Mike,

>>We also have them for speeding and stopping at stop signs. Do you stop at stop signs or do you just blow through, taking your chances? <g> There's a reason that law is ther and the same goes for some of these others I'd think.
>
>I pull up to them, make sure its safe to go, and if it is, I go. Wether or not I completely stop is irrelevant as long as I pass through the intersection safely. I think its irrelevant because the goal of the law is to make sure I am safe, not that I spend 2 extra seconds of my life living "by the book". Thats how I look at laws.

Well, then I'd think you're a pretty good example of what I'm suggesting. If you think that you can reduce the laws to how you interpret them as opposed to how they are written then, by definition, you hold yourself above the law. A stop sign is there so you will stop, not decide if you want to stop or not. <g> In the same fashion, why don't you pay only a part of your taxes next year simply because you don't agree with 100% of what the deferal government is doing. Pay only the percentage that you agree with.. <g>

If it is 'better' or 'more right' to allow people to hold themselves above the law than not, again, that's just anarchy IMO.

>
>>Well, based upon my observations of history I'd think you're incorrect. Go back a little further, say, to the Roman Emopire or . The pattern is always the same.
>
>Like I said, look at Eurpoe. Its not anarchy over there. In fact, Markus Voellmy just told me that they legalized cannibis in Switzerland today.

Well, I think you need to take another look. Go to a football game (European type that is) perhaps.. Certainly you aren't that unaware of some of the problems they're having. Check out the stories about the gangs in France for example. No offense but you're dead wrong on your assessment on this one.


>
>>Well, I agree in pronciple of course. I seem to recall that there was a Constitutional Ammendment enacted to fix this? While I'm not sure an ammendment would be needed this is the approach I'm suggesting - that is, if you disagree with any given law, work through the system to change it to what you'd like.
>
>Thats what I'm doing.

That's great.

>
>>No.. During Prohibition using and selling alcohol was illegal.
>
>I understand, I'm familiar with the roaring 20's.


>
>>As far as targeting "our freiends and familes", what does that have to do with anything?
>
>Um... it has to do with why I started this thread in the first place. The Government is waging war on its citizens. I think thats wrong. You probably have friends or family that now have to live in fear because of that war, but they've done nothing wrong.

Actually, I don't have the kinds of friends who live in fear of the law Mike. At least not that I know of. <g> I'm guessing from this sentence that you do. That's their own fault I suppose.

Does that mean I think that everything the government does is good? Hardly. I think more often than not the government does more harm that good and the less of them the better.


>
>>If I have an Aunt who kills her kids I want her locked up - regardless of any biological relationship. Are you suggesting that simply because these folks are genetically related to you that this is cause for dropping any investigation or charges? ?? Now you have me questioning your thinking process Mike..
>
>I hope the above clears that up.
>
>>And I suppose I can cite other studies that show the opposite. *shrug*
>
>You suppose. Let see something recent that prove that cannibis or herion has harsher effects on the mind and body than alcohol (which is legal).

Not the point. The point is whether it does or not, not whether it does more or not.

>
>>I'm perfectly comfortable that you might think those thoughts. I recognize your right to be wrong. <g>
>
>Lol.

<g>

Hey.. Tolerance really does have its basis in Christianity. Forgiveness and all that.. I hope some day you are able to realize and understand the intellectual link. Until then it's just a convenient concept used for selfish purposes IMO.

>
>>Uh huh.. So then you are asserting that the human mind is more than just a physical entity?
>
>I'm asserting that drugs effect people in different ways. Cannibis and plecybic (spellling?) mushrooms are mind drugs, they change how the mind works. Cocaine is a stimulant that effects how the central nervous system works. Big differnce in what they're altering.

Of course they affect people differently. Kind of like Russion Roulette I suppose. Like alcohol; you never quite know who's going to become an alcoholic. However, even the alcoholic, if they abstain, will not have a problem. Like sex. Only those who abstain are assured of not contacting a STD.


>
>>Well, one of the signs that dependency has moved to the threshold of addicition is denial.
>
>I'm not in denial, I'm just trying to avoid making this argument personal. It shoudln't be, we should be looking at the facts and reasons.

I wasn't trying to make this personal (see following sentence). However, the principle does apply to both of us as well as everyone else I suppose.

>
>>The facts are still the same in that you (in this hypothetical I presume) need the ingestion of a foreign substance to get where you want to go. I am asserting that this is totally unnecessary.
>
>I agree its unnecessary, and not to make it presonal, but, hey, its fun.

Yes, you are quite correct - it can be a lot of fun. Is it right, or good or desireable though?

>
>>Everyone intrinsically 'knows' that there is a God and that He exists.
>
>I think I'm gonna be sick...

That's too bad. And it doesn't change the facts but only proves them. If you didn't have something going on inside as a reaction you wouldn't have reacted. That you reacted in pretty much the expected fashion only proves that there is something inside that reacts to these words. I didn't make you have this reaction.

Curious though that for something that prople vigorously assert doesn't matter or exist that they react so strongly to it.

Wonder why?

>
>>Look at all of the anthropological evidences, particularly of those peoples who have never encountered civilization. Guess what, they have some form of worship.
>
>They also usually have some form of racism, sexism, or agism. If civilations before us were perfect, we'd still be living in them. So wether or not worship is old (I think smoking weed is nearly just as old, in the historic sense), does not make it right. Thread drift, my fault for bringing it up.

Thread drift!?!? Shocking!! <g>

That isn't a proof against my point. It only enforces it. Remember, the Historic Christian position 'take' is that man is not getting better or 'moving up' but getting worse or 'moving down'. That these kinds of problems exist is proof that man has what Christianity calls a fallen nature. That is, man has fallen from a former position, not that man is ascending to it.

If man were ascending to some 'place' then you could look at those societies that promulgated the particular core belief system that you think would cause man to 'ascend upwards.' Go ahead and look but even in so-called "civilized" nations (however you define civilized I do not care) and you will still see the same kinds of brutish behavior you define as 'bad' - in this case 'racism, sexism and agism'. Affluence, knowledge, culture, or the lack thereof.. none of these lift the individual up or out.

>
>>No, not at all. I also think that smokong pot degrades your physical and mental acuities. It just also happens to be illegal. Alcohol is not and I dare say that far more people are damaged by alcohol than pot. That is no argument for legalizing yet another substance that will harm people.
>
>Yes, actually, it is an argument. If you make laws that hugely effect peoples lives (getting thrown in jail for 5 years because you have a single joint) you HAVE to have reasons and arguments to back them up, AND you have to be consitant. If you think that is pure accident that one is legal, and one is not, and believe that things should not change, think about everyone who's lives have been ruined, not by taking drugs, but by being caught with them.

Well, as I mentioned to Jim in another message I do think that many of the laws are too srong. I'd bet you and I would be pretty close on that score. Again, I don't see that as a proof for legalizing drugs.

I think that some of the best arguments for legalizing drugs have been put forward by William F. Buckley, no liberal he. <g> I still disagree with him thhough.

>
>There is no reason or logic to the current situation. It MUST be changed in order for the people to have faith in their government. End of story.

So you do have a faith then? Just that your god is a man-made creation? <g> Are you promoting a modern day version of emporer worship? <g> I have faith in God, not government that's for sure.. <g>


>
>>You may have a point.. <g> Not that it the same as being 'good' or 'desireable'.
>
>I totally agree. Drugs (including alcohol and nicotine) are a bad habit. So is drinking milk out of the carton. However, we live in the land of the free, as long as I do not interfere with everyone elses life, liberty, and pursuit for happiness, I shoudl be free to do as I wish.

*ROF'L*

I'd catch he** from Karol iof I did that! <g>

I think that the definition of the word 'freedom' here is a huge difference. I define it as "The ability to NOT do something" whereas I think yourdefinition would be along the lines of "The ability TO do something." Am I close?

Strength is displayed by the control of itself, not the expression of itself IMO. IOW, I think it takes more strength to have self control than not.

I've enjoyed this Mike.