# Another Reason to HATE the USA PATRIOT Act.



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2006)

Just when you thought your President needed to renew the Patriot Act to protect you from Terrorist, you find another BombShell Like this. 

As of Sunday, September 30, 2006, you will no longer be able to purchase common cold medicines without showing your photo identification, and signing a log book indicating how much you purchased. 

Sudafed is a hair's breath away from being a controlled substance (or hell, maybe it is a controlled substance). 

You will be limited to purchasing a 30 day supply (3.6 grams per day - or something close to that). You've got a family of four children, and they all get a cold at the same time ... too bad. 

President Bush is determined to Protect YOU against Sudafed. 



To those who decried the Democrats when they fought against the renewal of the Patriot Act last December --- what you so, so shall you reap.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Just when you thought your President needed to renew the Patriot Act to protect you from Terrorist, you find another BombShell Like this.
> 
> As of Sunday, September 30, 2006, you will no longer be able to purchase common cold medicines without showing your photo identification, and signing a log book indicating how much you purchased.



Reference please. and not www.conspiracynut.com


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Reference please. and not www.conspiracynut.com


 

http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/methamphetamine.htm


What, do you think I make this **** up?


----------



## crushing (Sep 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> To those who decried the Democrats when they fought against the renewal of the Patriot Act last December --- what you so, so shall you reap.


 
Maybe some of the people decrying the Democrats were doing it not because they faught against the renewal, but because they were instrumental in getting the renewal after the Combat Meth Act was added.

From Sen. Feinstein's own website:

http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-meth-patriot.htm



> The finish line is in sight, Senator Feinstein said.  With this agreement on the Patriot Act, Congress is but a step away from passing the most significant anti-meth bill in a decade.  The heart of this legislation is a strong standard for keeping pseudophedrine products out of the hands of meth cooks. This includes a limit on how much cold medicine with pseudophedrine can be purchased both daily and monthly, moving these products behind the counter, and requiring purchasers to show identification and sign a log book.  Were close.  Now weve got to finish the job.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 26, 2006)

> The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 has been incorporated into the Patriot Act signed by President Bush on March 9, 2006. The act bans over-the-counter sales of cold medicines that contain the ingredient pseudoephedrine, which is commonly used to make methamphetamine.


 
This is to combat drug abuse.


----------



## Kreth (Sep 26, 2006)

I expect a ban on cigarette lighters and spoons any day now...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2006)

crushing said:


> From Sen. Feinstein's own website:
> 
> http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-meth-patriot.htm


 
Senator Feinstein was wrong on this ... as was her co-sponsor, Senator Talent(R-MO).


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 26, 2006)

Don't blame Bush, blame the rednecks who keep blowing up their houses cooking this crap.  Come on out to Independence MO, and I'll show you why "Protecting YOU against Sudafed" isn't nearly as ridiculous as you might think.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2006)

So What? They put video games and cigarettes behind the counter to prevent theft. My only beef with it is the typical "roll it in" tactic of stuffing other legislation into a bill. Keep the Partiot act about terrorism. Pass a separate bill for this stuff.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2006)

Provisions like this in MN and WI have cut our home-brewed meth supply by 80%.  This doesn't have to be viewed as a bad thing...


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 26, 2006)

I was never a big fan of the patriot act in the first place.  

This, if they wanted it so bad, should have been a seperate bill.

Then again, adding amendments to bills is a wonderful way for the legislative branch to get stuff by us on the sly.  Heck, they've got stuff past the president in the past this way.

Jeff


----------



## Ping898 (Sep 26, 2006)

Eh, I have to say this one doesn't bother me as much.  I am no fan of the Patriot Act, but a lot of states already have a similar type law in effect, so not like usurping anyone else's plans.  Also it is not Sudafed, it is the main ingredient of Sudafed that is being restricted and so a lot of the meds that use the psuedophedine(sp?) are now moving to another main ingredient in it's place that isn't used to make meth so you will still be able to get the drug without ID.  Not clue if drug is as effective though.

It doesn't belong in the Patriot Act, but I am ok with it as a law.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 26, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Don't blame Bush, blame the rednecks who keep blowing up their houses cooking this crap. Come on out to Independence MO, and I'll show you why "Protecting YOU against Sudafed" isn't nearly as ridiculous as you might think.


I'll have you know our Methheads in Spokane are not all rednecks! LOL
Sean


----------



## Kacey (Sep 26, 2006)

I agree with what many people have said - I have no problem with restricting access to pseudoephedrine and related substances as a means of reducing methamphetamine production, but I do think it should be a separate law, not as part of the Patriot Act.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 26, 2006)

Kacey said:


> I agree with what many people have said - I have no problem with restricting access to pseudoephedrine and related substances as a means of reducing methamphetamine production, but I do think it should be a separate law, not as part of the Patriot Act.


Watch "Drug Store Cowboy". There is a political rant worth thinking about. Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2006)

Wow ... I can't believe this reaction.

Now certainly, I know my political positions often draw an instinctive response from some - if I am for something, I must be wrong, so they are naturally against it. So, we expect some of that. 

But this product has been approved by the FDA as what is referred to as an 'over the counter' drug. That means, safe, when used as directed for all persons. You do not need a medical doctors perscription to take this drug (which ever version covered - even though I pointed to Sudafed - the ban is on three different chemicals). 

Law abiding citizens are now suffering restricted access to this medication because of the way criminals use the medicine.

Change the word medicine to firearm - and many of those here argue the other way. Law abiding citizens should not suffer restrictions because of the way criminals use the (fill in the noun here). How many guns can you buy at a firearms show? Isn't the argument that we should 'enforce the laws on the books'?

But, take it one step further ... what we are dealing with here is chemistry. Those meth labs are taking chemical compounds and combining them in pretty sophisticated ways to produce a desired result. Restricting the access to a raw material is not going eliminate the problem. Using the same techniques that created Crystal Meth, the chemists will devise new intoxicating compounds. Would we expect to outlaw Chemistry? (it may be a strech, but not a very far one, I think).

Kudos to those of you who are against sneaking legislation through the back door of the conference committee.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 26, 2006)

> What, do you think I make this **** up?


No, thats why I asked for a legitimate source, so I could read about it. Lower the blood pressure dude...



michaeledward said:


> Law abiding citizens are now suffering restricted access to this medication because of the way criminals use the medicine.
> 
> Change the word medicine to firearm - and many of those here argue the other way. Law abiding citizens should not suffer restrictions because of the way criminals use the (fill in the noun here). How many guns can you buy at a firearms show? Isn't the argument that we should 'enforce the laws on the books'?



Don't we have restrictions on weapons? Are you going to tell me that everyone should be able to purchase fully automatic weapons now? I don't see reasonable restrictions on firearms as bad. We have to decide on what is considered reasonable. I think thats whats happening here. People will disagree on whats reasonable. Thats whats great about democracy 



> Kudos to those of you who are against sneaking legislation through the back door of the conference committee.



Laws are not laws until voted on in both houses. That can hardly be considered sneaking. We don't get instant updates on every conference committee meeting (at least I don't look for it). If you are seriously concerned about it, contact your representatives.

Only thing that I consider odd is it being considered part of the Patriot Act,  as Kacey and others said. Its perhaps misplaced.


----------



## Ping898 (Sep 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Laws are not laws until voted on in both houses. That can hardly be considered sneaking. We don't get instant updates on every conference committee meeting (at least I don't look for it).


 
Of course it can be sneaking, what about the senator like 2 years ago that got a line in one of the laws that essentially let him and some of his aides see any person's tax returns they wanted.  No one noticed that until after is was passed in both places.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 26, 2006)

Ping898 said:


> Of course it can be sneaking, what about the senator like 2 years ago that got a line in one of the laws that essentially let him and some of his aides see any person's tax returns they wanted.  No one noticed that until after is was passed in both places.



Good point. I guess some of those bills are so big/long, things can be hidden... I just hope its not intentional


----------



## lenatoi (Sep 26, 2006)

Kacey said:


> I agree with what many people have said - I have no problem with restricting access to pseudoephedrine and related substances as a means of reducing methamphetamine production, but I do think it should be a separate law, not as part of the Patriot Act.


I have to say that Kacey out it exactly as I see it.


----------



## lenatoi (Sep 26, 2006)

okay, I think that the important thing in what you said is in bold...
"But this product has been approved by the FDA as what is referred to as an 'over the counter' drug. That means, safe, *when used as directed* for all persons. You do not need a medical doctors perscription to take this drug." 
Would you happen to be one of those that think "certain other drugs" should be legal? Because if they are used in moderation, with a list of rules attached, they are "safe" too.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2006)

lenatoi said:


> Would you happen to be one of those that think "certain other drugs" should be legal? Because if they are used in moderation, with a list of rules attached, they are "safe" too.


 
I am an alcoholic and have been sober since 1992. I don't use intoxicants personally.

The reference 'used as directed' is a direct reference to acetomenaphine ... my daughter overdosed on this drug a year ago. It is easily and commonly available over the counter. She spent a week in the hospital and was extremely fortunate to not have any identifiable liver damage. So, that phrase is used very carefully, although you seem to be insinuating something else. 

But, I do tend to be libertarian in my views towards anything we put in our bodies. I have no objection to people of a certain age using intoxicants. Personally, I believe the "search for intoxication" is a fundamental drive within the human animal, to curb that drive is unnatural.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Personally, I believe the "search for intoxication" is a fundamental drive within the human animal, to curb that drive is unnatural.



what the heck? I have no desire for alcohol or intoxication of any form. Nor have I ever had such a desire. I like having a sober mind and body.  That's unnatural?

You state this as a belief. On what is this based, your personal experience?


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Wow ... I can't believe this reaction.
> 
> Now certainly, I know my political positions often draw an instinctive response from some - if I am for something, I must be wrong, so they are naturally against it. So, we expect some of that.


 
Yeah, that's it. It must be an _instinctive_ response. Because if we actually thought about it, we'd agree with you, right?



michaeledward said:


> But this product has been approved by the FDA as what is referred to as an 'over the counter' drug. That means, safe, when used as directed for all persons. You do not need a medical doctors perscription to take this drug (which ever version covered - even though I pointed to Sudafed - the ban is on three different chemicals).


 
This has nothing to do with whether it is safe when used as directed. Ammonium nitrate is safe when used as directed too, but remains a controlled substance to try to keep it out of the hands of certain wackadoos.



michaeledward said:


> Law abiding citizens are now suffering restricted access to this medication because of the way criminals use the medicine.


 
As mentioned previously, there are alternative, non-pseudoephedrine based products available which work just as well.



michaeledward said:


> Change the word medicine to firearm - and many of those here argue the other way. Law abiding citizens should not suffer restrictions because of the way criminals use the (fill in the noun here). How many guns can you buy at a firearms show? Isn't the argument that we should 'enforce the laws on the books'?


 
Change the word medicine to firearm and you're making a completely different argument, one with a whole 'nother set of arguments and historical precedents.



michaeledward said:


> But, take it one step further ... what we are dealing with here is chemistry. Those meth labs are taking chemical compounds and combining them in pretty sophisticated ways to produce a desired result. Restricting the access to a raw material is not going eliminate the problem. Using the same techniques that created Crystal Meth, the chemists will devise new intoxicating compounds. Would we expect to outlaw Chemistry? (it may be a strech, but not a very far one, I think).


 
Don't have to eliminate the problem. Just have to minimize it to the best degree possible. Only a utopian believes in 100% solutions. If, as upnorthkyusa says, the home-brewed supply of MN and WI has been cut by 80%, that's a pretty damn good result.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 27, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> what the heck? I have no desire for alcohol or intoxication of any form. Nor have I ever had such a desire. I like having a sober mind and body. That's unnatural?
> 
> You state this as a belief. On what is this based, your personal experience?


 
It sounds like some sort of justification for ones problems to me.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> what the heck? I have no desire for alcohol or intoxication of any form. Nor have I ever had such a desire. I like having a sober mind and body. That's unnatural?
> 
> You state this as a belief. On what is this based, your personal experience?


 
Have you ever seen a child spin around in the backyard to the point they can not stand up? What do they do when they get up?

What explaination would you offer for that behavior?


----------



## Lisa (Sep 27, 2006)

*Moderator Note:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level.  Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it can be found in each member's profile). Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator
*


----------



## crushing (Sep 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Have you ever seen a child spin around in the backyard to the point they can not stand up? What do they do when they get up?
> 
> What explaination would you offer for that behavior?


 

Yes.  They fall down.

Because they aren't tall enough to ride a roller coaster.

I don't think that the feelings of exhillaration and intoxication are the same though.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2006)

crushing said:


> Yes. They fall down.
> 
> Because they aren't tall enough to ride a roller coaster.
> 
> I don't think that the feelings of exhillaration and intoxication are the same though.


Have you ever been in love? Is that feeling often described as 'intoxicating'?


P.S. - www.m-w.com includes this defintion for intoxication: 2b a strong excitement or elation


----------



## crushing (Sep 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Have you ever been in love? Is that feeling often described as 'intoxicating'?


 
Yes and yes.  But, I didn't seek the love for its 'intoxication'.  That intoxication was a side effect that was likely natures way of reducing inhibitions for the propogation of the species.

I have sought intoxication before, I think I sing karaoke much better after a few drinks.  

Added:
2b, or not 2b, that is the question.  Thanks for the PS.  It does look like the secondary second definition of intoxication would cover my roller coaster comparison.

Added #2:
I googled words like 'altered state consciousness dizzy drink' and Doctors smarter than I see a link between children spinning and alcohol and drug use.  So, perhaps there is someting to that.


----------



## fireman00 (Sep 27, 2006)

Nothing for nothing, but take large enough doses of liquid cough medicene  and you can get high on DXM. 

Cold tablets like Sudafed  are used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine- which is a huge issue nationwide.  

 Having to show ID for cold tablets has been something that's been required in NJ for at least the last year.

 It has little to do with the Patriot Act, but was slipped in to help with illegal drug use.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 27, 2006)

The "its natural for people to seek intoxication" philosophy is part and parcel of the "disease model" of addiction. My personal life associations have exposed me to this concept and a couple of people have died as a result of their various addictions. I dont buy it. Here is an article that mirrors my doubts about this concept. 

The disease model of addiction



> The disease-mongers gnaw away at our self-confidence. Inappropriate medicalisation carries the dangers of unnecessary labeling, poor treatment decisions, economic waste, as well as the costs that result when resources are diverted from treating or preventing more serious disease. At a deeper level, it may help to feed obsessions with health.&#8221;(CNE Health)
> 
> Then there is the DSM IV criterion for diagnosing alcohol abuse. It also does not include physically measurable symptoms. It only requires social and/or legal problems.
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2006)

crushing said:


> Added #2:
> I googled words like 'altered state consciousness dizzy drink' and Doctors smarter than I see a link between children spinning and alcohol and drug use. So, perhaps there is someting to that.


 
I don't think a child spins to create a feeling of dizzyness because they want a drink of alcohol. 

I think they enjoy the feeling of being dizzy. It's fun to watch the ground tilt and whirl. 

As we get older, we, perhaps, loose the inhibitions that allows us to sping ourselves dizzy, but instead find that feeling through a chemical substance; alcohol. Some say that eating chocolate releases the same chemicals in the brain as does sex, and new love. All of these things are feeling that can be described as 'intoxication'. I am not restricting my definition to the feeling created only through alcohol. 

What are the things in your life that get you "High"?


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 27, 2006)

I'll agree that it's natural for humans to seek intoxication.  But it doesn't follow that it is unnatural to curb that drive, or regulate the manner in which it is sought.  Humans also have a natural urge to have sex, but we impose rules on how that is procured as well.  Or do you think rape laws are unnatural too?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Or do you think rape laws are unnatural too?


This is an unfair and unnecessary comparison, and I really don't see the relevance to the discussion.  It's an underhanded tactic.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 27, 2006)

Flatlander said:


> This is an unfair and unnecessary comparison, and I really don't see the relevance to the discussion. It's an underhanded tactic.


 
The point I was addressing is this one:



michaeledward said:


> Personally, I believe the "search for intoxication" is a fundamental drive within the human animal, to curb that drive is unnatural.


 
The argument being that it is unnatural to curb any fundamental drive within the human animal. I think the comparison holds. I'm sorry you disagree.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 27, 2006)

Flatlander said:


> This is an unfair and unnecessary comparison, and I really don't see the relevance to the discussion. It's an underhanded tactic.



I dont know if thats entirely true. While obviously slanted to his point of view (which we all do to some extent on the net right?), the concept is legit. We place limitations on human urges, why are some good and others evil trampling on "natural rights" by government stormtroopers?


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 27, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> The argument being that it is unnatural to curb any fundamental drive within the human animal. I think the comparison holds. I'm sorry you disagree.



I'll have to agree with Cory on that one. Michael is trying to draw a connection between harmless pleasure seeking (spinning, love) with what is generally considered "bad" behavior (alcohol, drugs). Same holds true with the sexual analogy.

I think Cory is just saying that if you hold one belief, its logical to hold the second too in order to be consistent.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> I'll agree that it's natural for humans to seek intoxication. But it doesn't follow that it is unnatural to curb that drive, or regulate the manner in which it is sought. Humans also have a natural urge to have sex, but we impose rules on how that is procured as well. Or do you think rape laws are unnatural too?


 

Do you think rape is an act of sex?


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 27, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> I'll have to agree with Cory on that one. Michael is trying to draw a connection between harmless pleasure seeking (spinning, love) with what is generally considered "bad" behavior (alcohol, drugs). Same holds true with the sexual analogy.
> 
> I think Cory is just saying that if you hold one belief, its logical to hold the second too in order to be consistent.


 
Exactly.  To say that fundamental human nature cannot be regulated is a refutation of the whole idea of civilized society.  There's a word for those who do whatever they want without consideration of others:  savages.  And despite what some Swiss hack would have us believe, there's nothing noble about them.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> I'll have to agree with Cory on that one. Michael is trying to draw a connection between harmless pleasure seeking (spinning, love) with what is generally considered "bad" behavior (alcohol, drugs). Same holds true with the sexual analogy.
> 
> I think Cory is just saying that if you hold one belief, its logical to hold the second too in order to be consistent.


 
You are incorrect. What I have described is the feeling. How that feeling is obtained has not been discussed. I have listed some of the ways that a feeling can be achieved. I have not indicated that any of the methods of achieving that feeling as being positive or negative - just that human beings do seek that feeling.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 27, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Exactly. To say that fundamental human nature cannot be regulated is a refutation of the whole idea of civilized society. There's a word for those who do whatever they want *without consideration of others*: savages. And despite what some Swiss hack would have us believe, there's nothing noble about them.


 
Exactly. If you were a substance abuser with absolutely nobody who cared for you and you didnt steal, hurt, crash into another, and never used any public support as a result of your habit then I suppose thats your business. Still against the concept of being a law abiding citizen in a civilized society, but ultimately harmless to anybody but yourself. But if your addiction brings pain, either emotional or physical onto another person and you become a burden to your fellow citizens, either through criminal activity or dependent on public support because of your habit, then thats a different story.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I'll have to agree with Cory on that one. Michael is trying to draw a connection between harmless pleasure seeking (spinning, love) with what is generally considered "bad" behavior (alcohol, drugs). Same holds true with the sexual analogy.


It's not a valid analogy, though.  Michael's concept of "the fundamental drive for intoxication" differs insofar as it doesn't necessarily follow that other people's rights are being infringed upon.  If one chooses to intoxicate themselves, others are not necessarily harmed (though of course, they can be as a result of the intoxicated person's behaviour).  The "rape" comparison necessarily requires someone's personal rights to be violated.  Rape is not an act of sex, it is an act of violence, by definition.

So, I see the statement:


> Or do you think rape laws are unnatural too?


as being an unfair ad hominem, and a reprehensible insinuation.  

Beyond that, I don't think that Michael is drawing a comparison between harmless and bad behaviour, thought I suppose that depends upon how one characterizes such things.  Personally, I do not consider the usage of intoxicants, be they legal or not, to be "bad" behaviour.  It's self destructive in some circumstances, and there are offshoot consequences that can be realized, and in some circumstances, others can be hurt, injured, killed, or otherwise violated, such as in robberies, home invasions, and the like.  That, however, is not the issue at hand.  The issue being addressed, (though it's relevance is questionable) is whether it is natural to seek intoxication, and now, I suppose, whether it is unnatural to try to curb this drive.  

Personally, I think that the premise needs clarification.  Which is to say, unnatural to try to curb this drive by what means?  Also, because it seems to be unnatural, does that make it wrong?  If so, why?


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 27, 2006)

Flatlander said:


> It's not a valid analogy, though. Michael's concept of "the fundamental drive for intoxication" differs insofar as it doesn't necessarily follow that other people's rights are being infringed upon. If one chooses to intoxicate themselves, others are not necessarily harmed (though of course, they can be as a result of the intoxicated person's behaviour). The "rape" comparison necessarily requires someone's personal rights to be violated.


 
He didn't make that distinction. What he said was that because it is fundamental human urge, it is therefore unnatural to curb it. He didn't say only the harmless urges. 



Flatlander said:


> Rape is not an act of sex, it is an act of violence, by definition.


 
This isn't really a useful distinction. Mugging is an act of violence also, but that doesn't give us any insight into the assailant's intent. Rape, at its core, is an act of theft. Theft implies desire. It is taking by force that which would not be given freely. But this is getting pretty far afield from the topic.



Flatlander said:


> So, I see the statement:
> as being an unfair ad hominem, and a reprehensible insinuation.


 
It was neither. It's pretty easy to glean from Michael's posts that he is *not* somebody who would oppose rape laws. What I sought to do was to show how his sweeping assertion that human urges should not be restricted can lead to viewpoints which he would find repugnant. Again, I'm sorry if you don't see it that way.



Flatlander said:


> Beyond that, I don't think that Michael is drawing a comparison between harmless and bad behaviour, thought I suppose that depends upon how one characterizes such things. Personally, I do not consider the usage of intoxicants, be they legal or not, to be "bad" behaviour. It's self destructive in some circumstances, and there are offshoot consequences that can be realized, and in some circumstances, others can be hurt, injured, killed, or otherwise violated, such as in robberies, home invasions, and the like. That, however, is not the issue at hand. The issue being addressed, (though it's relevance is questionable) is whether it is natural to seek intoxication, and now, I suppose, whether it is unnatural to try to curb this drive.


 
Whether the use of intoxicants is bad or not could be a thread all its own. The issue of whether pseudoephedrine should be a controlled substance does not hinge upon it. Because regardless of our views on using meth, there are dangers inherent in _making_ it. Call me crazy, I don't relish the thought of my neighbor's house spontaneously blowing up. 



Flatlander said:


> Personally, I think that the premise needs clarification. Which is to say, unnatural to try to curb this drive by what means? Also, because it seems to be unnatural, does that make it wrong? If so, why?


 
Good questions. I think it goes back to your initial statement about other people's rights being infringed upon. But let's look at the whole situation instead of just whether or not somebody is putting something into his/her body. That's only part of it. Personally, I've never heard of a pot grower's house exploding so maybe that's a point in favor of the weeders?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> He didn't make that distinction. What he said was that because it is fundamental human urge, it is therefore unnatural to curb it. He didn't say only the harmless urges.


Precisely.  And, as committing rape is not a fundamental human urge, the comparison is invalid.  Sex, on the other hand, is a fundamental human urge.  And apparently, Michael feels as though the desire to seek intoxication is as well.  And again, by your own admission: 

I understand what you are saying, but I continue to disagree.  I believe that Americans, as per the US Constitution, ought have the right to express themselves sexually as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.  Those Americans who seek to regulate what happens in their neighbor's bedrooms, IMO, hate liberty and seek destroy freedom, which is, IMO, very unAmerican indeed.  Similarily, should someone choose to intoxicate themselves, let them do so, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Nonetheless, by your own admission: 





			
				CoryKS said:
			
		

> Rape, at its core, is an act of theft. Theft implies desire. It is taking by force that which would not be given freely.


Which of course, is not sex.  Ergo, an invalid comparison in the context of "fundamental human urges".  



			
				CoryKS said:
			
		

> What I sought to do was to show how his sweeping assertion that human urges should not be restricted can lead to viewpoints which he would find repugnant.


by suggesting: 





			
				CoryKS said:
			
		

> Or do you think rape laws are unnatural too?


which implies something about him that is quite improper.  From the perspective that I'm attempting to illustate to you that I have, I view it as a nasty tactic.  I'll accept that you're sorry that I see it that way, however, I'd like you to understand why I see it as such. 

I'm sorry to have taken this so far off track.

:asian:


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 27, 2006)

Rape in the classic "stranger in the bushes" could be classified as a crime of violence. But many of the "date rape" (by and large the biggect category) situations are more a "I want it and Im taking it" act of fulfilling that sexual urge. So I dont really think his point can be brushed off that easily. If the issue is our "natural urges", and our freedom to persue them, we place limitations on them all the time. Nobody is being denied cold medicine in this case, its just being placed where it can be so easily stolen or purchased in large (meth production) quantities.


----------



## The Master (Sep 27, 2006)

Rather than more reasons to hate the PA, how about a short thread on reasons to love it?


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 28, 2006)

Flatlander said:


> I'll accept that you're sorry that I see it that way, however, I'd like you to understand why I see it as such.


 
Acknowledged.


----------

