JIM

Out of interest, what do you mean by natural rights? I thought all natural lawyers died out somewhere around 1700? Are you referring to Natural Law? I just meant the rights we are all born with as equal human beings really, not any of the so-called "rights" that have bestowed on us Brits by the EU or anything. This is what I want you to define, that sounds dangerously like natural law to me. Provided you realise that these rights are nothing more than social constructs then we have not problem. Believing in natural rights that are intrinsic from birth and exist supra-law is, on the other hand, problematic to the point of being incorrect. [/hide] Isn't pretty much everything a social construct? :) If you're looking for a definition: Common Law Rights. Depends entirely on your view of law if I'm honest, there are still a few natural lawyers about (although few in the west, and most loony theologians). You must be careful to not mislabel common law rights as natural rights - they are two very different things; if one were to ascribe to natural law, you could justify a "government must not interfere" stance, but with the common law as it is, the Government is right to intervene with statute when it finds the common law to be lacking or incorrect. Thanks, I'm aware of the distinctions I was just in the flow and terms I use on a daily basis with friends etc tend to slip in. :) It's a matter of opinion whether Government is right to intervene in matters of common law. Well.. I suppose I can think of instances where it would be/has been necessary to do so but HOW it intervenes is the issue for me really.

Out of interest, what do you mean by natural rights? I thought all natural lawyers died out somewhere around 1700? Are you referring to Natural Law? I just meant the rights we are all born with as equal human beings really, not any of the so-called "rights" that have bestowed on us Brits by the EU or anything. This is what I want you to define, that sounds dangerously like natural law to me. Provided you realise that these rights are nothing more than social constructs then we have not problem. Believing in natural rights that are intrinsic from birth and exist supra-law is, on the other hand, problematic to the point of being incorrect. Isn't pretty much everything a social construct? :) If you're looking for a definition: Common Law Rights.

Out of interest, what do you mean by natural rights? I thought all natural lawyers died out somewhere around 1700? Are you referring to Natural Law? I just meant the rights we are all born with as equal human beings really, not any of the so-called "rights" that have bestowed on us Brits by the EU or anything.

...whilst wearing an Obama T-Shirt? :thumbsup:

By this, do you mean, if you want to live in anarchy, you should be able to, not having to listen to anybody, but you don't get those freedoms too? Because I personally find that idea ridiculous. I mean, without the protection of the government at the very least, who are they going to complain to when they get shot? If I completely misinterpreted that, tell me. Governments shouldn't be intrusive though, they should protect our natural rights. We as people don't need government for anything else. Protect the rights and freedoms of all, that's it. These basic rights are your natural inalienable rights and should not be for anyone else, even government to bestow upon us. There shouldn't be a "system". Only free people living together as they please with the only "LAW" being that you don't infringe on the rights of others. That's it in a nutshell. No prohibition 'laws' (read:statutes), no getting fined for putting your rubbish bins out on the wrong day (GF England :roll:) and no getting arrested for taking innocent pictures of policemen. In such a system, if I choose to take Heroin, providing I don't infringe on the rights of anyone else, no problem! But, if I rob an old lady in order to procure some skag then I should rot in jail. This is the point I want to stress; my actions are what would be at fault. I robbed an old lady, what does it matter why I did it? The issue is that I am a person who is willing to (and did) infringe on the rights of someone else for my personal benefit. This is what I would be charged for, I made the decision to mug an old lady, not Heroin. Heck, I wasn't even ON Heroin when I did it. If I started robbing people in order to get money to buy shoes, would you blame the shoes and illegalise them? Shopping is a recognised addiction too. People are hugely diverse, I would wager that the amount of Heroin users who don't resort to illegal activities to fund their habit greatly outweighs those that do... "Hello this is 123 News, early this week a man identified as John Smith, London, worked 60 hours peeling potatos at a farm in order to use the money to purchase Heroin for personal use in the privacy of his own home. We join John Doe at the scene...". Doesn't sound newsworthy does it? People do different things at different times for different reasons. If someone I've never met goes out and commits a crime in order to buy ANYTHING, what business does Government have banning that thing for me or anyone else? I am not a child and do not require big-daddy government to hold my hand whilst crossing the road of life.

Agreed. Presentations were a regular thing at Uni and the best ones were always from those who were well versed in the material. You could always tell between those who really knew their subject and those who had crammed the night before.

You do so by living here. If you don't like it, leave. That's wrong. By signing your Birth Certificate your parents are consenting for you to be wards of the state. This creates a corporate entity that shares your name (although it is always in BLOCK CAPITALS - ie. JIM SCAPERUNER) and your parents bare witness on the certificate that you represent that legal corporate fiction, it is called your PERSON. Forget what you know about the word "Person" in everyday English. In law, this word means something entirely different - look it up. This legal fiction you represent is given approved forms of ID (such as passport etc, you can check your own official forms of ID your name is always in BLOCK CAPITALS) and is seen as a consenting individual purely on the basis that they continue to use the system and those forms of ID which are tools of the system. In short, you are basically an employee of your government, which just so happens to trade on the stock market as a full-profit organisation. You have an employee number too, it's called a National Insurance (Social Security) number. Statutes and Acts are tools of the company (country). They are not actually laws, if you look up the definition of statutes and acts you'll find that they are consent only and apply to CORPORATE ENTITIES, not MAN. Drug prohibition 'laws' are all infact, statutes/acts. We all live in Common Law jurisdictions and as such, are afforded the right to not have to enter into any contract unwillingly or unknowingly. However you only have this right if you claim it and it is possible to do so but if you do you willingly relinquish your former life of limited liability and have to fend for yourself in a FULL liability world. I know this sounds a bit out there but it is all entirely true. It is how they get away with claiming we are a "free" western world. You ARE free, everything they do to you is fully consented by you because you CONTRACT to agree to their terms in return for letting you join their system. Even if "joining" and being a "willing participant" means they get you from birth and don't educate you as to your other options.

Uh.. okay. Maybe I'm reading a different post to you but from where I'm standing it seemed like you'd skipped my post entirely to pick on one passage of little consequence in the larger message I was trying to convey. I took that to mean you disregarded the rest of my post and were taking an opposing view. I make a post about people claiming the rights they are born with and you reply with: There's you creating an issue out of thin air I was neither talking about Heroin or labelling any one particular group as government sheep. This is where I got the "anyone who disagrees with me" line. It's also an example of strawman usage.

Implying that people play Lemmings and follow one after the other without any real thought. People react to stimulus rather than think things through. It was a small point in a post with alot more substance too. Hardly calling anyone who disagrees with me a "government sheep". :roll:

How does someone not researching their own material make them a government sheep and how did I imply that? Are you familiar with what a strawman argument is? Familiarise yourself if you don't already know as you seem to employ the technique a lot and it's flawed. I was talking about personal liberties and Marijuana. Sorry if I didn't get your little in-road in the thread entitled Marijuana?. Funny that, eh?

If you read back, I am for legalization for marijuana but against heroin. Truenoob disagreed and said heroin should be legal too. I did read back. Your reply was in response to something I said though, not Truenoob, and I hadn't mentioned Heroin once in my post. You also implied I called you a "government sheep". Perhaps you should have read through your response before posting. Venomai put forward a proposal in his last post that I am in full agreement with: How much better would that be? The USE of any drug shouldn't be the issue. I use, I don't commit crimes to fund my "habit" (a buzz word used when discussing the topic of "drugs", it has negative connotations and is rarely relevant to the overall topic) and any effect it has on my health is entirely my business and nobody elses. If you're to believe the hype that marijuana is a "gateway drug" explain my own use for 6 + years - I don't have needle tracks, I work, I'm alert, intelligent and responsible. I hold a respectable job in a caring profession and I am in regular with contact with many other upstanding members of the community who toke more than all the Rastas in Babylon(!) combined and yet, aren't junkies! We are criminals and could be locked up for smoking a plant that has been smoked since the dawn of man? With regards to other drugs - providing that whatever it is they're using isn't the produce of slave/child labour and the person using hasn't infringed on another persons rights in order to obtain it - I see absolutely no problem in it. If you make it illegal you create a black market and in turn, crime. Your government would have you believe that the crime generated from drugs is due to the drug itself but this is illogical. These drugs have been around for thousands of years, if it were the drugs themselves drug related crime would have been around for centuries. If weed hadn't been made illegal, I could grow it in my back garden no problems. I wouldn't have to go out to the dodgy part of town putting myself in danger to waste my money on a tiny bit of skunk that is laced with god-knows-what. People need education and enlightenment. They need guidance and support. They do not need heavy handed governments passing moral judgements on their populaces, all the while pillaging third world countries of their liberties and resources through global economic monopolies. People will never stop using drugs and as long as they don't harm anybody else should never stop, IMO. How does a collection of Acts and Statutes (read the definition of an act or statute, they apply to corporations ONLY and are voluntary) take away our natural born right to freedom? Why do people settle for the rights they are presented with rather than the rights they are naturally entitled to? Freedom? Natural Born Rights? YOU CLUCKING WISH.

Who said anything about Heroin? I certainly didn't. Did I call you a government sheep? lol

I completely agree. I think the problem is education. People espouse these silly ideals regarding society and the governments right to impose its will upon us for the apparent 'good of all' but I think this is a symptom of the complete lack of any REAL education nowadays. I for one was never taught about the history that mattered, the Magna Carta, the rule of Law etc. I was only ever taught fluff topics like the Ancient Egyptians/Greeks and a bit on the Tudors and Stuarts. Whilst these were interesting topics I've begun to wonder as I've grown up why my state-run education lacked anything of real worth, sure I learnt how to add, multiply and construct half-decent sentences but the words "Liberty" and "Protect your personal freedoms" never really came up in any form. Given the history of the world to date, shouldn't these be the important issues? I look at the sort of stuff my little cousins are bringing home from school nowadays on sex, drugs etc and I can't believe it. I truely feel that the school systems, along with the media and other institutions serve as propaganda outlets, seeking to indoctrinate the youth of today to a way of thinking that is more easy to control. The sheer dumb ignorance in this post has been astounding and IMO is a direct result of the state taking over education with a sprinkling of media driven naivety. Education is no longer something used for the enlightenment of the species but a way to indoctrinate a nation and prepare you for a life of servitude to a system that keeps you and everyone else perpetually in debt. My advice to many of the sheeple in this thread would be to actually do your own research on the subject. Stop repeating the drivel of those who would gain by imposing more laws on you, giving them more ways to criminalise you for behaviours or acts that harm nobody and for which there is no complaint. Find independent researchers who bare no allegiance to anyone/thing but good unbiased data and above all, turn your television off. Start thinking for yourselves and let others do the same. Your will is your own, not mine.

I think the real issue here is high maintenance friends. I've told most people on my list to STFU on numerous occasions. I also routinely ignore PMs when I'm busy/stoned/both. They're all still my friends and I've never had any problems. Real life or online. Get new friends or get them interested in aromatherapy - I've heard it's great for relaxation! :P

Pardon me? The government dictates your rights to you. The government says you don't take a potentially harmful drug, then you don't take a potentially harmful drug. However, I am against the legality of cigarettes, and although it is childish, I've always been of the opinion that if smoking is legal, then cannabis should be legal as well. @ Above poster: Tobacco is a "freakin' plant" too. It would help if you read my response before replying. 'Rights' should be inalienable. I understand they're supposed to be in the US, things are a little more complicated over here in England (with our no referendum entry into the EU etc). My point was simply that I am an adult. If I choose to smoke something that may or may not be hazardous to my health, providing that I'm not harming anyone else, why does the government have the right to prohibit me from doing so? Governments should protect and serve the publics rights. Not police the fine detail of our lives. Of course you're welcome and have the right to your opinion, just as I have the right (atleast for now) to laugh at your ignorance and wave goodbye to you as you contnue on your life of servitude to an ever increasingly '1984-esque' establishment. Our governments were meant to serve and protect, not to rule over us. We are supposed to be "free", aren't we?