Posted on 06/09/2004 7:11:35 PM PDT by Coleus
But it's not interfering with anybody else's rights. By your logic it's his right to do so and only a bad country would stop him.
No dodging at all, what question?
No, I can't remember the name, it was about 10 or more yrs. ago when stevia first came on the market in the USA.
It was a woman and not a doctor who lived somewhere in the Midwest using a small publishing company. Her book was confiscated.
OK so far.
and is currently wide open in the laws and should remain that way.
What do you mean by "wide open in the laws"? If it can be restricted by legislative act, how is it a liberty?
Wanting someone to eat you falls into my own catagory of "mental illness". You may have a different view.
Taking vitamins or supplements is an ENTIRELY different matter.
#145. Do you believe we have too much freedom. That the government can make arbitrary rulings like this to restrict our freedom. Pretty straight forward. So far your posts are suggesting that you are coming down on the governments side of things. Not liberty's.
That's the difference between liberties and rights. Liberties can be regulated. Owning a home is a liberty, you can't build a home that doesn't pass inspection or violates local zoning regulations. Rights are immutable, liberties sometimes need direction so they don't screw up other people's rights and liberties.
McCain is the most worthless Rino in the herd.
But if it's the person's right to do something then their mental compitence is immaterial. Is that person no longer allowed to have vitamins because he's goofy?
Don't look now but the "everything is a right" crowd is moving towards giving children effective emancipation from day one, attempting to give them all the same rights as adults. Again, this is the logical progression of that flawed mentality, if everything is a right then age is not a valid restriction.
The difference between vitamin supliments and being an entree is that taking vitamins IS a liberty, and being an entree is just plain stupid across the board. Neither is a right.
Oh you mean your well poisoning insulting question that served no purpose but to make this debate less civil and more pointless by freely mixing the two highly different terms rights and liberty, and now even further obfuscating it by throwing freedom in the mix as being entirely synonymous with both. That question is flawed at it's face and doesn't deserve an answer. I believe strongly in libery, rights and freedom. I also believe strongly in not screwing up the English language in moronic ways that open the door to leftist idiocy like volunteer based cannibalism. That IS the logical conclusion to your misuse of the term "rights" and your desire to throw everything under that header, a world where we have no right to interfere with the rights of the mentally incompitent.
So since my adverse reaction to a nutritional supplement doesn't screw up other people's rights and liberties, there is no legitimate reason to "direct" my liberty to take nutritional supplements. Right?
Sorry to hear you've mistaken that for logic.
I've been saying the government shouldn't screw with the vitamin industry for two days now. I've just been saying it has nothing to do with rights. Just because the government should screw with something doesn't mean it's a right, it just means it's something the government shouldn't screw with.
That is the logic. If everything a person wants to do is a right, assuming it doesn't hurt anyone, the why should something an 18 year-old wants to do be considered any differently than something an 8 year-old wants to do. As long as the 8 year-old isn't hurting anybody then it's his RIGHT. The fact that you don't agree with this is the first sign that you're starting to understand why not everything is a right.
The US Constitution grants no authority to the Federal Government to regulate, or restrict, or ban, or pass any law pertaining to, vitamin usage by the general public. Period. End of story.
Whether this translates into a Right, a liberty, or little pink daffodils is also completely immaterial.
They are passing legislation, or at least attempting to do so, that would OUTLAW vitamins. They are granted no such power to do so. Period.
Until you get those concepts firmly in your forebrain, there is really no further need for discussion.
Thanks, I just did, I added cookbook, FDA to the search.
What many don't understand that this issue is also a 1st and 4th amendment issue too. And our God-Given rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
http://www.practicalhippie.com/stevia.htm
If that isn't bizarre enough, the FDA also ordered a Texas-based distributor of stevia supplements to destroy three books on the subject. They were told that an inspector would be coming to oversee the destruction of these materials! This spurred outrage from the media, the ACLU, and members of the public who heard about the attempted censorship and the FDA decided not to go through with it. The FDA was willing to violate the first amendment (with a good old fashioned book burning) to keep stevia under wraps!The FDA is currently throwing away the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens. Read the following articles to find out how?
Cooking with Stevia has been banned by the FDA.
FDA Attempts to Destroy Books
on Natural Sweetener
TOXIC OR TASTY - The Real Issue in the Stevia Battles
I've been saying the government shouldn't screw with the vitamin industry for two days now.
That doesn't quite answer my question. If government does screw with the vitamin industry, would that be illegitimate or merely ill-advised?
False premise. Everything a *sane* *adult* person wants to do is a right, assuming it doesn't hurt anyone.
Stevia in liquid form or a little tablet is better than artifical sweetners. I do use Splenda but I also have stevia drops at home.
Oh, wait. I know what your response is going to be.... It was unconstitutional! Right? Standard f&*^ing response from morons.
Actually it does answer your question, quite thuroughly.
If the fed screws with it it's illegitimate because that outside the list of powers and responsibilities of the federal government (which I've said multiple times).
If a state or local government screws with it it's ill-adviced because it is within the powers of the states (much like Arizonas outright ban of fireworks) but is outside of what they should be doing (which I've also said multiple times).
You idiot authoritarians are all the same. Liberal, leftist, communist, socialist.... it's all the same with you guys.
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.