Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
So, are you saying that the Navajo's can't use Peyote as part of their religious rites? That the DEA should confiscate and convict anyone distributing/using peyote since it's a Schedule 1 drug?

Or reevaluate our ridiculous drug laws. If it's safe for one group to use "because god said so" then it's safe for anyone to use.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse whembly actually believes that Obama hates christians. At this point I think you are just playing a bit

Not to put a fine point on it but certain right-wing forum members simultaneously believe Obama doesn't defend Christians in the middle east, Obama is an assassin for sanctioning drone strikes against forces attacking Christians in the middle east, Obama should not interfere in the middle east, and Obama doesn't do enough to support Israel in the middle east.

There are 300 Km between our front line and the river Don, and the Rasputitsa begins in three weeks. Draw your own conclusions.

Now you are being ridiculous.

Instead of being generalistic and painting as wide as a brush that you can get away with... why don't you say what you really want to say.

Because, I thought stereotyping posters here is a bad thing... innit?

te]

I see, so "certain" means "most".

New rule! Republican definition of grammar is correct.

Well played.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because the First Amendment says they get it, just like you and me.

No, the first amendment says that nobody gets special treatment. If the rule is "everyone must do X" your organization's religious beliefs don't matter, you still have to do X. Giving special privileges to religious groups is going against the first amendment.

Please revisit the stare decisis on the First Amendment to correct your incorrect statement.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So, are you saying that the Navajo's can't use Peyote as part of their religious rites? That the DEA should confiscate and convict anyone distributing/using peyote since it's a Schedule 1 drug?

Or reevaluate our ridiculous drug laws. If it's safe for one group to use "because god said so" then it's safe for anyone to use.

You can use that argument for way more things than just drugs too.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So, are you saying that the Navajo's can't use Peyote as part of their religious rites? That the DEA should confiscate and convict anyone distributing/using peyote since it's a Schedule 1 drug?

Or reevaluate our ridiculous drug laws. If it's safe for one group to use "because god said so" then it's safe for anyone to use.

Or, acknowledge that some people may not want to be forced to do something that contravene their faith.

Magister wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Just so it will have been said, a single payer system would eliminate this issue altogether.

That sounds suspiciously like a National Health Service. Has anyone ever mentioned that American politics is just plain, well, insane*?


Not my first choice of word. But, filters.

No not yoru craptacular gak hole system, but the far superior Canadian system.

"Oh CanaDUH!!! We love your maple syrup and your healthcare tooooo....Oh CanaDUH!!! we wish we had a Molson and and your tooks boohooo..."

Canada, proof that an entire nation of polite people can indeed exist.

 Frazzled wrote:
Please revisit the stare decisis on the First Amendment to correct your incorrect statement.

The fact that rulings have turned "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" into "Congress shall respect an establishment of religion by granting special privileges to religious groups based on their beliefs" doesn't change what the first amendment says. Though, I suppose we could apply this revisionist history approach to other amendments. Are you willing to acknowledge that the second amendment does not prevent the government from passing gun control laws?

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So, are you saying that the Navajo's can't use Peyote as part of their religious rites? That the DEA should confiscate and convict anyone distributing/using peyote since it's a Schedule 1 drug?

Or reevaluate our ridiculous drug laws. If it's safe for one group to use "because god said so" then it's safe for anyone to use.

Or, acknowledge that some people may not want to be forced to do something that contravene their faith.

Individual freedom has no place in Ze New Order.

 Vash108 wrote:
You can use that argument for way more things than just drugs too.

You can.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse whembly actually believes that Obama hates christians. At this point I think you are just playing a bit

Not to put a fine point on it but certain right-wing forum members simultaneously believe Obama doesn't defend Christians in the middle east, Obama is an assassin for sanctioning drone strikes against forces attacking Christians in the middle east, Obama should not interfere in the middle east, and Obama doesn't do enough to support Israel in the middle east.

There are 300 Km between our front line and the river Don, and the Rasputitsa begins in three weeks. Draw your own conclusions.

Now you are being ridiculous.

Instead of being generalistic and painting as wide as a brush that you can get away with... why don't you say what you really want to say.

Because, I thought stereotyping posters here is a bad thing... innit?

I see, so "certain" means "most".

Where are you getting that?

New rule! Republican definition of grammar is correct.

Well played.

Oo

What does "Republican" have to do with this line of conversation??

 whembly wrote:
Or, acknowledge that some people may not want to be forced to do something that contravene their faith.

What they want is irrelevant. There are two possible options here:

1) Peyote is not safe to use. There should be no religious exceptions, just like there are no religious exceptions for dumping toxic waste into water supplies, committing suicide, etc.

or

2) Peyote is safe to use. It should not be banned for anyone, just like we don't need special religious exceptions to drink a beer.

What they want is irrelevant.

Maam I think I found your problem right here.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, acknowledge that some people may not want to be forced to do something that contravene their faith.

What they want is irrelevant. There are two possible options here:

1) Peyote is not safe to use. There should be no religious exceptions, just like there are no religious exceptions for dumping toxic waste into water supplies, committing suicide, etc.

or

2) Peyote is safe to use. It should not be banned for anyone, just like we don't need special religious exceptions to drink a beer.

Or, apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA):
-Government must make a compelling case;
AND
-Government must apply the LEAST restrictive means;

 Frazzled wrote:

Magister wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Just so it will have been said, a single payer system would eliminate this issue altogether.

That sounds suspiciously like a National Health Service. Has anyone ever mentioned that American politics is just plain, well, insane*?


Not my first choice of word. But, filters.

No not yoru craptacular gak hole system, but the far superior Canadian system.

"Oh CanaDUH!!! We love your maple syrup and your healthcare tooooo....Oh CanaDUH!!! we wish we had a Molson and and your tooks boohooo..."

Canada, proof that an entire nation of polite people can indeed exist.

Hmm, they're both single payer systems, both involve users paying for prescriptions, dental care and long term care amongst other things. The only difference seems to be how they're actually rated? http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-16

Plus the NHS tends to get shat on in the papers because it's an easy target. Which would lead into an entirely different topic on why the NHS isn't funded properly.

Anyhoo.

 whembly wrote:
Or, apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA):
-Government must make a compelling case;
AND
-Government must apply the LEAST restrictive means;

That doesn't answer my point at all. If peyote is safe enough to use that anyone should be able to use it then there is no justification for banning it. If it is dangerous enough that a ban is justified then there is no "least restrictive means" of banning it, it's simply unsafe and not permitted. The government doesn't have to provide a "least restrictive means" to allow someone to commit suicide just because they say "god wants me to do it".

Magister wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Magister wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Just so it will have been said, a single payer system would eliminate this issue altogether.

That sounds suspiciously like a National Health Service. Has anyone ever mentioned that American politics is just plain, well, insane*?


Not my first choice of word. But, filters.

No not yoru craptacular gak hole system, but the far superior Canadian system.

"Oh CanaDUH!!! We love your maple syrup and your healthcare tooooo....Oh CanaDUH!!! we wish we had a Molson and and your tooks boohooo..."

Canada, proof that an entire nation of polite people can indeed exist.

Hmm, they're both single payer systems, both involve users paying for prescriptions, dental care and long term care amongst other things. The only difference seems to be how they're actually rated? http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-16

Plus the NHS tends to get shat on in the papers because it's an easy target. Which would lead into an entirely different topic on why the NHS isn't funded properly.

Anyhoo.

In Canada, most providers (medical groups, hospitals, etc...) are private companies vying for the single-payer funds.

Isn't it true that in the UK, the NHS' medical groups, hospitals (et. el) are mostly government owned and operated?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA):
-Government must make a compelling case;
AND
-Government must apply the LEAST restrictive means;

That doesn't answer my point at all. If peyote is safe enough to use that anyone should be able to use it then there is no justification for banning it. If it is dangerous enough that a ban is justified then there is no "least restrictive means" of banning it, it's simply unsafe and not permitted. The government doesn't have to provide a "least restrictive means" to allow someone to commit suicide just because they say "god wants me to do it".

It' answers it because THAT'S HOW RFRA WAS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE!

And, yes, peyote is extremely dangerous for public consumption. It's an extremely powerful hallucinogenic.

Magister wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Magister wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Just so it will have been said, a single payer system would eliminate this issue altogether.

That sounds suspiciously like a National Health Service. Has anyone ever mentioned that American politics is just plain, well, insane*?


Not my first choice of word. But, filters.

No not yoru craptacular gak hole system, but the far superior Canadian system.

"Oh CanaDUH!!! We love your maple syrup and your healthcare tooooo....Oh CanaDUH!!! we wish we had a Molson and and your tooks boohooo..."

Canada, proof that an entire nation of polite people can indeed exist.

Hmm, they're both single payer systems, both involve users paying for prescriptions, dental care and long term care amongst other things. The only difference seems to be how they're actually rated? http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-16

Plus the NHS tends to get shat on in the papers because it's an easy target. Which would lead into an entirely different topic on why the NHS isn't funded properly.

Anyhoo.

Britain is single provider. Canada is single payer.

OH CanaDUH!!! please send us more of your delicious bacon you hoser eh!

 whembly wrote:
It' answers it because THAT'S HOW RFRA WAS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE!

And my point is that, regardless of the history, it's a poor example of "religious freedom" issues. The issue here is not religion being free from excessive burdens, it's that US drug laws are a complete mess that favors idiotic rules about "sin" over quantifiable harm in deciding what should be banned. In a country with sensible drug laws this issue never comes up in the first place.

And, yes, peyote is extremely dangerous for public consumption. It's an extremely powerful hallucinogenic.

Ok then. It's too dangerous for religious use too, just like we don't allow people to commit suicide as part of a religious ritual.

This will be fun to watch the GOP implode as the different wings that easily united against Democrats turn to infighting and factionalism, just like the Dems usually do.

This Ethics thing is just the first hint of it. Wait until they get to the big things like replacing Obamacare. Tee-hee.

Here is my theory for what will happen. The R's will repeal Obamacare, then replace it with Trumpcare, which will be Obamacare but with a few tweaks that Obamacare needed since day 1, selling insurance across state lines, and medical malpractice caps. Then they will trumpet it as freedom and democracy in action!

 whembly wrote:

Magister wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Magister wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Just so it will have been said, a single payer system would eliminate this issue altogether.

That sounds suspiciously like a National Health Service. Has anyone ever mentioned that American politics is just plain, well, insane*?


Not my first choice of word. But, filters.

No not yoru craptacular gak hole system, but the far superior Canadian system.

"Oh CanaDUH!!! We love your maple syrup and your healthcare tooooo....Oh CanaDUH!!! we wish we had a Molson and and your tooks boohooo..."

Canada, proof that an entire nation of polite people can indeed exist.

Hmm, they're both single payer systems, both involve users paying for prescriptions, dental care and long term care amongst other things. The only difference seems to be how they're actually rated? http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-16

Plus the NHS tends to get shat on in the papers because it's an easy target. Which would lead into an entirely different topic on why the NHS isn't funded properly.

Anyhoo.

In Canada, most providers (medical groups, hospitals, etc...) are private companies vying for the single-payer funds.

Isn't it true that in the UK, the NHS' medical groups, hospitals (et. el) are mostly government owned and operated?

There are various healthcare trusts that look after hospitals and assorted stuff - they're all independently run however. Similar to the Canadian system they get central funding allocated from taxes.
Government oversight is only really present at the very very very top, with all the day to day bits run by the hospitals themselves; they hire doctors, nurses, porters and midwives and pay them according to their structures. Each trust as it's own priorities on healthcare spending depending on the needs of their local demographic.

This: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-nhs-england-now-structured explains it better than I can. The similarities are there however.

 whembly wrote:


But, it's a wee bit hyperbolic to state that he's advocating for a Theocracy:

the·oc·ra·cy
/THēˈäkrəsē/
noun
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

That's not the only definition (and you didn't get that one from dictionary.com or Webster's). One Webster definition basically just requires the civil leaders to believe they are divinely guided.

Yes, it is generally hyperbole. But, I hope we can all agree that it is never a good thing when a politician puts their religion first.

Speaking of, I wonder how Texas is going to do with their very own HB2.

They make more money than NC, and as such have a lot more to lose in tourism and businesses leaving the state like in NC.

Though it may yet become that Conservative Christian Utopia as soon as the Governor proclaims himself the Holy Texan Emperor.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Speaking of, I wonder how Texas is going to do with their very own HB2.

It won't pass, thats how.

 Peregrine wrote:

And, yes, peyote is extremely dangerous for public consumption. It's an extremely powerful hallucinogenic.

Ok then. It's too dangerous for religious use too, just like we don't allow people to commit suicide as part of a religious ritual.

Being a powerful hallucinogen is a terrible definition for "extremely dangerous."

There aren't many studies, but there is no evidence of long term dangerous from religious or recreational use of Peyote. In fact the biggest health risk is the immediate risks associated with heart rate and blood pressure, both of which are only really risks if you already have a condition related to those issues (also probably don't want to eat before using the stuff). In fact Peyote is as far as anyone can tell one of the safest powerful hallucinogens humans can consume. There are legal (and even basic) drugs and medical procedures that are more hazardous.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Speaking of, I wonder how Texas is going to do with their very own HB2.

It won't pass, thats how.

Fraz, be honest, you've lived in Texas how long? You know this is going to pass

Business community is very against it. Ispo facto, guess what aint gonna happen.

Business community was also against HB2 in NC. See how that turned out.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

And, yes, peyote is extremely dangerous for public consumption. It's an extremely powerful hallucinogenic.

Ok then. It's too dangerous for religious use too, just like we don't allow people to commit suicide as part of a religious ritual.

Being a powerful hallucinogen is a terrible definition for "extremely dangerous."

There aren't many studies, but there is no evidence of long term dangerous from religious or recreational use of Peyote. In fact the biggest health risk is the immediate risks associated with heart rate and blood pressure, both of which are only really risks if you already have a condition related to those issues (also probably don't want to eat before using the stuff). In fact Peyote is as far as anyone can tell one of the safest powerful hallucinogens humans can consume. There are legal (and even basic) drugs and medical procedures that are more hazardous.

Clinically, if you have any cardiovascular issues you'd best avoid peyote.

However, a powerful hallucinogen is on par with PCP, w/o the hulkamania aspect. So, yes, it's dangerous.

Whether it's a good idea or not to ban it... I really don't care... but, I'm more apt to not banning it if we're eventually going to allowing cannabinoid.

I'm basically for the restricted legalization of all drugs except for really feth you up (such as meth or heroine). If we are going to legalize smoking and alcahol, a little cannabis or peyote isn't going to that much damage if used responsibly. Not that I'd want to use it myself (I personally view drug use as stupid, much like smoking or NASCAR).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, it looks like NY is going for the free college idea with the SUNY system anyway. Annoyingly it would go into effect right after I graduate too.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/03/508066566/new-york-governor-proposes-free-college-for-lower-income-students?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

This, of course, is under the assumption that the three faction in NY government (Republicans, Democrats, and Cuomo) can work together. Right now they state houses are angry because Cuomo won't OK a raise for them.

 whembly wrote:
However, a powerful hallucinogen is on par with PCP, w/o the hulkamania aspect. So, yes, it's dangerous.

Fallacious. You note that it is like PCP then note how it lacks PCP's most famous side effect. Peyote is the "stoner" psychoactive. Clinically Peyote's effects are similar to LSD but seems to lack all of LSD's prolific negative side effects (and long term consequences, such as recurring "trips"). Alcohol is more dangerous, because drunks can still get into a car and drive into a building relatively easily. That's not something someone on Peyote is really capable of.