Should We Regulate VICES? Or Should We Treat Vices as TOXINS?
Thoughts about "Regulating Vice: What role does government play in protecting us from ourselves?" Perhaps we should treat VICES as TOXINS... Last update 06/09/24
🔖Bookmark and Share (short link): https://tinyurl.com/fa6rjadz
NOTE: If your email program cuts off this message, please view it in your browser. Also, we sometimes update articles after emailing them, so your browser is the most reliable method for viewing the latest and (we hope) greatest and up-to-datest.
🔥Please take our 30-second poll.
⚖️Disclaimer
👀 Article at a Glance
A Different Paradigm: Classifying “Vices” as “Toxins/Poisons”
Introduction
There are too many laws already. The law should not be much more than: “If you do not interfere with the person, rights, or interests of someone else, you should be left the [heck] alone." ~ Some smart friends with whom we agree.
Recently, Brian Almon, who electronically pens the most excellent Gem State Substack and Gem State Chronicle, wrote about the difficult dilemma of having government regulate vices such as drinking, smoking, drugs, alcohol, gambling, and porn. While reading Brian’s post, we thought about another way to look at the issue.
Our thoughts below reflect observations of tyranny surrounding “vaccines” and other no-liability, government-regulated or government-mandated treatments and countermeasures. But they just as easily could apply to traditional “vices” such as consuming alcohol and porn, smoking and vaping, gambling, or over-indulging in food or drugs (legal or illegal).
A Different Paradigm: Classifying “Vices” as “Toxins/Poisons”
Regulating vice is a dilemma indeed. Difficult. Fraught with unintended side effects. Yet most people agree that “something” must be done.
What if we turn this discussion on its head and think of all these “vices” as “toxins” or “poisons” that affect the body, mind, morals, or spirit (or deplete one’s finances) in some way?
Perhaps this approach is too simplistic, but if we “regulate” these entities as toxins/ poisons instead of as vices, we could approach problem solving in a different way that could be safer, more effective, less ambiguous, less expensive, and less liberty limiting. Of course, we’d have to throw out a bunch of “laws” to do this — and much nuance exists — but perhaps some legal fat-trimming is in order.
There ought NOT to be a law...
NOTE: The following discussion refers to “vices” simply as “toxins” rather than “toxins/poisons.”
👍 JUST SAY “YES”!
YES TO FULL INFORMED CONSENT
Every toxin must carry a clear, unbiased, third-party, scientific – not faux-Fauci scientific – explanation of its potential risks, harms, and benefits. Let the consumer decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks based on informed consent.
NOTE: Children under 18 and those with mental challenges cannot make these risk/ benefit decisions for themselves; parents or guardians (or in rare cases, government when no parent or guardian exists) must do so for them.
YES TO LIMITED REGULATION
Regulate/ban any toxins that harm third-parties who cannot give informed consent to receiving them.
Examples: Such toxins include second-hand smoke (e.g., from cigarettes, drugs, vaping), childhood immunizations (kids and intimidated guardians cannot give informed consent), weather modification / cloud seeding, self-spreading or shedding “vaccines,” pesticides, and other air-, soil- or water-borne toxins.
YES TO INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY
Individuals, parents/guardians, and communities (including non-captured** religious and charitable organizations) – NOT government – must help others understand the negative physical, mental, moral, spiritual, or financial consequences of using toxins and help them stop.
** “Capture” in this context refers to corrupt influence in which entities prioritize their own special interests over the interests of the individual.
YES TO PUNISHING BAD BEHAVIOR
Instead of specifically regulating porn, weapons, alcohol, gambling, smoking, drugs, etc., simply regulate any resulting crimes committed.
Government entities such as law enforcement may step in only when use of toxins results in negative behavior, including self-harm or violent or non-violent crimes directed toward others. Restitution must be paid to crime victims in the form of incarceration (as appropriate), money payment and/or work — plus sincere, public apologies.
🚫 JUST SAY “NO”!
NO TO WAIVERS OF LIABILITY
Manufacturers must not be protected from liability if their products harm another.
Example: If a pesticide, food, or medical product causes harm, the manufacturer must be held liable.
NOTE: Weapons may pose a special case, because they are specifically meant to harm, either in self-defense or offensively. However, if a manufacturer makes a defective weapon – e.g., a gun that goes off accidentally or a knife that springs open and causes harm despite having a safety device engaged – the manufacturer must be held liable. This is the same logic used to hold makers of faulty cars or (non-vaccine) medical products liable.
At the moment, all so-called vaccines are immune from product liability. THIS IS WRONG AND IT MUST STOP!
NO TO MANDATES
No one may be forced to receive any product against their will, regardless of the method of administration. Such methods include – but are not limited to – masks, medical tests, ingestion, injections, aerosols, self-amplification, propulsion, passive acquisition (shedding, inhalation), patches, surgical procedures, etc.
NO TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
No government programs or taxpayer money may be used to “cure” or “help” people who willingly consume toxins and then suffer personal consequences. Again, individual and community responsibility must take precedent over government intervention (except in extraordinary cases where no community exists or the individual cannot function).
NO TO DISCRIMINATION
No discrimination may be directed towards those who refuse toxins.
Selected Resources
Regulating Vice: What role does government play in protecting us from ourselves? (BRIAN ALMON)
Informed Consent and Human Health: From mRNA Gene Therapy Injections to Self-Amplifying Vaccines
Definition: Regulatory Capture (can apply broadly to include non-profits, churches, etc.)
Escalating pediatric vaccine schedules have become unavoidably unsafe
PREP Act (“countermeasures” immunity from liability)
Covid Essential Links (updated frequently)
Resources (updated frequently)
I can only speak for myself when I agree that pure libertarian goals are admirable.
🤠
If our Republic were still functional, implementation of community-focused laws would be a worthwhile goal. States rights would still prevail and the overly exuberant Govern-me-harder crowd could commune with like-minded idiots who want cradle-to-grave Everything (and then Soylent Corp themselves out of their misery).
Dismantling the Nanny State would take a Convention of States approach. Don't see this as a practicable option.
Too many squirrels and nuts.