegal.

The problem with these sorts of laws and with restricting behavior that doesn't violate the rights of others (and no, voluntary transactions do not violate anyone's rights) is that who gets to decide? Right now we have a government that believes it gets to decide, and in doing so it gets into all sorts of crazy and actually immoral policies.

For example, what if people decide that moral and good and healthy things are dangerous and should be illegal? There are hundreds of laws and regulations that are like this, and giving power to people to make decisions like this and enforce them with violence opens the way for more.

One way I've heard this put that I like is that whatever the state of a society an overbearing coercive government will only make it worse. If the people in the society are generally righteous they don't need enforcement like this, and chances are those with a weakness for controlling others will get involved with the government and oppress their neighbors with the best of intentions. If the people in the society are generally wicked, then the coercive government just provides an avenue for the most wicked to oppress others and violate the rights of others without fear of retribution or punishment.

If the people didn't abuse their privileges (agency) then they wouldn't they have more agency? In other words, if people abided by a higher law then there wouldn't be need for a lower law? But if they don't abide by the higher law then doesn't it become prerequisite to set a lower law? And a lower law?

Because a few or many have chosen to abuse wood alcohol then consequently everyone else suffers and is more constrained as a result. Its been that way since the beginning of time.

Why did King Mosiah do away with the rule of kings? Wasn't it because a very few (wicked kings) caused the people as a whole to suffer? Thus they came up with a representative government as a compromise? A government that was only as good as the majority (voice of the people)?

So if the people aren't willing to abide by the law don't they requisitely need additional correction (more micromanagement) because they become less and less capable of governing themselves (haven't used their agency properly and thus losing it)?

What is the natural result of removing government and law? Isn't that a very fast trip to complete law unto themselves? Recipe for disaster?

[Jason]

Libertarians want all the laws removed because they feel it is everyone's individual right to consume alcohol

I am not arguing that personal recreational drug consumption should be illegal. Like libertarians, I have no problem with that. Smoke all the weed and drink all the booz you want. It's not that hard to make your own beer or grow your own weed. This is not illegal. There is no breaking one more law. However, Libertarians are not anarchists and do not oppose all laws.


According to Libetarian principle, laws should punish people who violate the rights and liberties of others. Recreational drug distribution does violate freedoms because the abusive use of the product is absoluty implied in the transaction. The seller knows exactly how the buyer will abuse the product. Therefore thete is an abuse of freedom. The legal basis for recreational drug Distrubution being illegal is specified above (the Kevorkian principle).

So manufacture and distribution should be illegal and consumption should not? Is that right?

[jonesde]

There is no " slippery slope" in the people telling the government to enforce the prohibition of the distribution of a few illicit substances. The only " slippery slope" is legalizing everything and allowing industry to market and advertise drugs to us. Can you imagine a weed isle at every corner gas station and supermarket. Pretty soon americans will get up from the couch only for a "weed run "

It used to be this way. How much do you read about it being a problem in history books? In fact, people used to send their children to the drug store or general store to pick up laudanum, which is much harder drug than marijuana. It didn't used to be a big deal or a big problem. What's more, the drug use and addiction statistics haven't changed much since then, so is all of this violence and harm enhancement (instead of reduction) helping overall, or hurting overall?

BTW, aren't people free to choose to be unproductive if they wish? If someone wants to work minimally and spend minimally, is that not their right to do? In fact, these days more and more are doing just that in order to avoid supporting a corrupt and violent system (ie making too little to have an income tax liability, avoiding spending on taxable luxuries, etc). Or, is it only immoral to be happy and lazy if you are on a drug that helps it out?

Personally, I have a problem with being overly-driven and along with it overly-stressed (with all the health problems that come with it) and I hadn't really thought about using marijuana for this purpose until this discussion... but the more I consider it the more I'm thinking that perhaps this is one of the many medicinal reasons God had for creating this particular herb.

I've never used it, so I don't know if it would have this effect for me... but if it makes people contented and reduces a drive to work... it sounds like heaven!

And, who are to take upon yourself violence and judgment if I do, and if I want to pay someone to help me cultivate and package the herb for easier use (just like food, tools, books, church buildings, etc)?

I've heard pro-marijuana folks say that if it were legal use wouldn't increase a lot (aside from initially, as has been shown in various European countries)... but for me it's something I believe God created for a reason, and I might consider using it for what ails me... especially as an alternative to dumb/happy drugs like Prozac and Zoloft that have too many negative side effects for them to be worth it to me.

And again, who are YOU to judge? And what justifies YOUR use of violence against me if I did?

[jonesde]

The benefit of the US Constitution is that is places limits on powers of government. Without such limits the a majority (or influential minority, especially in the USA system) could easily use government to violate the rights of others. This would cause the government to be a tool of violation of rights instead of protection of rights.

Besides, morality and rights are what they are... and the scriptures teach us what these are... we don't need to know the opinion of a majority to know what they are. A good enumeration of rights of the people and limits of the government is clearly best, and unfortunately that has been destroyed in the USA as the limits of the Constitution are not enforced, and rights in the Constitution are not respected by government.

The Constitution cannot restrain the majority or "voice of the people". Hence all the respective founding fathers comments regarding the utility of the Constitution and righteous people.

Just like all other laws....its only useful as a guideline and the obedience given to that guideline. If people choose as a whole to disobey laws and become a law unto themselves....there's nothing that can stop them. God has given them enough agency to either obtain more or destroy what they have.

The Constitution, like all laws, is just a piece of paper with words on it. Unfortunately, for this particular law there is not an adequate enforcement mechanism, so those in government can collude and disregard it all they want. Unfortunately, it is the limits on government with no enforcement... the laws limiting liberty have all sorts of enforcement (and profit motive for enforcement)!

[Jason]

There is no " slippery slope" in the people telling the government to enforce the prohibition of the distribution of a few illicit substances. The only " slippery slope" is legalizing everything and allowing industry to market and advertise drugs to us. Can you imagine a weed isle at every corner gas station and supermarket. Pretty soon americans will get up from the couch only for a "weed run "

It used to be this way. How much do you read about it being a problem in history books? In fact, people used to send their children to the drug store or general store to pick up laudanum, which is much harder drug than marijuana. It didn't used to be a big deal or a big problem. What's more, the drug use and addiction statistics haven't changed much since then, so is all of this violence and harm enhancement (instead of reduction) helping overall, or hurting overall?

BTW, aren't people free to choose to be unproductive if they wish? If someone wants to work minimally and spend minimally, is that not their right to do? In fact, these days more and more are doing just that in order to avoid supporting a corrupt and violent system (ie making too little to have an income tax liability, avoiding spending on taxable luxuries, etc). Or, is it only immoral to be happy and lazy if you are on a drug that helps it out?

Personally, I have a problem with being overly-driven and along with it overly-stressed (with all the health problems that come with it) and I hadn't really thought about using marijuana for this purpose until this discussion... but the more I consider it the more I'm thinking that perhaps this is one of the many medicinal reasons God had for creating this particular herb.

I've never used it, so I don't know if it would have this effect for me... but if it makes people contented and reduces a drive to work... it sounds like heaven!

And, who are to take upon yourself violence and judgment if I do, and if I want to pay someone to help me cultivate and package the herb for easier use (just like food, tools, books, church buildings, etc)?

I've heard pro-marijuana folks say that if it were legal use wouldn't increase a lot (aside from initially, as has been shown in various European countries)... but for me it's something I believe God created for a reason, and I might consider using it for what ails me... especially as an alternative to dumb/happy drugs like Prozac and Zoloft that have too many negative side effects for them to be worth it to me.

And again, who are YOU to judge? And what justifies YOUR use of violence against me if I did?

So your world will be much happier if we just let you use your drugs to your heart's content? That somehow in that process you will have liberty and become more free? That you can then live as God intended (chained to addictive substances?) without fear of "the man" using violence against you???

Sorry....wickedness never was nor never will be happiness!

[Jason]

The benefit of the US Constitution is that is places limits on powers of government. Without such limits the a majority (or influential minority, especially in the USA system) could easily use government to violate the rights of others. This would cause the government to be a tool of violation of rights instead of protection of rights.

Besides, morality and rights are what they are... and the scriptures teach us what these are... we don't need to know the opinion of a majority to know what they are. A good enumeration of rights of the people and limits of the government is clearly best, and unfortunately that has been destroyed in the USA as the limits of the Constitution are not enforced, and rights in the Constitution are not respected by government.

The Constitution cannot restrain the majority or "voice of the people". Hence all the respective founding fathers comments regarding the utility of the Constitution and righteous people.

Just like all other laws....its only useful as a guideline and the obedience given to that guideline. If people choose as a whole to disobey laws and become a law unto themselves....there's nothing that can stop them. God has given them enough agency to either obtain more or destroy what they have.

The Constitution, like all laws, is just a piece of paper with words on it. Unfortunately, for this particular law there is not an adequate enforcement mechanism, so those in government can collude and disregard it all they want. Unfortunately, it is the limits on government with no enforcement... the laws limiting liberty have all sorts of enforcement (and profit motive for enforcement)!

What constitutes an adequate enforcement mechanism? And who is supposed to provide that enforcement?

[davedan]

Remember, personally produce and use all the drugs you want. Grow your own poppies, weed and maje your own beer. Use all the industry produced drugs for medicinal purposes you want. What we are talking about is for "recreational Distrubution". Don't confuse the issue here.

If the recreational drug distributor or the suicide doctor knows that the product will be used for self abuse. The act enables the abuse. The abuse is specified in the contract. A suicide doctor is selling suicide. The recreational drug distributor is distributing recreational drugs.

Therefore, the sellers cannot claim, "I didnt know he was going to use it for abuse". The product was sold for the intention of abuse. It doesn't have to be illegal for there to be an abuse or harm.

So, therefore, a better way to put it is, suicide doctors like recreational drug sellers are engaging in illegal activity because "harm and abuse" is specified in the contract .

[jonesde]

If the people didn't abuse their privileges (agency) then they wouldn't they have more agency? In other words, if people abided by a higher law then there wouldn't be need for a lower law? But if they don't abide by the higher law then doesn't it become prerequisite to set a lower law? And a lower law?

So you would take away my liberty because someone else abused a substance?

You are really reaching in order to justify your desire for violence...

Because a few or many have chosen to abuse wood alcohol then consequently everyone else suffers and is more constrained as a result. Its been that way since the beginning of time.

Here's another issue with solving problems through violence... it leads to ignorance.

Wood alcohol can't really be abused... it you drink methanol it will kill you.

Why did King Mosiah do away with the rule of kings? Wasn't it because a very few (wicked kings) caused the people as a whole to suffer? Thus they came up with a representative government as a compromise? A government that was only as good as the majority (voice of the people)?

So if the people aren't willing to abide by the law don't they requisitely need additional correction (more micromanagement) because they become less and less capable of governing themselves (haven't used their agency properly and thus losing it)?

What is the natural result of removing government and law? Isn't that a very fast trip to complete law unto themselves? Recipe for disaster?

Among a wicked people the wicked in charge just use the law as a justification for their wickedness. How does that help or constrain anyone? It doesn't... it is just a means for increasing the overall wickedness.

[Jason]

Remember, personally produce and use all the drugs you want. Grow your own poppies, weed and maje your own beer. Use all the industry produced drugs for medicinal purposes you want. What we are talking about is for "recreational Distrubution". Don't confuse the issue here.

If the recreational drug distributor or the suicide doctor knows that the product will be used for self abuse. The act enables the abuse. The abuse is specified in the contract. A suicide doctor is selling suicide. The recreational drug distributor is distributing recreational drugs.

Therefore, the sellers cannot claim, "I didnt know he was going to use it for abuse". The product was sold for the intention of abuse. It doesn't have to be illegal for there to be an abuse or harm.

So, therefore, a better way to put it is, suicide doctors like recreational drug sellers are engaging in illegal activity because "harm and abuse" is specified in the contract .

Earlier you included manufacture....hence the misunderstandings.

Agree to disagree.

[davedan]

The only issue here is "Recreational Distrubution." Because an abusive and harmful intent is specifically part of the contract, the government has a duty to prosecute to protect from harm and abuse.



Yes, recreational import, recreational manufacture, recreational export, ect (harm and abuse is specified in contract)

[jonesde]

So your world will be much happier if we just let you use your drugs to your heart's content? That somehow in that process you will have liberty and become more free? That you can then live as God intended (chained to addictive substances?) without fear of "the man" using violence against you???

Sorry....wickedness never was nor never will be happiness!

Sorry, but this only shows your ignorance of the nature of this herb that God created.

How many people are addicted to marijuana? Compared to that, how many are addicted to sugar? How many people die from long-term use of marijuana? How many die from the diseases that result from using too much sugar?

On the flip-side, what are the benefits of marijuana and how would it compare in effectiveness versus side effects of drugs like Prozac and Zoloft (or the dozens of other drugs that marijuana can more effectively replace)?

[jonesde]

The only issue here is "Recreational Distrubution." Because an abusive and harmful intent specifically part of the contract, the government has a duty to prosecute to protect from harm and abuse.



Yes, recreational import, recreational manufacture, recreational export, ect (harm and abuse is specified in contract)

How would you enforce that? How would you know if it was recreational production or distribution versus medicinal? Who would be empowered with making that decision?

[Jason]

If the people didn't abuse their privileges (agency) then they wouldn't they have more agency? In other words, if people abided by a higher law then there wouldn't be need for a lower law? But if they don't abide by the higher law then doesn't it become prerequisite to set a lower law? And a lower law?

So you would take away my liberty because someone else abused a substance?

You are really reaching in order to justify your desire for violence...

Because a few or many have chosen to abuse wood alcohol then consequently everyone else suffers and is more constrained as a result. Its been that way since the beginning of time.

Here's another issue with solving problems through violence... it leads to ignorance.

Wood alcohol can't really be abused... it you drink methanol it will kill you.

Why did King Mosiah do away with the rule of kings? Wasn't it because a very few (wicked kings) caused the people as a whole to suffer? Thus they came up with a representative government as a compromise? A government that was only as good as the majority (voice of the people)?

So if the people aren't willing to abide by the law don't they requisitely need additional correction (more micromanagement) because they become less and less capable of governing themselves (haven't used their agency properly and thus losing it)?

What is the natural result of removing government and law? Isn't that a very fast trip to complete law unto themselves? Recipe for disaster?

Among a wicked people the wicked in charge just use the law as a justification for their wickedness. How does that help or constrain anyone? It doesn't... it is just a means for increasing the overall wickedness.

You don't have any liberty to take away when you are addicted to addictive substances.

People drink/eat wood alcohol everyday without killing themselves (at least short term). It goes by variety of names but mostly known as aspartame/Nutrasweet/Aminosweet. Of course it starts out chemically bound to two amino acids but the chemical connection disintegrates above 86 degrees....and most people's bodies are a bit higher than 86 degrees.

Yes at the end of the downward spiral everyone ends up becoming a law unto themselves (at least the wicked) in whatever capacities and powers they hold. The government will eventually fall apart as a result or one small group will rule with blood and terror (to enforce "their" law)....that is unless the people repent.

Of course we have the reassurance that Christ will come and deal with the secret combinations and rule as our King.