Re: A couple of thoughts

[Guest guest]

>

> A couple of thoughts.

> First

> Aboriton, whether you are for or against it, is refered to as " Pro

Choice " . Advocates for same sex marriages claim that to be denied of a

marriage is to be denied of a RIGHT that is afforded to those who

choose to be in traditional marriages.

> So why is Vaccine Choice not a RIGHT?

> Maybe we need to approach the problem from a civil rights standpoint.

I think it will take nothing less than a constitutional amendment to

secure this " right " . A " right " is not a right unless it is in the

constitution. " Rights " that can be established or repealed by law are

not really rights, they are privileges, subject to revocation.

Abortion " rights " did not become so until so ruled discovered in the

constitution by the Supreme Court as a matter of privacy. Perhaps the

constitutional right to privacy that allows for abortion can be

extended to protect the individual against government incursions with

vaccines. [How states regulate marriage (banning polygamy, incest,

juveniles, incompetents, inter-racial, intra-sexual, etc.) is not

defined specifically in the US Constitution.]

> There has never been a documented human fatality from marijuana.

If you don't count the fatalities caused by idiots who drive stoned or

the thousands murdered by drug cartels.

Lenny

ssssssss. . .here!

[Guest guest]

There are a couple DANs using cannabis.  I can't remember which right now, though.  It's in the pill form. Cheryl~Check out my blog:  http://www.gryffins-tail.blogspot.com/ A couple of thoughts.FirstAboriton, whether you are for or against it, is refered to as "Pro Choice". Advocates for same sex marriages claim that to be denied of a marriage is to be denied of a RIGHT that is afforded to those who choose to be in traditional marriages.So why is Vaccine Choice not a RIGHT?Maybe we need to approach the problem from a civil rights standpoint.~~~~~~~~~~~~~Second Issue. Here in New Jersey there is legislation to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. (I'm not suggesting open use of pot here.)Senate Bill S119 and Assembly Bill A804 are entitled "New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act." They state in part;1.  This act shall be known and may be cited as the "New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act."      2.  The Legislature finds and declares that:     a.  Modern medical research has discovered a beneficial use for marijuana in treating or alleviating the pain or other symptoms associated with certain debilitating medical conditions, as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in March 1999.     b.  According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 99 out of every 100 marijuana arrests in the country are made under state law, rather than under federal law.  Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marijuana.     c.  Although federal law currently prohibits the use of marijuana, the laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Montana permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and in Arizona doctors are permitted to prescribe marijuana.  New Jersey joins this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens.     d.  States are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law; therefore, compliance with this act does not put the State of New Jersey in violation of federal law.     e.  Compassion dictates that a distinction be made between  medical and non-medical uses of marijuana.  Hence, the purpose of this act is to protect from arrest, prosecution, property forfeiture, and criminal and other penalties, those patients suffering from debilitating medical conditions, and their physicians and primary caregivers, if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.~~~"Debilitating medical condition" means:     (1) cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or the treatment of these conditions;     (2) a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces one or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe or chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including, but not limited to, those characteristic of epilepsy; severe and persistent muscle spasms, including, but not limited to, those characteristic of multiple sclerosis or Crohn's disease; or     (3) any other medical condition or its treatment that is approved by the department by regulation.~~~~Marijuana has none of the side effects that are associated with most pharma crap. In fact,according to Wikipedia "There has never been a documented human fatality from marijuana". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol)As far as health issues; "Smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, since the combination of inhalation of smoke from organic materials such as tobacco, wood, gasoline and cannabis can cause various health problems. However, recent studies have shown that using a vaporizer for cannabis consumption appears to eliminate almost all of the health problems and objections related to cannabis use."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)An accompaning chart shows that marijuana causes less phyisical harm and is less likely to create dependence than alcohol, tobacco, barbiturates and amphetamines.It would be interesting to see if perhaps this stuff might help some of our kids with their immunity issues, intestinal problems etc.~~~~~~~~~~~  Rick TallmanDefender of Truth Justiceand theAmerican Way 

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> I think it will take nothing less than a constitutional amendment to

> secure this " right " . A " right " is not a right unless it is in the

> constitution.

Then what happened to the right, as constitutionally provided for by the First

Amendment to

the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of...or the right of the

people...to

petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Or.....would they just say, well....for a tiny while.....you can petition

" Vaccine Court, " and that

takes care of your right?

[Guest guest]

" Petition " depends on which comic book version of constitutional law

one abides, I suppose. I think it a violation for the government to

grant parties immunity from civil tort for their shoddy products, but

the precedent is well established and tested. Congress routinely

passes laws from which they exempt themselves as MOCs and congress as

a whole, too. The president can grant pardons with a wave of his hand,

but I don't know if that includes civil findings and penalties. It

depends on what " is " is.

Lenny

> >

> >

> >

> > I think it will take nothing less than a constitutional amendment to

> > secure this " right " . A " right " is not a right unless it is in the

> > constitution.

>

>

> Then what happened to the right, as constitutionally provided for by

the First Amendment to

> the United States Constitution:

>

> Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of...or the right

of the people...to

> petition the government for a redress of grievances.

>

> Or.....would they just say, well....for a tiny while.....you can

petition " Vaccine Court, " and that

> takes care of your right?

>

[Guest guest]

It is. It's called Patient Rights.

CGF

>

> So why is Vaccine Choice not a RIGHT?