That's because the punishment usually isn't particularly harsh, and may just be rehab.
A felony conviction is always a pretty serious thing and I think sentencing for possession is a little harsher than you might think.
Regardless, the punishment for possession of - for instance - a single joint are absolutely and undeniably much, much, much more serious than the punishments for drinking yourself into a stupor every evening.
You have managed to avoid addressing this discrepancy entirely. I tend to believe you don't see this as a problem.
Here's a statement I made earlier. "If that something takes away their ability to exhibit self control and contemplate proper choices, and probably makes them dangerous to people around them, then yes you do (imprisoning people who intoxicate themselves)." Do the math.
So self-destruction isn't an issue to you, really. Psychoactive intoxication of any sort is.
Unless it is alcohol.
Again with that inconsistency.
Then go read all the passages in the Bible condemning drunkenness, idolatry, and uncleanliness. And then go read those that promote self control and turning away from wasting your life pursuing the pleasures of the flesh.
Oh, I've read those plenty of times, and I work to live my life accordingly. The ones I'm looking for are the ones that say that an earthly government should enforce devine law.
Actually, I had a serious answer for this, but I am not going to bother. You produce more questions about what I believe than statements about what you believe, which is the general habit of a wannabe academic who would rather pick on someone else's opinion than protect their own.
*laugh*
You make it sound as if asking questions is a bad thing.
You've avoided answering my questions. Why? Have I avoided answering yours?
And if you thought I hadn't made statements about my beliefs, you obviously haven't been reading my posts.
How about you make a statement about why you think there should be limitations on what arms people can buy despite the 2nd amendment (assuming this is your stance) but there should be no regulation of what drugs people can buy according to your definition of the 9th amendment.
I don't.
How about you say why whether a person hurts themselves or another is a valid philisophical basis for what society should allow them to do.
I thought that I stated this very clearly.
An adult who chooses to hurt themselves is not an issue for the government to address.
One person hurting another might be, depending on the circumstances.
Some examples to help you understand what I mean:
1. Somene enjoys overeating to the point of obesity and in so doing develops various health problems.
- Not a situation where the government needs to step in and ban unhealthy foods or enforce mandatory exercise programs.
2. Someone likes to participate in full-contact kickboxing and while they kickbox they get the crap beat out of them and they beat the everliving daylights out of other consenting adults.
- Not a situation where the government needs to step in and ban martial arts or regulate them to points matches only.
3. Someone likes to hit little old grannies and take their purses.
- A perfect situation for the government to step in and work to control muggings.
4. Someone takes drugs (alcohol, pot, heroin, whatever) to the point that their health or mental state suffers, but they do it in the privacy and safety of their own home and they are the only ones harmed.
- Not a situation where the government needs to step in and ban some of the dangerous chemicals.
5. Someone takes drugs (alcohol, pot, heroin, whatever) to the point that their health or mental state suffers, and then they beat up their children.
- A perfect situation for the government to step in to work to prevent domestic violence.
Clear enough?
How about you make a statement of why prosecuting people for trafficking drugs is a violation of their rights as defined by the Constitution.
This doesn't speak highly of your knowledge of the purpose of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not define every right you have. Prosecuting people for trafficking drugs is every bit as Constitutional as prosecuting sex within marriage.
How about you make a statement about why society should have its law turn a blind eye to substance abuse and not pnuish it, other than thats the way you "feel."
Because a free human - if nothing else - has the right to destroy their own body and/or mind if they so choose.
This is not to say society need turn a blind eye to substance abuse, but as you say, should allow people with self-destructive inclinations to punish themselves.
You've not made any argument
for drug restrictions beyond your own personal feelings. I oppose drug restrictions based on the concept of self-ownership, personal freedom and the fact that the Constitution you speak so highly of does not allow for Federal involvement in the matter at all without an amendment to do so.
By the way, trying to reverse questions you can't answer without even trying to answer them is a perfect example of "a wannabe academic who would rather pick on someone else's opinion than protect their own," isn't it?
I've tried to answer the questions you've posed (however poor they may be). Now would you like to answer the ones I posed to you?
Actually, you said "You are incapable of seeing the difference between legality and morality. To you, if something is immoral, it should be illegal and if it is legal it must be moral." I see no reason to interpret this any other way than that you are accusing me of not seeing the difference between what is of the realm of law and what is of the realm of morality. I aswered in that context.
You answered by saying it was a fallacy to divide the two and went on to connect them by stating that morality leads to law, which it doesn't always.
What makes you think I was ever using the definition "an arbitrary standard of behavior as defined by law"?
When you suggested that it is a fallacy to claim that one can separate law and morality.
Since you're so interested in putting words into my mouth why don't you go ahead and have an argument with yourself.
I've not intentionally put words in your mouth, but I have had an argument with myself on this very issue. My considered position is the result of that very debate. Have you given thought to your position?
But this semantical argument is beside the point.
Ever since you entered this discussion, you have argued that anything that - when abused - can be intoxicating in a psychoactive manner should be banned, but you admit you drink alcohol and have no desire to see it regulated similarly. You have argued that you support a strict view of the Constitution, but remain unconcerned with unConstitutional authority assumed by the Federal government when they chose to launch the War on Drugs without amending the Constitution as they did to ban alcohol. You have been in no way consistent, objective or logical. Whatever merit your position may have is hidden by your inability to even define the "why" of your belief.
I think you could stand to learn more about why you believe the way you do. If you care about that sort of thing.
