Should Governments be allowed to prohibit or proscribe the gathering of natural substances?
Have the public an alienable right to gather shellfish, mushrooms, berries, fish, roots etc. from the common lands? (Regulation of commerical exploitation and protection of private property interests by ownership laws is not prohibition.)
The UK Government has proscribed certain mushrooms and may remove the right to collects shellfish and to fish for white fish from the shore. Inshore fishing requires a licence as does some forms of hunting, and hunting with dogs is prohibited.
2006-12-09 13:44:39 · 5 answers · asked by Perseus 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Unalienable or alienable right. Right that can be removed: not fundemental?
The UK Constitution is not written. I think the law for collecting or fishing is as a right though?
2006-12-09 13:47:06 · update #1
The native Indians asked the same question.
2006-12-09 13:50:36 · answer #1 · answered by Enigma 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i personally think they should not prohibit the gathering and use of natural substances and/or resources (hunting is a different story), especially for the well being of certain individuals. cocaine and heroin are processed, therefore not natural. dumb *** (not you, the answerer above). it is difficult to control i agree. but then, that's why there are laws already enforced and abode by. ha! abode is a funny word!
2006-12-09 16:26:46 · answer #2 · answered by drdreallday 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. If they did not then someone will come by and take all they can and ruin it for everyone else.
2006-12-09 13:46:50 · answer #3 · answered by damndirtyape212 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If they are used as Drugs, then yes they should.
2006-12-09 13:46:24 · answer #4 · answered by Common Sense 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
And what about marijuana, cocaine and heroin? All these things that were given by God, makes me wonder.
2006-12-09 13:49:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋