"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Is Sudafed More Dangerous that the Date Rape Drug?
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Related Columns
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
The way to "battle meth cooks" is to legalize meth.
As long as you voluntarily remain a member of "the group", your group "leader(s)" may tell you what you can or cannot ingest. Why? Because the collective ("the group") is ultimately responsible for the health of its individual members.
What is interesting is that free men, i.e. those who choose not to be members of any man-made body politic (group), and who are, therefore, governed only by the law of nature, are free to use whatever we wish to use, (we don't need the STATE to sanctify[1] anything).
But, with freedom comes responsibility. And, because I am ultimately responsible for my own "healthcare", I choose not to use methamphetamine as a recreational drug.
"When the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again." ~ Edith Hamilton
___________________________________________________________________________
[1] Legalize. ...To add the sanction and authority of law to that which before was without or against the law. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 895
The Watchdog article is under the caption:
Virginia may declare Sudafed more dangerous than date rape drug
The author uses a major fallacy, which s/he clears up in the first sentence, "Virginia lawmakers..." Virginia is a location. A location is incapable of "declaring" anything. As our old friend Delmar England insists, we will never recover from governmentalistic insanity until we come to correctly define our terms. Out there in journalistic land insanity IS the social norm. It is probably important WE see through the insanity if we are to recover from governmentalism. (Oops -- there I used thewe word again! Sorry.)
I've ceased using terms such as, "our rulers" or "our lawmakers", because they are no longer MY "rulers" or MY "lawmakers". My Lawmaker sustains photosynthesis. My Ruler maintains the rotation of the earth on its axis.
That said, the article assumes a drug "war" is legitimate. Insane. Totally the domain of sociopaths. If there were truly a free market there would be no methamphetamine -- or any other "street drugs". All "black" markets would disappear if there were no meddlesome governmentalists to keep them strong. 'Nuff said.
Suverans2, I think you're stretching "group" when you equate it with "government". You and I and a couple dozen other regular posters here at STR are members of this "group" when you think about it. And, if I wish to stay in this group I need to adhere to certain rules of literary conduct established by the administrator(s) (to say nothing of using good, common courtesy).
But I'm free to leave this group whenever I choose. There's always "RushTalk" (ultra-neocon) or "Soarsboard" (ultra-liberal).
I once belonged to Rotary Club. I quietly left as my anarchy became more cured and hardened. Rotarians love to rub elbows with and have senators and congressmen and presidents and prime ministers speak at their luncheons. Statists cum laude. I had already chosen to no longer be a member of "the government" and all "its" avid followers. I then chose not to waste my time in Rotary Club.
Free men and women can choose their own poison. Sam
G'day Sam,
I stand corrected. That second paragraph perhaps should have read, (and now reads):
What is interesting is that free men, i.e. those who choose not to be members of a man-made body politic[1] (group), and who are, therefore, governed only by the law of nature, are free to use whatever we wish to use, (we don't need the STATE to sanctify anything).
_______________________________________________________________________________
[1] Body politic or corporate. A social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. Urich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App 309, 7 N.E. 2d 413, 414 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 175