XPost: alt.activism.drug-war, talk.politics.drugs, uk.politics.drugs
XPost: alt.drugs, rec.drugs.smart
Health Care is a human right. You have a human right to health care. Your human
right to health care includes a human right to every narcotic. No one can take this right away from you. Whether or not health care is an "owed" right, it is certainly a "free" right. And, whether or not narcotics are owed you, narcotics
certainly are your free right, as you have a human right to health care. Thus no
one can take this right from you; but can only commit wrong against you. And no
one can take your narcotics from you; but can only steal from you, wrongfully. Everything is either protected or persecuted. Persecution of human rights, obviously, is wrong. Persecution of human rights, is wrong as sin, for it is sin.
While the sale of narcotics can and should be regulated, regulation does not mean
prohibition. Regulation must be within the spirit of regulation, or it becomes prohibition outside the spirit of regulation, and therefore crime. The "commerce
clause" of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, says "The Congress shall have the power to... regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." This is where the notion
of "regulation of commerce" as a valid concept, within the United States comes from. This guiding light of the U.S. Constitution suggests that regulating commerce is legitimate. Those involved in trade, frequently have only one pursuit
in mind, and that is personal economic profit, regardless of other's expense. Thus
commerce should be regulated to reduce, or eliminate, this social negative, which
amounts to swindling, or stealing from others.
But what does "regulation of commerce" mean? It does not mean prohibition to me,
or, I assert, factually.
Regulation of commerce might mean, among other things:
1. Quality Control.
2. Regulation of location of sale.
3. Product Bundling.
4. Restriction and/or regulation of commercial advertising.
Yet, I would suggest that you have a right, to resell your consumer products, and
to sell unregulated if you are not employing people. Thus your human right to sell exists as well, and is important and should be protected - and at that point
"caveat emptor" or "buyer beware" becomes the name of the game for consumers buying from non-industrial, non-commercial, but individual, private entities who
have the right to hock their wares in public.
Thus, based on your human right to health care, which includes your human right to
all narcotics, and self prescription, and medicinal use, whether experimental, or
otherwise, of these narcotics; and based on your human right to recreation, and pursuit of enjoyment, be it dangerous; as well; I suggest that the right to drug
sale, be recognized with the following intelligent regulations; to temper the potential for habit, addiction, and abuse, which exist with these potentially toxic substances.
1. Allow sale only to those people who have either passed a several hour class and
test indicating intelligence on the dangers of the narcotic, or have a doctor's prescription. Purchase and possession are not a crime, but a human right.
2. Allow sale in only the following ways:
1) By delivery,
2) In unmarked stores, requiring a separate outer door to the supermarket with its
own checkout lanes or
2.1) At the least, a separate closed off section of the supermarket.
It should be pointed out that "out of sight, out of mind" helps tremendously those
people who attempt to stay off drugs, and have a habit or addiction. The last thing they need to do is think about this habit.
3) Market the drugs "for medicinal purposes," though you have a free right to use
them as you will.
Obviously regulation and prohibition of the commercial advertising is advisable,
as it already is in place for currently recognized prescription drugs.
Alcohol sale, can and probably should be subjected to these same regulations, with
the exception of low alcohol content beers and drinks in bars, which are desirable
to keep the public parties open.
In addition to a class, and test, on how to drink, and on the dangers of alcohol,
the purchase of a breathalyzer should be required before a business can sell alcohol to someone.
Drugs and alcohol are a human right. And never should the possession, use, purchase, or gift for non-commercial purposes, be construed per se, as criminal.
But a crime would be more like malicious intent to poison. When regulations are
put in place upon employers, there should be no more penalties for failure to follow, than for the revenues or assets of the business to be jeopardized. This
should be against the businesses, and not against the individuals. The possibility of gross negligence against duty of care, akin to manslaughter by drunk driving, a different question, notwithstanding.
Drugs are potentially poisonous, and an incentive to sell such potential poison and say it is water, or "good for you," for economic profit, should be regulated away.
When an private individual sells then, there may be three paradigms:
1)presumed "buyer beware," "caveat emptor"
2)them making misrepresentations, or,
3)them saying I sell this to you, as is, without representation.
Is "buyer beware" known to the public, and should it be, in an unregulated business like a garage sale, and how do the other two paradigms fit in, within the
context of, or the absence of, the "buyer beware," paradigm.
What are we talking about, selling worthless products, or selling dangerous products; or something else.
Whatever the case on these lesser questions, banning drugs is like banning Judaism. Banning drugs is abhorrent, because drugs are your human right.
Also, if you like employ your son to work the garage sale, that shouldn't like subject you to regulation. Things should be within the Spirit, and not the Letter, or something, which is why the penalty should only go against business revenues and/or assets. But what if the penalty didn't go against only that, and
was still criminal, and they could kill you for that, then what I am saying wouldn't be like categorical, on the other points or something, so like yeah, you
shouldn't like get murdered because you employ your son to work the garage sale,
that would be like violence taken on an erroneous point, which is like what the whole drug war is, so that like wouldn't be a surprise, so that is like why I'm saying this, and throwing this in at the end here too. Sorry not written better,
but you know, as I said in another post, no one's paying me $125 an hour to do this, and I have my own issues.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)