XPost: alt.activism.drug-war, talk.politics.drugs, uk.politics.drugs   
   XPost: rec.drugs.smart, rec.drugs.misc   
   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)