XPost: talk.politics.theory, soc.rights.human, alt.politics.obama
XPost: alt.politics.usa.misc, alt.party
From: Voter@Vote2016.com

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

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)