canndo
Well-Known Member
that's what it means.
in your 'personal' view, is possessing seeds and growing plants your right?
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
canndo
Well-Known Member
I believe no such thing. I know the mechanism that libertarians believe will dampen harm to individuals. Simply put, self interest, on an individual basis or on a company basis. No one would intentionaly supress news? it would it it furthers their own self interest, and it happens all the time, in government and industry. We are constantly told that this or that is safe only to find out otherwise - Hexavalent Chromium, PCB, Agent Orange, Thalidimide, Phen Fen, asbestos, lead - the list is near endless. Suppose there were no way to get that information out to the public? We know for a FACT that companies place profit over people. Libertarians believe that eventualy, the bad companies will be weeded out simply because the harm they are doing will be public and the company will be put out of business in a natural, free market sort of way. In the mean time, actuarials might easily indicate to that company that it stands to profit more by letting it's customers die. Tobacco companies have yet to go out of business even though it kills two thirds of its customers. I bring up the Pinto as a perfect example of how libertarianism doesn't work.
No, libertarians don't condone harming others, they believe that the harm that willfully errant companies do will be corrected in the natural course of business. Part of the natural course of business is that business obscuring the reality of the dangers its products may cause. It could be that the poison in those wings is what makes them so tasty. As I said, libertarianism is a reactionary philosophy. This is much the same as government deciding what the speed limit should be not by measuring the safety limits of the roads they build but waiting until enough people die in accidents, reducing the speed limit by a few miles an hour until the accident rate becomes acceptable. Or only placing a stop sign at an intersection after a set number of fatalities have occured at that intersection.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I got a problem here as well. It should be well known that I frown on any company tampering with the dna of our food. I have a problem with the way it is done, I have a problem with the probable lies those companies are telling, i have a problem with the way they are going about it - but suppose a company modified a goat in order to have it's milk produce human insulin? Shouldn't they own the DNA for that goat? How about a virus that injects DNA into human sickle cells and cures the disease, shouldn't that virus be viewed as a medical device? How about modifying a bacteria to convert used grease and oil directly into biodiesel? Shouldn't that bacteria be owned?
BUT, if that is the case, shouldn't the company that produces such wonders also be liable for damages those organisms may cause?
futant
Well-Known Member
Canna that looks an awful lot like some of those studies could actually be the effectiveness of an anabuse type drug for cannabis. Wouldn't that suck if FORCED Health care FORCED cannabis anabuse on people who were FORCED to test their urine or Face Financial or criminal prosecution. Keep in mind folks Hilary was the candidate that suggested attaching all medical records to the magnetic strip on her FORCED Federal ID cards when she was running in 08.
Dr. Skunk Bud
Active Member
You "Roundup Ready" now?
denise milani is hot !!!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Think methadone for potheads. Huge profits, cannabis stays Sch1, and the only way to pee dirty is to either be a criminal or in registered "marijuana recovery". This is bad for our team no matter how you slice it. Jmo.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That is one of my main beefs with the non-coercion or consent principles as proposed political maxims. Consent is only useful insofar as it is fully informed, and interested parties keep secrets and spin their agenda. Fully informed consent by a large-enough group becomes effectively impossible.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Tough shit. I don't give a fuck if that doesn't make me a Libertarian anymore. Buck already calls me a Republican for being pro-life. In my world GMO plants would get banned.
LIBERTYCHICKEN
Well-Known Member
[h=2]in your 'personal' view, is possessing seeds and growing plants your right?[/h]
NO, it's not a RIGHT
It's a Privilege
NO, it's not a RIGHT
It's a Privilege
I think a society is free to regulate the chemicals it wants its citizens to have access to. There is no logical way to be for cannabis and against cocaine or heroin.
Why is your right as a pot head stronger than my right as a crack head or a heroin junky?
Your drug of choice is superior? Hogwash.
All cause harm to society, its just a measure of how much.
A pot head can hide his disease easier than a heroin junky can. But both give sub par performance at work.
Subpar performance at work effects the productivity of society as a whole. Society has an interest in that. And anything society has an interest in, it ought to be able to regulate.
Now, I'm against the war on drugs because it's bad for society.
I think all drugs ought to be regulated, but discouraged.
You ought to be able to buy your crack and heroin at a store, right beside your marijuana and liquor.
I believe this not because it is my right to grow weed, but because the harm from prohibiting it is worse than allowing it.
Why is your right as a pot head stronger than my right as a crack head or a heroin junky?
Your drug of choice is superior? Hogwash.
All cause harm to society, its just a measure of how much.
A pot head can hide his disease easier than a heroin junky can. But both give sub par performance at work.
Subpar performance at work effects the productivity of society as a whole. Society has an interest in that. And anything society has an interest in, it ought to be able to regulate.
Now, I'm against the war on drugs because it's bad for society.
I think all drugs ought to be regulated, but discouraged.
You ought to be able to buy your crack and heroin at a store, right beside your marijuana and liquor.
I believe this not because it is my right to grow weed, but because the harm from prohibiting it is worse than allowing it.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
a 'no' vote is a rare critter around these here parts and i would be interested in closer examination if u dont mind?
ok so how is it a 'privilege' instead of a right?
is there a set of 'standards' u use to determine such?
what exactly is the difference between a 'privilege' and a 'human right'?
in your estimation do u have any right u would consider 'inherent'?
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
ok so in your estimation is there any such thing as a 'human right'?
if yes then how would u personally determine what that is?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I am not one to create purity tests. If you say you are a libertarian, I will take your word for it.
Why do you oppose GMOs? Is it because you think the concept is just creepy, or do you think there is some yet undiscovered problem with it?
MOON SHINER
Well-Known Member
I agree.
What I don't get is I can buy and grow poppy plants which produce raw opium easier then I can grow a plant for a joint, and poppy is legal to grow but illegal to harvest. One can not simply ban a plant with any logical, constitutional or ethical reasoning unless it is to pad their pocket through prohibition.
The U.S. wages a 'War on Drugs' yet we buy raw opium from the middle east for our pharmaceuticals to process into pain pills, funding the very terrorists we are spending billions on to fight. Those are the very terrorists we used to fund to help them fight the soviets (if I remember correctly).
Just google "Who created Al Qaeda" Guess what? It was the U.S.
Maybe I am missing something.
But hey there is a circle of concern, and a circle of control.
None of this is in my control, so I'm not concerned with it.
Peace and Love !
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
this was not meant as a 'gmo thread' but imo that issue as well as many others could be seen in a new light if we reexamine what we mean by 'human rights' and that is basically the point of this thread...
for example what is 'the commons'?
where i live people try to claim water is part of the commons'...
do our 'human rights' extend to the commons?
in other words if the 'gene pool' for example was considered part of the 'commons' should we allow 'genetic engineering' to contaminate that gene pool for whatever reason regardless of your definitions of the words like 'good' or 'bad' or 'creepy' etc...?
gene splicing is still way to fraught with known-knowns and known-unknowns as well as unknown-unknowns (things that we don't know that we don't know) to be taking such liberties in our commons of the gene pool...imo lol...
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
The cane toad won't go away in Australia. What happens when we do the same with DNA?
How wrong you are. You can buy poppies, opium comes from papavar somnifirum (sp?) which you cannot buy, I've tried, lol.
In other words, there are many different species of poppy, you can't buy the good kind.
Our pharmaceutical industry synthesizes the opoioids it uses.been a long time since we used raw opium from the war lords over there.
At least according to my pharmacist ex wife.
Of course there is: speech, religion, own guns, ect...
But all of these have limits.
You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, or use speech to incite violence.
you can't use your freedom of religion to rape little kids.
You can't use your right to own guns to have surface to air missiles.
So I might even argue that you might have a right to grow a plant, you just can't use it to grow cannabis or heroin.
I agree with legalization of weed, but not because it is a right. If it is a right, then so is heroin and crack. Most don't want to legalize them all, just weed.
So the winning argument for weed isn't that it's your right, it is that it is far less harmful than banning it.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I agree, particularly with the bolded part. For a heroin addict, you are pretty smart.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
I agree, particularly with the bolded part. For a heroin addict, you are pretty smart.
so your saying u can have guns however regulated because its a human right but u cant have cannabis (a plant) under fed law because its not a human right...just trying to figure out what 'smart' looks like lol...
Similar threads
