Is The Opioid Crisis The Government's Responsibility?

[DJFaninTN]

The wife and I were having this discussion tonight. I really don't want this to be an R vs D thing or political at all. It's just a general question. A simple YES or No will suffice.

BTW ... if you don't know, Narcan cost $1,200 per dose from what I have read and tax payers are footing the bill.

[ARtraveler]

The wife and I were having this discussion tonight. I really don't want this to be an R vs D thing or political at all. It's just a general question. A simple YES or No will suffice.

BTW ... if you don't know, Narcan cost $1,200 per dose from what I have read and tax payers are footing the bill.

The cost per dose is also what I first said, and I was promptly corrected that it can be purchased from Amazon for about $25 per dose. I verified...and...yes.

I am guessing the $1,200 is the markup price after an experienced EMT gives it and it is then billed to "whoever" ends up paying for it. Here, an ambulance ride starts at $2,000 and then the "extras" begin.

There was a thread on the subject but I think it got deleted because the rhetoric got pretty nasty on both sides.

[DJFaninTN]

you were correct. that $1200 price is what opioid clinics bill to medicare.


damn you can get everything on Amazon I guess .. lol.

[UtahPete]

The wife and I were having this discussion tonight. I really don't want this to be an R vs D thing or political at all. It's just a general question. A simple YES or No will suffice. BTW ... if you don't know, Narcan cost $1,200 per dose from what I have read and taxpayers are footing the bill.

There you go - stirring up trouble again!

Yes, there was a thread on this, since deleted just when it was getting interesting. That was about a municipal government elected official who was suggesting a 'three strikes, we won't pay for it anymore' approach to limiting their government's cost (to the taxpayer) of repeatedly 'saving' drug addicts from their overdose. The $1200 or whatever was the fully loaded cost of an emergency response team delivering the dose, not the cost of the drug itself.

My vote at that time was to do as the city councilor suggested; limit the number of times the city would pay to have EMT's respond to the same person's overdose.

[Sarge707]

This has Nothing to do with Politics BUT- Do Not You feel the Health Care Industry Is getting JUST as GREEDY as Wall Street and Greed is what is ruining this country?nojoke

[UtahPete]

This has Nothing to do with Politics BUT- Do Not You feel the Health Care Industry Is getting JUST as GREEDY as Wall Street and Greed is what is ruining this country?

Unfettered capitalism will destroy this country one day. I agree.

[Chupaca]

How many times can they steal from the hard working stiff....The drug addict steals from the working man to get enough to overdose (maybe even someones life) then steals from the organizations the working man pays into for thier benefit now if he goes to jail for the first crimes we pay for that and even if he dies we pay for that. Well....that would be the end for that one...:banghead:

[UtahPete]

How many times can they steal from the hard working stiff....The drug addict steals from the working man to get enough to overdose (maybe even someones life) then steals from the organizations the working man pays into for thier benefit now if he goes to jail for the first crimes we pay for that and even if he dies we pay for that. Well....that would be the end for that one...

I agree completely. There should be a limit to what taxpayers (i.e. the responsible, productive part of society) pay to subsidize the chosen lifestyles and behavior of those who only take and never give back. I'm just not sure how to phrase that in such a way it can be made law. But, we should try.

[Rob Rodriguez]

This has Nothing to do with Politics BUT- Do Not You feel the Health Care Industry Is getting JUST as GREEDY as Wall Street and Greed is what is ruining this country?nojoke


I completely agree. The fastest way to lower the cost of health care is stop allowing employer sponsored health plans. If everyone (like those of us that are self employed) had to go buy insurance on their own and saw what the "true" costs was no one would buy it. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc would be forced to lower the costs because no one would be able to buy (or want to buy) their product at its current rates.

The current rates have nothing to do what things really costs and has everything to do with what they can get away with charging. Like the guy that walks into a store and says, "how much does this costs" and the store keep says, "how much you got".

With employer sponsored healthcare the insurance companies are able to charge big dollars for plans because they have a large pool of money to fund it plain and simple. When your employer stops paying half the costs and you see how much comes out of your check automatically that is never in your pay check so you don't miss it you wake up real fast to what's going one.

As my grandparents always said......cars and homes were affordable until everyone started "buying on time". They it didn't matter what they cost.....what mattered was if you could make the monthly payment. That's when the world went hell according to them. Older I get the more I agree.

It's just another way for a smaller group of people to control a larger group of people.

[Bob Denman]

Is it the Government's responsibility?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyY5vWc5TEQ

It's the responsibility of the person who is addicted.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

I completely agree. The fastest way to lower the cost of health care is stop allowing employer sponsored health plans. If everyone (like those of us that are self employed) had to go buy insurance on their own and saw what the "true" costs was no one would buy it. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc would be forced to lower the costs because no one would be able to buy (or want to buy) their product at its current rates.

The current rates have nothing to do what things really costs and has everything to do with what they can get away with charging. Like the guy that walks into a store and says, "how much does this costs" and the store keep says, "how much you got".

With employer sponsored healthcare the insurance companies are able to charge big dollars for plans because they have a large pool of money to fund it plain and simple. When your employer stops paying half the costs and you see how much comes out of your check automatically that is never in your pay check so you don't miss it you wake up real fast to what's going one.

As my grandparents always said......cars and homes were affordable until everyone started "buying on time". They it didn't matter what they cost.....what mattered was if you could make the monthly payment. That's when the world went hell according to them. Older I get the more I agree.

It's just another way for a smaller group of people to control a larger group of people.

i have always said if employer sponsored health care had higher co pays then people would not run to the doctor when their nose
is stuffy or their kid sneezes.
back to the subject of the post, i don't believe that taxpayer dollars should pay for repeat stupidity or deliberate actions. if the
government keeps bailing out drug addicts how will they or others learn?

[JkRbbt]

It's like most "hot topics", sounds outrageous until it happens to you/your family. :(

[Bob Denman]

:agree:
And I've got addicts in my own family... :banghead:

[2dogs]

NO!

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

:agree:
And I've got addicts in my own family... :banghead:

don't get me wrong, i do understand but i don't believe others should have to pay for your mistakes, that is socialism and
sanders did not win so we don't have it in this country to that extent....yet

[UtahPete]

don't get me wrong, i do understand but i don't believe others should have to pay for your mistakes, that is socialism and
sanders did not win so we don't have it in this country to that extent....yet

Tell that to our government ... we are all paying for the consequences of their grievous errors every day.:sour:

[Bob Denman]

don't get me wrong, i do understand but i don't believe others should have to pay for your mistakes, that is socialism and
sanders did not win so we don't have it in this country to that extent....yet
Al... I agree with you! :clap: :2thumbs:
The addicts within my family are all currently in denial... at least it's saving us taxpayers a boatload of cash! :yes:
There's an old saying "Nobody finds God on Prom Night." When their lives take an unfortunate turn, and they understand that their current situation is leading to a disastrous ending: I'll be the first one to slap them across the face, and tell them to own their mistakes! nojoke

[wyliec]

The answer is NO to the original question. If you want to play, you pay.

[vided]

The answer is NO to the original question. If you want to play, you pay.


Well said

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

some may not agree with me but i don't believe in mandatory unemployment insurance being pulled from my pay check or social security. i have been employed my whole life since i was about 12. i have always in some way had a job whether it be a paper route, flea market or the business i have owned for over 35 years. when business was slow i never asked the landlord to lower my rent or the government to have me pay less taxes. i would love to have a 2017 aston martin but i can't afford it so i won't buy one.
if you can afford your drugs then so be it if you can't then stop, it's that simple but don't ask me to pay for your drug habit or rehabilitation.

[Mazo EMS2]

I'm an EMT, and I've given Narcan a several times in the small response area we cover. It's frustrating, to say the least, to save someone's ars, then have them wake up from the dead all pizzed off. What burns me is that officers are now carrying narcan and saving people for free, people that had a choice to shoot up, but those who suffer from bee stings and other allergic reactions, that they cannot control, have to pay out the ars for epinephrine. That is F'ed up!!! It doesn't help that our medical and pharmaceutical folks in the good ole USA have so much control. Doctors are writing too many scripts, and pharmacies are making waaaaay to much money for cheap drugs.:banghead:
The "government" absolutely needs to somehow get this country's pharmaceutical system under control. Can they be blamed for the opioid problem......somewhat. I don't believe in addiction....I think it's too easy in today's society for people to create excuses to use drugs. Whatever happened to good old fashioned will power?

[RinconRyder]

I also would vote 'NO' on this issue but.....

Consider the plight of the First Responder (EMT, LEO or Firefighter). Now we are expecting people who may have a minimum of medical training to diagnose and execute treatment to someone who most likely cannot tell them what happened and/or for which they have no medical history. I don't think that is reasonable.

I think a better approach is to bill the 'victim' for their treatment and if they cannot/will not pay up then slap them into a confined treatment program until they are clean. If they re-offend after treatment they are on their own but by that time they will have some sort of legal history that can follow them and be used by First Responders.

We need to begin considering drug abusers (legal drugs or otherwise) as criminals in their own right and treat them accordingly. They are not traditional 'victims' but rather entered this world on their own volition.

There would be only one exception to the above and that is for persons under the age of 18. Obviously, young children should be exempt but older children also deserve the chance to remain alive after a dumb decision.

Just my two cents.

[Joe T.]

Since most on this board are GOOD Republicans, and therefore believe in accountability, I propose the U.S. legalize all drugs. It is not the government's responsibility to protect you from yourself. Nor, is it the government;s responsibility to raise your children properly.

What do ya' think? Legalize drugs or not?

Joe T.

[Bob Denman]

151027
It's not a "Republican issue". ANY responsible adult should be able to see the value in acting responsibly, and accepting the consequences of your actions.
Besides: if it can be done stupidly: people will find a way to make it even worse! :yikes:

[Joe T.]

151027


It's not a "Republican issue". ANY responsible adult should be able to see the value in acting responsibly, and accepting the consequences of your actions.
Besides: if it can be done stupidly: people will find a way to make it even worse! :yikes:


Yes, I am completely serious.

One of the points I was trying to make in the above post was:

Republicans scream the loudest about legalizing drugs - yet they STRONGLY believe in self-accountability (so do I). A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Again, I think the U.S. should legalize all drugs. Not the gov'ment's responsibility to protect the citizens of the US from themselves.

Think of all of the positives - - - (the list is long)

Joe T.

[vided]

What positives? nojoke

[Joe T.]

What positives? nojoke


I'll PM you a quick list.

Regards,
Joe T.

[Bob Denman]

:D C'mon, Joe... :D

Are you the guy that's sitting on 500 acres of illegal marijuana plants??? :roflblack:
Or is your garage packed with 1500 kilos of Colombian cocaine? :yikes:

[Rob Rodriguez]

Yes, I am completely serious.

One of the points I was trying to make in the above post was:

Republicans scream the loudest about legalizing drugs - yet they STRONGLY believe in self-accountability (so do I). A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Again, I think the U.S. should legalize all drugs. Not the gov'ment's responsibility to protect the citizens of the US from themselves.

Think of all of the positives - - - (the list is long)

Joe T.

Well, if they were legalized then they could be better controlled. We would also see less of an influx of illegal drugs from foreign countries. Also could generate some tax revenue. Not sure what the answer is but open to the conversation.

I do think it's time the USA bring all this "stuff" out of the closet so to speak. Drugs, sex, etc...when it's perceived as bad and made illegal its driven underground where it does (or can) become a bad or worse thing than if it were just out in the open. Once someone says, "you can't do those things" a person immediately wants to....forbidden fruit. If we could just all be adult enough to openly talk about these things and manage them responsibly maybe we'd be better off as a society?

As a side note I'm not a republican or a democrat. I'm an American and that means is I want to do what's good for America regardless of weather or not it follows some stupid party line or rules. There is no possible way either side is "right" 100% of time on every issue. If we don't all work together then it all falls apart.

[Bob Denman]

Since I sell insurance: I've seen what happens when folks do stupid things with alcohol... :gaah:
(I lost my best friend to a drunk driver!)
I'd rather not see any more creative ways for the idiots; to become even bigger idiots. nojoke
Has anybody else been watching the reports of increased MVA's in the States that are allowing the recreational use of weed? :dontknow:
It's no joke, and the insurance companies are really starting to panic over their losses! :yikes:

[JerryB]

Hi Rob,

Re: Also could generate some tax revenue.

Oregon legalized recreational pot some time ago ( I don't use it so do not know exactly when - maybe 1 1/2 yrs ago ).

We are getting over three times the tax from it than was expected. Legalizing it has been financially good for this state. As to the negative effects, that is rather subjective and yet to be determined.

Re: Legalizing it has been financially good for this state. As to the negative effects, that is rather subjective and yet to be determined.

IMO it has been sort of like the lottery here in Oregon.

Jerry Baumchen

[Bob Denman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0

[Joe T.]

As a side note I'm not a republican or a democrat. I'm an American and that means is I want to do what's good for America regardless of weather or not it follows some stupid party line or rules. There is no possible way either side is "right" 100% of time on every issue. If we don't all work together then it all falls apart.



AMEN to THAT!!!

Joe T.

[DJFaninTN]

I'll just leave this article here for your enjoyment

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/surprise-fatal-car-wrecks-involving-marijuana-skyrocket/

[Schwingel9]

"I do think it's time the USA bring all this "stuff" out of the closet so to speak. Drugs, sex, etc...when it's perceived as bad and made illegal its driven underground where it does (or can) become a bad or worse thing than if it were just out in the open."

When used in the correct context of what it is designed for, these things are not intrinsically evil. Sex for instance, was designed by God for husband and wife for procreation. When used out of context or in immoral ways, then evil is abound, abortion, stds, divorce due to infidelity and so on. Sex has a purpose and is sacred and holy in the bond of matrimony. Sex is not a recreational sport. The same with drugs, they are not designed for recreational purposes, they are for aiding in healing and promoting health. Getting stoned is not healthy for the body or good for society. Making everything legal so we can tax it and make money on it, or doing what ever feels good, is not an answer to any problems.

[Sarge707]

Hi Rob,

Re: Also could generate some tax revenue.

Oregon legalized recreational pot some time ago ( I don't use it so do not know exactly when - maybe 1 1/2 yrs ago ).

We are getting over three times the tax from it than was expected. Legalizing it has been financially good for this state. As to the negative effects, that is rather subjective and yet to be determined.

Re: Legalizing it has been financially good for this state. As to the negative effects, that is rather subjective and yet to be determined.

IMO it has been sort of like the lottery here in Oregon.

Jerry Baumchen

Well Connecticut and other States with Financial problems could certainly use the extra income? My feeling is that $$ spent on POT (I certainly would NOT Use it LOL) :yikes: would make people feel better than going to the local casino to Loss 2-3 Hundred and come home feeling ?????:clap:

[SAMBILLIE]

The wife and I were having this discussion tonight. I really don't want this to be an R vs D thing or political at all. It's just a general question. A simple YES or No will suffice.

BTW ... if you don't know, Narcan cost $1,200 per dose from what I have read and tax payers are footing the bill.

The government and their regulators decided to make the pain score as the fifth vital sign when they felt patients with not getting adequate pain management while in the hospital. This led to overmedicating and prophylactically medicating patients with opioids prior to leaving the hospital. Hence the addiction epidemic. Ironically the government started out by telling us doctors we are giving too few pain medications. Now we are giving too much. Oh well just another day in the life.

[Joe T.]

:D C'mon, Joe... :D

Are you the guy that's sitting on 500 acres of illegal marijuana plants??? :roflblack:
Or is your garage packed with 1500 kilos of Colombian cocaine? :yikes:


I WISH!!!!


Nope, just a dumba$$ from Kansas.

I have been watching this situation since ~1981. (see http://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/showthread.php?106377-Time-for-an-honest-civil-discussion-regarding-drugs) for some backround.

Totally out of control. There needs to be a major change in direction.

Yes, in the transition, there will many casualties. But, in the long run it will be a positive for AMERICA.

DON'T you agree?

Regards,
Joe T.

[Joe T.]

Well, if they were legalized then they could be better controlled. We would also see less of an influx of illegal drugs from foreign countries. Also could generate some tax revenue. Not sure what the answer is but open to the conversation.

I do think it's time the USA bring all this "stuff" out of the closet so to speak. Drugs, sex, etc...when it's perceived as bad and made illegal its driven underground where it does (or can) become a bad or worse thing than if it were just out in the open. Once someone says, "you can't do those things" a person immediately wants to....forbidden fruit. If we could just all be adult enough to openly talk about these things and manage them responsibly maybe we'd be better off as a society?

As a side note I'm not a republican or a democrat. I'm an American and that means is I want to do what's good for America regardless of weather or not it follows some stupid party line or rules. There is no possible way either side is "right" 100% of time on every issue. If we don't all work together then it all falls apart.


I totally agree.

Joe T.

[Joe T.]

Since I sell insurance: I've seen what happens when folks do stupid things with alcohol... :gaah:
(I lost my best friend to a drunk driver!)
I'd rather not see any more creative ways for the idiots; to become even bigger idiots. nojoke
Has anybody else been watching the reports of increased MVA's in the States that are allowing the recreational use of weed? :dontknow:
It's no joke, and the insurance companies are really starting to panic over their losses! :yikes:


Then shouldn't those behaviors be harshly enforced instead of the limited enforcement for DUI today? I have NO problem sentencing DUI killers to life in prison - first offense!

That might be a better deterrent than the current practice of a slap on the hand.

Don't you agree?

Joe T.

[Bob Denman]

You have an agenda that you're not admitting to. nojoke
No more responses...

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

have the punishment fit the crime, if convicted of a drug offense that was part of a felony then real jail time no pussy jail.
if someone were to die from the offense then death, if the individual can't walk and you don't want to break the offenders legs
then fine, you don't come out of jail until the person can walk again. i'm not saying an eye for an eye but harsh punishment may
have people think before they act.
i always say if most people would think before they speak they would probably keep their mouth shut most of the time.

[Orange Spyder Man]

I SAY ....... N O

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

I SAY ....... N O

osm, i know many won't agree but i feel people should have true freedom up until they negatively affect others. i don't believe
in paying for someone else's mistakes. if you want that freedom then you have to take responsibility for your actions.

[Schwingel9]

osm, i know many won't agree but i feel people should have true freedom up until they negatively affect others. i don't believe
in paying for someone else's mistakes. if you want that freedom then you have to take responsibility for your actions.

What is your definition of true freedom? Thanks!

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

What is your definition of true freedom? Thanks!

If you want to do drugs fine, but if your drug use hurts others.........
we all know cousin marrying like in islam produces certain birth defects, in pakistan it is common & ~30% of those have
severe problems but it is their country to do as they like, over here we would be paying with our tax dollars to support the
children for the rest of their lives.
everything is choice & consequence but the only way to prevent is for the individual to pay not society.

are any of you aware on judge judy when she berates someone for whatever and screams "you idiot you are going to pay"
she is lying since she knows the show will pay and pays the defendant for appearing. how can anyone learn from this?
back to the point, true freedomw is taking responsibility for your personal actions and accepting it.

[Schwingel9]

If you want to do drugs fine, but if your drug use hurts others.........
we all know cousin marrying like in islam produces certain birth defects, in pakistan it is common & ~30% of those have
severe problems but it is their country to do as they like, over here we would be paying with our tax dollars to support the
children for the rest of their lives.
everything is choice & consequence but the only way to prevent is for the individual to pay not society.

are any of you aware on judge judy when she berates someone for whatever and screams "you idiot you are going to pay"
she is lying since she knows the show will pay and pays the defendant for appearing. how can anyone learn from this?
back to the point, true freedomw is taking responsibility for your personal actions and accepting it.

Freedom is not taking responsibility for your actions, freedoom is the ability to choose the most good. Yes, we have free will, free to choose the good, not free to choose evil without consequences, those consequences are sin or civil punishment. When one becomes addicted to anything they become a slave to that addiction, hurting themselves and society as a whole.The government's job is to ensure we are free to choose the most good, legalizing drugs opens doors to vulnerable people. Drug use does hurt others, imagine the good one can do in their right mind not strung out on drugs. Like it or not we are all in this together, individualism is not so much in the forefront. The crises is not so much drug's, the crisis is an identity crisis and morality crisis.

[ataDude]

No.

[ARtraveler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0

And yes, that is some good steel guitar. :bowdown::bowdown:

[BoilerAnimal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0

I used to listen to that back in my young and dumb days! I had a buddy that could record 8 track tapes.............wish I had all those songs again! That way I could listen to them in my old and dumb days!:yes:

[vided]

You have an agenda that you're not admitting to. nojoke
No more responses...


they always do

[Joe T.]

You have an agenda that you're not admitting to. nojoke
No more responses...


Assuming you are addressing me: yes I do.

I am tired of the $$ being spent by taxpayers to support the 'War on Drugs,' the $$ being collected by the drug cartels, the $$ being spent by taxpayers on incarceration, the $$ being spent by taxpayers on rehab, the $$ being spent by taxpayers on hospital bills (we all pay for it via our taxes and/or insurance premiums), the $$ being spent by taxpayers on 'accidental death and injury' of innocent victims due to illegal drugs, and the $$ being spent by taxpayers on local crime enforcement due to drugs.

So, again, YES I DO have an agenda.

I want all of the above STOPPED!! Legalize drugs. Make all Americans accountable for their actions.

It is not my job, or OUR JOB, to help middle class America raise their kids because they fear the kids might have an opportunity to use drugs. It is their PARENTS' responsibility to raise their kids. That seems to be a reasonable, conservative approach, doesn't it?

I am Type II diabetic. It ain't anybody's fault but my own. I take full responsibility for my actions. I have three vices: 1.) Sugar 2.) Salt and 3.) Grease. The first vice is the hardest to kick. But, it ain't your fault or the government's fault.


Regards,
Joe T.

[Schwingel9]

Will there be more addicts if every drug is readily available and fully legal?

[Rob Rodriguez]

Will there be more addicts if every drug is readily available and fully legal?


I would say no because I believe the drugs are already readily available weather legal or not. The "addicts" are certainly getting them somewhere and it appears they are doing so without issue as long as they have $ to purchase.

[Schwingel9]

I would say no because I believe the drugs are already readily available weather legal or not. The "addicts" are certainly getting them somewhere and it appears they are doing so without issue as long as they have $ to purchase.

When is the last time you walked into Wal-Mart and looked at a display of heroin, lsd, and cocaine? Never mind the people who are already addicted or fighting the addiction, what about all people who would tempted to experiment with highly addicting drugs? There will be many, many more addicts, period. The more of those drugs the more addicts there will be.

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, if need be, especially the vulnerable. In any society there will be those who are vulnerable and need help. Who in their right mind would pupose an idea to make money off of vulnerable people? Well, besides planned parenthood?

[Rob Rodriguez]

When is the last time you walked into Wal-Mart and looked at a display of heroin, lsd, and cocaine? Never mind the people who are already addicted or fighting the addiction, what about all people who would tempted to experiment with highly addicting drugs? There will be many, many more addicts, period. The more of those drugs the more addicts there will be.

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, if need be, especially the vulnerable. In any society there will be those who are vulnerable and need help. Who in their right mind would pupose an idea to make money off of vulnerable people? Well, besides planned parenthood?


One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, I don't agree with you on this. Yes, a role of government is to protect its people but I don't agree with the "from themselves part". If a person wants to voluntarily take part in activities that they may need protection from (which will be different for different people......drugs, extreme sports, gambling, unprotected sex, riding without a helmet, etc, etc,) then they have every right to do that and they will have to deal with whatever consequences arise from that.

You can buy any of the drugs you mentioned right outside of Walmart (and clubs, schools, convenience stores, etc....dealers are mobile) in the parking lot without an issue. There is no display with a big yellow price drop smiley face but they are available and for sale. Legal or illegal, sold in Walmart or not sold in Walmart if people want access to drugs for experimentation or use they are going to find a way to do that.

How is this any different than alcohol or tobacco? You can go into a lot of stores and legally purchase alcohol. Alcohol is a mind altering drug that can cause physical problems and health issues to those who use (and sometimes to those who don't use) it. Using your logic everyone in the USA will be an alcoholic and heavy smoker simply because these things are sold in stores

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

When is the last time you walked into Wal-Mart and looked at a display of heroin, lsd, and cocaine? Never mind the people who are already addicted or fighting the addiction, what about all people who would tempted to experiment with highly addicting drugs? There will be many, many more addicts, period. The more of those drugs the more addicts there will be.

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, if need be, especially the vulnerable. In any society there will be those who are vulnerable and need help. Who in their right mind would pupose an idea to make money off of vulnerable people? Well, besides planned parenthood?

WELL...... trayvon martin walked into a store and bought the ingredients for 'shake & bake' a crude homemade meth. the news forgot
to mention that about the night he was killed and that he had trace amounts in his blood.
the drugs are already there and very readily available like that synthetic marijuana that was around last year that was sold at deli's
or online.

[Schwingel9]

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, I don't agree with you on this. Yes, a role of government is to protect its people but I don't agree with the "from themselves part". If a person wants to voluntarily take part in activities that they may need protection from (which will be different for different people......drugs, extreme sports, gambling, unprotected sex, riding without a helmet, etc, etc,) then they have every right to do that and they will have to deal with whatever consequences arise from that.

You can buy any of the drugs you mentioned right outside of Walmart (and clubs, schools, convenience stores, etc....dealers are mobile) in the parking lot without an issue. There is no display with a big yellow price drop smiley face but they are available and for sale. Legal or illegal, sold in Walmart or not sold in Walmart if people want access to drugs for experimentation or use they are going to find a way to do that.

How is this any different than alcohol or tobacco? You can go into a lot of stores and legally purchase alcohol. Alcohol is a mind altering drug that can cause physical problems and health issues to those who use (and sometimes to those who don't use) it. Using your logic everyone in the USA will be an alcoholic and heavy smoker simply because these things are sold in stores

Thanks for the reply! If drugs were to be legalized and sold openly in the market, they will inevitably become promoted to the masses. When these drugs are used out of their initial context for healing and medical purpose, they become a great evil, an evil that enslaves people, at times instantly. Normally speaking, heroins addiction qualities far outway alcohols. Using drugs that are designed for medical purposes for recreational purposes is an intrinsic evil. Alcohol in itself, used in moderation is not.

Any addiction that consumes one to the point of leading them away from the purpose they were created for actually enslaves them. In order to do the most good we need to start at the margins and work our way out. Drug addicts need help, they are people like you and I. Yes, they made bad choices for what ever reason, but we all have at one time or another. Feeding the monster of addiction is not charitable, it harms human life. Making money off that harm is even worse.

[Bob Denman]

:agree::thumbup:

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Thanks for the reply! If drugs were to be legalized and sold openly in the market, they will inevitably become promoted to the masses. When these drugs are used out of their initial context for healing and medical purpose, they become a great evil, an evil that enslaves people, at times instantly. Normally speaking, heroins addiction qualities far outway alcohols. Using drugs that are designed for medical purposes for recreational purposes is an intrinsic evil. Alcohol in itself, used in moderation is not.

Any addiction that consumes one to the point of leading them away from the purpose they were created for actually enslaves them. In order to do the most good we need to start at the margins and work our way out. Drug addicts need help, they are people like you and I. Yes, they made bad choices for what ever reason, but we all have at one time or another. Feeding the monster of addiction is not charitable, it harms human life. Making money off that harm is even worse.

I am not promoting drugs in any way but cocaine cures the common cold in small doses but only temporarily it also clears the head
but again only temporarily. coca leaves in south america are chewed for a small pep to keep alert in the same way people drink
coffee. cigarettes on the other hand are flat out poison and contain nicotine which is far more addictive then cocaine.
Me i am just a pervert who likes to ride and doesn't drink, smoke, do any type of drug nor even drink coffee. I would be quite happy
if all drugs were gone but since that will never happen then i would want them legal, regulated & taxed and limited support for those
that abuse them.

[Bob Denman]

Arlo made it all sound so.... HAPPY! :D



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzrkDGxZexA

[Bob Denman]

An awful lot of great music came out the haze...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XqyGoE2Q4Y

[BoilerAnimal]

When is the last time you walked into Wal-Mart and looked at a display of heroin, lsd, and cocaine? Never mind the people who are already addicted or fighting the addiction, what about all people who would tempted to experiment with highly addicting drugs? There will be many, many more addicts, period. The more of those drugs the more addicts there will be.

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, if need be, especially the vulnerable. In any society there will be those who are vulnerable and need help. Who in their right mind would pupose an idea to make money off of vulnerable people? Well, besides planned parenthood?


There were huge segments of the European population who said the same thing about Portugal. Many dire predictions were made but never came to pass. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/?utm_term=.13e4d9b448d3

Legalization should also entail taxation, strict controls on sales, education and treatment for addiction. There would still be a prohibition on illegal, or "under the counter" sales. It is a multi-prong approach that has been effective in Portugal. The current approach to the drug problem is unworkable. It is past time to try a proven approach here. If it falls short in effectiveness, it won't be any worse than the current situation.

[Peter Aawen]

Just a little of an interesting aside prompted by the link you provided above BoilerAnimal.... Check out the high end of the 'deaths thru drug overdoses' chart. A thorough cursory glance suggests that the top end of that chart, ie, those countries where MORE deaths thru overdoses occur, is heavily populated by those countries in the EU that have the most lenient drug laws (altho stopping short of decriminalisation like Portugal) & apart from Portugal (possibly the exception that proves the rule?) the low end of the chart, ie, those places with FEWEST overdose deaths, is populated by those countries with the STRICTEST anti-drug laws & enforcement.... :dontknow: The next most lenient country, which I believe is the Netherlands, is pretty much smack in the middle... (oops, pun not intended! :opps:)

So while that chart could be interpreted to support decriminalisation, it could be also be argued to support (possibly even more strongly) the idea that maybe decriminalisation is not quite the panacea for all drug ills that some might like to think; & arguably, for most countries shown on that chart, stricter controls have proven to be significantly more effective at reducing overdose deaths?? Aren't charts & statistics fun?! :gaah:

[BoilerAnimal]

It's not all about reducing deaths. There are other considerations as well, such as costs of law enforcement, incarceration, crime rates and the effects and burdens on society as a whole. In the U.S., these costs are escalating at extremely high rates.

The more restrictive a society or country is, the easier it is to influence behavior in all forms. I certainly don't want to go down the avenue of a near police state to control drug use, especially if there are other options available.

The status quo is far from a success. I think that it's time to have a serious discussion of alternatives. The route that Portugal has taken has seen much better outcomes than most anything short of execution for drug offenses.

With income from taxation on the legal drug trade used for education of the TRUE dangers of drugs and for rehabilitation, I believe that headway could be made on this problem. I emphasized true because of claims made by the government regarding some drugs that empirical evidence shows not to be true. If you lie about the dangers in one area why should you be trusted for anything?

Part of the allure of drugs is due to the fact that they are illegal. It provides a bit of a thrill and a certain perception of a "cool" factor, at least to those most inclined to experiment with them. The U.S.had a period where they tried outlawing alcohol. Prohibition was strongly advocated as a means to cure societal ills back in the 1930's and it was reversed due to the fact that it caused more problems than it purported to cure. I feel that we have arrived at the same outcome with pretty much the same problems.

If they told you today that drug use would be legal, would you decide to become an addict, especially if you were educated on the true facts of any possible decisions that you may make about drugs? Legal access to drugs would not alleviate your responsibility to your fellow citizens. Restrictions on drug use at work would still be valid, driving while using drugs would still be illegal.

What the U.S. is doing now is not working!!! It's time to explore other options!

[DJFaninTN]

When is the last time you saw the government become involved in something and it turned out good?

Exhibit A for failures would be healthcare

[Bob Denman]

:agree:

151265

[Schwingel9]

How is possible to have a rational conversation if one believes money trumps human life?

[Bob Denman]

But the costs cannot be ignored either: how do you figure out where to draw the lines? :dontknow:

And to further complicate things :shocked:: Do you value the life of an addict, as much as that of a taxpayer?

[Schwingel9]

But the costs cannot be ignored either: how do you figure out where to draw the lines? :dontknow:

And to further complicate things :shocked:: Do you value the life of an addict, as much as that of a taxpayer?

Easy, human life is always first, especially those who are on the margins and most vulnerable. By helping those on the fringes we become stronger. Legalizing drugs harms those that are on that edge. I struggle with how much I have to pay in and what my tax money goes towards. But then stop and remember that this tax thing is nothing new, that is why we are told to pay Cesar what is Cesar's, and care for those who need the most help. Everyone's dignity is equal.

[Bob Denman]

;) I guess that we'll just have to agree to respectfully disagree... ;)

[Schwingel9]

;) I guess that we'll just have to agree to respectfully disagree... ;)

Thanks for the discussion!

[Bob Denman]

Ditto! :clap: :thumbup:

[Rob Rodriguez]

I believe that addicts started down that path knowing full well the dangers. Everyone deserves a 2nd chance but chances beyond that should be of their own doing. Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you. I agree cost has to play into the equation.

I would personally prefer my US tax dollars stay here and help the people in the USA (preferably legal citizens of the USA) rather then be sent to foreign countries for who knows what. Those BILLIONS sent to foreign countries could do a lot more "work" right here for the people who paid them in.

That's a whole other conversation though.

[Schwingel9]

I believe that addicts started down that path knowing full well the dangers. Everyone deserves a 2nd chance but chances beyond that should be of their own doing. Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you. I agree cost has to play into the equation.

I would personally prefer my US tax dollars stay here and help the people in the USA (preferably legal citizens of the USA) rather then be sent to foreign countries for who knows what. Those BILLIONS sent to foreign countries could do a lot more "work" right here for the people who paid them in.

That's a whole other conversation though.

I repect your opinion, even though it is contrary to the Gospel.

[Bob Denman]

It's sort of funny: I just came across this story...

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/20/mother-shows-before-and-after-pictures-as-she-overcomes-heroin-addiction-6792491/

Addicts CAN make the choice to turn their lives around! :thumbup: :clap:
Or not... :banghead:

[Joe T.]

Really????


What is the recovery rate for drug addicts?


The National Institute on Drug Abuse states that between 40 and 60 percent of recovering drug addicts will eventually relapse. With heroin, those rates are even higher. Some experts place the rate of relapse for heroin addicts as high as 80 percent, which means that the recovery rate may be as low as 20 percent.Aug 24, 2015




I think this thread was about opioids, not coke, weed, etc. I am not sure, but I think that falls under heroin. See second and third sentences above.

Rehab is a BIG business.


Joe T.

[Bob Denman]

Your data is two years old; are there any more current studies available? :dontknow:

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

just remember blame the government, your parents, your teacher and don't forget to blame god because it is never the individuals
fault or responsibility.

[Bob Denman]

Yup! :agree: :banghead:

[Sam Mac]

Sorry but if you want to do drugs and you OD tough crap. :mad:

[JerryB]

Hi Bob,

Re: Addicts CAN make the choice to turn their lives around!

Absolutely nothing in that article supports your statement.

Can some addicts turn their lives around: Of course, they can.

Can all: Of course, not. That is why it is called addiction.

Johnny Carson spent most of his adult life trying to quit smoking; he never could & it cost him his life.

Of the 6-7 billion people on this earth, no two are the same.

Jerry Baumchen

[Bob Denman]

But if they choose to not even try: should we still be so generous? :dontknow:

[Schwingel9]

But if they choose to not even try: should we still be so generous? :dontknow:

When we stop praying, hoping, believing, and showing mercy for each other, we are nothing more than animals.

[Bob Denman]

While :agree:: it is also important that people take the necessary steps to try and help themselves...
If there is no cost to them: the results will have no value.

[Schwingel9]

While :agree:: it is also important that people take the necessary steps to try and help themselves...
If there is no cost to them: the results will have no value.

Acts of kindness and love always have value, remove those things and we remove hope. If it only helps one person it is worth it.

[wyliec]

Acts of kindness and love always have value, remove those things and we remove hope. If it only helps one person it is worth it.

What about- God helps those that help themselves.

[Lew L]

What about- God helps those that help themselves.


​+1

[BoilerAnimal]

What about- God helps those that help themselves.


Sorry, but this isn't in the Bible.

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2017/06/did-you-know-the-saying-god-helps-those-who-help-themselves-isnt-in-the-bible/

[wyliec]

Sorry, but this isn't in the Bible.

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2017/06/did-you-know-the-saying-god-helps-those-who-help-themselves-isnt-in-the-bible/

I never said it was in the bible.

How about this one- Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

[BoilerAnimal]

Most think that it is. Many addicts don't have any bootstraps left to pull up.

[Schwingel9]

What about- God helps those that help themselves.

By definition God is love, love that our finite minds can't fully understand, yet. So yes, God loves those that do work to love Him and others. But, He searches for His lost sheep more than we can comprehend.

[wyliec]

Most think that it is. Many addicts don't have any bootstraps left to pull up.

Those looking for a free ride have no bootstraps, and I have no pity. Those who make an attempt, may need some assistance, to get those boots on.

[wyliec]

By definition God is love, love that our finite minds can't fully understand, yet. So yes, God loves those that do work to love Him and others. But, He searches for His lost sheep more than we can comprehend.

That was my mistake to use the word God. I don't think we want to get to far into religion, which is where you are headed.

[Bob Denman]

[QUOTE=BoilerAnimal;128282 Many addicts don't have any bootstraps left to pull up.[/QUOTE]
But that isn't Society's fault: it's their own.

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

What about- God helps those that help themselves.
A poetic invention by man to justify not helping the one who seems to make no effort to help himself.

What we're dealing with, IMO, is the age old conflict of compassionate assistance vs. self responsibility. There is no clear answer.

It's akin to the difference between justice and fairness. Pardoning a wrong doer (remember President Nixon) is justice, but it can often violate every sense of fairness we hold onto. The person who has been forgiven for a wrong is put into the position of being subordinate to the forgiver. He has been given something which he cannot reciprocate in kind. Our distaste for being subordinate colors our approach to others. That's why we find it so hard to help those who deserve no help.

[Bob Denman]

:clap: Well said! :agree:

[Schwingel9]

That was my mistake to use the word God. I don't think we want to get to far into religion, which is where you are headed.

Its not a mistake, God and His natural moral law is the 100 percent perfect solution to question of thos post. Why would you not want to use this approach to solve this problem?

We are a Christian nation, holding fast to this rock is what keeps us strong and united. Is it the government's responsibility? Yes, because we are the government, a government that removes poison, not legalizing it and especially not profiting from a disease.

Making more evil does not reduce evil. How many times in anyones life has complying with evil has made things better and caused evil to flee? Never. Evil is never satisfied with only a few, it is all consuming.

Don't cave in making excuses, help fight it. Maybe its not only the addicts that need to engage their bootstraps, but also those who are standing on the sidelines watching while their fellow brothers and sisters are lost.

[wyliec]

Its not a mistake, God and His natural moral law is the 100 percent perfect solution to question of thos post. Why would you not want to use this approach to solve this problem?



Lamont the site administrator has told us no political or religious posts.

[Schwingel9]

Lamont the site administrator has told us no political or religious posts.

So this entire post is illegal, according to the title? Thats too bad, this is nice civil discussion with spyder riders respecting each others views.

[Pirate looks at --]

If you want to do drugs fine, but if your drug use hurts others.........
we all know cousin marrying like in islam produces certain birth defects, in pakistan it is common & ~30% of those have
severe problems but it is their country to do as they like, over here we would be paying with our tax dollars to support the
children for the rest of their lives.
everything is choice & consequence but the only way to prevent is for the individual to pay not society.

are any of you aware on judge judy when she berates someone for whatever and screams "you idiot you are going to pay"
she is lying since she knows the show will pay and pays the defendant for appearing. how can anyone learn from this?
back to the point, true freedomw is taking responsibility for your personal actions and accepting it.

please tell me that you DON'T watch Judge Judy!:yikes:

[Bob Denman]

Lamont the site administrator has told us no political or religious posts.


So this entire post is illegal, according to the title? Thats too bad, this is nice civil discussion with spyder riders respecting each others views.

It's not necessarily illegal: not until opinions about which Religion is the only right one (:banghead:), start getting in the way of any rational discussion.
This discussion isn't actually about Religion anyway; although using it as a way to combat addiction is certainly a worthwhile and laudable effort! :clap:

[JerryB]

Hi Schwingel9,

Re: We are a Christian nation

The USA is not a Christian nation. I have been a citizen my entire life. I am a 100% committed atheist.

To each his own.

Jerry Baumchen

[wyliec]

It's not necessarily illegal: not until opinions about which Religion is the only right one (:banghead:), start getting in the way of any rational discussion.
This discussion isn't actually about Religion anyway; although using it as a way to combat addiction is certainly a worthwhile and laudable effort! :clap:

I stand corrected.

[Rob Rodriguez]

Its not a mistake, God and His natural moral law is the 100 percent perfect solution to question of those post. Why would you not want to use this approach to solve this problem? This is easy to say and do if we all live in utopia.

We are a Christian nation, holding fast to this rock is what keeps us strong and united. Is it the government's responsibility? Yes, because we are the government, a government that removes poison, not legalizing it and especially not profiting from a disease. The government and religion should not be mixed with each other. Their only similarity is that its a way for a smaller group of people to control a larger group of people. If you think people and entities (governments and religions) are not profiting greatly now from the worlds diseases in many ways then you may want to take a closer look. According to the United States constitution we welcome all religions.

Don't cave in making excuses, help fight it. Maybe its not only the addicts that need to engage their bootstraps, but also those who are standing on the sidelines watching while their fellow brothers and sisters are lost. Some people like to be lost and have no interest in being found.

[Schwingel9]

It's not necessarily illegal: not until opinions about which Religion is the only right one (:banghead:), start getting in the way of any rational discussion.
This discussion isn't actually about Religion anyway; although using it as a way to combat addiction is certainly a worthwhile and laudable effort! :clap:

This post is about politics and morality though. I agree, one should never put down another's relgion, but to remove all thought of God when discussing these matters, because a person might say something offending
Seems a bit overbearing and keeps the discussion mundane and one-sided.

[Bob Denman]

151422

Nobody has mentioned Politics...
And morality is certainly not a topic to ban. nojoke

The only reason that Politics and Religion aren't supposed to be discussed (IMHO!), is that the discussions often turn into mud-slinging arguments over who's is best... :banghead:

None of that is happening here! :thumbup:

[Schwingel9]

Hi Schwingel9,

Re: We are a Christian nation

The USA is not a Christian nation. I have been a citizen my entire life. I am a 100% committed atheist.

To each his own.

Jerry Baumchen

I agree we have freedom to choose or not to choose God, that is your God given right and civic right to choose or not to God. But, this nation is founded under God, because people say they do not believe in Him does not mean He does not exist or that this nation is not a theist nation.

Example, a straight person walks in a gay bar, full of gay people. Is the bar now a straight bar, or a gay bar with a straight person?

[Rob Rodriguez]

I agree we have freedom to choose or not to choose God, that is your God given right and civic right to choose or not to God. But, this nation is founded under God, because people say they do not believe in Him does not mean He does not exist or that this nation is not a theist nation.

Example, a straight person walks in a gay bar, full of gay people. Is the bar now a straight bar, or a gay bar with a straight person?


The bar is a bar and people with different belief's and lifestyles are at that bar.

The USA is the USA and people with different beliefs and lifestyles live in the USA.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bob Denman]

Example, a straight person walks in a gay bar, full of gay people. Is the bar now a straight bar, or a gay bar with a straight person?
:shocked: I'll need a drink, before I try to answer that question! :cheers: :roflblack:


JerryB,
We may not be a "Christian Nation"; but our origin is certainly based upon Judaeo-Christian values. :thumbup:

[Schwingel9]

Its not a mistake, God and His natural moral law is the 100 percent perfect solution to question of those post. Why would you not want to use this approach to solve this problem? This is easy to say and do if we all live in utopia.

We are a Christian nation, holding fast to this rock is what keeps us strong and united. Is it the government's responsibility? Yes, because we are the government, a government that removes poison, not legalizing it and especially not profiting from a disease. The government and religion should not be mixed with each other. Their only similarity is that its a way for a smaller group of people to control a larger group of people. If you think people and entities (governments and religions) are not profiting greatly now from the worlds diseases in many ways then you may want to take a closer look. According to the United States constitution we welcome all religions.

Don't cave in making excuses, help fight it. Maybe its not only the addicts that need to engage their bootstraps, but also those who are standing on the sidelines watching while their fellow brothers and sisters are lost. Some people like to be lost and have no interest in being found.

I agree we are a nation that welcomes all relgions, worshipping God accordingly. There is not one state religion. We have the freedom of God and the government does not have the power to change it to a nation from God.

[Schwingel9]

The bar is a bar and people with different belief's and lifestyles are at that bar.

The USA is the USA and people with different beliefs and lifestyles live in the USA.

Nothing more, nothing less.

A nation with the majority of its founders theists and a majority of people chrisian. But yet welcoming everyone.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

please tell me that you DON'T watch Judge Judy!:yikes:

I watch her show to see how many times i can catch her lying, showing that she is not as smart as she thinks or i am
just that much smarter then her.

But back to the point of the post, I don't want your habits to adversely affect me or those i care about.

[JerryB]

Hi Bob,

Re: Judaeo-Christian values

Show me were those words are used in Constitution & I'll sort of agree.

I'm waiting . . . . . .

Jerry Baumchen

[Bob Denman]

151447

I actually prefer that you NOT agree... it would spoil the fun! :thumbup:

151448

[Schwingel9]

Hi Bob,

Re: Judaeo-Christian values

Show me were those words are used in Constitution & I'll sort of agree.

I'm waiting . . . . . .

Jerry Baumchen

Actually,
The Declaration of Independence; The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, and the Constitution give conclusive proof that America is a Christian nation.

[wyliec]

Thomas Jefferson (author of the Constitution) was an atheist.

How about we get back on track of what the OP originally asked.

John Adams also stated the gov't of the U.S. was not founded in the Christian religion.

[Schwingel9]

Thomas Jefferson was an atheist.

How about we get back on track of what the OP originally asked.

John Adams also stated the gov't of the U.S. was not founded in the Christian religion.

Yes unfortunately there are a few Judas in ever bunch. But,
Alexander Hamilton, Noah Webster, John Jay, William Findley, Rufus King, and James Wilson. All attested to the fact that "the laws of nature and of nature's God" refer to laws given by God Himself. John Quincy Adams stated that the phrase assumes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong.

[loisk]

If this post keeps going down the religion route - it will be stopped, and rightly so according to the rules of the forum. This is not the place to proselytise

[Schwingel9]

If this post keeps going down the religion route - it will be stopped, and rightly so according to the rules of the forum. This is not the place to proselytise

What post was used to try to convert one from their respected religion? Thanks!

[loisk]

Just please stop with the god given law stuff ... She and her mates have better things to do..

[Rob Rodriguez]

Alexander Hamilton, Noah Webster, John Jay, William Findley, Rufus King, and James Wilson. All attested to the fact that "the laws of nature and of nature's God" refer to laws given by God Himself. John Quincy Adams stated that the phrase assumes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong.


It's like everything else. Its how its interpreted by the reader. That's why lawyers exist.

"God" is many different things to many different people.

[JerryB]

Hi Schwingel9,

Re: Judaeo-Christian values

My challenge stands: Show me where those words are used in Constitution

You cannot do it; and neither can Bob Denman.

Re: Actually . . . give conclusive proof that America is a Christian nation.

Horse puckey; only in your mind.

Jerry Baumchen

[Schwingel9]

Hi Schwingel9,

Re: Judaeo-Christian values

My challenge stands: Show me where those words are used in Constitution

You cannot do it; and neither can Bob Denman.

Re: Actually . . . give conclusive proof that America is a Christian nation.

Horse puckey; only in your mind.

Jerry Baumchen

I agree that exact phrase is not in there, but that exact phrase does not have to be in there to prove this is a Christian nation. In fact, even if it was in there, those words are merely words. Christianity is not a phrase or a religion, it is a way of life. It is THE WAY. The way in which one sacrifices not the enemies life for their own, but rather ones own life for their enemy's. A way that is self giving in every way, with every thing the person holds dear. Our nation was founded umder that WAY.From the beginning
And still to this day millions of brave men and women sacrifice everthing for their loved ones, people they have never met, and even people who don't like them. For people burning their flag and blaspheming their God, all in hope that their efforts will make this word a better and holy place. There are no atheists in fox holes, in churches, or in missionaries. There is only God and his children, giving proof, and living THE WAY.

[Bob Denman]

Jerry,
If you read the stories in the Bible: you'll actually find two lessons in most of them.
One is for believing, and the other is for living.
I don't care what you do about the believing part: that's completely your choice. nojoke
But the lessons for living involve telling folks how they should treat each other, and go about their daily lives.
In my very simple interpretation (I am certainly not a Scholar): I found that you will be following those lessons pretty well, if you treat people kindly, honestly, and fairly.
Do the same in your business dealings also.
That is what I take as Judaeo-Christian values.

It's not much of a stretch; to see a lot of that our Constitution, or Declaration of Independence. :thumbup:

But that's just me.

Now: let's get back to the dying druggies, and put the Bibles back in the Motel Room dresser! :D

[loisk]

Zoroastrian, Buddhist, etc etc

Good messages are everywhere - it does not have to be as narrowly defined to one brand, as you have done !!

over and out

[Schwingel9]

Zoroastrian, Buddhist, etc etc

Good messages are everywhere - it does not have to be as narrowly defined to one brand, as you have done !!

over and out

I agree, there are some Truths to all religions. Fullness of what God has chosen to reveal to us is found in one. Some choose to dive deeper, some choose not to, but grace is free for everyone.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

I agree, there are some Truths to all religions. Fullness of what God has chosen to reveal to us is found in one. Some choose to dive deeper, some choose not to, but grace is free for everyone.

truth from which god? aztec, greek, norse, cimmerian, vulcan, xandarian......
too many gods to choose from, personally i listen to Crom and the gods of Galador (bob do you remember who they are from?).

[Pirate looks at --]

:shocked: I'll need a drink, before I try to answer that question! :cheers: :roflblack:


JerryB,
We may not be a "Christian Nation"; but our origin is certainly based upon Judaeo-Christian values. :thumbup:
.....and the separation of Church and State:thumbup:

[Schwingel9]

truth from which god? aztec, greek, norse, cimmerian, vulcan, xandarian......
too many gods to choose from, personally i listen to Crom and the gods of Galador (bob do you remember who they are from?).

By definition there can be only one God.

[Pirate looks at --]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

so let's just keep religion out of government, as the first amendment states!:bowdown:

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

so let's just keep religion out of government, as the first amendment states!:bowdown:

how about we keep religion out of this post and this forum as lamont states.

[Schwingel9]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

so let's just keep religion out of government, as the first amendment states!:bowdown:

When read in context, that does not mean religion is banned from government, it simply means the state will not recognize one religion as the states religion.

This might be a good thing, judging by history and how power corrupts men. Now, we can take all of our beliefs into acts of government policies. Will it work? We will find out.

[UtahPete]

By definition there can be only one God.

Which definition would that be?

[UtahPete]

I agree, there are some Truths to all religions. Fullness of what God has chosen to reveal to us is found in one. Some choose to dive deeper, some choose not to, but grace is free for everyone.

How would you know that? Unless you have devoted your life to studying every religion you cannot say that with certainty. Just as you cannot claim any of your beliefs as TRUTHS!

They are beliefs, not facts. So keep 'em to yourself before you really get me pissed off.

[Schwingel9]

Which definition would that be?

God's definition through His Divine Revalation.

[Bob Denman]

They are beliefs, not facts. So keep 'em to yourself before you really get me pissed off.

:D There's no need to get aggravated. Some folks just like to hit others over the head with Bibles: that's all. :D
They can't help it... :dontknow:

[Schwingel9]

How would you know that? Unless you have devoted your life to studying every religion you cannot say that with certainty. Just as you cannot claim any of your beliefs as TRUTHS!

They are beliefs, not facts. So keep 'em to yourself before you really get me pissed off.

I have devoted my life to God and theology, moral theology and apologetics specifically.

God is Truth, Truth is immutable. Simply apply that truth to anything, be it religion or what ever. If it contradicts Gods natural moral law, it is not True.

[UtahPete]

"I do think it's time the USA bring all this "stuff" out of the closet so to speak. Drugs, sex, etc...when it's perceived as bad and made illegal its driven underground where it does (or can) become a bad or worse thing than if it were just out in the open."

When used in the correct context of what it is designed for, these things are not intrinsically evil. Sex for instance, was designed by God for husband and wife for procreation. When used out of context or in immoral ways, then evil is abound, abortion, stds, divorce due to infidelity and so on. Sex has a purpose and is sacred and holy in the bond of matrimony. Sex is not a recreational sport. The same with drugs, they are not designed for recreational purposes, they are for aiding in healing and promoting health. Getting stoned is not healthy for the body or good for society. Making everything legal so we can tax it and make money on it, or doing what ever feels good, is not an answer to any problems.

The concept of evil does not exist outside of religion. If you're going to argue a point of view based on religious beliefs rather than facts and reason what good does that do?

[Schwingel9]

:D There's no need to get aggravated. Some folks just like to hit others over the head with Bibles: that's all. :D
They can't help it... :dontknow:

I agree, especially hard cover Catholic one's. Protestant bibles hurt less, under no authority they removed 7 books.

[UtahPete]

When we stop praying, hoping, believing, and showing mercy for each other, we are nothing more than animals.

I think you just called us animals.

[Bob Denman]

I have devoted my life to God and theology, moral theology and apologetics specifically.

God is Truth, Truth is immutable. Simply apply that truth to anything, be it religion or what ever. If it contradicts Gods natural moral law, it is not True.

:D Good for you! :clap:
Now; would you please dial it back a little bit?
You WILL get this thread pulled! nojoke

[Schwingel9]

The concept of evil does not exist outside of religion. If you're going to argue a point of view based on religious beliefs rather than facts and reason what good does that do?

Evil does exist, this has been proven thousands of years ago. Yes, out side of religion, through reason. If you want, I can explain it and explain evil through religion also.

The evil conversation outside of religion revolves around moral relativism.

The evil conversation in the realm of religion revolves around the question is "why does God allow evil."

[UtahPete]

1.This post is about politics and morality though.
2. I agree, one should never put down another's relgion,
3. but to remove all thought of God when discussing these matters, because a person might say something offending seems a bit overbearing and keeps the discussion mundane and one-sided.

1. No, it's about discussing the various viewpoints held by members on the question of what role government should play in addressing the current opioid epidemic. That's not politics unless you make a statement based on political dogma rather than personal beliefs about the role of government.

2. I disagree. I'll put down your religion any time you try to try to inject it into the conversation.

3. We're not talking about removing thought of God; you want to do that go right ahead. We are talking about removing religious beliefs from a discussion that has nothing to do with religion. It doesn't offend me; it causes me to discount everything you say.

[Schwingel9]

:D Good for you! :clap:
Now; would you please dial it back a little bit?
You WILL get this thread pulled! nojoke

It will be fine. The moderator is a Christian. Civil conversation, out of love, for his God is what we are called to do, in any circle, at anytime. That is biblical.

[Schwingel9]

1. No, it's about discussing the various viewpoints held by members on the question of what role government should play in addressing the current opioid epidemic. That's not politics unless you make a statement based on political dogma rather than personal beliefs about the role of government.

2. I disagree. I'll put down your religion any time you try to try to inject it into the conversation.

3. We're not talking about removing thought of God; you want to do that go right ahead. We are talking about removing religious beliefs from a discussion that has nothing to do with religion. It doesn't offend me; it causes me to discount everything you say.

1. This has been discussed. Re-read the posts.

2. That's fine.

3. That's fine.

[UtahPete]

I agree we have freedom to choose or not to choose God, that is your God given right and civic right to choose or not to God.

How can you say you believe in (and presumably support) my freedom to choose whether to believe and then say that right is given to me by 'god'? Are you saying if I choose to believe there is no god, then I have lost my right to choose because that right came from 'god'?

Wow! What kind of convoluted nonsense is that?

[UtahPete]

By definition God is love, love that our finite minds can't fully understand, yet. So yes, God loves those that do work to love Him and others. But, He searches for His lost sheep more than we can comprehend.

Okay, I'm calling you out on this one. Where is it defined, except in religious texts, that god is love? You're using your own belief system to validate your own belief system. Try thinking for yourself instead of chasing your tail with beliefs piled on top of beliefs.

[Bob Denman]

:banghead: Both of you guys need a trip out behind the woodshed...
You're now down to arguing over stupid things like semantics.
Please put the keyboards away, and go take your dogs for a walk! nojoke

[Schwingel9]

How can you say you believe in (and presumably support) my freedom to choose whether to believe and then say that right is given to me by 'god'? Are you saying if I choose to believe there is no god, then I have lost my right to choose because that right came from 'god'?

Wow! What kind of convoluted nonsense is that?

Not exactly sure what you are asking, but let me be more specific. We all have free will, free will is a gift from God to us. Free will is a necessity in order to have a truly loving relationship. God does not want, nor did He create robots. He created rational beings that had and have the ability to choose Him or not to. Some humans do, some dont. Some angels did, some didn't.

Humans at anytime are free to turn to or turn away while here on earth. Because of their superior intelligence the angels made one selection.

[Schwingel9]

:banghead: Both of you guys need a trip out behind the woodshed...
You're now down to arguing over stupid things like semantics.
Please put the keyboards away, and go take your dogs for a walk! nojoke

It's fine. We are learning.

[UtahPete]

God's definition through His Divine Revalation.

Does the term 'religious fanaticism' mean anything to you?

[UtahPete]

Not exactly sure what you are asking, but let me be more specific. We all have free will, free will is a gift from God to us. Free will is a necessity in order to have a truly loving relationship. God does not want, nor did He create robots. He created rational beings that had and have the ability to choose Him or not to. Some humans do, some dont. Some angels did, some didn't.

Humans at anytime are free to turn to or turn away while here on earth. Because of their superior intelligence the angels made one selection.

Thanks, but I don't get my ideas about religious freedom from your religion. I am an atheist, so why would I? My freedom to choose what to believe or not believe comes from living in a society that happens to grant that right. Try exercising your 'god-given' religious rights in many other societies, including ours over 300 years ago and you'll quickly discover how meaningless your 'god-given' rights are.

[Schwingel9]

Okay, I'm calling you out on this one. Where is it defined, except in religious texts, that god is love? You're using your own belief system to validate your own belief system. Try thinking for yourself instead of chasing your tail with beliefs piled on top of beliefs.

Evil does it exist outside of religion?

First, what is evil, what is its definition? Evil by definition is the absence of the good. In order for evil to not exist, good would have to not exist. Have you ever sensed anything good? The more good there is the less evil there is, vise versa.

Evil is not the opposite of God, nor is Satan the opposite of God. That is why you don't need to believe in God to define exists.

Hope this helps.

[Schwingel9]

Does the term 'religious fanaticism' mean anything to you?

Yes.

[UtahPete]

Evil does it exist outside of religion? First, what is evil, what is its definition? Evil by definition is the absence of the good. In order for evil to not exist, good would have to not exist. Have you ever sensed anything good? The more good there is the less evil there is, vise versa. Evil is not the opposite of God, nor is Satan the opposite of God. That is why you don't need to believe in God to define exists. Hope this helps.

Evil and good are religious constructs, as are 'god' and 'satan'. They mean nothing to someone who does not believe as you do.

Intelligence and lack thereof, on the other hand, does not need religion to define it.

[Schwingel9]

Thanks, but I don't get my ideas about religious freedom your religion. I am an atheist, so why would I? My freedom to choose what to believe or not believe comes from living in a society that happens to grant that right. Try exercising your religious rights in many other societies, including ours over 300 years ago and you'll quickly discover how meaningless your 'god-given' rights are.

So you are using your God given free will, choosing not believe, now.

And using your civil right if freedom of religion, to not practice a religion you do not believe in.

You definitely are a free man. One good thing you got going for you is that your name derived from the 1st pope.

[loisk]

You're missing the point

Free will - you say is god given - a premise underlying your case

I do not agree with this premise - it is merely your belief system

Now either get back to the topic of government role in caring for the lost ones in a sick world, or just please (2nd request) stop with all the god stuff.

[Schwingel9]

Evil and good are religious constructs. They mean nothing to someone who does not believe as you do.

Intelligence and lack thereof, on the other hand, does not need religion to define it.

If you do not personally believe riding your spyder makes you feel good, why ride it ? If good means nothing to you because you are an atheist, why would you sacrifice your life for your loved one's? Why do you smile, laugh, and love? We have more in common than you thought, and I'm not an atheist.

[Schwingel9]

You're missing the point

Free will - you say is god given - a premise underlying your case

I do not agree with this premise - it is merely your belief system

Now either get back to the topic of government role in caring for the lost ones in a sick world, or just please (2nd request) stop with all the god stuff.

If the freewill to choose to believe in or not to believe in God did not come from God, who did it come from?

[loisk]

Again a wrong premise "good means nothing to you because you are an atheist" - what a nonsensical statement !