Posted on 06/09/2004 7:11:35 PM PDT by Coleus
Thanks, you're expressing this much better than I was.
If I damage you through the spread of lies, ie; slander, then I can be held criminally liable. It is up to you though to prove you were harmed. If I can prove my allegations, then it is not slander. Either way, I still have the RIGHT to say those things. I must also be prepared to face the consequences as well.
If I want to take 155mg of folic acid a day, it is no concern of the government. Period. If I want to eat a pound of creatine a day, it is no concern of the government. Period. If I try and sell a "vitamin", and it is later proven that it can eat away a persons liver, then I would be liable for that crime. A reasonable man standard should be applied, assuming such a thing can even be agreed upon these days AS a standard, to rule on cases of misadventure and accident.
That'd keep morons like you from trying to press charges against the entire planet every time you fall down and skin your knee because the ground is too hard.
All of this is kind of a moot point. The Fed Gov has no authority to be "regulating" vitamins. It isn't in the Constitution. Period. It required an Amendment for them to prohibit alcohol. The same standard should exist for other substances like vitamins and other drugs.
He may be expressing it better, but that does not make him any more correct.
He is correct, the difference between rights and liberties is an important one and when clowns like the original author of this article misuse those words they lessen the value of both and open the door for more leftist BS in our country.
You are not only on the wrong board, but possibly in the wrong damn country.
You couldn't, by any chance, prove that an amendment was required, could you? Didn't think so -- but hey, don't let silly things like "facts" get in your way, not when you're on a roll.
"If I damage you through the spread of lies, ie; slander, then I can be held criminally liable."
Really? Under what "law" in your world? Or do people just "wing it"?
I mean, if you're going to have a written law against slander, then how is your world any different than mine? What's your point? Do you even have one?
discostu, robertpaulsen; --- "Rights and liberty are what this country was founded on.
You want to argue against that? Are you one of those, who like Clinton, feel we were given TOO much liberty? A radical amount of freedom?
You are not only on the wrong board, but possibly in the wrong damn country."
___ WELL said DC.. Thanks...
Is is 'IS' paulsen? -- Is you middle name slick willy?
I'm not arguing against either. I'm arguing to defend the DEFINITIONS of those words from perversion to meaninglessness.
Here's the basic problem with the "everything is a right" mentality. You remember the German perverts a couple of years ago, the cannibal and the volunteer entree? Well according to all the leftists I work with the German shouldn't have arrested the canibal because the entree volunteered, and if you want to be dismembered and have parts of yourself fed to you and eventually killed in the process that's OK because you're not hurting anybody so it's your RIGHT to do that.
That's the logical conclussion of your "everything is a right" mentality, it's OK to be an entree as long as you're the only one that gets hurt, and it's OK to be a cannibal as long as everybody you eat signs the right waivers, it's your right to be eaten and your right to eat volunteers. And since it was DUers that were saying that BS if there's anybody on the wrong board it's YOU.
Sure. It's a liberty, but not a right, and is currently wide open in the laws and should remain that way. All I'm objecting to is rendering the word "right" meaningless by saying everything is a right.
The FDA Raids Medical Doctor's Office, 1992
Jonathan V. Wright, M.D.
On May 6, [1992] agents of the FDA accompanied by gun-toting King County cops, broke down the door of the Kent, WA clinic of Jonathan Wright, MD. They seized vitamins, other non-toxic nutrients and patient records.
There are all kinds of "rights", you know. There's "natural rights", "fundamental rights", "unalienable rights" ....
Individual human rights are not differentiated and classified by you or by our government, paulsen. NO one gave you that power.
You refuse to answer why you think there's a difference in 'types' of rights. You can't. You've simply dreamed up your bizarre 'theory'.
You are either a moron, or you are being purposefully dishonest.
There is another story which I can not find on the web which I heard Atkins talking about a few yrs. ago on the radio program he hosted.
It had to do with a woman in the Midwest who wrote a simple little cookbook. Was there illegal substances listed in the book? Nope. It was a cookbook which listed recipes substituting sugar with STEVIA, a plant grown in South America and used throughout the world especially in Japan, it's about 1,000 times sweeter than sugar without the calories or blood sugar spikes.
The FDA raided her home and her publisher and the book has, since then, never to be seen again.
Come to think of it, a lot of your arguements would provide at least as much evidence of deficiency.
Nice try at a dodge there though... Care to answer the question as asked now?
Damn... did you even think of checking Google?
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.