Lex Luthor wears Eleanor Holmes-Norton pajamas to bed. I say this because poor Lex’s sole ambition in life was to destroy Metropolis. One little fictional city and he couldn’t get it done.
Now compare Lex’s futility with the masterful destruction of Washington D.C. by delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton who is on the brink of effectively destroying our nation’s capitol with a few simple maneuvers.
Seriously, if you were trying to destroy a city you would have to seriously consider the near perfect storm of taxpayer backed debauchery that Norton and her pals in Congress are seeking to enact right now. If Holmes has her way (and it looks like she might), the federal government will be funding abortions in D.C., legalizing marijuana in D.C, and handing out needles to junkies in D.C. All on the taxpayer dime, mind you.
The Washington Post reports:
A House and Senate Appropriations conference committee approved legislation late Tuesday that would allow the District to use local tax dollars to help low-income women pay for abortions, to allow patients to legally use marijuana when it is prescribed by a doctor and to continue to fund needle-exchange programs in a bid to limit the spread of HIV and AIDS.
Could you imagine a worse prescription for what ails Washington D.C.?
Free abortions? Free needles for junkies? Legal marijuana? Holmes-Norton took a break from her victory dance to be quoted in the Post:
“This is a great triumph for the District,” Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said Wednesday. Although two votes remain, Norton said, “we think it’s over.” The financial services legislation that governs District spending is contained in a large package of bills, “and it will be hard to take this one out,” she said. “We’re almost home free.”
Where is Superman when you need him?
When will liberals learn that free does not equal compassion. When someone’s addicted to drugs, compassion doesn’t mean giving them needles. Compassion is helping them kick the habit. When a woman is having a baby, compassion isn’t killing the baby for free it’s helping the mother care for the child. And legalizing drugs doesn’t help anybody.
And as if this all couldn’t get any worse, Washington D.C. city council is effectively forcing the Catholic Church’s social services out of D.C. by enacting a law that would force the Church to offer benefits to same sex couple and provide adoptions for gay couples.
So in short, killing of the unborn for free, free needles for junkies, and legalized marijuana. And no social services from the Catholic Church.
Lex Luthor would be jealous.
December 10, 2009 at 6:08 pm
John Lennon's Imagine brought to life.
December 10, 2009 at 6:13 pm
OK, to start, let's try divorcing the two issues which have NOTHING to do with each other; abortion and drug use. The abortion issue is not debateable from a Catholic standpoint, so, moving on…
As far as using marijuana and even other drugs, I am absolutely libertarian on this (note: I have never done drugs in my life and don't even drink alcohol). To me alcohol and drugs are equivalent; they both impair one's ability to function and can lead to disease, bad judgement and death. I don't see the difference between the two, not at all. So, since one is being taxed and legal to consume (at an approved age) then the other should as well. If someone is going to become an alcoholic and drop out of society, there is little anyone can do about it except the person in question. Same with drugs. I would personally prefer to see less resources spent on prosecuting drug users (note: not dealers, but users) and more on rehabilitation programs.
December 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Narcotics and alcohol are not equivalent. Have you ever met anyone who snorted just a quick line of coke at the local bar after happy hour – didn't get high, but just wanted a quick pick me up? The abuse of alcohol leading to intoxication places it on par, arguably, with narcotics, but a drink or two of alcohol does not make it anywhere near as bad as other drugs.
In other words, you can have a drink without getting drunk, but you cannot take a hit or a snort or whatever and not get high.
December 10, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Paul you are kidding yourself. One drink of alcohol can impair someone who has not had anything to eat or has small body mass. The whole concept of a "pick me up" IMHO is a dillusion. There should be no need for any foreign substance to go into your body to "pick you up". Also, I know of several people who just take a "hit" of marijuana. I don't really know anyone who does cocaine so I can't comment to that.
I stand by my statement. Any comment, criticism or argument you can make against drugs (specifically lesser impacting ones, like marijuana) can also be made for alcohol. The only difference is one is legal (and socially acceptible) and one is not.
December 10, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Early Riser, my point is that an indvidiaul can have a drink (or inmmy case three) without being remotely affected by the alchol. Now, an individual can take a few hits off a joint and not get high, that is true, but most other narcotis care affect people instantaneously.
Also, people drink without intending to get drunk. I'm not saying that intentions never go arry, but many people have a drink or two and are fine. On the other hand, nobody takes a hit without intending to get high.
By the way, I'm not arguing for or against the legalization of narcotics. It's just ludicrous to claim that alcohol and drugs are the same thing. They can both alter the mind, but the former only if it is abused. There's no "safe" amount of coke, heroin, acid, etc.
December 10, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Man, next time I'll proofread my comments. Sorry about that.
December 10, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Paul, you are saying "it is ludicrous" to make this claim since you are obviously attached to drink. If you think I believe for one minute that you can have three consecutive drinks without being "remotely affected" then you are in serious denial (or of a totally separate species of lifeform that science has not discovered yet). In other words, you might truly believe you are "just fine", but I would strongly caution you to hand over your keys or call a cab after drink two. So, from where I stand, based on all facts and studies on the subject, it is not ludicrous. If you have any other facts or studies aside from your personal experience, which is sincerely biased, I'd be glad to hear them.
And you are wrong again. There are safe amounts of cocaine and heroin, which are still used medicinally around the country (yes, you will find them in most hospitals). And once again, you are either ignorant or mistaken on the subject that everyone who smokes marijuana does so to "get baked" or "stoned". Many people use it as recreationally as drinking, taking only one hit then passing it along. Some people use it simply for digestive properties (especially people who are on chemotherapy or other toxic treatments). If you read the link I gave you or any other medical study, you will see the same impairments in both alcohol and marijuana per/MlG in the bloodstream.
In sum, I am agreeing with you once again in that it comes down to behavior. If someone wants to abuse alcohol, they will do it. If someone wants to abuse drugs, they will do it. But in the case of marijuana, people can and do use it in pretty much the same patterns as alcohol. Before you respond, I really suggest reading studies on the subject.
December 10, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Holy hijacked combox Batman!
December 10, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Hijacked how? Isn't "legalized marijuana" one of the topics of your post?
December 10, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Early Riser:
Or perhaps I just weigh alot and can have a few drinks without getting too hammered. Perhaps "not remotely affected" is too strong a way of putting it, but needless to say I normally don't get behind the wheel after that many drinks just to be safe. But thanks for your concern about my health and safety, and the implication that I must hold the views that I because I'm either an alcy or because I'm ignorant.
December 10, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I'm interested in the libertarian thought in that you're speaking a bit about drunk driving. Can a libertarian be against drunk driving in that the driver hasn't hurt anybody yet, he's just taking part in what COULD BE a dangerous behavior to others.
If you're for the illegality of drunk driving because of potential dangers I can't see why you'd be against the illegalization of drugs for the same reason.
December 10, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Anyway, Matt's right about the hijacked thread, as the post is not about the legalization of drugs per se (except for pot). Whether or not you think drugs should be legalized, is handing clean needles to addicts a real sign of compassion?
Then again, considering the people involved, perhaps this is the best that we can expect.
December 10, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Early Riser
Thank you for your testimony that you have never tried either. It was a compelling. In any event, let us look at what you have proposed.
"To ME alcohol and drugs are equivalent; they both impair one's ability to function and can lead to disease, bad judgement and death."
First of all I hope we can agree that impairment and bad judgement seem to mean the same thing in the context which you have used them. Not fair to pad your stats with trickery. Let's leave that to the global warming folks. Death and disease sort of go hand in hand to don't they? Even if they don't they are most likely reserved to somone who suffers from alcoholism. I whole heartedly disagree that alcoholism is socially acceptable. It is rampant in our culture for sure, but acceptable?
There are a number of laws that impede the use of alcohol. Most often it is illegal to drink in public, in the car, or to drink and drive. An arrest for most any of these things is likely to garner a person some counseling.
Secondly, this sounds like a personal opinion. Opinions are fine. I may give one or two in a moment, however, your argument is built on a faulty premise. That is your opinion. In other words, you have told me what you think, which even without facts or studies, can be clearly proven wrong through ones own experience and reason. I know many people who have no desire to drink to impairment and know there limit. Whom never do nor will they. They enjoy however a nice glass of red wine with their filet mingon. Could you tell me which or what type of marijuana I could smoke that would enhance the taste of my dinner? Without, smoking it to impairment of course. I think we are all well aware of the correlation between someone who is high and food.
What are some other reasons to smoke pot, snort coke, or inject heroin? I mean if not to get high. What are the other reasons that someone would do one of those things? Perhaps, I am ignorant of the drug culture, but after 11 years as a cop, I think I have a pretty firm handle on it. Maybe you can enlighten me to something I didn't see clearly after 11 years in the streets.
"I don't see the difference between the two, not at all."
I liked this line. It is where you assert that your opinion is the foundation for making marijuana legal. We should make it legal and start taxing it, because "YOU" don't see the difference. This is the foundation for your arguement, your opinion. Because you personally do not see the difference between these two things, therefore, we should make one legal and begin taxing people on it.
Continued
December 10, 2009 at 9:10 pm
There is a difference, one is legal one is not. If I were a socialist I would lobby for the legalization of marijuana. But, as a Christian I think I have to ask you what good would it serve? Ecnomic good? Is that our primary concern? You don't seem to concerned with the welfare of souls. Of course, neither does the current government. It seems to me your answer is legalize it, encourage it, and make a few bucks off it. That's the best we can do for people. Forgive me if I have over simplified your position.
If they are both so harmful to people, it seems to me the logical argument would not be to legalize one because the other is legal. Rather it would be (and this is if you care about people) Both are bad, they are bad for people which was your original argument, therefore, in order to try to deter people and to protect them we should make them both illegal.
It is important look at the differences even if they may be slight or subtle. One can be consumed as a beverage that enhances our dining experience, while the other seems merely to increase our dining experience calorically.
It would be impossible for myself I or I would hope anyother coherent person to be swayed by the line of reasoning that you have put forth. It's like saying "I think two men could marry each other and have fruitful love, it's just like a man and a woman getting married, therefore, same sex "marriage" should be legal." It seems a little liberal left to me. Make a bunch of noise, assert faulty premises, and then tell your opponent his assertions are stupid ("You are kidding yourself)."
Early Riser, I should hope before you respond to my post you will give careful thought to your positions. I feel as if your current positions may fall into the realm of subjectivity and yes unfortunately moral relativism.
Pray for this country…it seems to be crumbling under the weight of moral ineptitude.
Pax
December 10, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Wings – I answered most of your questions in the second post (and even backed my opinion as you put it with studies). No need to do it again if you can't be bothered to read them.
Paul – my comment was based on your "not remotely affected" statement. Since you retracted it (somewhat) you can retract my comments directed towards it.
Anonymous – I'm not a libertarian on every issue. Not by a long shot. On the issue of driving, I'm a strict conservative. I believe in harsh penalties for driving impaired under alcohol or drugs (perscription or otherwise). I am happy and grateful that the sentencing for drunk drivers is trending upwards (and BTW, if any of you buy into the myth that Mohammedans don't drink, think again) and in fact in the US, we recently saw the first conviction ever of 1st degree murder for a drunk driver (though later overturned). In China, the penalty for drunk driving involving fatalities is death. While I feel that is of course wrong, I do feel life imprisonment depending on the circumstances may be in adequate.
December 10, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Paul – one more opinion on your comment regarding free clean needles; I'm really indifferent there. On the one hand I agree that we as Christians should try and make their life as comfortable as possible. But on the other hand, I have met many junkies (and alcoholics) who are just lost causes. I know that sounds harsh, but I can find no other way to put it. These people will die (as will we all); but the difference being they are actively engaging in behavior which will put their life at high risk. So, if they are not willing to help themselves, in the long run why would giving them clean needles help? If they die from HCV, HIV, an overdose or a myriad of other possible related causes, what does it matter? They chose this path, checked out, and all we can do is offer help when they ask. I personally think the money could and should be spent on other programs. But that's just me.
December 10, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Well to be fair to Catholic Charities of DC, because this was a major source of misunderstanding and consternation among people after the Post article in November, CC will still be providing services, they just wouldn't be able to do it as a contractor to the city:
source(http://www.catholiccharitiesdc.org/newsroom/news/item/index.php?id=446). The point needs to be made so that people don't get confused and think that Church is using the homeless and sick as leverage on the issue because it is not (I know you didn't say this, but people get ideas).
Add to the list the reduction of voucher program which helped DC children attend schools of their choice, including Catholic schools: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120903170.html
Of course Congress is perfect for making these decisions since they work in DC and know all about the city right? And it doesn't matter that the district only gets a non-voting member right?
December 11, 2009 at 12:32 am
Early Riser:
You said: "There are safe amounts of cocaine and heroin, which are still used medicinally around the country (yes, you will find them in most hospitals)."
Wrong.
Heroin is not used in hospitals and cannot be legally prescribed for medicinal use. Morphine, which is similar to heroin, is used in hospitals for the control of serious pain, but heroin most definitely is not. I think you are also confusing cocaine with codeine. The latter is used by hospitals for pain control while the former is not. Heroin and cocaine are drugs of abuse and only drugs of abuse.
December 11, 2009 at 12:48 am
Anonymous – no, you are the one who is wrong. Embarassingly so. I realize this is not the best source but you'll have to do your own research. My aunt and uncle both work at a hospital; one in shipping/receiving and one in IT (which tracks all supplies, drugs etc in the hospital). And you seem to be really ignorant on what morphine is. Heroin is a DERRIVATIVE of morphine which comes from the opiate, not vice-versa. Yes, Morphine and diamorphine are the same as heroin and in use at most hospitals. They are simply given in appropriate and SAFE AMOUNTS/ doses and not "freebased". But they are the SAME THING.
I can see why you posted anonymously,because you really do look ridiculous.
December 11, 2009 at 12:50 am
I forgot to add to the link, that WHY "anonymous" was so wrong is because cocaine IS still used around the country as a local anesthetic for the nose and mouth; especially in the emergency room.