Posted on 06/09/2004 7:11:35 PM PDT by Coleus
Ask the Moderator if you can add "Hillary Clinton Health Care Plan to your header so more FReepers will read this thread. This is really important.
Wrong. "The right to take vitamins" is merely convenient shorthand for "the right to take any vitamins that are your rightful property, and to seek ownership of vitamins through voluntary transactions with their current owners."
Now that taxes here in Central Texas are as high as they are, and going higher, my wife and I are "voting with our feet" and moving back to Minnesota. Not the only reason, but damn... who'da thunk it that TEXAS would be more socialized the MINNESOTA?
bumpkin
Except for the fact that this P!$$es me off royally, it is of course, a small measure of smug satisfaction watching the outrage from those that had previously condemned the use of athletic supplements.....
How many times does the Slippery Slope need to be explained, Before people stop slipping on it....
Oh, Prohormones are Just like steroids...(as If...), and they aren't natural anyway....
oh, oh, well, Ephedra may be natural, but it kills too many people (?!?!?), I mean they call it legal speed...rmfe...
And now Ask not for whom the bell tolls....
Madison wanted the 2nd ammendment to include distribution and training.
Irrelevant, since he lost that argument. Stick to the point: should we oppose the right to bear arms on the grounds that it will lead to government being compelled to provide you a weapon?
Now that's surreal! "Et tu, Texas?" Good luck with your move.
People drown in water all the time. Ban Di-hydro oxiginates!!!
Prime reason we are moving is raising the little one around the rest of the family. Spouse is kinda lonely and needs her kin folk.
Prolly isn't gonna happen until later this year though...
LMAO!
I'm not familiar with this, could you explain?
big bumpkin
No action on this bill since 4/03
In todays political makeup, Ronnie would have won MN instead of Mondale. At least that is the perception I've been getting from the family and from from the Net.
May the good Lord save us from "safety." From Federal all the way down to city government...
The difference is in thinking that just because the fed isn't allowed to regulate it that means no one is.
Back in the old days the 10th Ammendment was respected and states and cities could ban stuff the fed couldn't.
Not true, dicostu. -- NO level of our governments have ever been delegated the power to flat out 'ban'. -- In fact the 14th was passed to stop just such infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property back in 1868. Government can 'reasonably regulate' the public sale & use of property like vitamins, under the "rule of law"; - Constitutional law.
That was when we understood that not everything a person wanted to do was a right. Now we try to stop the fed from doings stuff in a way that will also stop the states and cities. What's wrong with a city deciding it's a vitamin free zone,
You talk about "silly"? What's 'reasonable' about banning health concoctions?
we've still got dry counties in this country and the reason we do is that we've never taken the silly step of declaring there to be a right to drink alcohol.
Dry counties regulate the public sale or consumption of booze. You have the right to drink all you can get, in private.
The mass production of rights disempowers state and local governments, thus killing states rights.
States have no rights, only powers, and those powers are limited, as per Art. VI, & the 10th/14th Amendments, just for starters.
The liberty is in letting states and lower levels of government decide things for themselves instead of forcing them to allow every single made up psuedo-right just so we could keep the fed from writing a bad law.
Good idea, as long as states follow the basic principles of individual freedom, as per our US Constitution.
Since you need food to be alive food in the general category is an OK right. But you don't have a right to filet mignon.
Since it's explicity in the Bill of Rights, not something we could claim to be an unenumerated right, the question has no bearing.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why our inalienable right to liberty doesn't include the liberty to take vitamins or eat filet mignon.
Of course not. Neither should they be trying to pass a stupid law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.