Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 In a message dated 3/3/2006 10:56:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes: Is it now radical to believe in fundimental freedoms for which we were brought up to believe in? And what fundamental rights are those? Earlier I posted our fundamental rights and smoking pot was not one of them. I wonder if people realize that by calling so many things "rights" that they spread the term so thin that it loses its meaning. The more things, especially trivial things, that are called rights, the more devalued the real rights become. Furthermore, the greater the anarchist bent out there, the greater the eventual backlash will be. What will this anarchy accomplish? The dissolution of the US perhaps? And what will that gain us? Nothing but pain and misery. Real pain and misery, not the imagined sufferings of today. Let's look at an example from US history, the Confederate States of America. The Confederacy was just that, a very loose confederation of the several states. The central government had little real power to do anything, including manage the war. Just how bad was it? For starters, each state had a different gauge railroad. That meant trains could not travel from one state to another. Trains had to stop at the border, unload all its material which would then be loaded on another train for shipment in the next state. There was no central bank, so each state, county, city and even many banks printed their own money. So rather than having one currency there were scores if not hundreds. Each currency had a different exchange rate that varied wildly from day to day and a currency might be accepted in one town but not another. Beyond that there was little cooperation between the states. North Carolina had men and large amounts of supplies, but it would not send any of either to Virginia where most of the fighting was going on, preferring to save those supplies in case the federals reached NC. Had the sent those materials to Virginia, Lee might have been able to use the extra strength and mass to defeat the northern armies, at least for a while. These are just some of the problems, slavery aside, of the confederacy. The Articles of Confederation government, the first US government after the Revolution, was just about as bad. The organization was very similar and there was fighting between the states and a rebellion that very nearly undid the union right at the start. That rebellion was brought about not because there was too much federal power, but because there was too little: the Confederation couldn't even enforce its laws short of military action. If the US breaks up again into many states, this is exactly what we will see happen in the future. But there is more to it than that. Just because the US breaks up doesn't mean everyone else will too. Rather it is likely such a break up would only encourage Europe to make a serious bid at unification and if they did, great power would shift to them. The Chinese certainly wouldn't break up. The US out of the picture would give them the freedom to take Taiwan and whatever else they wanted to. As we feared Japan might attack the West Coast in WWII, so might the Chinese decide to invade Alaska, Washington state, Oregon or even California. Mexico could decide to move into the Southwest. Who would stop them? Well, there wouldn't be a great army to do it and, if history is a guide, concern for the invasion would be less with each state removed. Now if it were still part of the US there would be a great uproar, but what would the Nation of Maine care about the Nation of California on the other side of the continent? Quite simply though, our true, fundamental rights and their implied responsibilities, are right there in the first Ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. Want to see you guaranteed rights? there they are. There are a couple of other amendments expanding the right to vote, but that's it. Period. Anything else is not a right, but a privilege or perhaps even a "wrong". That's all there is to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Democracy is the rule of the mob, which is why the US is a Republic. The Founders set up the government to try to minimize the damage a people wrapped up in the frenzy of the moment could inflict on itself. What I don't understand is why, that with evidence available that pot does cause damage to the brain, that people are more willing to take it than pharmaceuticals that carry a similar degree of risk? Is being stoned and unable to function normally any different than being drowsy or out of it from another drug? Is the threat of liver disease from a pharma drug any worse than getting lung cancer from smoking pot? Here again we have the problem of rights. Medical care is not a right. Medical care is a service provided by doctors, hospitals and other companies that have some compassion, but also seek to profit from their specialized knowledge. That is not to say people should be denied care, but it is not a right like free speech. I wonder though if you would be calling society so wise if it had voted against this measure? What would be your opinion of the mob then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 In a message dated 3/4/2006 2:05:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes: Its fairly obvious and just a ridiculous statement in objection to legitimate purposes. It does not need to be in the constitution nor does it say that it can’t be used. Nor stipulate that if the voters vote for it that the feds can use scare tactics and imprison patients the are in need. Duh.. , you are being juvenile with comments like "duh" and some of your others. Such tactics do not represent you or your argument well. You are right that it is not forbidden in the Constitution but nor is it permitted. This would be a matter left to the states, however, federal law is superior to state law. Therefore, federal law banning pot is the supreme law of the land. That is the way the country is set up. Patients have other options besides pot. There has also been a great deal of propagandizing and scare-mongering on behalf of the pro-pot camp as well. They have claimed that medicines are so much more harmful but pot is harmless. They also spent a lot of money getting out their message. Anyway, unless federal law is changed, then people who use or deal pot can be imprisioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 It seems to be introducing material relevant to fear and in the it's, separatism and dissolve instead of resolve. When the government punishes a people for being free and democratically voting in permissions to patients for a substance that unlike other drugs that are illegal that are dangerous. It is not formatively logical that the S.C acts transparent to the power of the voters and dismisses it. Even the medical community will argue to its benefit, regular doctors will not prescribe it for fear of the federal government. The government goes against the people in a democratic process where it was voted it for persons suffering. The vote is the vote, the people are the vote. The best thing to do is pharmasuiticalize it in a way so that proper and csafe methodologies of distribution are formed and made available absent of the persecution of patients by the federal government ( I do realize it is the few who create policies and the great Americans who enforce the laws that are caught in-between the technicalities). Not only for the voters to believe that they have a say individually in the power of their vote to assure that our votes individual mean something. But also to assure that criminals are not funded and patients are properly cared for. This is a quality of life issue, one that the wise the majority realize and is being faught in court battles. Medical usage will win in totality eventually. > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 10:56:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > nathaninfortuna@... writes: > > Is it now radical to believe in fundimental freedoms for which we were > brought up to believe in? > > > > And what fundamental rights are those? Earlier I posted our fundamental > rights and smoking pot was not one of them. > > I wonder if people realize that by calling so many things " rights " that they > spread the term so thin that it loses its meaning. The more things, > especially trivial things, that are called rights, the more devalued the real rights > become. > > Furthermore, the greater the anarchist bent out there, the greater the > eventual backlash will be. What will this anarchy accomplish? The dissolution of > the US perhaps? And what will that gain us? Nothing but pain and misery. Real > pain and misery, not the imagined sufferings of today. > > Let's look at an example from US history, the Confederate States of America. > The Confederacy was just that, a very loose confederation of the several > states. The central government had little real power to do anything, including > manage the war. Just how bad was it? For starters, each state had a different > gauge railroad. That meant trains could not travel from one state to another. > Trains had to stop at the border, unload all its material which would then > be loaded on another train for shipment in the next state. There was no > central bank, so each state, county, city and even many banks printed their own > money. So rather than having one currency there were scores if not hundreds. > Each currency had a different exchange rate that varied wildly from day to day > and a currency might be accepted in one town but not another. > > Beyond that there was little cooperation between the states. North Carolina > had men and large amounts of supplies, but it would not send any of either to > Virginia where most of the fighting was going on, preferring to save those > supplies in case the federals reached NC. Had the sent those materials to > Virginia, Lee might have been able to use the extra strength and mass to defeat > the northern armies, at least for a while. > > These are just some of the problems, slavery aside, of the confederacy. > > The Articles of Confederation government, the first US government after the > Revolution, was just about as bad. The organization was very similar and there > was fighting between the states and a rebellion that very nearly undid the > union right at the start. That rebellion was brought about not because there > was too much federal power, but because there was too little: the > Confederation couldn't even enforce its laws short of military action. > > If the US breaks up again into many states, this is exactly what we will see > happen in the future. > > But there is more to it than that. Just because the US breaks up doesn't > mean everyone else will too. Rather it is likely such a break up would only > encourage Europe to make a serious bid at unification and if they did, great > power would shift to them. The Chinese certainly wouldn't break up. The US out of > the picture would give them the freedom to take Taiwan and whatever else > they wanted to. As we feared Japan might attack the West Coast in WWII, so might > the Chinese decide to invade Alaska, Washington state, Oregon or even > California. Mexico could decide to move into the Southwest. Who would stop them? > Well, there wouldn't be a great army to do it and, if history is a guide, > concern for the invasion would be less with each state removed. Now if it were > still part of the US there would be a great uproar, but what would the Nation of > Maine care about the Nation of California on the other side of the continent? > > Quite simply though, our true, fundamental rights and their implied > responsibilities, are right there in the first Ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. > Want to see you guaranteed rights? there they are. There are a couple of other > amendments expanding the right to vote, but that's it. Period. Anything else > is not a right, but a privilege or perhaps even a " wrong " . > > That's all there is to it. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Re: > ... The best thing to do is pharmasuiticalize it Watch out, - the next thing you know, some " experts " Out There In Internet-land, reading your message, will start telling people that having autism and/or advocating the decriminalization of marijuana removes the ability to learn to spell ... ;-) Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 I've always had problems spelling, the spell check did not find the correct spelling for some words. Google is good at spell check, sometimes if a word sounds similar I will use the same sounded word but it will be the wrong one. Such as " there " and " their " . Not, no, not at all. I am not advocating the decriminalization of M.J all together, I would never want it decriminalization for non- patients or over the counter, no way. Its for patients who otherwise have no options for chronic illness or in addition to meds that have harsh side effects. That's the policy I believe in, as well as keeping patriotic law abiding voters as law abiding citizens. Its for the great good, not the selfish intent of making it legal for fun things. I see no fun in it. > Re: > > > ... The best thing to do is pharmasuiticalize it > > Watch out, - the next thing you know, some " experts " Out There > In Internet-land, reading your message, will start telling people that > having autism and/or advocating the decriminalization of marijuana > removes the ability to learn to spell ... > > ;-) > > > Yours for better letters, > Kate Gladstone > Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest > handwritingrepair@... > http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair > 325 South Manning Boulevard > Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA > telephone 518/482-6763 > AND REMEMBER ... > you can order books through my site! > (Amazon.com link - > I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Many medcines have great side-effects that are bad that have not been studied. It is a simple plant, no one is going to use it to get an A on a test.. Let's be realistic, patients are in need... This medicine scientifically eases symptoms sometimes for the gravely ill or chronically ill. The side effects are not unlike other medicines. Nothing is perfect. HAve some human dignaties, respect quality of life and choice. It was voted in, not otherwise. > > Democracy is the rule of the mob, which is why the US is a Republic. The > Founders set up the government to try to minimize the damage a people wrapped up > in the frenzy of the moment could inflict on itself. > > What I don't understand is why, that with evidence available that pot does > cause damage to the brain, that people are more willing to take it than > pharmaceuticals that carry a similar degree of risk? Is being stoned and unable to > function normally any different than being drowsy or out of it from another > drug? Is the threat of liver disease from a pharma drug any worse than getting > lung cancer from smoking pot? > > Here again we have the problem of rights. Medical care is not a right. > Medical care is a service provided by doctors, hospitals and other companies that > have some compassion, but also seek to profit from their specialized > knowledge. That is not to say people should be denied care, but it is not a right > like free speech. > > I wonder though if you would be calling society so wise if it had voted > against this measure? What would be your opinion of the mob then? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 On 3 Mar 2006 VISIGOTH@... wrote: > Earlier I posted our > fundamental rights and smoking pot was not one of them. Then why is the Constitution written on Zig Zag paper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Its fairly obvious and just a ridiculous statement in objection to legitimate purposes. It does not need to be in the constitution nor does it say that it can’t be used. Nor stipulate that if the voters vote for it that the feds can use scare tactics and imprison patients the are in need. Duh.. Stan's Computer <vze2txm3@...> wrote: On 3 Mar 2006 VISIGOTH@... wrote:> Earlier I posted our> fundamental rights and smoking pot was not one of them. Then why is the Constitution written on Zig Zag paper?I'm from this planet, the rest of you are not.Please go back to Mars or Venushttp://www.simplecomplexities.org/community/ Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 There you go with personal insults.. I said duh becuase your intial remakrs were just nonsense..Voters voted...Dont start problems with me, find someone else to try that with.I'm an adult, no need to apoligise mam.VISIGOTH@... wrote: In a message dated 3/4/2006 2:05:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes: Its fairly obvious and just a ridiculous statement in objection to legitimate purposes. It does not need to be in the constitution nor does it say that it can’t be used. Nor stipulate that if the voters vote for it that the feds can use scare tactics and imprison patients the are in need. Duh.. , you are being juvenile with comments like "duh" and some of your others. Such tactics do not represent you or your argument well. You are right that it is not forbidden in the Constitution but nor is it permitted. This would be a matter left to the states, however, federal law is superior to state law. Therefore, federal law banning pot is the supreme law of the land. That is the way the country is set up. Patients have other options besides pot. There has also been a great deal of propagandizing and scare-mongering on behalf of the pro-pot camp as well. They have claimed that medicines are so much more harmful but pot is harmless. They also spent a lot of money getting out their message. Anyway, unless federal law is changed, then people who use or deal pot can be imprisioned. I'm from this planet, the rest of you are not.Please go back to Mars or Venushttp://www.simplecomplexities.org/community/ Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 In a message dated 3/4/2006 2:25:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes: There you go with personal insults.. I said duh becuase your intial remakrs were just nonsense..Voters voted...Dont start problems with me, find someone else to try that with.I'm an adult, no need to apoligise mam. , I was pointing out that saying "duh" to someone about their statements is disrespectful and points to a lack of ability to explain one's position. Threatening others, like you have done to me in two posts now is also not a good idea. Very anti-social and again goes to show one can't logically defend their arguments. Its rather like the student in one of my classes who didn't like what the professor was saying so he attacked her in the middle of class, physically attacked her. I should also point out that threatening others like is also a violation of site policy. Keep it civil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Is it just me, or is this debate getting rather heated again? Sticking to the facts is good - having a discussion on various opinions is good - but trying to force anyone to change their mind - not so. From what I am observing there appears to be two extreme views and never the twain shall meet kind of thing. I prefer a more balanced approach, but I am not sure that is going to happen on this topic. It would be nice if all could agree to disagree, there is more than one opinion - all I believe are entitled to their opinions? Is it possible to leave it at that? Or at least keep it to a decent discussion - I can see some shouting propoganda - I believe there is propoganda on both sides - this seems to cause in people quite strong opinions. People are beginning to say facts are propoganda, when in actual fact they are not - but I suppose either side can use facts and statistics for propoganda. Wondering where this topic is going? Does it have an end? Will conclusions be made? What is the point? and will anyone really change their minds on where they stand anyway? In a message dated 3/4/2006 2:05:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes: > Its fairly obvious and just a ridiculous statement in objection to legitimate purposes. It does not need to be in the constitution nor does it say that it can’t be used. > > Nor stipulate that if the voters vote for it that the feds can use scare tactics and imprison patients the are in need. > > Duh.. > > > , you are being juvenile with comments like " duh " and some of your others. Such tactics do not represent you or your argument well. > > You are right that it is not forbidden in the Constitution but nor is it permitted. This would be a matter left to the states, however, federal law is superior to state law. Therefore, federal law banning pot is the supreme law of the land. That is the way the country is set up. > > Patients have other options besides pot. There has also been a great deal of propagandizing and scare-mongering on behalf of the pro-pot camp as well. They have claimed that medicines are so much more harmful but pot is harmless. They also spent a lot of money getting out their message. > > Anyway, unless federal law is changed, then people who use or deal pot can be imprisioned. > > > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. > > Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 It already applies to some illegal drugs. When in serious pain, your doctor prescribes morphine. ADHDers get minute doses of methamphetamine for hyperactivity. Both are known to be highly addictive and harmful when taken long term in recreational doses, but useful as medicines in certain situations. Likewise, a glass of red wine a day has been found to promote health, but regular intake of more alcohol to ruin it. Coca leaves helps Native South Americans cope with high altitudes, whereas regular cocaine use is harmful. What makes a drug legal or illegal seems very arbitrary, IMO. Who profits from its manufacturing seems to be of as much relevance in that decision as how harmful or beneficial it is. Inger Re: Re: The Vote is Democracy Thanks to for clarifying that he wants marijuana treated as a medicine, and not just decriminalized and made available for fun. , in your opinion, should this also apply to other illegal drugs? Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 It already applies to some illegal drugs. When in serious pain, your doctor prescribes morphine. ADHDers get minute doses of methamphetamine for hyperactivity. Both are known to be highly addictive and harmful when taken long term in recreational doses, but useful as medicines in certain situations. Likewise, a glass of red wine a day has been found to promote health, but regular intake of more alcohol to ruin it. Coca leaves helps Native South Americans cope with high altitudes, whereas regular cocaine use is harmful. What makes a drug legal or illegal seems very arbitrary, IMO. Who profits from its manufacturing seems to be of as much relevance in that decision as how harmful or beneficial it is. Inger Re: Re: The Vote is Democracy Thanks to for clarifying that he wants marijuana treated as a medicine, and not just decriminalized and made available for fun. , in your opinion, should this also apply to other illegal drugs? Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.