English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The government has banned many substances that it claims are "dangerous" and "damaging", yet is it morally correct that they should control our intake of substances? Also, when I say intake I don't just mean what we aren't allowed to eat, I mean what we are ENCOURAGED to eat. For example, Monosodium glutamate is a common food additive which is highly damaging to one's body and mind. It is considered by scientists to be a neurotoxin, not unlike MDMA (or Ecstasy). Despite the studies that prove the toxicity of MSG, the FDA has chosen not only to allow the use of monosodium glutamate food, but has encouraged use under a variety of names to hide its presence in many food products. Such names include glutamic acid, hydrolyzed protein, autolyzed protein, textured protein, yeast extract, and many more. Yet there are other substances which have been proven to be safe, in relative terms, based on various scientific and medical studies which are regulated with great zeal (such as cannabis).

2007-02-28 11:46:09 · 9 answers · asked by ryanmcprussin 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

9 answers

Think about this OK the FDA approves additives in our food right ..
the FDA also has made it law , that the only way to treat a disease is by a prescription drug , OK now we eat more diet foods than any other nation ..why ..the FDA tells us it is healthy , we are becoming fat from listening to what the FDA tells us is OK to eat right ..OK now the FDA says being fat is a disease , so guess what ?? the government ((FDA)) tells people to eat a certain thing we do it , then we get fat the FDA says a doctor has to give us a prescription because we have the "disease " of being fat .....the FDA profits off the food , and the drugs ,, and all of the "diet supplements" that are not approved by the FDA still has to buy the manufacturing license from who??the FDA
the FDA is also the ones now telling us to pay for the triple priced "organic foods" it is all about PROFIT at the expense of human life .. announce you have a cure for cancer to the FDA they will come to your house , with an army of weapons to lock you up they do not want cures , they want to treat the symptoms of disease , if they cure diseases. it is the end of BIG PROFITS ...why do you think all politicians have money invested in pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies...why do you think certian political figures want national health care ..to control everyones food ,and medicine ...so they get richer and richer , at our expense .....it is not too hard to see is it .????.
ANYTHING that can not be controlled or taxed by the government or regulated by the FDA that is for human consumption is what ??? say it with me ...ILLEGAL , you do not need a crack pipe to figure this out

2007-02-28 12:04:46 · answer #1 · answered by Insensitively Honest 5 · 1 0

The government, correctly, bases its rulings on information and facts provided by reputable establishments. It is safer and more cost effective to prevent the use rather than try to cure the results. In the case of cannabis, I'm told that now that the Dutch have created their F1 hybrid plant, this is extremely addictive and far more dangerous than that which our politicians tried some years ago. It does lead to the use of hard drugs, and, therefore, as such, it should be banned.

2007-02-28 21:16:17 · answer #2 · answered by michael w 3 · 0 1

Decades of legislation banning drugs has resulted in more people than ever addicted to heroin and crack - so what is the point of continuing down the same line?

I think we need to legalise the whole thing. If doctors could give heroin addicts the drug that they needed then the incidence of robberies would drop. Old women getting beaten up for the 3 quid in their purse by a deranged crack head would be a thing of the past. If these people need drugs then lets just give it to them and save us all the time and money involved in policing something that has proved impossible to control.

As for recreational drugs - again I find it strange that the incidence of alcoholic liver disease is sky rocketing yet no one in the government appears to care. In fact they are probably too busy getting p*ssed in the bar and Gordon Brown too busy spending and wasting the increased revenue it provides. As for smoking - don't get me started on that one. But someone dies after dropping an E and all hell breaks loose.

It all seems a bit hypocritical to me.

2007-02-28 12:01:59 · answer #3 · answered by Dr Kildare 2 · 0 1

the unusual section is.... people ARE Sovereigns. we are no longer matters of a few Monarch, as they are in Canada or England. We the persons create Constitutions which create governments which hire bureaucrats. a number of those "public servants" are elected by skill of We the persons to hold place of work till we decide for in any different case. i do no longer keep in mind the call, yet sometime interior the early twentieth Century an American citizen have been given to fulfill a king. The King replaced into presented as "....Sovereign of....." and the yankee citizen stated something like "i'm.....American Sovereign". each and every American ranks equivalent in Sovereignty with any King or Queen. because of the fact we are no longer matters of absolutely everyone. And for damned valuable no longer our servants of the prevalent public, whom we hire and fire. are not getting me started!! As for violating environmental regs; confident as quickly as i replaced into utilising gas and a backyard hose to bathe off the vehicle grease from the parking zone of an place of abode development. The uncomplicated college around the corner called the fire Dept. i replaced into accused of "polluting the floor water", till I confirmed the officers %. of Thirties while that section replaced right into a pin cushion of oil wells and spoke of that we've been 17 blocks from the Pacific Ocean (long coastline Harbor) and there replaced into no usable floor water. Bit_ches!

2016-09-30 01:00:50 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

If you are trying to argue the legalization of Ecstasy, NO!!!! Any processed chemical is bad for you. I do not understand how the government can outlaw the growing of a plant. I understand regulating how that plant can be processed, but God put that plant on Earth, and I should be able to grow it if I want.
420 Dude!

2007-02-28 11:56:35 · answer #5 · answered by Don 6 · 1 0

it all depends on how much money the government are going to get for something. If they can get a lot, then they allow it even though it is harmful (smoking, alcohol). if they aren't going to get much, then they ban it

2007-02-28 11:52:21 · answer #6 · answered by aleta_uk_0 4 · 1 0

if you legalise drugs if that is what you are getting at here then no thats one hell of a bad idea but not for the obious reasons. if you we to say leaglise weed the goverment would stick a fat tax on it and the dealers of weed would have to move on to something harder like pills to make the smae money

2007-02-28 12:54:52 · answer #7 · answered by Dante 1 · 1 1

It is long overdue and perhaps already too late for there to be a serious regulation on regulations !!!

2007-02-28 11:59:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

when have these buffoons ever been right on anything.

2007-03-02 00:32:06 · answer #9 · answered by earl 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers