What personal freedom is next?

[kandrathe]

...

EDIT:

Write your Senators, write your Congressmen.  Get involved.  The people need to be heard from.
[right][snapback]79887[/snapback][/right]

That was my conclusion as well. The only solution for this dilema now is for Congress to have an opinion on medicinal use of controlled substances, and whether States have the right to allow thier citizens access to medicines which the DEA do not want used, period.

On a side note; There is a law either ready or passing here in my state to make psuedo-ephedrine and other "meth" precursors controlled substances. That is local control in the other direction, which while I might grumble about, I see that enough idiots are abusing freedom where the state needs to intercede to try to curb the rash of quick cash do it yourself meth labs from springing up around our state.

[Zarathustra]

I'm forced to wear a seatbelt at all times "for my own good". The government seeks to control what I put into my own body "for my own good". Et cetera.
[right][snapback]79876[/snapback][/right]

Just a slight nit, but a lot of the things you mentioned were not for YOUR own good as much as for the innocents that are harmed by the consequences. If it is to be argued that breaking seatbelt laws is a "victimless crime," I can understand your line of reasoning. However, the large number of cases where it is not truly victimless is enough to show the necessity of this law.

Having been called to the scene of many motor vehicle accidents, I can competently say that "thrown from the vehicle" likely means "DOA". I've picked people up off the pavement. I've picked parts of people off the pavement. Now, if the person who did not wear his seatbelt felt it was his right to take that risk, he has a starting point for a case. But consider that he has children who will now be without a parent because of that decision.

As a society, we need to make laws that take all things into consideration. This includes people who would make a poor decision (such as neglecting a seatbelt) and as a result would put others (specifically dependants) at a disadvantage.

There often truly are victims in these so-called "victimless" crimes, hence the need to enforce those laws.

[Doc]

Bah writing your elected officials is a waste of time.

Spend a few hundred or a few thousand dollars and hire a team of private dicks to follow them around every place they go. First time they go into the Hilton to bang their mistress, you arange a meeting with this about getting your own personal objectives met. This is how it works folks. You either bribe them, like the special interests groups do, or you blackmail them.

Even better, you get photos of them in meetings with special interest group heads, or getting money handed to them by said heads.

I know, what I am saying is going to make a lot of you upset, but it is the truth of the matter whether you like it or not. It's just how stuff gets done.

[ShadowHM]

Bah writing your elected officials is a waste of time.

[right][snapback]79982[/snapback][/right]

So you are recommending apathy??? For those of us who lack the convenience of a few extra thousand or hundred thousand dollars? :blink:

This piece of advice sounds just as useful as your first suggestion - all going to the White House lawn for a smoke-in. <_<

Letters can and do make a difference. Politicians have a rule-of-thumb they apply to 'snail-mail' letters. For every individual one they receive, they assume that there are multiples of that opinion in their constituency. They pay less attention to signatures on form letters than they do to individual letters. Further, they like to know that there is sufficient support in their constituency for any changes they might make before they act. Politicians, much as they would love to call themselves visionary leaders, tend to follow the crowd, not lead it.

[Doc]

So you are recommending apathy???&nbsp; &nbsp; For those of us who lack the convenience of a few extra thousand or hundred thousand dollars?&nbsp; :blink:

This piece of advice sounds just as useful as your first suggestion - all going to the White House lawn for a smoke-in.&nbsp; &nbsp; <_<

Letters can and do make a difference.&nbsp; Politicians have a rule-of-thumb they apply to 'snail-mail' letters.&nbsp; For every individual one they receive, they assume that there are multiples of that opinion in their constituency.&nbsp; They pay less attention to signatures on form letters than they do to individual letters.&nbsp; &nbsp; Further, they like to know that there is sufficient support in their constituency for any changes they might make before they act.&nbsp; &nbsp; Politicians, much as they would love to call themselves visionary leaders, tend to follow the crowd, not lead it.
[right][snapback]79984[/snapback][/right]

Bah humbug I say.

I have seen what happens to those letters.

Most of them never even opened. Just thrown out. There was even a really good expose on it some time ago for an online federalist magazine. Bags and bags of unopened letters to elected officials, found in the dump.

I do not recommend apathy. I recommend action. Hard action if need be.

Shadow, as much as I hate to say it, the Golden Rule Exists. He who has the gold makes the rules. Unless some God awful horrible traumatic event happens that the media covers for the common folk, and it becomes a hot seat issue for those wanting a little support for reelection, most voices are never heard.

That is not to say that letter writing does not have it place. In the smaller ponds of politics, with swamped understaffed up and comings, you can mail bomb the crap out of them with a well organised mail campaign. Nothing, and I mean nothing bogs down some small two bit penny ante politician like being buried under several tons of mail.

Special interest groups are yanking on your elected official's strings. That's how it is. That's how those men and women stay in office. There are aristocracies in the US government. And these expensive empires are fueled by wealth. Look at Strom Thurmond. No longer here, but his legacy lives on. Ted Kennedy. Entire families. You think your common as dirt day to day living in "poor and wretched squallour" means jack to them? Better yet, think your votes even matter? You live in Canada Shadow, so this might not apply much to you. But for us living in the states, this is reality, plain and simple. People like Strom didn't stay in power because people voted for him... He stayed in power through his own means. He gave certain groups what they wanted, and, in return, they made sure their frontman stayed in the front.

Mary Jane is a public boogeyman. It gives the fatasses a whipping boy to fall back on when there's nothing else to scare the public or bring them in line with. It is, at best, a distraction, and one the media favours highly, and a frequent wildcard that gets brought up when the US gov wants to turn your attention from something else, usually something it botched. Like say, not finding Osama or prison abuse scandals.

It's wagging the dog.

Woof woof.

[ShadowHM]

You live in Canada Shadow, so this might not apply much to you. But for us living in the states, this is reality, plain and simple.
[right][snapback]79986[/snapback][/right]

My good fortune, eh? :)

I would like to believe that you are over-stating the case. (I have pointed out your propensity to dwell on the negative on other topics. :P ) But if you are right, then heaven help that bastion of democracy that is known as the U.S. of A. :o

[Doc]

My good fortune, eh?&nbsp; &nbsp; :)&nbsp; &nbsp;

I would like to believe that you are over-stating the case.&nbsp; &nbsp; (I have pointed out your propensity to dwell on the negative on other topics.&nbsp; :P )&nbsp; But if you are right, then heaven help that bastion of democracy that is known as the U.S. of A.&nbsp; :o
[right][snapback]79987[/snapback][/right]

Let the evidence speak for it self. Look at how long some folk have stayed in office. Look at family names.

It's all about empires.

[Minionman]

Let the evidence speak for it self. Look at how long some folk have stayed in office. Look at family names.

It's all about empires.
[right][snapback]79988[/snapback][/right]

Thank you, o ranting conspiracy theorist, for a wonderful new explanation of the government.(heavy sarcasm).

Yes, lobbyists have a ton of power, and yes, some things don't get covered well. That says nothing about how to try to deal with any problems. It seems people will just have to pay more attention to what goes on, which is why the whole thing works the way it does. You look around for stuff and get information, and try to get other people to do the same thing, so they can make better decisions when their time comes.

(I really should be doing more of those kinds of things actually.)

[Doc]

Thank you, o ranting conspiracy theorist, for a wonderful new explanation of the government.(heavy sarcasm).

Yes, lobbyists have a ton of power, and yes, some things don't get covered well.&nbsp; That says nothing about how to try to deal with any problems.&nbsp; It seems people will just have to pay more attention to what goes on, which is why the whole thing works the way it does.&nbsp; You look around for stuff and get information, and try to get other people to do the same thing, so they can make better decisions when their time comes.

(I really should be doing more of those kinds of things actually.)
[right][snapback]80008[/snapback][/right]

Have you lived in the Carolinas under the rule of Strom? If not, your opinions mean exactly dirt to me.

No offense, I hope. It's nothing personal.

[Minionman]

Have you lived in the Carolinas under the rule of Strom? If not, your opinions mean exactly dirt to me.

No offense, I hope. It's nothing personal.
[right][snapback]80012[/snapback][/right]

I figure so. I was more going into the "cynical rant" part of it than anything else. I'm getting sick of cynical rants with nothign behind them.

About Strom Thurmond, I don't give much a care about him anyway. I've lived near the great lakes my whole life, and will probably stay in that area, so South Carolina doesn't say anythign to me. But if you talk about corrpution, I hear of it plenty, so may have a few things to say.

[Chesspiece_face]

It seems people will just have to pay more attention to what goes on, which is why the whole thing works the way it does.&nbsp; You look around for stuff and get information, and try to get other people to do the same thing, so they can make better decisions when their time comes.
[right][snapback]80008[/snapback][/right]

The problem is the place we are supposed to get our information from, the media (fourth estate), which is supposed to be our watchdogs for government, corporations, etc. are being taken over and co-opted by the same forces they are supposed to watch over. Think about Clear Channel, News Corp, and hundreds of other vast corporate empires that have control over what information actually comes to us. Do you think they are really going to give us information that goes against their own private interests?

Facts in the news have become so diluted and obscured by spin and opinion that the only real facts you get are "an unidentified white male was shot while crossing the street to get a pizza." It's gotten to the point that the news doesn't even report politcal items as fact but of opinion for fear of offending someones political sensability. Used to be that so-called bias regarded the way facts were represented in the news, not anymore. Now the facts themselves are regarded as being biased depending on who they benifit and who they hurt.

[Minionman]

The problem is the place we are supposed to get our information from, the media (fourth estate), which is supposed to be our watchdogs for government, corporations, etc. are being taken over and co-opted by the same forces they are supposed to watch over.&nbsp; Think about Clear Channel, News Corp, and hundreds of other vast corporate empires that have control over what information actually comes to us.&nbsp; Do you think they are really going to give us information that goes against their own private interests?

Facts in the news have become so diluted and obscured by spin and opinion that the only real facts you get are "an unidentified white male was shot while crossing the street to get a pizza."&nbsp; It's gotten to the point that the news doesn't even report politcal items as fact but of opinion for fear of offending someones political sensability.&nbsp; Used to be that so-called bias regarded the way facts were represented in the news, not anymore.&nbsp; Now the facts themselves are regarded as being biased depending on who they benifit and who they hurt.
[right][snapback]80080[/snapback][/right]

Again I'd argue that some people will just have to look around other places if the big media don't do it. It may be the "media and politicians and lobbyists" fault, but people can't control what goes in a news items or what politicians do unless they do the ork themselves. Plus I don't like acting or talking helpless, so even if most news doesn't cover things, if I'm interested, I'll look around for information.

[Guest]

"If not, your opinions mean exactly dirt to me. "


Does this have a ring of irony to anyone else here?

[Guest]

"nothign behind them" Oh dont you see there is something behind them but as Doc is so fond of saying "you cant understand".

Of course we have no reason to suspect Doc understands either other than his word.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I am intrigued by your snap diagnosis.&nbsp; What medical school did you attend, that you learned to be able to discern ailments from viewing a person on camera?

I'm sure if I have lived long enough to tell a sick person from a healthy one so have you so let's not get trite. MJ was heralded as the thing to use when nothing else is working. The people patronizing the cannabis clubs, to me, look far to fat and happy (even before taking their puffs) to be suffering from a chronic disease that requries medication.

Further, it is a bit absurd, IMO, to suggest that, because a right is being abused by some, it should be denied altogether.&nbsp; The impression I got from reading the links supplied by Mithrandir was that the 'need' of the two users in question was not in doubt.

I didn't say it should be denied, I specifically said the opposite: "it's fine to use if you really have a use for it to relieve symptoms."

So what was 'naive' about your attitude as an 18-year-old that you have reconsidered now?&nbsp; Was it the intent of the proposition, or was it that the devil was in the details, and they were not formatted properly?

Choice B. I thought I made that pretty clear.

[Nystul]

The only solution for this dilema now is for Congress to have an opinion on medicinal use of controlled substances, and whether States have the right to allow thier citizens access to medicines which the DEA do not want used, period.
[right][snapback]79972[/snapback][/right]

Funny. I thought Congress made their opinion on that issue crystal clear when they passed the law that the Supreme Court upheld in this case. Perhaps you mean that the only solution which would fulfill the wishes of Californians would be for Congress to *change* their opinion on the medical use of controlled substances. Give them about 50 years and it may happen.

[ShadowHM]

The people patronizing the cannabis clubs, to me, look far to fat and happy (even before taking their puffs) to be suffering from a chronic disease that requries medication.

[right][snapback]80116[/snapback][/right]

Fat and happy? AIDS and anorexia are not the only conditions that are mitigated by marijuana.

Chronic pain can be treated by marijuana, with fewer side effects than the opiate drugs that used to be the treatment of choice. Multiple Sclerosis is also on the list of conditions mitigated by marijuana. People who suffer both of those conditions don't necessarily walk around looking thin and gloomy. And that was why I questioned your diagnostic skills.

I didn't say it should be denied, I specifically said the opposite: "it's fine to use if you really have a use for it to relieve symptoms."

You did. :) But I read the context as suggesting that you were skeptical that this was the case for most users at those clinics. :huh:

Choice B. I thought I made that pretty clear.

My apologies. A careful re-read of your post did say that you believed that this was something that the State of California should 'fix', which does imply that you believe that the devil was, indeed, in the details.

Personal note:

I am, perhaps, overly reacting to that 'fat and happy' choice of words. I had an aunt who suffered juvenile onset psoriatic rheumatoid arthritis. She lived with pain all her life. She had to have her hands and feet broken and re-set three times due to the distortions caused by that disease. She was always on some form of pain medication, all of which had their own side effects. She was overweight because exercise was not an easy option. And yet, despite all that, she was a very cheerful woman. In many ways, she was a role model for me in how to react when life hands you lemons. You would never have guessed from her demeanor that she lived with chronic and debilitating pain.

[Occhidiangela]

Funny.&nbsp; I thought Congress made their opinion on that issue crystal clear when they passed the law that the Supreme Court upheld in this case.&nbsp; Perhaps you mean that the only solution which would fulfill the wishes of Californians would be for Congress to *change* their opinion on the medical use of controlled substances.&nbsp; Give them about 50 years and it may happen.
[right][snapback]80135[/snapback][/right]

It won't take 50 years if people get off their backsides and get to writing and organizing at the grass roots level. (Deliberate pun!) MJ has the problem of being stigmatized, and as such evokes emotional versus rational responses.

What also has to happen is that the supporters of dope need better research, more hard data, and more "the FDA hoop jumping thingie" to support a change in the law.

Oh, and russ: Counterproductive in second and third order effects aplenty. One of the side effects of Prohibition (so legend has it) is the wealth ammassed by Joe Kennedy. This led to certain persons rising into the Eastern Power structure . . . but it has gotten 11+ billion of federal money poured into Boston recently, which may not be all bad if you are from around there and have to drive.

Occhi

[Mithrandir]

Just a slight nit, but a lot of the things you mentioned were not for YOUR own good as much as for the innocents that are harmed by the consequences.&nbsp; If it is to be argued that breaking seatbelt laws is a "victimless crime," I can understand your line of reasoning.&nbsp; However, the large number of cases where it is not truly victimless is enough to show the necessity of this law.

Having been called to the scene of many motor vehicle accidents, I can competently say that "thrown from the vehicle" likely means "DOA".&nbsp; I've picked people up off the pavement.&nbsp; I've picked parts of people off the pavement.&nbsp; Now, if the person who did not wear his seatbelt felt it was his right to take that risk, he has a starting point for a case.&nbsp; But consider that he has children who will now be without a parent because of that decision.

As a society, we need to make laws that take all things into consideration.&nbsp; This includes people who would make a poor decision (such as neglecting a seatbelt) and as a result would put others (specifically dependants) at a disadvantage.

There often truly are victims in these so-called "victimless" crimes, hence the need to enforce those laws.
[right][snapback]79980[/snapback][/right]

So any possibility of anyone ever making a "poor" decision needs to be completely outlawed? People can OD on aspirin, therefore aspirin needs be to banned. Knives can, accidently or otherwise, hurt people so they should be banned as well. Gambling has destroyed thousands of families - ban it too! And so on.

Our society needs to stop thinking that the world can be made perfect by passing more and more laws and having more and more of our lives regulated. We need to stop sacrificing personal freedoms (in other words, our right to make choices) for what bad things "could happen". The world never has and never will be perfect - bad things are always going to happen. Bureaucratic donkeys placing personal choice on the sacrifical altar to pull the wool over everyone's eyes isn't the answer.


A general comment on the thread:
This decision was pathetic for a number of reasons. Saying "It is just about pot!" is just as wrong as saying "It is just about states' rights!". It's about about both issues. It is equally as wrong that honestly sick people are being denied legitimate medication merely because a bunch of moralists have decided that pot is evil and also that the federal government is squishing the last remnants of states' rights.

I don't fully agree with Doc, but he certainly makes a couple good points. One party basically controls our entire government now. Lobbyists are movingly closer and closer to controlling our entire national agenda. A few politcal families have seized a large percentage of the political clout in this country. I don't believe that "Empire" is the correct term, but I certainly believe that we're not heading in the right direction here.

[Doc]

So any possibility of anyone ever making a "poor" decision needs to be completely outlawed? People can OD on aspirin, therefore aspirin needs be to banned. Knives can, accidently or otherwise, hurt people so they should be banned as well. Gambling has destroyed thousands of families - ban it too! And so on.

Our society needs to stop thinking that the world can be made perfect by passing more and more laws and having more and more of our lives regulated. We need to stop sacrificing personal freedoms (in other words, our right to make choices) for what bad things "could happen". The world never has and never will be perfect - bad things are always going to happen. Bureaucratic donkeys placing personal choice on the sacrifical altar to pull the wool over everyone's eyes isn't the answer.
A general comment on the thread:
This decision was pathetic for a number of reasons. Saying "It is just about pot!" is just as wrong as saying "It is just about states' rights!". It's about about both issues. It is equally as wrong that honestly sick people are being denied legitimate medication merely because a bunch of moralists have decided that pot is evil and also that the federal government is squishing the last remnants of states' rights.

I don't fully agree with Doc, but he certainly makes a couple good points. One party basically controls our entire government now. Lobbyists are movingly closer and closer to controlling our entire national agenda. A few politcal families have seized a large percentage of the political clout in this country. I don't believe that "Empire" is the correct term, but I certainly believe that we're not heading in the right direction here.
[right][snapback]80251[/snapback][/right]

You don't fully agree with me... yet.

Give it time. One day, you will. Now, or later, either way, no worries on my part.

BTW, the Patriot Act is undergoing it's third revision. If rumour is to be believed, it will gived GWB a few extra terms in office to complete his work on the war on terror. He has a full Republican majority backing him, and a senate full of hawks.

Rumours are not always to be believed, but this is worrying. Alarming even, when one thinks of the implications.

This old man does not like which way the wind is blowing.