Who would openly defy or refuse to enforce


PDA






Joejojoba111
August 9, 2005, 02:47 AM
An obviously unjust law. Suppose for instance, the quite realistic possibility that vitamin supplements become regulated products, would the majority still be OK with this, or would there be widespread non-compliance?

Just a what if, because vitamins have been a source for conspiratorial cash-grabs before. (European oligarchs severely fined when finally busted price fixing)

If you enjoyed reading about "Who would openly defy or refuse to enforce" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
stevelyn
August 9, 2005, 04:36 AM
You'd never see me enforcing something so stupid. I take vitamin sups myself, so I would also be in the open defiance catagory too.

MudPuppy
August 9, 2005, 10:23 AM
"An obviously unjust law"

You mean like any one of the infringements on the 2nd ('86 restriction and the 10 years of AWB)? That'd be pretty much all of us.

I mean, I like my guns and vitamins too, but I have a nice job, house, and family--not worth going to jail over. I mean, sure Patrick Henry thought differently, but he didn't have a car with a leather interior and a TV in it. :neener:

It also depends on how quickly you turn up the heat on us frogs--little bit at a time and we'll sit here quietly.

roo_ster
August 9, 2005, 10:31 AM
Serveal supplements that I used to use have been/are being outlawed:
androstenedione
ephedrine
pseudo-ephedine

For some reason, I don't retroactively feel like a bad person for using & recommending products containing them, now that the drug warriors deem them a threat to humanity.

Kurush
August 9, 2005, 10:35 AM
Dietary supplements should be regulated, the crap Congress lets them get away with in false advertising is atrocious. The new tactic the last year or so for the "dietary supplements", for example Enzyte, is to put their ads in the format that's required for regular drugs, to fool people into thinking that they're under the same regulations, then they fraudulently (with Congress's blessing) claim no side effects. Old people who don't know any better go to the store thinking they're buying some kind of over the counter viagra and they're actually getting a stew of plant chemicals with untested effects.

Werewolf
August 9, 2005, 10:43 AM
Civil Disobedience comes into play when there are lots and lots of unjust laws. It is kind of a case of the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

If you're talking just one unjust law with fairly severe penalties then IMO most folks will just go along. OTOH a bunch of unjust laws will eventually reach critical mass and folks will stop obeying them.

A lot has to do with the severity of the penalty too. Everyone does a basic cost/benefit analysis - consciously or unconsciously - every time they make a choice. Once the perceived benefit of breaking a law is greater than the cost then - voila. EXAMPLE - prohibition - otherwise law abiding Americans thought nothing of patronizing speak easies and buying black market liquor. A more contemporary example is the growing black market for cigarettes. One could even make the argument that drug use is a massive example of civil disobedience as opposed to the government wanting everyone to consider it criminal activity.

Old Dog
August 9, 2005, 11:31 AM
I think this would be more of a non-cooperation thing vice civil disobedience ...

I sure don't believe that a rational person could ever consider drug abuse as "civil disobedience." Most would define civil disobedience as openly disobeying unjust laws. As Dr. King said, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with moral law…One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty.” This sure doesn't describe the drug culture in this country.

MICHAEL T
August 9, 2005, 11:44 AM
Well people smoke pot every day and have been for years. They feel those laws are unjust.

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2005, 11:52 AM
What needs to be regulated are the drug companies and their incessant adverstising. People see all this stuff (with side effects worse than the original condition, I might add) then pressure doctors to prescribe it. In the meantime the doctors are pressured and probably bribed by the drug companies to write the prescriptions. The whole system stinks.

On the topic, where there is a need it will be filled. If people can't get dietary supplements through the normal channels, alternative sources will appear.

Sam Adams
August 9, 2005, 11:56 AM
I, like Sammy Hagar, can't drive 55. The continued enforcement of that law, after the reason for it coming into existence had passed into history, was the act that started me on the road to being very suspicious of any government and the intentions of those writing and interpreting the rules (and I'm not too fond of those enforcing such laws, either, but I do respect the vast majority of police officers). Prior to that, I had been of the opinion that anything the government did was pretty much OK or even good. What a rude awakening, to find that I had just gotten old enough to drive Dad's '69 GTO, and the damned safety Nazis were enforcing their idea of paradise on the entire nation on threat of the withdrawal of highway funds. Talk about heavy-handed! And then the "fuel crisis" of the late 70's passed and gasoline was once again plentiful and cheap, and STILL 55 was "the law." Of course, the availability of gasoline was no longer the stated reason...then it became our safety (as if I wanted to end up as a red stain on some highway). Well, Barbara Streisand on that! You mean that roads capable of safely conducting millions of cars with 1950's technology across the country at 70-80 mph couldn't handle cars of the 1970's safely, with their better brakes, tires and handling systems? Barbara Streisand! I swear, I violated every single speed limit that I was subject to, every single day - and I pretty much still do. It is called voting with your right foot.

My second foray into non-violent resistance to inane laws was the purchase of dozens of 20- and 30-round magazines while I lived in NJ after the outright ban on ownership of those greater than 15 rounds - and unlike mere speeding, this could've gotten me decades in jail. I didn't care - I just didn't see how owning a stamped-metal box with a spring in it could put me on the level of an arsonist or a rapist...what would I have done with a magazine, thrown it at someone?

I have, and will continue to, violate any other law that I think, after fair and reasoned consideration, it a hare-brained idea cooked up by some numb-nuts, state-worshipping socialist. I have a general respect for the law, but the more idiotic, illegal or completely unjust laws are passed, the less respect I'll have for the rest of the laws on the books. I never have, don't, and never will "do" currently illegal drugs, but I think that the War on (Some) Drugs is not only unbelieveably foolish, but it encourages disrespect for the law, has led to the emplacement draconian laws which have had serious consequences on our freedom (try walking through a metal detector with over $10,000 in cash, and you'll find out), has led to the corruption of many in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, and has substantially enhanced the power of various drug gangs. I'd repeal almost all of those laws immediately.

Outlaws are generally made, not born. I know this to be the case, since my own "law-abiding" grandparents had a still during prohibition - if THEY could flout the law like that, it must've been extraordinarily moronic, even for the government. I've been turned from a "law and order at all costs" type into a very cynical, sometimes law-breaking, anti-government skeptic - by the galloping hoards of moronic statists in government. Thank you for opening my eyes.

TallPine
August 9, 2005, 11:59 AM
Well, I briefly considered applying to join the local sherriff's reserve, but decided not because of the possibility of being called on to enforce drug possession laws, etc...

Probably doesn't matter because I am getting too old for that poop now anyway - but I can't be the only one sitting on the bench for that reason.

I really think a volunteer "security" force (like a VFD) would be useful in a rural area such as where I live - but only to be called out to assist residents in trouble, NOT to serve warrants, etc.

As far as the "non-compliance" - do you really think it is a good idea to state such activities or intentions on a public forum :confused:

(I plead 5A ;) )

Sam Adams
August 9, 2005, 12:07 PM
Well, I briefly considered applying to join the local sherriff's reserve, but decided not because of the possibility of being called on to enforce drug possession laws, etc...

In light of this, I am SOOOO glad that the FBI took their sweet time with my application, so that I had to find another job to pay the bills.

As far as the "non-compliance" - do you really think it is a good idea to state such activities or intentions on a public forum

Regarding my speeding at the time of the 55 MPH limit - the statute of limitations has long since expired. As for owning lots of "high capacity" mags in NJ, I would love to see NJ try to enforce that against someone who has been living in Texas for the last 5 years. As to intentions...hey, I like to talk big. It proves nothing. BTW, the more people that indicate similar intentions, the less likely it is that assinine laws will get passed.

Joejojoba111
August 9, 2005, 06:14 PM
Interesting stuff, I'm glad many people think alike. So many people I see are AOK with anything being restricted and regulated.

http://www.vitamin-supplement-info.net/multi_vitamins.html
"In October of 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA).
The DSHEA was written to help empower American consumers to make choices about their own preventative healthcare strategies, and hopefully this would reduce the country's health care expenses.
Under the DSHEA it was decided that nutritional supplements would continue to be regulated as a food product rather than the more restrictive regulations that drugs fall under"

"It was't until March of 2003, nine years after the DSHEA became law, that the FDA proposed new regulations to require current good manufacturing practices (CGMPs) in the manufacturing, packing, and holding of multi vitamin and dietary supplements."


I guess I might have mis-heard the conversation on the radio, because I thought they were debating making vitamins restricted items like pharmaceuticals. But I absolutey know that pharmaceutical companies would love to gouge people on vitamins, especially since the baby boomers are going to be buying so much. So while I respect the concept that some vitamins might be low-quality, I think that might be what happens in capitalism.

Here's what drug companies do, in reality:"New York Times
May 21, 1999

U.S. Outlines How Makers of Vitamins Fixed Global Prices
By STEPHEN LABATON and DAVID BARBOZA


WASHINGTON -- Every year around August or September, the senior executives from the world's largest producers of vitamins would gather clandestinely for a few days at a European hotel or an executive's home for what some called the "top-notch meeting" and others the "summit conference" to plan "the budget for Vitamin Inc.," Federal prosecutors said Thursday.

They said the meetings set production quotas, prices and distribution for vitamin ingredients that were used to enrich products in every refrigerator and kitchen cabinet in America, from morning supplemental pills to enriched milk and orange juice, fortified breakfast cereals, breads, butters and meats. The global market for such vitamins as A, B2 (riboflavin), B5, C, E and Beta Carotene would be divided among the participants to the half-percentage point.

A few months later, according to the prosecutors, the budget would be reviewed by midlevel executives to make sure everything was working as planned, or it would be adjusted to reflect corporate profits and worldwide demand."
http://www.wright.edu/~tdung/vitamin.htm

Alex45ACP
August 9, 2005, 06:26 PM
I don't recognize that laws prohibiting "victimless crimes" apply to me.

DRZinn
August 11, 2005, 01:51 PM
One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty.That's nothing more than willingly making yourself a sacrificial lamb, an "example" to keep the rest of the peons in line. The proper thing to do when confronted with an unjust law is to simply ignore it, go on with your business, and if the occasion arises that you have reason to do the prohibited thing, do it. Then fight with everything you have.

Well, I briefly considered applying to join the local sherriff's reserve, but decided not because of the possibility of being called on to enforce drug possession laws, etc...

Probably doesn't matter because I am getting too old for that poop now anyway - but I can't be the only one sitting on the bench for that reason.You're not. I considered going into law enforcement myself, not reserve but full time. I decided against it for the same reason you did. Note to others: it's not just the drug laws, stupid, it's ALL the unjust laws.

TallPine
August 11, 2005, 03:23 PM
Sam Adams: I think our posts must have "crossed in the mail" because I wasn't referring to anything you said, but the original question instead. :)

(now, be a good boy and go turn yourself in.... :p :D )

Doc Zinn: thank you for confirming my guess about those who are not becoming LEOs ... and that leads me to the conclusion to suspect those that are willing to blindly enforce the almighty state's edicts (is there even much difference anymore between legislated edicts and "king's" edicts).

I know that a :cuss: federal prosecuter was campaigning against MT's proposed medical marijuana ballot issue last year - on the basis that "it is against federal law so therefore it is baaaaad and should be against state law as well" :banghead: Personally, I was infuriated because of the fed's interference in a state issue, at fed govt expense, I presume :uhoh: Talk about a violation of campaign finance ethics.... :barf:

The measure still passed in MT - not that it makes any difference... the king can still throw you in his dungeon for it

cpileri
August 11, 2005, 03:42 PM
who will prescribe you your multi-vitamin etc.

Sympathetic docs exist! Not every doc tows the party line: on vitamins or guns!

C-

Sam Adams
August 11, 2005, 03:59 PM
Tallpine "Sam Adams: I think our posts must have "crossed in the mail" because I wasn't referring to anything you said, but the original question instead." No offence taken; I was just pointing out, in slightly more elegant language, that I didn't give a rat's posterior about getting into trouble for doing something that didn't bother anyone else...which, after all, is the problem with all laws which prohibit or regulate victimless crimes.

BTW, I much admired Montana for giving the feds the finger with a seldom-enforced "energy usage fee" for those driving between 55 & 70 in the day of the safety nazis. I remember reading that most Montana state troopers didn't even look up from their donuts unless you were doing over 80...my kind of state.

Nick1911
August 11, 2005, 04:37 PM
This (http://www.madogre.com/Political%20Items/Declaration_of_civil_disobedience.htm), even though directed toward guns, describes my general views on victimless laws.

Baba Louie
August 11, 2005, 05:10 PM
This nation was founded by men who had zero or little tolerance for unjust laws and did not trust those with power so much that they actually limited the new government's authority.

The common man, who knows history and can think for himself now and then, remembers.

Those elected to office, however, seem to consistently suffer the old adage "Those who cannot remember history..." whilst making a whole bunch of new outlaws from people who just want to exercise their freedoms.

The concept of Liberty and Freedom those founding fathers wanted so and actually set up? It was, of course, for their children. :D

wingnutx
August 11, 2005, 05:39 PM
Ephedra is legal again, btw. The ban was overturned in court a few months ago.

I have since stocked up, since it probably won't last forever :evil:

roo_ster
August 11, 2005, 06:53 PM
Having to go to the doctor for a vitamin Rx is the WRONG EFFING ANSWER.

Unless, of course, the gov't is willing to reimburse me for my time & doctor bills.

There are always going to be snake oil salesmen and there are always going to be those that ain't that bright. Dumbing down society to suit the feebs is also the wrong answer.

If you enjoyed reading about "Who would openly defy or refuse to enforce" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!