Gee Skruff, a one line response to a thoughtful answer to your earlier postings, one that tried hard to address what you noted.

No mention of the central issue either, what responsibility does the citizen have to her nation? I guess we are through here, though I never really expected an answer. I will close this thread to further perusal by me though I would suggest that you strongly think about the question posed.

I would guess that a large reason for our lack of leadership, our government being the lap dog of special interests and all, is because of folks who seem to believe that responsibility is a one way street…real sad.

Skruff, I wonder sometimes if you participate here out of any deep seated political feelings or because you enjoy mental exercises….?

The difference between a government of the people and for the people and the current government is rather easily seen and needs no expansion. The difference is really between the image of government expounded by Paolo, that of an intrinsically evil entity impossible to salvage, and my view that the reason to have a government is to serve the best interests of its people, its individual people, that it is necesary to have such a government if we wish to remain as a nation.

You say that a government cannot be concerned with the individual but I resist that outlook and point to the court system as one, and only one such safeguard protecting the individual. There are many instances wherein an elected representative has championed the cause of a lone citizen and achieved a good result.

There are simply times when it is the duty of a citizen to serve the best interests of her nation and times when the nation must serve the best interests of the individual.

You use the Franklin quote to attempt a point that I believe would not have appealed to Ben himself. I would not put myself in the mind of Franklin but I doubt he would have signed the documentif he did not understand that duty and obligation go both ways.

“All just power is derived from the consent of the governed” said John Locke. I hope you see the implication in that consent, that there are freedoms and limits to them. You would not defend the right to wanton murder but you defend another, and in my mind equally harmful, right. I wonder why.

Thom Paine noted, in Common Sense #57, that “In America, The Law is King and there ought to be no other”. Does this not show that ones individual rights are supported in some cases, and suborned in others, according to the law of the land, the law under which we all live equally?

It would seem that our major difference is that you see the individual standing alone and using or not, as she sees fit, the dictates of her government, while I see a compact between citizen and government, one that is definitely a two way street. If you do not like the laws of the land you are free to work to change them, but not to ignore them.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree before the words of William Cowper Brann haunt us:

” A heretic is a fellow who disagrees with you regarding something neither of you knows anything about.”

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You see Paolo, and despite the examples you mention below, sans dating by the by, this is the function and the purpose of government.

If Germany forced innoculations , and I suspect it was a very long time ago, as were all the examples you used, we are not they, and then is not now.

Medicine has come a very long way since the eighteenth century, we dont use leeches any more for example, and our current science produces better products. As certain vaccines have a lifespan one simply cannot refuse innoculation and chance infecting someone overdue for more protections. The idea is to wipe out disease, not play roulette with it.

If the FDA, which is charged with protecting our nation from faulty vaccines, is failing us I might lay the blame upon a President who has decimated most of those agencies charged with consumer protections and not lay the blame upon the evil purpose of a demonic government, as you seem prone to do. I would ask for greater authority for the FDA, not less, and would point to how corporations have infiltrated and swayed government practice.

Frankly I believe that unbridled capitalism not government is the culprit, and the path is clearly to end corporate domination over the duties of our governance. You somehow turn this topsy turvy, and I believe you are very, very wrong.

‘nuff said, nowhere else to go, I wish you a cure for your fear of our government and all of us better governance.

Ardee said,

“When it comes to the health of a nations children one must err on the side of caution.”

My point exactly. There is strong evidence, for those willing to investigate the issue, that childhood vaccines can be extremely harmful. The phenomenal increase in autism may be due in large part to unsafe vaccines.

Regarding the “raging epidemics” that were “solved” through vaccination: are you aware that smallpox “raged” throughout Europe throughout the 19th century, long after European countries introduced mandatory vaccination?

Are you aware that these European countries (Germany is a classic example) didn’t fool around with little issues like “individual choice” in this matter? In Germany, if you refused vaccination, you were literally held down by the authorities and vaccinated against your will.

Despite this (or perhaps, because of it), there was a massive smallpox epidemic in the 100 percent “immunized” German population.

Are you aware there was a massive outbreak of smallpox in the Philippines after the US invaded and took over, and instituted a mandatory inoculation campaign? Again, about a hundred thousand “immunized” people died of the disease they were allegedly “protected” from.

Smallpox is just one example. The same holds true for a whole range of diseases.

I could go on and on. Do a google search and read the other side of the story.

I repeat my point: the government has no special, received wisdom in these controversial matters. What they DO have is lobbying influence from the pharmaceutical industry.

Vaccination should be a matter of individual choice. And by the way, you declined to respond to my main point, because it is iron-clad: if you really think vaccination makes you “perfectly safe,” then you have nothing to fear from a person who refuses vaccination. If you accept the notion of vaccine-induced “immunity”, then they harm no one besides themselves in refusing to be vaccinated. They can’t harm you, my friend: you’re “immune!”

Unless, of course, you DO feel the government has special, “received” wisdom in such controversial matters, and by golly, the government SHOULD vaccinate people against their will. Just like they did in old Germany, with such monumentally successful results.

Skruff: Very saddened to hear about your father. Antibiotics are way overused. In my opinion, a lot of the recent reports of increases in strange intestinal ailments is probably due to antibiotics wiping out the desirable bacteria that are necessary for proper functioning of the digestive system.

I, too, have a very close relative who has suffered for well over thirty years with a whole range of ailments, many of them related to antibiotics. I am very distrustful of the union of “Big Pharma” with “Big Government.” A classic example of the “invisible handshake.”

“So, why not make vaccination an issue of individual choice? The state has no special, received wisdom in this controversial area. “

Paolo you are kidding arent you? When it comes to the health of a nations children one must err on the side of caution. Unless of course you simply miss the ‘good old days’ of typhoid fever, smallpox and the like…....

Also, a large effort is NOT required to tell a doctor or school administrator that your child doesnt need Ritalin or whatever….

I know we all see things through the lens of our own opinions and desires, but some have way thicker lenses than do others. Oh and if these vaccinations dont really work where are all those plagues we used to see sweep our world? Oh yeah, those useless vaccinations…...

Hi Skruff,

Good points all around.

I have done quite a lot of reading on this “mandatory” vaccination issue. I have been told by many alternative medicine practitioners that, when push comes to shove, if a parent (or a student) really wants to go to the mat to avoid vaccination, they can do so, and still attend the school of their choice. This probably varies to some degree from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Most parents (and students) do not, however, have the willpower or resources to follow through on challenging the “mandatory” vaccination laws. So I agree with you: most of these laws have become, in effect, mandatory, if if (technically speaking) they are open to challenge.

Here is my view on “mandatory” vaccination. If vaccination really works (and I can provide a lot of evidence that it doesn’t—at least not reliably), then why the insistence on forcing it on everyone? If one wants to be vaccinated to gain alleged perfect immunity, then one should do so. At that point, the unvaccinated person poses absolutely no threat to the vaccinated person, if one accepts the premise of “immunization.”

So, why not make vaccination an issue of individual choice? The state has no special, received wisdom in this controversial area.

Excellent post on your part.

Ardee said,

“I know I should simply ignore Paolo’s one note samba; the govt is forcing something or other at someone or other but. ......”

My, my, Ardee! My post said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about government “forcing” anyone to take drugs. You do seem to have this nasty tendency of putting words in people’s mouths.

Re-read my posting. My point was to illustrate the irony of living in “drug-free” America. Most of the drugs I cited are NOT “mandatory.” (Though many parents are told, incorrectly, that immunizations are “mandatory” for going to school, and certainly feel pressured to give Ritalin to their kids.)

I do feel, however, that most people are far too willing to give the pharmaceutical/government complex the benefit of the doubt in deciding on their own medical care. Doctors, like other professionals, are trained to make money by following a regimen their organization supports.

BTW, do I need to point out that your government agencies were absolutely useless in preventing the use of mercury in childhood vaccines? Do you really think these vaccines were not tested and approved by the government?

It is indeed ironic that the government, while supposedly fighting a “war on drugs” subsidizes and encourages a virtual cradle-to-grave drug industry.

A wise old saying is, “if you want to stay healthy, stay away from doctors.”

I say just sit back and enjoy the irony of someone so mentally devolved as “choconips” accusing others of being “apes.”
  Oh, but we should reserve a bit of pity for the poor, sick little monkey that he is.

I am a great fan of freedom of speech. Having said that I must wonder why comments such as the one below are allowed to cheapen the worth of this decent forum?

I have seen a number of such abysmally ignorant racist statements stand, sans comment. Is it not the duty of every American to stand up for the right? Why are these nose picking blatant bigots allowed to pollute without censor or comment?

I believe that remaining silent in the face of such stupidity is as wrong as the position taken by this redneck cracker…...how about you?

#84451 by Skruff on 7/06 at 5:35 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“I was not aware that this litany of drugs were made mandatory by a government, nor was I told that parents did not have final say over what was given their children”

Some drugs are mandatory for enterence into Public Schools. Others are mandatory for acceptance into college. When one is a soldier they are mandated to take what is prescribed by the service of which they are a part, it’s all on the induction papers when you sign up. BUT I’m not sure that it’s as bad or prevasive as Paolo claims…but it is also not as benign as posted by Ardee.  So maybe the truth is somewhere between Ardee’s and Paolo’s positions?

Skruff,
aside from vaccines to prevent the spread of disease, and required at a very young age too, might you note what mandatory drugs are required in schools, whether Public or College level?

As to Ritalin, the choice is still with the parent I am certain, though a school administrators recommendation certainly carries weight. One of my grandsons was involved in such a recommendation but when his mother took him to the family physician she ( the Dr.) waved off the schools suggestion and simply suggested after school activities of a more strenuous nature. After taking on such activity all symptoms regularised, sans the application of any drug.

The truth, as you note, is more often than not between two polarised opinions, but government as boogeyman is really silly. Many ineptitudes, little cost effectiveness may be more common than we the taxpayers might yearn for but ,as you noted with such clarity, we should elect more competent folks to run our government.

I know I should simply ignore Paolo’s one note samba; the govt is forcing something or other at someone or other but. ......

I am old enough to remember the Polio epidemics that swept this nation in the fifties, and my sister is still crippled by that horrible disease. Was the vaccine “forced” upon us?

Were those mercury polluted vaccines the fault of a government or , in reality, were they manufactured and distributed by pharmaceutical companies? Imagine if this so-called Libertarian had his way and all government checks and restraints were taken off such companies, what would be foisted upon an unsuspecting public without the FDA (given that Bush wasnt pResident and someone was in charge who really gave a damn) watchdogs?

I was not aware that this litany of drugs were made mandatory by a government, nor was I told that parents did not have final say over what was given their children. Last I noticed these pharmaceuticals were given by private physicians and filled at private pharmacies. But I am certainly glad I dont live on Paolo’s planet, sounds like a pretty awful place…..

Scott put it most succinctly:

“The media can’t call meth speed anymore because speed is respectable now.

Your government gives it to the fighter and bomber pilots dropping peace in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

We don’t really have a “War on Drugs” in this country. What we have is a “War on SOME Drugs, SOME of the time.”

Here is a typical American life in “Drug Free America”:

AGE 2: State sponsored injections of mercury-laced vaccines.

AGE 5: Massive doses of antibiotics for routine ear infections.

AGE 7: Ritalin (also known as “speed”) to counteract a brand new “disease”: ADHD. Also state sponsored.

AGE 9: Newly invented and marketed antihistamines to combat allergies, possibly related to drugs taken at ages 2, 5, and 7.

AGE 16: Luvox, Halcyon, or other “happy” pill to deal with adolescent depression experienced in mandatory government indoctrination camps (sometimes called “public schools”).

AGE 25: Methamphetamine to deal with fatigue while doing 24-hour duty invading some third-world backwater country that was no threat to the USA. 

AGE 30: Valium to deal with adult depression caused by experiences being a soldier “defending freedom.”

AGE 40: Lipitor or Crestor to deal with medical establishment’s hyped up campaign against cholesterol, aka treating the symptom, not the cause. 

AGE 45: Lopressor to deal with high blood pressure.

AGE 49: (If female) Synthetic estrogen from the urine of a pregnant mare to deal with menopause symptoms.

AGE 49: (If male) Viagra or similar stiffy-pill to counteract ED, probably caused by all the junk drugs you’ve taken in your 40’s.

AGE 59: A fantastic stew of 20 different drugs, some to treat symptoms, some to counteract side effects of other drugs, and still others to counteract side effects of the side effect drugs.

AGE 69: Everything else.

The biggest problem with MDMA is that most of it is not MDMA. I can’t believe MDMA would make people violent, it doesn’t make any sense.

The media can’t call meth speed anymore because speed is respectable now.

Your government gives it to the fighter and bomber pilots dropping peace in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I read a long time ago that for the money we spend on the “drug war” we could put every drug user in the Waldorf Astoria, give them their drugs, provide them with unlimited room service and still come out way ahead financially. On top of that, they wouldn’t be messing up the rest of society, only the Waldorf.

The war on drugs is just as logical as destroying a village to save it was in Vietnam. If that’s not insane enough, go ahead and look at the real statistics. The damage attributed to a drug like ecstasy and actually to all illegal drugs combined, is miniscule compared to the damage inflicted by legally prescribed drugs. But the mega-pharmaceuticals don’t want you considering that fact. Maybe if we just nuked Oakland everything would be okay like back in the good old days.

There is NO war on drugs . it is a fake comedy, many are benefing from drugs even those supposedly involved in fighting drugs . (Afghanistan is heaven right now )

A couple of points: 
1. First of all, street ecstasy is not MDMA. It is usually a coktail of speed and heroine, but may have MDA or even MDMA in it. So the word ecstasy no longer implies pure MDMA in the world of street dope.
  MDMA is to be taken in a 125 milligram dose and only several times. High doses of MDMA have undesirable effects, the speed effects quickly overpower the euphoria, “heart-opening” effects. At higher doses the mild psychedelic effect becomes more a delirium.

2. Kids use dope. People use dope. The history of humanity could be told in the history of drugs, from prehistoric shamans to billionaires in Aspen. Even with prohibition and all the tea-totaler (tea is dope!) finger wagging in the world, people will still get high. It is a natural impulse, the will to pleasure and excitement or else toward sedation.
  But drugs are dangerous; they are poisons, essentially. Until society integrates with he fact that people want to get high, then it will be a big problem.
  Sex is also dangerous. Does anyone here think that Mrs Bush going to Africa to teach abstinence is a helpful solution? Is it helpful in the public school system.
  Real education is a key, and true education requires the lifting of the fear-stricken puritanical taboos as well. Prohibition just connects drugs more strongly to crime and also makes for weird mystery drugs like street ecstasy.
3. The condemnation of gateway drugs is totally stupid, as is puttin them both in the black market. Putting them both in the black market make marijuana and organic psychedelics even more gateway drugs, because kids go to drug syndicates to get them.
  The term gateway implies one may also exit thereby. people don’t think of that much. Most of our statistics and knowledge of addiction and hard drugs comes from those who seek medical help to treat them. This distorts the whole picture. Tons of junkies, speed freaks, and the like neither overdose, die in drug related crimes or go to rehab, but down shift to smoking herb and drinking beer. What do they do in rehab? They sedate you until you can get over it.
  So, the addict escapes addiction through fleeing the circle of other addicts and dealers, hangs with those who smoke dope and drink beer and winds off the jones. The gang gets high and talks to the addict, and they all share some nightmare stories of their days with white powder drugs. It just doesn’t make the papers.

Can’t understand why people feel so clever that they think that they can solve their problems with that shit! Just like the traditional alcoholic’s excuse of “I can handle it….” takes them nowhere except out the back door of life.

“I am in control of destroying my life” is not a reason ....its a shortcoming. We all have that propensity ever since alcohol was used by soldiers as a form of self-medication. That has been happening for a very long time and pills and potions are only an extension of the same sets of erroneous assumptions.

If you look to your history (especially the civil war), most ex-soldiers spent the rest of their lives in some degree of intoxication in an attempt to obliterate their guilt, shame and remorse. In doing so, along with the physical violence of their rage, they abused their families and distorted their communities. That is the real ongoing cost of war….... so, here we are!

Skruff #83443 nails it.

I would not seek to criticise the author as her purported experience and work history far exceeds my own knowledge of North Richmond or East Oakland gang culture. I must, however, note that a tiny little paragraph at the end of her screed should be the lead and the emphasis.

Regardless of how Mac Dre suppiments his income, regardless of how children choose which drug to use, the real problem is a culture which offers these kids nothing. “When you aint got nothin’ you got nothin’ to lose!”

I have been long, long out of the drug culture and its associated economy but I do know that people have had their lives ruined by drugs, even those who have a path to college ,a good paying job or a potential future, but in far less numbers than those who live in the inner cities, are preyed upon by dealers and police and see drugs as the only way out, myth though that might be.

#83552 by Chaseme on 7/03 at 11:46 am

I’d say you made these connections perfectly:

Maybe someone can help me make this connection with the drugs and gangs problems in the inner city and republicans. It seems the two are synonymous or somehow one promotes the other.

It’s everything you said, and more. Yep, I remember Regan, and I remember Nixon before him. Both were racist biggots, (though Nixon’s life was standard enough at the begining…didn’t have the Monarchy lineage of the bushies), still…all very much as you have described, and the black communities have always suffered under these republicans.

The old music of the days you remember (as do I) are quite different than what this generation has come up with. Our guys (Marvin Gaye and the others)brought an awareness to us, through their music. It’s a different thing now, and it’s caught me without any answers, aside from the ones you’ve already mentioned. I think that all explains it quite well.