Mitt Romney

How Mitt Romney's Soda Choice Is Relevant to the War on Drugs

|

We know how Mitt Romney feels about marijuana. But what about caffeine? A.P. notes that he "joins other observant Mormons in shunning alcohol and coffee," although he does eat coffee ice cream. His wife, Ann, says he drinks "caffeine-free Diet Coke." Is that a Mormon thing too? This week the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints weighed in on that question with a "small correction" to an NBC report that claimed caffeine is forbidden to Mormons:

Despite what was reported, the Church revelation spelling out health practices (Doctrine and Covenants 89) does not mention the use of caffeine. The Church's health guidelines prohibit alcoholic drinks, smoking or chewing of tobacco, and "hot drinks"—taught by Church leaders to refer specifically to tea and coffee.*

That asterisk refers to a footnote that says "this posting has been updated since it was orginally published." Updated how? The Fox station in Salt Lake City reports that the post originally ended with the sentence, "The restriction does not go beyond this." So while the church initially seemed to have settled the caffeine question once and for all, saying the drug is permissible as long as it is not consumed in the form of tea or coffee, it opted instead to leave the dispute unresolved.

Although the caffeine controversy may seem of little interest to non-Mormons, it sheds light on the evolution of drug taboos, which is why I discuss it in my book Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use. The textual source for these prohibitions is the Word of Wisdom, as recorded on Section 89 of the Mormons' Doctrine and Covenants:

Inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.

And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.

And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

By reading "hot drinks" to include tea and coffee but not, say, hot cider, LDS leaders imply that caffeine is the issue (which makes sense, since the other things forbidden in this passage also contain psychoactive substances). If so, coffee is forbidden even when you put it on ice. But then what about soft drinks that also contain caffeine? Judging from the editing of this week's blog post, church officials themselves disagree about the answer.

It might clarify things to know the moral principle underlying the Word of Wisdom. The church teaches that "the message of the Word of Wisdom is to avoid all substances that are harmful to our bodies," and "drugs are harmful when used outside of specific medicinal purposes." According to a statement issued in 1974, "The Church has consistently opposed the improper and harmful use of drugs or similar substances under circumstances which would result in addiction, physical or mental impairment, or in lowering moral standards."

The "medicinal purposes" exception allows the use of psychoactive substances when they are prescribed by a doctor, and it is perhaps telling that Utah, full of teetotaling Mormons, leads the nation in the use of antidepressants. Leaving that issue aside, we now have a standard by which to judge the propriety of using a drug: Is it "harmful to our bodies"? The permissibility of caffeine becomes an empirical question: Does moderate consumption of this stimulant lead to addiction, physical or mental impairment, or immoral behavior? If so, caffiene should be prohibited in every form. But if not, why are coffee and tea prohibited? You can begin to see why the church is leery of taking a definitive stand on this issue.

The Mormon ban on coffee and tea, of course, is not legally enforceable, but many other, equally arbitrary drug preferences are. So as trivial as it may seem, Romney's reasons for drinking caffeine-free Coke may actually be relevant to his reasons for supporting the ban on marijuana and other politically disfavored intoxicants. Even if caffeine avoidance is not a moral issue for him, abstaining from alcohol and tobacco presumably are. If so, why is he willing to let other people make different choices? Why doesn't the same logic apply to other drugs as well? Romney may have answers to those questions that hinge on the specific hazards posed by the drugs that happen to be illegal. But I doubt it. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Ann Romney: Clint Eastwood Unique

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. His wife, Ann, says he drinks “caffeine-free Diet Coke.”
    Ha! Gay.

  2. We already knew Romney is a drug warrior (as is Obama), so I fail to see the point of this. You could make the same attack on the hypocrisy of any drug war politician.

    Unless you’re part of the MormonsAreWeird drumbeat the left is starting to push.

    1. I’m sorry they insulted your boyfriend.

      1. I wonder; when he strokes it to Romney, do you think he imagines him in a dominatrix outfit or a furry outfit?

        1. Furrymatrix

          1. That’s just wrong.

          2. No no no. He imagines him in the Mormon magicundies. Cenotaph respects Mittens’ religious views.

      2. I’m sorry they insulted your boyfriend.

        so if you took out Romney, what Repub or Dem’s name could be substituted for someone who thinks the war on drugs is stupid? Maybe Ron Paul. Otherwise, there is Johnson. Point is, neither party’s mainstream is going to put forth anyone who tells the truth about the drug war being foolish.

      3. Did you miss the part where I said Romney is a drug warrior hypocrite?

        They need to add a “think” button in addition to preview to help you not make brainless comments.

        1. LOL

          That’s true projection for you, TEAM RED scumbag.

          1. Are you like 11 or something? If you’re a grown adult who’s not joking around… that’s pretty sad.

            1. Yes, I am very sad…that you’re a TEAM RED scumbag. Wait, no I’m not. I’m sad you haven’t been banned yet.

        2. Yeah, you totally weren’t defending Romney like you do on every thread. Uh-huh. Sure.

          1. So you’re just looking at the name of the poster instead of the comment when you write your reply? There’s a word for that. Two of them.

            1. Fuck you? That’s two words.

              1. Eat my shit. That’s two words, right? Um…one…two…yeah, two words.

                1. How can you not just love this man?

            2. Yes. It’s so mean that I remember things you said on other threads and can see a pattern. It’s like I’m burning a cross on your lawn or something.

            3. Steak milkshake?

                    1. penis enlarger

                    2. penis enlarger

                    3. penis enlarger

                    4. peepee enlarger

                    5. Adolph Hilter?

                  1. Careful, Sage. Apple might sue.

            4. “a word” “two of them”

              Testes?

    2. I don’t think the MormonsAreWeird drumbeat is exclusive to the left. In fact, most of the righties I know held that position right up until Romney secured enough delegates to take the nomnation. Only then did they embrace him in order to defeat Obama. Prior, they did not want him because MormonsAreWeird or as one Baptist friend of mine (strongly entrenched on the right) called it, a cult. She was scared of him. Now she posts Facebook messages in favor of him because “Obama kills babies.”

      1. In other news, people are stupid.

        1. Is that the new Dunphy signal?

        2. and FB gives them the platform putting their stupidity on public display.

        3. Except that Obama does kill babies.

    3. Don’t worry cenotaph.

      They’ll have a couple of posts next week about how disappointed they are with Obama and may not vote for him again.

      1. Does Reason do April Fool’s posts? Because that would be an AWESOME way to screw with people like him. Sort of like that “An Ideological Test for Gun Ownership” article Sullum did earlier this month. But more of them.

    4. “MormonsAreWeird drumbeat the left is starting to push”

      South Park did it first.

  3. Why doesn’t the same logic apply to other drugs as well?

    It is not essential that you understand.

    It IS essential that you OBEY.

  4. Why doesn’t the same logic apply to other drugs as well?

    Because there’s no logic involved. This is religious bullshit; it’s DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB. Do not expect critical thinking.

    1. It is, but you need to work on crit thin yourself judging by your childish response above.

      1. Yesterday all I had for lunch was crit thins and a caffeine free Diet Coke. I was left wanting all afternoon.

        1. That is so gay, Mr. Akston.

      2. You need to go suck more TEAM RED cock. Actually, considering how much you’re sucking now, that might choke you to death. So go do it, please.

        The infestation of the TEAM RED apologists has begun in earnest. Please get hit by a bus, scumbag. PLEASE.

        1. Your teacher is going to be angry when she finds out you’ve been typing obscene words into a blog in the computer lab when you were supposed to be re-writing your five paragraph book report.

          1. I understand the use of a running gag, but your fatal flaw is that yours is incredibly stupid. Try harder, TEAM RED scumbag. Then please get hit by a bus, or possibly a jumbo jet.

            1. It’s not a running gag, it’s a diagnosis based on your extreme immaturity and your hope that authority figures will squelch dissent. Living in the public school system will do that to a person.

              1. Oh griefer, you had to go and fuck up. Actually, that’s kind of delicious.

                1. How…narcissistic.

                2. Griefer? You think this is a game? Actually that would explain a lot. Maybe you would understand better if I accused Jack Sullum of ghosting.

                  1. You think our posts AREN’T a game? Are you not aware that most people post here for fun?

                  2. Let me give you a bit of advice, kid. Epi has been here since the dawn of time. You, on the other hand, have not. So everyone who’s been here awhile looks at your posting and wonders, “Why doesn’t monument-boy just STFU?

                    1. I had no idea libertarians were such sticks in the mud.

                    2. As opposed to being rocks-in-the-ground?

          2. OK, I am unfamiliar with this little flame war but that’s funny.

      3. “Crit thin” is the stupidest abbreviation ever, by the way. Can you really not spell “critical thinking?”

        1. His tight shilling schedule doesn’t allow for such luxuries. By god, man… there might be threads out there he’s not had a chance to shill on!

  5. Too Bad God didn’t know in 1820 about LSD, Pot, Heroin, Cocaine, Crack Cocaine, Meth, or energy drinks or he might have banned them too.

    1. why do you think god didn’t know about these? If he is the creator of all things, he can’t claim exemption from pot, coca, and poppy plants. Wouldn’t he had to know that man would figure out uses for all the things at his disposal?

      1. He was younger then.

        1. theology aside, I’m going with the notion that all things are here for a reason and our role is to figure out that reason. This is more applicable – to me anyway – with regard to plants than to things created in a lab.

          Pot has all sorts of medicinal value; there have to be some beneficial properties to the other plants, too. Otherwise, they would have died out.

          Maybe he underestimated man’s appetite for experimentation. And perhaps self-destruction, but mostly curiosity and experimentation.

          1. but mostly curiosity and experimentation

            If God didn’t learn that lesson in Eden with Adam and Eve then he’s hopeless.

          2. Or maybe He didn’t ban them anymore than He banned bungi jumping or steer roping: we’re free to choose.

            1. Or maybe He didn’t ban them anymore than He banned bungi jumping or steer roping: we’re free to choose.

              and there you go. Two things separate us from other living things: free will and a conscience. We have the capacity to do things willingly rather than be driven exclusively by instinct and, as a bonus, we can determine if those things are good/bad, fun/dangerous, smart/stupid.

              1. Those things can also be neutral.

                1. No, no, we’re big fans of Manichean thinking around here. Good or bad, no in between.

          3. Maybe he underestimated man’s appetite for experimentation. And perhaps self-destruction, but mostly curiosity and experimentation.

            Of course he did, look at Adam and Eve.

          4. Maybe he underestimated…

            Sort of calls into question that whole ‘omniscience’ thing.

            1. that was asked upthread: shouldn’t he have mapped out the potential uses for things at man’s disposal? As some other person here likes to say – foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

          5. You don’t think some beneficial plants might have already died out?

      2. Hey G-d! That universe? You didn’t build that.

  6. OK, you checked the drug-thing box, but in a rather long winded and roundabout way.

    1. I am hoping that Jacob didn’t sprain anything in that extended stretch.

      If anything, it is easier to just say Mitt the DRUG WARRIOR has a basis in his stance – this is it, end o’ description. Sure, it is preferrable if it was left as a voluntary choice to be abstient such as he is…also, he might be giving Mayor Bloomberg more banning ideas!

  7. Can we move on to the Dem Convention now? It will be a refreshing change of pace to have all the Team Blue whiners complaining about reason picking on their guy. I’ve had enough of the Team Red whiners for now.

    1. I can’t wait!

    2. There’s actually only 2 or 3, but it’s almost enough to make these threads unbearable.

    3. I don’t think they’re going to pick on the Democrats nearly as much. I hope I’m wrong.

      1. See sparky? Not only is he a Team Red apologist, he also lacks any sense of self awareness.

        1. He’s the perfect partisan!

        2. Tribalism at its finest I guess.

          1. I prefer tibaldism.

        3. Disagreement with your assessment of me is not lack of self-awareness.

          I just called Mitt Romney a hypocrite drug warrior, yet I’m a GOP partisan. OK, whatever helps you sleep at night.

          1. Your lack of self awareness has nothing to do with me and everything to do with your response to sparky’s comment?

            Who do you think he’s referring to when he says, “I’ve had enough of the Team Red whiners for now.”?

            Also, just because you called Romney a hypocrite (While bitching about Reasson being too hard on him) does make you any less of a Team Red Hack. There are plenty of republican hacks who aren’t totally satisfied with Romney’s nomination.

            1. What definition of “hack” are you using? If one can still be a hack despite openly criticising the Republican nominee, then how is any Republican anywhere not a hack?

              1. Every article reason posts critical of Team Red, or more specifically, team Romney, you jump in to bitch and moan. You’re the ultimate team red whiner sparky was referring to. You’re team red hack.

                Hell, you’re even running a tally to make sure reason is fair to team red. It would be kinda cute if it wasn’t so barf inducing… but keep it up, really. It will make this place less of an echo chamber I guess.

                1. Maybe Reason’s posts are flawed. Did you even consider that posisbility? No, the hivemind cannot err.

                  1. This is a libertarian website which posts libertarian critiques. The republicans had their convention this week so one would expect team red to be the focus of most of the articles this week. If criticism of Romney is to painful for your team red soul, I would suggest looking elsewhere to be spoon fed Romney and Ryan’s semen.

                    1. I repeat, what if the “libertarian critiques” are flawed? Are outside voices not permitted to criticise them on these forums?

                    2. Weren’t you just pretending not to be a TEAM RED hack? Fuck off, TEAM RED hack.

                    3. Then make the argument. Don’t just bitch about how you think Reason is treating Romney unfairly because Obama is worse and it might ‘hurt morale’.

                      You yourself said Romney is a hypocrite when it comes to the WoD, right? So then it would also be fair to criticize him as such, riiigghhtt?

                      Just because Obama’s horrible on the WoD doesn’t mean Romney is above criticism.

                      Reason has, in fact, written numerous articles about Obama’s hypocrisy as it relates to the WoD as well.

                      But seriously, keep posting your tantrums.

                    4. I have made the argument, every time. People just ignore it and call me a hack.

                      You yourself said Romney is a hypocrite when it comes to the WoD, right? So then it would also be fair to criticize him as such, riiigghhtt?

                      Absolutely. This isn’t a criticism of Romney’s WOD position, it’s a long diatribe about Mormon weirdness followed by a standard issue lament of politicians’ hypocrisy that could be applied to almost any politician in America today.

                    5. “This isn’t a criticism of Romney’s WOD position, it’s a long diatribe…”

                      So next week during the convention when Reason is posting long diatribes a out Obama and Biden, you be the first to comment and run to their defense, right?

                    6. “This isn’t a criticism of Romney’s WOD position, it’s a long diatribe” about Mormon weirdness

                      A bit disingenuous there. Tomb-boy’s point I think is true in that this piece is a veiled knock on Mormonism

                    7. I repeat, what if the “libertarian critiques” are flawed?

                      Will you be here during the Dem Convention nitpicking every time reason espouses some flawed critiques of them?

                    8. I repeat, what if the “libertarian critiques” are flawed? Are outside voices not permitted to criticise them on these forums?

                      Except people criticize Reason posts and articles all the time. However, the commentariot usually asks that these be intelligent critiques. Criticizing a post about Republicans for not mentioning Democrats is like criticizing a picture of dogs for not featuring kittens. Especially when the post is right around the RNC National Convention.

                    9. Dogs and cats pictured together!!!!11111

                    10. Dogs and cats pictured together!!!!11111

                    11. This is a libertarian website which posts libertarian critiques.

                      Well, unless they’re talking about someone mean like Lance Armstrong, then fuck the hard evidence and bring in the tainted eyewitnesses.

                    12. Well, unless they’re talking about someone mean like Lance Armstrong, then fuck the hard evidence and bring in the tainted eyewitnesses.

                      When we see a Reason post claiming Armstrong did drugs, rather than just referencing other people’s claims (and criticizing them), we’ll let you know.

                2. You’re the ultimate team red whiner sparky was referring to.

                  But MWG, “whiner” is just a way of misspelling “winner”, so he’s STILL right.

            2. And remeber kids, you can’t spell Reasson without ass.

              1. That’s clever ceno, I’ll give you that.

                1. T’was the Pipster.

                  1. It was still pretty clever.

  8. I never understood the whole Mormon-and-Baptist anti-alcohol thing. Maybe in their version of the Bible Jesus miraculously turned water into grape juice?

    1. Some people use the argument that wine back in the day was grape juice.

      1. Which spontaneously ferments into wine if not pastuerized.

        1. “Some Christians maintain that the wine in the Bible was almost non-alcoholic. It is argued that all wine in ancient times was filtered and dried into a paste, which was then mixed with water. Thus, small amounts of alcohol were present in wine, but the wine was so diluted as to minimize the intoxicating effects. The alcohol that was used was strictly for preservation purposes.”

          So…explains the water into wine trick. Drop a couple packs of paste in there and…abacadabra!

          1. Some Christians are idiots. Wine fermented from six weeks to a year in biblical times, certainly resulting in alcohol. The burden of proof is on them if they are simply inventing facts out of thin air to suit their conclusions.

            Nowhere in the Bible whatsoever does it say drinking alcohol in moderation is a sin.

            1. “Some Christians are idiots.”

              Correct. Just like any subset of humanity. Do I give a shit if people have a rational basis for believing a particular thing about which the whole is fantasy? Nope. I don’t care if you think Spock was the coolest character on Star Trek either.

              1. I don’t care if you think Spock was the coolest character on Star Trek either.

                Well you should, because they’re wrong. The coolest character is a tie between Sulu and Uhura.

                1. An alternate universe with Sulhura on the bridge would be either the coolest or least cool TOS ever. Or they’d fight, Mirror-Mirror style?

            2. 5.Psalm 104:15
              And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart.
              Psalm 104:14-16 (in Context) Psalm 104 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
              6.Proverbs 31:6
              Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
              Proverbs 31:5-7 (in Context) Proverbs 31 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
              7.Ecclesiastes 2:3
              I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life.
              Ecclesiastes 2:2-4 (in Context) Ecclesiastes 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
              8.Ecclesiastes 9:7
              Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
              Ecclesiastes 9:6-8 (in Context) Ecclesiastes 9 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
              9.Jeremiah 23:9
              Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets; all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome, because of the LORD, and because of the words of his holiness.
              Jeremiah 23:8-10 (in Context) Jeremiah 23 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations

              1. Ok, I don’t know which Star Trek character your post is meant to support, Pip, but whoever it is I’m sure you’re wrong.

          2. I’ve also heard the water into wine incident not being an endorsement of imbibing because “Sure Jesus drank, but I’m not Jesus.”

            No, seriously. I’ve heard that a few times over the years.

            1. “I’ve heard that a few times over the years”

              Coward!

            2. Psh! You might a well change your handle to AlcoholFree now.

          3. “dried into a paste, which was then mixed with water”

            Like Tang then? So it could have been a parlor trick?

        2. God Bless fermentation!

          /Methodist

      2. It hadn’t fermented yet!

    2. their view is absolutist: there is prohibition or there is alcoholism. The concept of responsible use of a product never enters the equation. This is hardly confined to the bible folks. Consider the anti-gun crowd, for example.

      1. Worse than that, at least the anti-gun crowd (grudgingly) acknowledges that police and military need guns. The prohibitionists are against all ethanol, all the time.

        1. What about in cars?

          1. They’re against drinking and driving, too.

        2. Well, the antigun crowd knows that the cops and army need guns to keep the peasants subjects citizens in line. How will they keep the little people from owning guns without an enforcer class?

    3. That “some people” phrasing is bullshit and cowardice. If you’re going to advance that argument, do so yourself rather than setting up a strawman.

      Grape juice will turn into wine if left to its own devices. Airborne yeast is everywhere. So, again, bullshit.

      1. “That “some people” phrasing is bullshit and cowardice.”

        What the fuck are you talking about. I’m not advancing the argument and some, a part of the whole of humanity, argue that wine used in biblical terms wasn’t typically fermented. So, fuck you and your characterization of the motive of providing simple information, asshole.

        1. Thanks for sharing.

      2. “Some Christians maintain that the wine in the Bible was almost non-alcoholic. It is argued that all wine in ancient times was filtered and dried into a paste, which was then mixed with water. Thus, small amounts of alcohol were present in wine, but the wine was so diluted as to minimize the intoxicating effects. The alcohol that was used was strictly for preservation purposes.”

        http://dispensationalist.blogs…..bible.html

        1. There goes Noah’s excuse for his indecent exposure.

          1. family values!

      3. Some people think that your post is tedious. Or so I’ve heard.

    4. Re: Proprietist,

      I never understood the whole Mormon-and-Baptist anti-alcohol thing.

      That’s because they’re really Muslims i disguise. Or devoid of any joy for life, take your pick.

      1. They’re even spelled similarly. They both have “M”s (capital “M”s, at that!) they both have vowels…. The list goes on and on really.

  9. If I follow the doctrine on “hot drinks”, doesn’t that mean I am free to drink iced tea and iced coffee?

    1. No Matter who wins, we’re all gonna eat shit.

      1. Drink it, don’t you mean?

  10. “And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make”

    Do Mormons have their own brand of wine or do they each stomp their own grapes?

    1. Moronschewitz?

  11. FYI, Sullum, this is of extreme interest to many non-mormons, particularly rationalists. It allows us to identify people who subscribe to non-rational belief systems, who we feel are unfit for leadership positions. The difference between the plain language of the “hot beverages” prohibition, and the practice of avoiding some hot beverages, but not others, is a pretty good marker of unfitness for us.

    1. I’m thinking Mormon god is sort of a 19th century Chuck Schumer.

      1. You mean Mormon god has ye olde bitchtits?

        1. “Eight months ago, Bob’s testicles were removed. Then hormone therapy. He developed bitch tits because his testosterone was too high and his body upped the estrogen. And that was where I fit… Between those huge sweating tits that hung enormous, the way you’d think of God’s as big.”

    2. Every nominee of a major party in my lifetime has claimed to be a christian. I fail to see how this makes Mitt more unfit than any of them.

      1. That’s fine, Adam.

      2. I think he was joking.

        1. Oh, I see your post below Tonio, I stand corrected.

    3. how are beverage choices a mark of unfitness for anything beyond the ability to throw a good party? Mormons are not demanding that you forego these drinks, only that their own do so.

      1. It’s the whole irrational, contrived belief system thingy. Not any specific application of that system, or that they don’t expect others to tow that lion.

        I wouldn’t want someone who believes in psychics or astrology to be in charge either. Given that many people have belief systems which are in varying degrees irrational, you pick the least irrational or least dangerous.

        And I’m not presenting this as a libertarian viewpoint.

    4. Do you think that Jews that keep kosher are similarly unfit for office?

      How about observant Muslims?

      1. See my post at 1:18, above.

  12. I just have to point out that the writing in Word of Wisdom is friggin’ hilarious. Why the faux King James English? Did Joseph Smith think that God talked like he was from fifteenth century England?

    1. Kind of like how all foreign people in movies have British accents.

      1. I guess. But this stuff was supposed be a revelation directly from an angel, no?

        1. British angel. Pity a Cockney accent wasn’t used – Eliza Doolittle meets the Smiths.

          1. Pity a Cockney accent wasn’t used

            Someone needs to make Cockney versions of major religious texts. And I mean actually write it out the way it sounds, so people will read it that way.

          2. STEVE SMITH RAPE LIZA IN MOST LOVERLY WAY! BUT NO CHOCOLATE OR COAL FOR PRESENT.

          3. The Ten Commandments In Ebonics
            I be God. Don’ be dissing me.
            Don’ be makin hood ornaments outa me or nothin in my crib.
            Don’ be callin me for no reason – homey don’ play that.
            Y’all betta be in church on Sundee.
            Don’ dis ya mama … an if ya know who ya daddy is, don’ dis him neither.
            Don’ ice ya bros.
            Stick to ya own woman.
            Don’ be liftin no goods.
            Don’ be frontin like you all that an no snitchin on ya homies.
            Don’ be eyein’ ya homie’s crib, ride, or nothin.

    2. Reminds me of Monty Python’s Book of Armaments for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

  13. Mormons used to drink brewed ephedra, which beame known as “Mormon tea”. Ephedra, as you might have guessed, contains ephedrine, one of the precursors of methamphetamine.

    1. See AMC’s “Breaking Tabernacle”

    2. So Joe Smith was a tweaker? That totally explains the Book of Mormon.

  14. I’m not sure his drinking caffeine-free Diet Coke is a religious thing. I recall when he was governor of Massachusetts, a story in either the Globe or the Herald about a typical Saturday night for the Romneys. If I recall correctly, the Saturday night the reporter was there, the family was having a taste test between vanilla coke and caffeine-free vanilla coke.

    1. You mean Romney didn’t have the state police search your homes in MA for caffeine so he could purify your state for his Mormon purposes? If only he had more time

    2. the family was having a taste test between vanilla coke and caffeine-free vanilla coke.

      The proper Mormon way of having a good time.

  15. If we’re talking about drugs and tea, I would be an idiot not to include this.

    1. Don’t worry Warty, you would be an idiot anyway.

      /kidding

      Gimme Some Money

    2. The top-rated comment: “i like? this song so much, but i like opium much more!”

  16. In conclusion, Romney is a douche.

    1. They should just put a banner on top of Reason saying that, rather than having 20 posts a day explaining their ill regard. It would save server space and make it easier to find the bad cop stories without scrolling so much.

      1. Jesus, you’re boring.

    2. Romney is a douche.

      Since we all already knew that, the only reason for you to make that comment is to pick on Romney and thus indicate your unmitigated support for Obama. You had better say the exact same insult, if not something worse, whenever Obama is mentioned, otherwise you’re just an OrangeLine cocktail-sipping cosmo.

      -Cenotaph

      1. HAHAHA holy shit, I wrote that without refreshing my screen, as a joke. And then once I posted, *BEHOLD*, the real thing was already there!

        You want to know why people call you a team red hack? There’s your proof.

        1. The real thing was totally different from your pastiche caricature.

        2. Reason writers write 20 posts a day, each complaining about Romney not being libertarian enough… but when I respond to a few anti-Romney comments, it’s ME who’s the predictable hack.

          1. “Reason writers write 20 posts a day, each complaining about Romney not being libertarian enough…”

            Gee, I wonder why? Something about a gathering the republicans had this week in Florida… What was it? Hmmmm…

            1. Doesn’t matter; your definition of a hack seems to have no exception for valid criticism.

              1. There are plenty of people who post criticisms of Reason articles about the right, who I don’t ever feel the need to comment to. The difference between them and you is that you’re on every damn thread critical of republicans. Appearantly in your mind there is no legitimate criticism of Romney simply because of who’s in office now.

                Remember what you said yesterday about Reason hurting morale? That makes you a hack.

                1. Reason is totally free to hurt morale as much as they want. But when it looks like they’re doing it on purpose, to only one side, that’s another story.

                  1. And as I’ve said in other parts of this thread; next week when Reason is jumping on the ass hattery coming out of the dem convention, I’m sure you’ll be out in front to defend Obama and Biden from such unfair attacks, right? Right?

                    1. I used to think T o n y’s conservative counterpart was John or Tulpa, but both of them are much too cogent. Now, that void has been filled: by the Cenotaph. I was just thrown for a bit because he doesn’t space his handle out retardedly.

  17. They need to get this resolved. People are going to end up in hell.

  18. Nobody mentioned this part?
    “And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.”

    That’s the perfect cover! “No, my friends, I haven’t been drinking…I was just washing up with bourbon again.”

    1. Gives new meaning to “I’d drink her bath water.”

      1. I’ve never heard that before.

        1. “Color Purple”

        2. It’s from the film The Color Purple and no doubt uttered in real life prior to that.

  19. I’m almost as petty and as vile as Dave Weigel.

    1. Wow, Jacob. You must be on to something to have pissed off the Red Shills this much. Good work.

    2. When thousands of people are locked up or dead because of policies Romney supports, there’s nothing petty about it.

      1. LOL. Yep, Romney is responsible for the entire drug war.

        This is the kind of “shill of omission” I’m on about.

        1. Did I say Romney is directly responsible? No. I said he is a SUPPORTER of policies directly responsible for the death and misery of thousands.

        2. Keep digging BTW, I’ve got all day and appearantly you do too.

        3. He was a sitting governor of a state with 11,000 people in jail. I think I get to blame him for not doing anything about the drug war and the people his state jailed while he was governor. You’ll disagree, I’m sure.

          1. And he didn’t even come up with a cool name for it like Romneyjail.

  20. I just have to point out that the writing in Word of Wisdom is friggin’ hilarious. Why the faux King James English? Did Joseph Smith think that God talked like he was from fifteenth century England?

    Joseph Smith wrote everything he wrote so it would seem to blend seamlessly with the Bibles at hand back then, when they packaged them as a unit in the Quadruple Combo of Mormon holy writ.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.