what u talkin bout rights?

[DNAprotection]

as in what kind of rights do u have?
'human rights'...what are they and do u really have them?
u supposedly have 'constitutional rights'...these may or may not be considered 'human rights'...some would say that the constitution exists in part to limit government from over burdening or extinguishing such self evident rights etc...

u supposedly have 'civil rights'...also these may or may not be considered 'human rights'...

in any case though, your constitution does not recognize by wording the term 'human rights' and imo those 'human rights' are neatly tied up and closed into a box we call the 9th amendment, but your corpsgov sees this amendment as a sort of pandora's box that is beyond the direct reach of any plaintiff in any attempt to apply it directly to a cause of action, in other words reaching for 'human rights'...

example: possessing seeds and growing plants for your own use in your effort to take care of your own needs etc...(outside of commerce)
out of time now or i would better explain, hopefully what im trying to say is more self evident than it looks in my wording lol...

 

[NoDrama]

There are no such thing as "Constitutional" rights. A piece of paper cannot convey rights and the constitution doesn't even try, what the Connie does is limit government ( supposedly) from interfering with your rights. If you notice the constitution never says what you can do, it only says what government can and cannot do and leaves everything else up to the states and the people.

 

[DNAprotection]

There are no such thing as "Constitutional" rights. A piece of paper cannot convey rights and the constitution doesn't even try, what the Connie does is limit government ( supposedly) from interfering with your rights. If you notice the constitution never says what you can do, it only says what government can and cannot do and leaves everything else up to the states and the people.

thats exactly how i see it as well (as i hinted to above), prob is applying this in court...its only really accurate if it practically applies in court etc...
have u ever been a plaintiff in a 'human rights' case against the corpsgov?
i can tell u from my experiences that the way u and i understand this basic fundamental is easier said then done when applying to a cause of action in this area of law...

 

[NoDrama]

thats exactly how i see it as well (as i hinted to above), prob is applying this in court...its only really accurate if it practically applies in court etc...
have u ever been a plaintiff in a 'human rights' case against the corpsgov?
i can tell u from my experiences that the way u and i understand this basic fundamental is easier said then done when applying to a cause of action in this area of law...

Yeah, the admiralty courts don't play by the same rules.

 

[see4]

I have the right to do what the fuck I want, when I want, where I want. Laws are there to make sure I don't fuck up someone's day.

 

[DNAprotection]

I have the right to do what the fuck I want, when I want, where I want. Laws are there to make sure I don't fuck up someone's day.

my whole heart agree's with your brave heart!
prob is though u are prolly violating someones 'good day' standards if u even fart

 

[DNAprotection]

Yeah, the admiralty courts don't play by the same rules.

"example: possessing seeds and growing plants for your own use in your effort to take care of your own needs etc...(outside of commerce)"

clearly the example above is a human rights issue, yet not even your 'pro cannabis' groups ie norml, mpp. dpa etc react to it as such, its simply not how they choose to discuss or approach the issue and no doubt thats pretty handy for the corpsgov and their courts...

 

[see4]

So my comment above is something I feel strong about, but can easily be turned into a straw man or a slippery slope argument. so an example would be; driving a beat up old junker. I can do it sure. But if the thing is pissing out toxic exhaust fumes, I am affecting more than just myself, thus the EPA has put regulations around that and has forced states to mandate mandatory minimum standard emissions. Cigarettes would be another example. Hunting laws another. The list goes on and on.

See, without these regulations in place, people, knowingly or unknowingly would abuse the "system", we would be living in an animal extinct, exhaust fumed, nicotine smoking world. Yea, it can be done, but do we really want that?

Same holds true for oil & gas and public health.

But just because you personally don't see the upside to having these things regulated doesn't mean it shouldn't be. That would be very selfish and narrow minded, ignorant if you will.

 

[DNAprotection]

So my comment above is something I feel strong about, but can easily be turned into a straw man or a slippery slope argument. so an example would be; driving a beat up old junker. I can do it sure. But if the thing is pissing out toxic exhaust fumes, I am affecting more than just myself, thus the EPA has put regulations around that and has forced states to mandate mandatory minimum standard emissions. Cigarettes would be another example. Hunting laws another. The list goes on and on.

See, without these regulations in place, people, knowingly or unknowingly would abuse the "system", we would be living in an animal extinct, exhaust fumed, nicotine smoking world. Yea, it can be done, but do we really want that?

Same holds true for oil & gas and public health.

But just because you personally don't see the upside to having these things regulated doesn't mean it shouldn't be. That would be very selfish and narrow minded, ignorant if you will.

agreed!

i think it might be a helpful thing to us all though to examine areas where the corpsgov may be over stepping its constitutional 'authority' or 'limitations' and intruding on or overburdening our 'human rights' and the best example i can think of is as i have stated:

"example: possessing seeds and growing plants for your own use in your effort to take care of your own needs etc...(outside of commerce)"

clearly the example above is a human rights issue, yet not even your 'pro cannabis' groups ie norml, mpp. dpa etc react to it as such, its simply not how they choose to discuss or approach the issue and no doubt thats pretty handy for the corpsgov and their courts...

 

[Rob Roy]

Apologies for such a long post, but this might be a part of any discussion on rights and how to honor them...

If you arent a libertarian, chances are that you have never heard of the non-aggression principle (also referred to as the non-aggression axiom). Most libertarians base their views about morality and the role of government around the non-aggression principle.The non-aggression principle is the idea that no matter how disgusting, immoral, or improper you believe an act to be, you have no right to use force to stop someone from committing that act, unless that act itself involves the initiation of force against another person (or person’s property).The principle is simple and straight forward; it is wrong to initiate force against another person or group of people. This is by no means a passive or pacifist doctrine; it is absolutely permissible to use force in response to force, in order to protect or defend one’s person or property, to enforce a contract, or punish someone for failure to adhere to the terms of a contract.However, it is not permissible to use force to attack your neighbor, steal another person’s property, or stop someone from using their justly acquired property in a manner that does not aggress upon another individual.The non-aggression principle has been stated and restated from ancient times to John Locke ["Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions"] to Ben Harper ["My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm, it shouldnt bother you. Your choice is who you choose to be and if you're causing no harm, then youre all right with me"].By applying the non-aggression principle to all aspects of life, a just and coherent philosophy of non-interventionism becomes clear: if no one is being harmed besides those people voluntarily engaged in the act, leave it alone. It is that simple. You dont have to like or respect or engage in prostitution, homosexual relations, religion, or the use of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc, but you do not have the right to stop any adult from engaging in any of these acts.The non-aggression principle is a very important part of the natural rights philosophy.Every person is the owner of their own body and has the right to do with their body as the see fit. People can also acquire property by using one of three different methods: homesteading, voluntary exchange, and theft. Homesteading involves taking unowned resources and improving them, while voluntary exchange involves the unforced transfer of resources from a person (or persons) to another person (or persons). Both of these two methods are fully consistent with the non-aggression principle–by definition, neither homesteading or voluntary exchange involves the initiation of force.When the non-aggression principle is violated, property is acquired in the third method: theft. Physical acts of violence or threats of violence against others are violations of a person’s right to self ownership.Even if one rejects the doctrine of natural rights in favor of a utilitarian (ie, the common good) view, the non-aggression principle is still important.Man is a social animal. For the most part, we seek to engage in activities which promote the social benefit. Activities which violate the non-aggression principle tend to disrupt the peace by inviting violent retaliation. For example, if I kill or harm a member of your family (or attempt to do so), you are likely to respond by seeking revenge on me. These types of feuds can spiral out of control and disrupt the peaceful cooperation on which society depends. The best way to keep the peace that is essential to the existence of society, is to adhere to the non-aggression principle.Thus, whether you subscribe to natural rights theories or whether you support some sort of utilitarian view, it is in the best interests of both individuals and society that people adhere to the non-aggression principle.As we have seen, violations of the non-aggression principle which are committed by individuals can disrupt the peace. However, violations of the non-aggression principle committed by the government are infinitely more eggregious. This is because the government grants itself the power to do things that no individual could ever be permitted to do.Only the government (or those under the protection of the government) can confiscate money from people without their permission and give it to other people and call it “public policy.” Government redistribution of wealth and granting of special privileges is aggression because it prevents people from using their own property in a peaceful manner of their choosing.Only the government can commit mass murder against civilians and call it a “defensive war.” A bombing campaign in a densely populated civilian area which results in civilian deaths is murder; it doesnt matter if the bombing was done by a rogue terrorist or by an Air Force member acting under order from the President. Murder is murder. It doesnt matter who does it.Only the government can throw human beings in cages which are kept in horrible conditions for the “crime” of recreationally smoking a plant in their own home. Smoking marijuana on your couch does not violate the non-aggression principle; raiding someone’s house and confiscating their marijuana does.It is essentially impossible for government to act without violating the non-aggression principle. This is because mandatory taxation is coercion, theft, and extortion. All of these acts violate the non-aggression principle. Taking people’s money without their permission is theft. Any business regulation, permit requirement, governmental zoning restriction, anti-drug law, restriction of consensual acts deemed to be “immoral,” etc. are violations of the non-aggression principle because they prevent people from using their justly acquired resources in a peaceful manner of their choosing.Every government act involves a violation of the non-aggression principle. For, even when government is acting to stop one person from aggressing against another, it is doing so using resources that have been obtained via theft. When you violate the non-aggression principle, your actions may be devastating and cause harm, but they are limited by the amount of damage that one person can cause with whatever resources that you have available to use. However, when the government violates the non-aggression principle, it does so with other people’s money subject only to how much damage it can inflict before enough people get angry enough to either withdraw support or threaten revolution. It also does so under the guise of legality. But intelligent people know that an unjust law is no law at all.Thus, the only way for government to act without aggressing on the rights of its citizens by violating the non-aggression principle would be for the government to set the exact policies that each individual would choose on their own and rely on truly voluntary donations to do so. In other words, the government’s best option is to do nothing at all.In the words of the French economist, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot:

“The policy to pursue, therefore, is to follow the course of nature, without pretending to direct it. For, in order to direct trade and commerce it would be necessary to be able to have knowledge of all of the variations of needs, interests, and human industry in such detail as is physically impossible to obtain even by the most able, active, and circumstantial government. And even if a government did possess such a multitude of detailed knowledge, the result would be to let things go precisely as they do of themselves, by the sole action of the interests of men prompted by free competition.”​

This isnt just the stuff of libertarian philosophers. The rapper Lil’ Jon famously uttered the phrase “Don’t start no shit, it won’t be no shit!”This concept is remarkably simple: do not initiate the use of force against another person. Respect their right to engage in peaceful activities on their own property in any manner that they see fit.Americanly Yours,Phred Barnet

 

[Rob Roy]

Sorry about no paragraph breaks in my previous post, tried to edit, but there seems to be a malfunction. More coffee and weed may help.

 

[farmasensist]

Laws against growing are a violation of freedom of religion. The way I look at it is the court makes you swear on the bible. The very first page of that bible says god made herb and it was good. Then it says he gave man all the seed bearing plants. If I ever get in trouble, I think I can convince a jury of this.

 

[Rob Roy]

Laws against growing are a violation of freedom of religion. The way I look at it is the court makes you swear on the bible. The very first page of that bible says god made herb and it was good. Then it says he gave man all the seed bearing plants. If I ever get in trouble, I think I can convince a jury of this.

You might. Although I think the swearing on a bible thing is out of style now.

If you haven't already you might want to research "jury nullification". There is alot of good info out there. Peace.

 

[DNAprotection]

Sorry about no paragraph breaks in my previous post, tried to edit, but there seems to be a malfunction. More coffee and weed may help.

no worries some good mojo up in there Rob Roy!
thanks

 

[DNAprotection]

Laws against growing are a violation of freedom of religion. The way I look at it is the court makes you swear on the bible. The very first page of that bible says god made herb and it was good. Then it says he gave man all the seed bearing plants. If I ever get in trouble, I think I can convince a jury of this.

you might also explore this case...it was quite unique and might help in many ways

http://www.hemphasis.net/kiczenski/kiczenski_files/060613k_appealbrief.htm

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02305

 

[Rob Roy]

So my comment above is something I feel strong about, but can easily be turned into a straw man or a slippery slope argument. so an example would be; driving a beat up old junker. I can do it sure. But if the thing is pissing out toxic exhaust fumes, I am affecting more than just myself, thus the EPA has put regulations around that and has forced states to mandate mandatory minimum standard emissions. Cigarettes would be another example. Hunting laws another. The list goes on and on.

See, without these regulations in place, people, knowingly or unknowingly would abuse the "system", we would be living in an animal extinct, exhaust fumed, nicotine smoking world. Yea, it can be done, but do we really want that?

Same holds true for oil & gas and public health.

But just because you personally don't see the upside to having these things regulated doesn't mean it shouldn't be. That would be very selfish and narrow minded, ignorant if you will.

Regularity is good. I would flush most regulations along with the bureacrats that dream them up. Abusing an abusive system is a natural reaction. Discard the system and make individuals responsible for the harm they cause. If there is no demonstrable harm to another, then we should mind our own business.

In your case you could occupy an entire day trying to find your bulbous protrusion and not harm anybody. On second thought...You don't have cat do you ?

 

[DNAprotection]

You might. Although I think the swearing on a bible thing is out of style now.

If you haven't already you might want to research "jury nullification". There is alot of good info out there. Peace.

i represented myself once in such a case and was 'successful' in that the jury did acquit even after the admission of planting 20,000 or so seeds, and from my experience i learned many things, one of the very most important being ALWAYS be a PLAINTIFF and never be a DEFENDANT if at all possible because the rules of criminal v civil court are very different in many ways...
example:
your 'religion' might be ruled irrelevant (irreverent lol) and inadmissible in a criminal case, while at the same time would be most relevant in a civil case etc...

 

[farmasensist]

you might also explore this case...it was quite unique and might help in many ways

http://www.hemphasis.net/kiczenski/kiczenski_files/060613k_appealbrief.htm

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02305

I've never really read the bible past that first page, but some of the quotes in that first link back up my dillusion that it's not only a religious right but duty to keep the plant from extinction. I think im going to start breeding like crazy so I can guerilla seed every park in the county this summer and let nature take care of the rest.

 

[see4]

Regularity is good. I would flush most regulations along with the bureacrats that dream them up. Abusing an abusive system is a natural reaction. Discard the system and make individuals responsible for the harm they cause. If there is no demonstrable harm to another, then we should mind our own business.

In your case you could occupy an entire day trying to find your bulbous protrusion and not harm anybody. On second thought...You don't have cat do you ?

I think this is where I and many of you disagree. I don't think the best plan is to discard the entire system, rather focus on what is broken and fix it. And just because there is no demonstrable affect you can observe does not mean there is none. If that were the case, we'd all be smoking cigarettes in our offices and local Wal-Marts. But what we need to be careful of is government using that as an excuse to create laws that constrict. And I agree the government can and has done that.

 

[tokeprep]

Regularity is good. I would flush most regulations along with the bureacrats that dream them up. Abusing an abusive system is a natural reaction. Discard the system and make individuals responsible for the harm they cause. If there is no demonstrable harm to another, then we should mind our own business.

In your case you could occupy an entire day trying to find your bulbous protrusion and not harm anybody. On second thought...You don't have cat do you ?

How are you going to make individuals responsible for the harm they cause...?