My speech on proposed ordinance on synthetic drugs

[Michael Landon]

At my next council meeting we will be debating an ordinance on synthetic drugs so I wrote a speech I intend to give.

This is the first draft:

---------------------------------------------------------


I'm fairly certain that all of us agree that synthetic drug usage is harmful and has the potential to be fatal and I am also confident that every one of us would discourage people from using these drugs. To me, the discussion we are having and the reason I'm opposing this ordinance isn't the issue of synthetic drugs or the effects of using those drugs but rather, the discussion we should be having is the issue of Liberty.

In the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, it states: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

Liberty is once again mentioned in Section 1 of Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution when it states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Following the American War of Independence, the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 that officially recognized the United States as an independent nation. In that Treaty, Liberty is mentioned multiple times, in Articles 3, 5, 6, and 7.

In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln gave one of the most significant speeches in U.S. History, The Gettysburg Address. In this speech, President Lincoln begins, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

In 1892, Francis Bellamy wrote a short pledge as a simple statement of loyalty and in 1942, Congress formally adopted his pledge to the flag and nation, the Pledge of Allegiance. At the beginning of every Council meeting, we stand and recite this Pledge; "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

On August 28, 1963, in one of the most famous speeches of all time, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. states in his "I Have A Dream" speech, "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The issue I have with this ordinance is not one of synthetic drugs but liberty, the same liberty that I've just quoted from many sources of historical significance. So what exactly is Liberty? The definition of liberty states: " Freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. Freedom from external or foreign rule; independence. Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. Freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint."

Liberty.

We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

With that, we all have the liberty to come up with our own set of morals, beliefs, principles, thoughts and opinions but in the exercising of our liberty, we are not allowed to violate the liberties of others and force them to abide by our views. A vegetarian, who believes that eating meat is a horrific act, chooses to exercise his or her liberty and avoid the consuming of meat. This same vegetarian, can not, through legislation, violate the liberties of others and force the people who enjoy eating meat to no longer have the liberty to do just that. That also means that those who enjoy meat can not violate the liberty of the vegetarian by passing legislation mandating that they eat meat.

At this point, I'm sure some are questioning my analogy and thinking, "you can't possibly be comparing the act of eating vegetables or meat to that of using synthetic drugs?" I agree, the effects of vegetable consumption are far different from that of smoking synthetic marijuana, and I would never try to compare the two. While the objects in the analogy and in this ordinance, food and drugs, are different, the main issue is the same and that is Liberty. In both cases, one person or group are attempting to violate the liberty of another person or group and this is wrong.

There is no gray area in regards to liberty, liberty is a black or white issue. You either have liberty and freedom or you don't. I feel it would be extremely arrogant of us to think that we are somehow more intelligent, more mature and more capable of making your choices for you than you are. The government isn't here to run your life from cradle to grave and the notion that we, as elected officials, need to pass legislation to protect you from you, in my opinion is absurd. We all make choices for ourselves and with those choices come consequences. Sometimes those choices turn out okay but other times those choices don't work out, that's how it goes with liberty and freedom.

Every one of us up here, swore an oath to uphold the U.S Constitution and with that oath we are to defend the liberties of the citizens we were elected to represent. At the beginning of every Council meeting, we stand up and pledge our allegiance to the flag and with that, we pledge to defend "liberty and justice for all."

I ask that the Mayor and my fellow councilors stand with me in opposition to this ordinance. I ask that they stand by their oath to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of liberty it was written to protect. I ask that they stand by their pledge to the flag and the republic for which it stands and defend "Liberty and justice for all."

I know very well that the stance I'm taking, in opposition to this ordinance, may well have a negative effect on me. But I'm okay with that. I will always stand by my principles, the principles of freedom and liberty, not only for myself but for others and if standing by those principles causes harm to my reputation, than it's worth it because your liberty is more important.

---------------------------------------------------------

Any thoughts or suggestions?

- ML

[VoluntaryAmerican]

expect a good turnout to the meeting?

[Michael Landon]

expect a good turnout to the meeting?

No. It'll probably be just those of us on the council, the mayor, attorney, administrator, secretary, and perhaps one or two people in the audience. So I figure, somewhere between 8-10 people.

- ML

[CaseyJones]

go talk to all the smoke shops and gas station owners who sell the stuff, rally them to go to the meeting

[Origanalist]

What is the speech in relation to? What is the ordinance and what is synthetic marijuana?

[Michael Landon]

What is the speech in relation to? What is the ordinance and what is synthetic marijuana?

Our city council is proposing an ordinance to outlaw the use of synthetic drugs, similar to what a neighboring city has recently passed. Here is an article that describes that ordinance: http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com/news/local/Duluth-City-Council-Passes-Synthetic-Drug-Ordinances-210945381.html

- ML

[CaseyJones]

I have to say I am anti K2 and all the synthetics they are a product of the failed war on drugs

[KCIndy]

go talk to all the smoke shops and gas station owners who sell the stuff, rally them to go to the meeting

Great idea!

If you're facing a council meeting like those I've experienced, you'll be speaking to a group of people whose minds are already made up on the issue. Getting lots of folks there to support you and turn up the heat may be the only way to turn things around.

[ClydeCoulter]

ML, I think you should drop the last paragraph. Don't end on a negative (or less than confident in your position) note.

[Origanalist]

Our city council is proposing an ordinance to outlaw the use of synthetic drugs, similar to what a neighboring city has recently passed. Here is an article that describes that ordinance: http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com/news/local/Duluth-City-Council-Passes-Synthetic-Drug-Ordinances-210945381.html

- ML

Thanks.


Several councilors say these actions send a message that the city is doing something to address what they see as a major problem in downtown Duluth.
:rolleyes:

I'm in favor of local control, but I hope you win over.

[KCIndy]

What is the speech in relation to? What is the ordinance and what is synthetic marijuana?


Well, as to the last part of the question:

http://www.drugs.com/synthetic-marijuana.html

Synthetic marijuana is a designer drug in which herbs, incense or other leafy materials are sprayed with lab-synthesized liquid chemicals to mimic the effect of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in the naturally grown marijuana plant (cannabis sativa). Synthetic marijuana, also known by the name of “Spice” or “K2” first became available in the U.S. in 2008. It was frequently marketed as an incense in colorful three ounce pouches and labeled “not for human consumption”. Spice or K2 became increasingly popular with high school students and young adults because it was legally obtainable from convenience stores, smoke shops, and online - until July 2012 when a national ban was enacted against the sale of synthetic cannabinoids in the U.S.

As CaseyJones just mentioned, these are products (or blowback, or unintended consequences, take yer pick) of the insane "War on Drugs." By depriving the market of the much safer genuine marijuana, these artificial formulas began popping up to fill the demand. Basic market economics. But everything I've read and heard about the stuff sounds scary. I wouldn't touch it myself... BUT... I don't like the idea of the state mandating what I (or others) can or can't ingest.

[ClydeCoulter]

Oxycodone, hydrocodone, etc... are semisynthetic drugs.

[Michael Landon]

ML, I think you should drop the last paragraph. Don't end on a negative (or less than confident in your position) note.

Thanks.... that's why I posted it here before I give the speech. I want to make sure everything looks and sounds good. You're right about the last paragraph, it isn't really needed and I may drop it. I put it in for those who may be watching the meeting on public access television, not for my colleagues. But, you're right, at the point in which I state it, it makes it appear that I've already accepted defeat.

I appreciate all opinions on this, if anyone has a suggestion on something I should add, delete, edit or re-word, please let me know.

Thanks.

- ML

[Origanalist]

Oxycodone, hydrocodone, etc... are semisynthetic drugs.

Watch yourself mundane, those are STATE approved. :mad:

[KCIndy]

Oxycodone, hydrocodone, etc... are semisynthetic drugs.

Very true.

Not to derail the thread, but I've been prescribed both of those after different surgeries and neither of them did the slightest bit of good. Just made my head feel fuzzy. Maybe I have something quirky in my physiology, but I simply can't see how anyone could become addicted to them. As far as painkilling effect goes, they're not any better than a bottle of frickin' Tylenol.

[Origanalist]

Thanks.... that's why I posted it here before I give the speech. I want to make sure everything looks and sounds good. You're right about the last paragraph, it isn't really needed and I may drop it. I put it in for those who may be watching the meeting on public access television, not for my colleagues. But, you're right, at the point in which I state it, it makes it appear that I've already accepted defeat.

I appreciate all opinions on this, if anyone has a suggestion on something I should add, delete, edit or re-word, please let me know.

Thanks.

- ML

I certainly couldn't improve on it. I hope others will chime in that may be able to. + rep on the speech.

[AFPVet]

Naturally derived medications are vastly superior to synthetics.

[KEEF]

Very true.

Not to derail the thread, but I've been prescribed both of those after different surgeries and neither of them did the slightest bit of good. Just made my head feel fuzzy. Maybe I have something quirky in my physiology, but I simply can't see how anyone could become addicted to them. As far as painkilling effect goes, they're not any better than a bottle of frickin' Tylenol.
KC, here is my science rant for the night... then off to bed.

Those drugs might not work to well with you because some people have a genetic inability to metabolize certain opioids. This is for a variety of reasons, including genetic variants that control for the range of opioid receptors and subtle differences in the shape of the receptor-binders of opioids. These alterations play a part in influencing response to opioids in terms of efficacy and tolerability.
The metabolic variability can also be based on lack of certain enzymes, (the enxymes CYP3A4 and CYP2D6). The lack of either of these enzymes can alter or impair response to oxycodone. An estimated 5% to 10% of white people possess genetic variants of the CYP2D6 gene.

[EBounding]

I'm just a mere internet guy who hasn't been elected to anything other than a delegate, so just take this advice for whatever it's worth. Whatever you end up doing will be great. :)


I assume the ordinance is "for the children". So maybe your speech could take the position that the city council is attempting to replace the role of parents. For example:

"While we all would ban these synthetic drugs and other substances in our own homes, we have to realize that we are not the parents of the city. We are merely servants bound by the rules in the State and US Constitutions. While some citizens may see us as a parental authority figure, we simply are not. By passing this ordinance, we are essentially taking over the role of parents by using force to prevent poor decisions. I am not interested in replacing parents, I'm here to <insert platform here>"

Something like that. Would you be comfortable (or able) to propose a "sense of the council" resolution where you simply condemn synthetic drugs and their use in your town instead of an actual ordinance?

Hope this was helpful. I think it's really cool you're able to defend liberty even if just on the local level.

[donnay]

Naturally derived medications are vastly superior to synthetics.

+rep

[KCIndy]

Those drugs might not work to well with you because some people have a genetic inability to metabolize certain opioids. This is for a variety of reasons, including genetic variants that control for the range of opioid receptors and subtle differences in the shape of the receptor-binders of opioids. These alterations play a part in influencing response to opioids in terms of efficacy and tolerability.
The metabolic variability can also be based on lack of certain enzymes, (the enxymes CYP3A4 and CYP2D6). The lack of either of these enzymes can alter or impair response to oxycodone. An estimated 5% to 10% of white people possess genetic variants of the CYP2D6 gene.


Huh. I had no idea that was the case. Interesting. A lot of things make more sense now. Thanks for the info!

[kcchiefs6465]

I have to say I am anti K2 and all the synthetics they are a product of the failed war on drugs
Indeed. They are products of the drug war and much more harmful than their respective counterparts. The ending of the war on drugs would make K2 (synthetic marijuana, though I do hate that comparison) or bath salts obsolete.

All that said people have the right to make decisions for themselves, even if they be dumb or harmful ones. I like your speech Michael. Caseyjones had a good idea to try and rally people to come. It would be a shame if such a speech only fell on the ears of a few people. You might open their eyes to other aspects of government interference that they disagree with themselves, you may well plant seeds that will grow in time.

Hell that's how I woke up. I never much cared to pry into other people's business but hearing Dr. Paul's principled philosophy made sense. Much more so than trying to regulate morality etc.

[belian78]

Don't know if it's been stated, but shorten up the beginning and make sure you detail how there are already laws on the books to curb the effects of drug abuse, no need to hamper someone's liberty that isn't making others a victim due to their vice. A few examples of how important Liberty is to the foundations this country was built on is all that's needed, you don't want to get cut off for being longwinded. I like the middle part about the vegetarian, it definitely makes your point. Finish up with how you already have laws/ordinances to deal with the effects, no reason to stamp on a peaceful person's Liberty to gain moral high ground. Also as Casey pointed out above, the recent problem with synthetics is an effect of the WoD and it's failed policies.

Thanks for being in the trenches and doing the work for your community, truly, thank you.

[mczerone]

Brevity: It needs some.

Structure: Make your 1 key point early and often.

Alternatives: Give them other ways they can act to achieve their goals (you might have to articulate their goals for them).

I'd cut all the historical quotes on liberty. Maybe keep one in the body to help illustrate a point.

[Michael Landon]

In an attempt to shorten it a bit, I think I'm going to take out the third paragraph regarding the 14th Amendment.

I plan on deleting the last paragraph.

And I'm thinking about changing the text of the paragraph prior to the last one from "ASKING" the mayor and council to support their oaths and pledges to "DEMANDING" they support them.

I think I'll change it from this:
I ask that the Mayor and my fellow councilors stand with me in opposition to this ordinance. I ask that they stand by their oath to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of liberty it was written to protect. I ask that they stand by their pledge to the flag and the republic for which it stands and defend "Liberty and justice for all."

to this:
I expect the Mayor and my fellow councilors to stand with me in opposition to this ordinance. I expect them to stand by their oath to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of liberty it was written to protect. I expect them to stand by their pledge to the flag and the republic for which it stands and defend "Liberty and justice for all."

What do you think?

- ML

[tod evans]

I expect the Mayor and my fellow councilors to stand with me in opposition to this ordinance. I expect them to stand by their oath to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of liberty it was written to protect. I expect them to stand by their pledge to the flag and the republic for which it stands and defend "Liberty and justice for all."

What do you think?

Much better.

[donnay]

In an attempt to shorten it a bit, I think I'm going to take out the third paragraph regarding the 14th Amendment.

I plan on deleting the last paragraph.

And I'm thinking about changing the text of the paragraph prior to the last one from "ASKING" the mayor and council to support their oaths and pledges to "DEMANDING" they support them.

I think I'll change it from this:
I ask that the Mayor and my fellow councilors stand with me in opposition to this ordinance. I ask that they stand by their oath to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of liberty it was written to protect. I ask that they stand by their pledge to the flag and the republic for which it stands and defend "Liberty and justice for all."

to this:
I expect the Mayor and my fellow councilors to stand with me in opposition to this ordinance. I expect them to stand by their oath to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of liberty it was written to protect. I expect them to stand by their pledge to the flag and the republic for which it stands and defend "Liberty and justice for all."

What do you think?

- ML

Agreed it is much better. +rep

[kcchiefs6465]

Just to brainstorm some words that may have a better ring than 'expect'... not that expect isn't good, just that people can expect anything. I'm not sure if it conveys that message you are trying to send to them.

Encourage is more neutral, depending on who you are particularly talking to, or alliances you're trying to build, it comes off as less aggressive in my opinion. "I encourage you all to stand with me for the Constitution today" for example. It doesn't distance those you are speaking to. Perhaps it would be better with more neutral phrasing depending the personalities of people you are talking to? Subtle persuasion could be better. "I urge you, (speaking directly to the crowd) to stand with me in opposition..."

Implore is another word that could be seen as more neutral. I don't like it though. Doesn't have the same ring and could be seen as talking down to people or using unnecessarily heightened vocabulary.

Demand is one you mentioned and it would depend on the personalities of the people you are speaking to. Some people like a fiery speaker, if you could say it with a good emphasis and meaning behind the word, it could benefit the speech. "I demand that we adhere to the Constitution that we've all took an oath to uphold." End with a sincere and meaningful "Thank You." It would also depend how awake the people are. Demand has a strong ring to it especially with the added emphasis. If people take nothing else from your speech they will remember those words.

Now that I think about it I do like "ask." Perhaps "call for" has a more coalition sounding ringing though? "I call for you, all, to stand with the Constitution in your vote"

Just some ideas.

[tod evans]

I expect the Mayor and my fellow councilors to stand with me in opposition to this ordinance. I call for them to stand by their oath to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of liberty it was written to protect. I demand they stand by their pledge to the flag and the republic for which it stands and defend "Liberty and justice for all."

Like this KC?

[Michael Landon]

Just to brainstorm some words that may have a better ring than 'expect'... not that expect isn't good, just that people can expect anything. I'm not sure if it conveys that message you are trying to send to them.

Encourage is more neutral, depending on who you are particularly talking to, or alliances you're trying to build, it comes off as less aggressive in my opinion. "I encourage you all to stand with me for the Constitution today" for example. It doesn't distance those you are speaking to. Perhaps it would be better with more neutral phrasing depending the personalities of people you are talking to? Subtle persuasion could be better. "I urge you, (speaking directly to the crowd) to stand with me in opposition..."

Implore is another word that could be seen as more neutral. I don't like it though. Doesn't have the same ring and could be seen as talking down to people or using unnecessarily heightened vocabulary.

Demand is one you mentioned and it would depend on the personalities of the people you are speaking to. Some people like a fiery speaker, if you could say it with a good emphasis and meaning behind the word, it could benefit the speech. "I demand that we adhere to the Constitution that we've all took an oath to uphold." End with a sincere and meaningful "Thank You." It would also depend how awake the people are. Demand has a strong ring to it especially with the added emphasis. If people take nothing else from your speech they will remember those words.

Now that I think about it I do like "ask." Perhaps "call for" has a more coalition sounding ringing though? "I call for you, all, to stand with the Constitution in your vote"

Just some ideas.

I didn't really like using "expect" more than once and your post gave me some really good options I can use. Thanks.

I'm addressing the speech to my fellow councilors and mayor, all of whom, don't have the slightest notion of what liberty is. The council meetings hardly ever have anyone in attendance so I didn't draft it with the audience in mind.


- ML

[kcchiefs6465]

I didn't really like using "expect" more than once and your post gave me some really good options I can use. Thanks.

I'm addressing the speech to my fellow councilors and mayor, all of whom, don't have the slightest notion of what liberty is. The council meetings hardly ever have anyone in attendance so I didn't draft it with the audience in mind.


- ML
No problem. You know the audience and what would probably go over better with them. I hope I didn't come off as too critical. I really like your speech. It is fine no matter which way you choose to phrase it and I want to thank you for spreading the message one person at a time and being involved at the local level.

[69360]

My 2 cents. Personally I'd just vote against the ordinance and not give a big speech against it to save your political capital for more important issues.

[noneedtoaggress]

---------------------------------------------------------


I'm fairly certain that all of us agree that synthetic drug usage is harmful and has the potential to be fatal can be risky and potentially harmful and I am also confident that every one of us would discourage people from using these drugs. To me, the discussion we are having and the reason I'm opposing this ordinance isn't the issue of synthetic drugs or the effects of using those drugs but rather, the discussion we should be having is the issue over the principles of Liberty. Taking the opposite approach by attempting to use force of law to mitigate the risk of certain drug usage has resulted in the unintended consequence of these dangerous alternatives being created to meet the high demand for less dangerous prohibited drugs.

The consequences for giving up our liberty in order to mitigate risk through prohibitive force has resulted in more dangerous problems than the ones prohibition were meant to solve. I oppose this not because I feel that synthetic drugs don't bear risks, but because I believe that liberty provides the best solution to those risks, and more prohibition is neither valid in principle nor is it a path to successfully handling the issue of drug use. We need to take a more fundamental look at this situation where synthetic drugs have arisen as an alternative to prohibited drugs in high demand.

In the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, it states: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

Liberty is once again mentioned in Section 1 of Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution when it states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Following the American War of Independence, the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 that officially recognized the United States as an independent nation. In that Treaty, Liberty is mentioned multiple times, in Articles 3, 5, 6, and 7.

In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln gave one of the most significant speeches in U.S. History, The Gettysburg Address. In this speech, President Lincoln begins, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

In 1892, Francis Bellamy wrote a short pledge as a simple statement of loyalty and in 1942, Congress formally adopted his pledge to the flag and nation, the Pledge of Allegiance. At the beginning of every Council meeting, we stand and recite this Pledge; "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."


On August 28, 1963, in one of the most famous speeches of all time, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. states in his "I Have A Dream" speech, "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The issue I have with this ordinance is not one of meant as a promotion or support of synthetic drugs but of liberty. The same liberty that I've just quoted from many sources of historical significance was referred to in the Declaration. So what exactly is Liberty? The definition of liberty states: " Freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. Freedom from external or foreign rule; independence. Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. Freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint."

So what is Liberty? Liberty is the ability to exercise your rights as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. You have the right to risky pursuits, including putting your fortune in risky entrepreneurial pursuits, or your risking your body when you go skydiving, or your health when you eat junk food. Life is full of risk, and it's government's job to secure liberty rather than to attempt to prevent people from harming themselves. It's tool to prevent harm is to threaten with harm. This tool of forceful prohibition has shown time and time again to be a failure, and it's proven by the fact that we're even having this discussion about these alternatives to prohibited drugs. More prohibition is not the answer, more liberty is.

We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

With that, we all have the liberty to come up with our own set of morals, beliefs, principles, thoughts and opinions but in the exercising of our liberty, we are not allowed to violate the liberties of others and force them to abide by our views. A vegetarian, who believes that eating meat is a horrific act, chooses to exercise his or her liberty and avoid the consuming of meat. This same vegetarian, can not, through legislation, violate the liberties of others and force the people who enjoy eating meat to no longer have the liberty to do just that. That also means that those who enjoy meat can not violate the liberty of the vegetarian by passing legislation mandating that they eat meat.

At this point, I'm sure some are questioning my analogy and thinking, "you can't possibly be comparing the act of eating vegetables or meat to that of using synthetic drugs?" I agree, the effects of vegetable consumption are far different from that of smoking synthetic marijuana, and I would never try to compare the two. While the objects in the analogy and in this ordinance, food and drugs, are different, the main issue is the same and that is Liberty. In both cases, one person or group are attempting to violate the liberty of another person or group and this is wrong.

There is no gray area in regards to liberty, liberty is a black or white issue. Whether it comes to investments, eating meat, skydiving, or eating junk food you either have liberty and freedom or you don't. I feel it would be extremely arrogant of us to think that we are somehow more intelligent, more mature and more capable of making your choices for you than you are. deserve to, and are even capable of, controlling people's risky choices rather than focusing on preserving people's rights. The government isn't here to run your life from cradle to grave and the notion that we, as elected officials, need to pass legislation to protect you from you, in my opinion is absurd. We all make choices for ourselves and with those choices come consequences. Sometimes those choices turn out okay but other times those choices don't work out, that's how it goes with liberty and freedom.

Every one of us up here, swore an oath to uphold the U.S Constitution and with that oath we are to defend the liberties of the citizens we were elected to represent. At the beginning of every Council meeting, we stand up and pledge our allegiance to the flag and with that, we pledge to defend "liberty and justice for all."

I ask that the Mayor and my fellow councilors stand with me in opposition to this ordinance. I ask that they stand by their oath to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of liberty it was written to protect. I ask that they stand by their pledge to the flag and the republic for which it stands and defend "Liberty and justice for all."

I know very well that the stance I'm taking, in opposition to this ordinance, may well have a negative effect on me. But I'm okay with that, because I'd prefer to exercise my liberty to risk my reputation in the pursuit of truth and justice than to let stigmas prevent me from visiting at this topic from a more fundamental perspective and examining the principles. I will always stand by my principles, the principles of freedom and liberty, not only for myself but for others and if standing by those principles causes harm to my reputation, than it's worth it because your liberty is more important because the opposite results in the abuse of something far more dangerous than synthetic drugs and leads to unintended consequences with even more dangerous problems than the original issues they were meant to solve.

---------------------------------------------------------

Kinda quickly went through and briefly made some changes I'd make if I were giving it. Just some quick stuff to tie things together and make your position come from a stronger perspective and leave out some things which may be contestable (minus the stuff that's already been said about "asking" people to stand by their oath)... take it or leave it. :)

[Michael Landon]

Kinda quickly went through and briefly made some changes I'd make if I were giving it. Just some quick stuff to tie things together and make your position come from a stronger perspective and leave out some things which may be contestable (minus the stuff that's already been said about "asking" people to stand by their oath)... take it or leave it. :)

Very good. There is a lot in there that I like and may use. Thanks.

- ML

[KEEF]

Huh. I had no idea that was the case. Interesting. A lot of things make more sense now. Thanks for the info!

No sweat, anytime.

[Working Poor]

I did not see any mention on why synthetic pot has a market. I tried some once hoping it would make me feel like pot does because it is legal. Pot needs to be legal. These synthetics would not have a market.if pot was legal.
Also the drug test market has opened up this market this is not really a liberty issue as much as it is a free market issue. Don't everyone know this?

I think if you talk about the constitution you willloose the argument you need to make this totally about the market. Even if it is banned there will be something else to take it's place because of there being a market for it.
ent

[tod evans]

Remember the audience....

[tod evans]

Gentlemen, the simple fact that we're sitting here at the behest of our neighbors should humble us.

We've accepted the responsibility of instituting or repealing legislation that will have both social and economic connotations in our burg.

The guiding principles in our discussions must remain the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

I believe this proposed legislation flies in the face of our governing documents, would provide little in the way of social guidance and would have adverse economic effects.

I'd be delighted to expound on any point raised but I must vote to not accept the proposed legislation.

[Michael Landon]

Bump for more input....

Thanks.

- ML

[pcosmar]

Very good. There is a lot in there that I like and may use. Thanks.

- ML

One more thing,, just a thought I had.
synthetic drugs?
What is that? Don't Pharmaceutical companies manufacture " substances" ?

What is a synthetic drug? Seems to me it is either a drug,, or it is not. it is either manufactured or it is natural.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/synthetic
Synthetic


. Not natural or genuine; artificial or contrived:
Prepared or made artificially:


Though I did know a man in prison for "Attempted sales of an Imitation Controlled substance"

Boggle on that one for a moment.

[Michael Landon]

Watch first two minutes....


http://www.fox21online.com/node/13987

- ML

[ClydeCoulter]

Watch first two minutes....


http://www.fox21online.com/node/13987

- ML

Did they just ban prescription drugs with the wide open language they used?

[Michael Landon]

Did they just ban prescription drugs with the wide open language they used?

No, but I do believe that the ordinance could be overturned by "vagueness of law".

- ML

[kcchiefs6465]

Do you have the full video?

[Natural Citizen]

..what is synthetic marijuana?

This is marijuana sitting in some warehouse just waiting for the legalization so then that the Monsantos of the world can come swooping in, demanding patents on it (since it's technically synthetic after all of their additives are in it) and then ban growing of the real thing under a long list of regulatory fodder that subsequently comes from their own corporate pens and then placed into application by elected officials who just don't remember who it is they were elected to represent. Or don't care. Pick one.

Of course, then the real fun begins because now you're cutting in on the (other) criminals' cash flow.

Be very, very careful when you hear people pushing for legalization of pot. Agribusiness is clever...or so they think.

[Michael Landon]

Do you have the full video?

Not yet. I get a copy a couple weeks after the meetings.

- ML

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Watch first two minutes....


http://www.fox21online.com/node/13987

- ML

good job! thought you said no one would be watching-- lol.

ron paulin'