Are your rights dependent on what I, as a taxpayer have to say? Really?

I listened to what former Atty General Gonzales had to say on the Geraldo Rivera program and once again was treated to the mindset of those who believe that ones access to their rights depends on what the cost is, monetarily to another citizen. Got that? Yeah I know, what does that mean right? Well the concept is that if the taxpayer in Maryland is going to have to pay for some cost incured by them being held responsible for the health and welfare of a person in California then they get to say what the person in California does. Sort of like a giant crowd of conjoined twins. If one happens to be a tea totaler and his conjoined brother happens to be given to having a drink occasionally? Should the one who drinks be allowed to indulge? Do you see something wrong with the concept? Well the analogy from where I stand is spot on but the concept when it comes to reference to a Nation is terribly flawed. You nor I are ever intended to be the conjoined twins of any other group of persons so that the decision as to whether one person or the other is allowed to enjoy their God Given rights is based on the effect it has on you when the reason for that effect is caused by an unnatural and wrong relationship. Of course another person is not empowered with the right to cause you harm by what they do if what they do is obviously wrong or depraved. But what about if that person over indulges in drink and becomes an alcoholic? What if they never do any harm to you out of intoxication? What if they just get sick and die? Okay you and I will not be able to stand by and let a person who is ill, be ill without some kind of aid from us. But should we be compelled to render such aid by the federal government and because of the cost incurred by that compulsion feel as though we should interfere with that persons right to control of their own life? What if they never become an alcoholic what if they consistently use alcohol responsibly. Then what? Should the fact that some ne'r do well does drink way to excess to the point that he becomes a useless drunk dictate what a responsible person does? How about marijuana? Yes that subject again. How about it?


Atty Gonzales contends that there are cosequences to the long term use of marijuana and because of the cost incured to other citizens by ones long term use of marijuana the plant should remain illegal and the federal government should interject itself into the rights of the states and the citizens and enforce its ban. I won't get into the "scientific" studies on marijuana except to say that yes if one does overuse it it does have ill effects. But the wrong use of aspirin can lead to Reyes syndrome and the wrong use of food can lead to obesity and death. But should aspirin be taken off the shelves and should Mayor Bloomberg get into the business of telling us what we can eat? Mayor of New York,Bloomberg is involved at present in outlawing anything over 16 oz, it is 16 ox isn't it, of sugary drinks. Well I'm a diabetic so whether the "Route 44" size of drink from Sonic is available in Topeka means nothing to me. I can't drink it anyway. I do however drink the BIG sized Diet Dr Pepper. And how long before someone finds a problem with over indulgence in the artificial sweetener in that? Then what? Does the Federal Government get into regulating Diet Dr. Pepper? What if I come home on Friday eve and my wife and dog and I get into the SUV and turn on the tunes and go cruise Topeka sipping on a "Route 44" Vanilla Diet Dr. Pepper? Should the DEA arrest us and prosecute us for drinking artificial sweetener? How about if I come home on Friday and drop a drop or two of hash oil into my Diet Dr. Pepper. No I'm not going driving. But at the rate I would be using it I would not become very intoxicated and there would be no long term effect. I'm not even going to get into the medical use of herbs including marijuana. Because of the lack of investigation of the federal government there is deemed to be no use, whether it has uses or not. The cause for alarm is not there. Not if one isn't becoming over intoxicated and trying to drive or spending their time intoxicated and robbing people. Which can occur even if a person is just plain lazy and wants to be taken care of. And of course the outlawing of anything that can possibly be misused to cause harm is not only insulting to the individual. Does the federal government really have more sense than you? Look at their economic abilities! Really! So, tell me if they outlaw magazines with capacities above 15 rounds in Colorado does that mean that no one can shoot anybody? Huh! So tell me if I want to carry a magazine of 30 rounds and the law says that I can only have a magazine of 15 rounds then what do I do. You've got it I just carry two magazines and swap out. If I want a 32 oz drink of pop and Nanny State says I can't buy one then I just buy two 16 oz drinks. If I want to smoke pot and the feds say no, well I have no feds here now, if I was a pot head I would just light up and not worry about it. A person can, and many do simply grow a plant or two by the back fence or in the hall closet. No I don't have closets and I grow tomatoes and peppers and the like not columbian gold so you can take a "chill pill" Officer Friendly. Just like people Bootleg booze into dry counties and brew moonshine in the woods folks will just extend the middle finger and grow their own.


The government has no right nor should it desire to become involved with the general health of its citizens beyond the encouragement to pursue a healthy life style. In fact when the government feels the need to protect us from our bad lifestyle choices it will also feel the need to control us and outlaw those choices that they deem bad for us. Kinda Like Sharia Law. Or like the alcohol prohibition we already tried and failed at.


When it comes to the idea of the government spending money the image of the Tv program "Border Wars" comes to mind. Those brave border guards and customs agents defending the border from well armed human and drug smugglers. Don't they already have enough to do to protect our borders from heroin and meth and cocaine and other seriously dengerous drugs without having to protect it from some weed? The market for that weed was created when our government decided to make pot illegal. Without going into the reasoning behind the outlawing of pot which I am told had much to do with the fact that it was used by Mexican migrant workers who were looked down upon along with their weed. The fact still remains that if those who had the desire to use pot could grow their own or obtain it from their neighbors it would not be very darn profitable to smuggle it north across our borders. Now would it? No the cartels would not collapse nor would the drug financed gang activity here dry up entirely. They would find another source of income. But the marijuana source would belong to the citizens of the USA legaly and not to the cartels and criminal gangs in the USA. The money spent to interdict the transport of a stupid weed could be used to stop the import of other drugs and humans. Just watch Colorado, if they do outlaw magazines with capacities above 15 rounds they will create a market for 20 and 30 round magazines and if I owned a gun shop in McKraken, Kanorado or Sharon Springs Kansas I would put extra 20 and 30 round mags on the shelves. Just like the counties neighboring the dry counties do a stiff trade in booze the trade in the illegal items for Colorado will increase. Are they going to try to enforce those dopey laws or are those laws going to be another round of do nothing feel good regulations designed to do nothing more than make criminals out of decent citizens?


America you really need to worry about the government that has no qualms about spending enough money to put your children and childrens children into debt, on worthless pursuits while trying to control you to the extent of passing law after law to control every aspect of your life from the number of bullets you have in your rifle to the size of the pop you can buy to whether or not you can smoke a joint or even a damn cigarette. The last government to worry about the diet of its citizens, other than starving them to death, and their smoking habits along with gun possesion was Nazi Germany. No kidding. Think about it. No I'm not kidding think about it! With the idea circulating among our DOJ officials that the cost incurred by the government for taking care of your health might be used to determine how you live your life legally along side of the Affordable care act "Obamacare", think of the possibilities!