Here's my 3 cents worth.Ben writes;

>"My short answer in the meantime is that corporations have NO power to coerce
you, except what the government lends to them. Corporations can offer "the
carrot", i.e. they can tempt, lure, and bribe you to try to get you on their side. But
they CANNOT use "the stick", cannot initiate force, cannot send men with guns to
compel you to do things or take things away from you. Only GOVERNMENTS
have these powers."<

" NO power to coerce you, except what the government lends to them.",THAT'S WHERE THE
PROBLEM IS. "Only GOVERNMENTS have these powers."

Thank you for your response. I will evaluate more of the information at the links
you provided as I have time. I have already taken a cursory glance at a couple of
them.

My short answer in the meantime is that corporations have NO power to coerce
you, except what the government lends to them. Corporations can offer "the
carrot", i.e. they can tempt, lure, and bribe you to try to get you on their side. But
they CANNOT use "the stick", cannot initiate force, cannot send men with guns to
compel you to do things or take things away from you. Only GOVERNMENTS
have these powers.

You said: "First, it's o.k. for multinational corporations to feed people toxic,
unhealthy, and grossly overcommercialized products, not food (14 grams of fat in
one order of fries. touche'). And profit from it."

Yes, if people choose to pay for it and eat it. As I've said, no one in this country is
compelled to eat at McDonalds. I have never been forced into a McDonalds'
restaurant in my life. Even in less free countries, I do not believe that people are
forced to eat there.

You said: "Do they pay the cost of hospitalization for victims of high cholesteral,
heart attacks, the sins of the beef and cattle industry (mad cow, foot and mouth,
etc.)"

No. Why should they? People suffer the consequences of their own actions.
Nowhere on the packaging of a Quarter Pounder does it say "Will never cause
heart disease." If I live on a steady diet of Snickers bars, do I have a right to sue
that company when I develop diabetes and tooth decay? Or would they
(properly) laugh me right out of court for blaming my own poor choices on them?

Nor is McDonalds responsible for BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephelopathy,
Mad Cow Disease), the British government is. Their idiotic policies allowed the
feeding of ground sheep brains to cows. That is not allowed in this country, and
we've had no problems with BSE here. And while McDonalds is obviously a
major buyer of beef, I think it's a bit of a stretch to lay the problems of that entire
industry at their feet. I don't have any evidence that McDonalds coerced or even
lobbied British officials to enact that policy, so I don't know what McDonalds has to
do with Mad Cow Disease. I'd blame Tony Blair before Micky D's.

You said: "But it's not o.k. for us to put something into our bodies that we have
decided is good for our state of mind, health and well-being that isn't sanctioned
by a major corporation or government. Doesn't that tell you something?"

Yes, that our government has too much power, and is too little answerable to you
and me. Solution: downsize the government to its constitutionally mandated
powers. Then it would be no threat to either of us. If it's as big as it is, it will
always dance to the tune of the wealthy and powerful, whether corporations,
individuals, or moneyed special interest groups. But it certainly won't do what you
or I want it to do.

You said: "Corporations are behind the criminalization of drugs first, and
governments are just lackeys for these special interests."

Drugs were made illegal by an overreaching and out-of-control federal
government, abetted by a citizenry who had stopped paying close attention and
who didn't fight much against federal encroachment on what should have been a
purely individual or medical matter. And in fact, it wasn't a corporation but an
individual who was most responsible for the prohibition of cannabis, namely
William Randolph Hearst.

You said: " Do you buy into this 'Corporate Reality' or is cannabis legalization just
a door opener for your newly expanding conscience."

Please don't get personal, you know nothing about me. My conscience is neither
new or expanding, it's the same moral sense that's always served me well
before. My conscious-NESS was expanded long ago, and that consciousness
allows me to look beyond simple labels like "corporate criminals" and see who
really has the power. Which as usual, is the group with the biggest guns, the
government.

You said: "I suggest you discect your next whopper and note the grey-green
color of the meat. Now gulp it down with the knowledge they would never think of
doing harm to you. Such wonderful humanitarians they are at McBarf."

At NO point have I said that McDonalds is good, nutritious food, or that I eat it with
any regularity (these days almost never.) But again, that's MY CHOICE. No one
compelled me either to eat their food or not to. However, I get the sense that you
would like to be able to dictate that choice to me, and forbid me (or anyone) from
eating food from "McDeath" as you call it. Am I wrong?

To understand the enormous difference between corporations and government,
and why only governments have the dangerous power of coercion, I recommend
Harry Browne's book, "Why Government Doesn't Work." The first half of the
book is an excellent discussion of the threat of Big Government, and why adding
more powers to the government in an attempt to "regulate" or "reform" a problem
is only throwing gas on the fire. We need much less government, not much more.

If you have any interest in debating this further, please contact me via the e-mail
link above. This thread has grown far too long, and doesn't even relate to the main
article.

Sincerely

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/factsheet.html

http://www.envirolink.org/mcspotlight/campaigns/current/mckids.html

Thank You,that was a goodie.

I wasn't sure if rebinator was joking, so I allowed that as a possibility (when I said
to ignore the rest if s/he was just being facetious) but s/he got huffy about it, and
off we went.

I'm actually not angry about any of this, I just like a chance to make people think
and practice my rhetorical skills. Thanks all of you for allowing me to do that.

Anyway, I think I've said enough today, and enough is too much. Later y'all

i took rebinator's comment as a joke immediately, because
few russians have the extra rubles needed to eat toxic
quantities of mickyD's fare...

'Preciate your compliment very much. It's easy to be inspired by the high level of
commentary on this board, especially by folks like Kaptinemo, Dan. B. and quite a
few others. We all FEEL strongly about the drug war, but it's good to THINK
strongly about it, too.

Hey lookinside: Well, all my personal observations of sheep and everything I've
ever seen or read about them indicates a distinct lack of reasoning ability. I mean,
would YOU let a shepherd sneak up on you and boink you? :)

Peace

Ben

Sorry for the ongoing nature of this conversation, especially within the context of
this important article. I am far more interested in fighting the counter-drug war
instead of arguing amongst supposed "allies".

The problem of sadistic "treatments" exists everywhere. This particular Russian
example may be shockingly brutal, but only a little more so than our own Rehab
Racket. If you don't believe me, believe someone who has researched this and
fought if for years no, Mr. Arnold Trebach. His impassioned commentary is
contained in the following interview:

http://www.drcnet.org/wol/190.html#arnoldtrebach

It is quite pertinent to this topic.

To New Mexican:

You ask, "What are facts?"

(Random House Dictionary, 2nd Unabridged definition, Fact- Def. 3): A truth know
by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

Statements are not facts. Beliefs are not facts. Assumptions are not facts. A
statement, belief, or assumption that is tested by verifiable and repeatable
methodology is a fact.

Fact: I do not own stock in McDonalds. I would be willing to show you my stock
portfolio to prove this.

My strong belief is that everyone, citizen and corporate entities alike, should be
assumed innocent until proven guilty. No one has proved to me, by use of facts
(as defined above) that McDonalds is guilty of poisoning me or anyone else.

You say: "If MacDonalds does use GMOs in their fries, thats enough for me!"

I ask you, why is that? Can you show me facts that support the idea that
Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful, or that it is an automatic sign of
maliciousness or negligence if a corporation makes use of them? By GMO's, I am
assuming that you mean organisms modified by use of recombinant DNA
techniques? Because farmers have been genetically modifying animals and
plants for millennia by cross-breeding and animal husbandry, and scientists have
been using chemicals, radiation, and direct physical "shotgun" techniques for
decades to induce mutations, which are then culled to find favorable characteristics.
So what exactly constitutes a GMO in your book?

You say: "Prove their safe and not the other way around."

It is impossible to prove a negative. Did you ever take a course in logic? You
can prove that UFO's exist, but no one can prove they don't. You can show that
food is harmful, it is impossible to show that is "safe." At best we can say that
something is "very likely not to be harmful in most circumstances."

You say: "Anyway, you're off on a tangent and why you need to defend
Macdonalds is beyond me, they have enough overpaid lawyers defending their
corrupt influence over 'the children'."

I defend McDonalds (and Microsoft as well) for the reasons I stated above. No
one has proved to me that these corporations are doing wrong, and therefore I
extend them the same presumption of innocence that I would give you. The fact
that McDonalds does a good job of catering to their target market and advertises
to them is not a crime. McDonalds employees do not force children up to the
counter at gunpoint. No devices have been attached to adults' cars to guide them
into McDonalds parking lots. We go there of our own free will, and get what we
want.

You say: "Get a Life! Put your energy into stopping the "drug war" Thanks!"

So should I put my energy into stopping the drug war, or hating Mcdonalds, or
fighting GMO's? You seem to want me to do many things.

All I ask of anyone is to think and be reasonable. If you have the "goods" on
McDonalds, New Mexican, then dish! I'm all ears. As far as I know, they're just a
major fast food chain. I don't eat their food much anymore, but that's just a
personal choice, and I wouldn't force it on anyone else.

I categorically refuse to subscribe to some dogmatic set of beliefs, whether
defined by liberals, conservative, or others. The fact that I oppose the drug war
does not automatically make me anti-capitalist, anti-technology, or pro-regulation.
Quite the contrary, I support the right of McDonalds to put whatever they want in
their food as much as I support the right of all people to put whatever they want
into their own bodies. If I feel uncomfortable with McDonalds ingredients or level
of disclosure about them, then it's up to me to not eat there. If I don't like your
substance use, then it's up to me to go somewhere away from you. If either you
or McDonalds impose yourself on me, do me any physical harm or economic
damage, or take away my constitutional rights in some way, then I have a right to
take you or them to court.

My way of stopping the drug war is to get people to think clearly and for
themselves. People can think, sheep cannot.

Peace

Most everyone who takes the time to comment here,are
good,intelligent people,who are generally on the same side
when it comes to the WoDs.Differences of opinion are a
natural and healthy part of these discussions,but it's easy
to get sidetracked sometimes.I hope Rebinator was not
offended by my attempted mediation.

I mighta been a bit out of line with my first post. I tend to take a very rationalist and
objectivist point of view, and like things to be grounded in fact and empiricism.
I've had my fill of people parroting things they hear through gossip or
questionable media sources, and want everyone to avail themselves of that large
grey organ between their ears. Alas, some people seem merely to use it to
balance their head, and that rankles the scientist in me.

Anyway, I didn't mean to attack rebinator, and I hope he/she is OK with that. I
pride myself on being open-minded, and will read opposing viewpoints on any
subject, even D.E.A. press releases. BELIEVING them, well that's another story
entirely!!

Peace

Articles sometimes sensationalise facts, sometimes the truth is just as devastating as it appears. I believe people would be more prone to comprehending a thing called "humanity" if they had to take the medicine they dish. In other words, if you want to beat someone's addiction out black and blue, you should be obligated to get beaten black and blue and see if you can then turn the other "cheek."

People who want to declare war on everything (as if torment solves social ills) would second think their methodologies if the people who are the victims of such wars actually fought back in the fashion in which they are persecuted...
anti-drug terrorist-typed squads, poisonous pesticides, lies of propoganda, and witch-hunts to blame all the problems of the world on.

Sad and ironic, but one is treated dastardly because of their choice to use drugs (not advocating or stigmatising at this point) as an element of their taking personal responsibility for their choices, but, after all, personal responsibility is not taken into consideration on whether the individual actually commits victim-ful crimes from their choice or not. If not for a blatant double standard, there would be no standard at all.

His response did seem a bit brash,but I like
to cut everyone plenty of slack.

I was not attempting to put your facts on trial, I was trying to ascertain if they were
facts at all. Your unsupported statements are not facts, nor are they convincing to
me. If you want me to agree with your position or at least see your points, you
must explain yourself. Simpling saying that fast food contains brain damaging
chemical does not make it so, although it certainly COULD be true. I don't know,
and you have done nothing to convince me.

Also, I didn't assume that you don't know what you are talking about, I asked
questions. Such as: how do you know these things, and how can I check them for
myself? If I assumed you didn't know, I wouldn't bother to ask you.

Lastly, you seem to miss the entire point of my statement and the supporting
quote. I wanted to check the facts for MYSELF, rather than assuming that you
were right or wrong based on my personal feelings or intuitions. However, the
only thing I have learned, and I'm not sure that it's a hard fact, is that you seem to
be easily offended. My apologies, t'was not my intent.

If you post statements in a public forum, that makes you at least somewhat
answerable for them (unless you're a shout-and-run type, which I consider quite
cowardly.)

So I repeat, got a URL or a study title about fast food to recommend? Or do you
still stand behind that statement?

Brave enough to post my real name,

it has been proven that torture does work...the problem is
that it turns the torturors into monsters...it also turns
the victims into subhuman slaves...

First of all, my facts are not on trial here. And,
furthermore, neither am I. For all you know, I do have
evidence. This is a forum for dissection of articles about
the Drug War. So don't waste your time.

Secondly, I am more than a little bit insulted that you
would assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. Spare
me. This is my day off. I'm not answerable to you.

While I agree with your hope that some punishment awaits sadists like these in the
afterlife, I was less in accord with your fast food remark (unless it was meant
facetiously, in which case ignore all the rest of this.)

"...Certain chemicals in fast food lead to brain damage.
Could the McDonalds invasion be taking its toll on the
hapless Russians not even 11 years after the American
invasion?"

You state this as a certainty. What is the evidence? What convinced you? Do
you have any links to any good studies or experiments on this topic?

We must never fall into the prohibitionist practice of treating weakly supported or
even unsupported allegations as gospel truth, and then acting on that "truth."

to quote Robert Heinlein (as Lazarus Long):

"What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the FACTS? Shun
wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell', avoid
opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of
history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always
into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"

So what are the facts about fast food? I know the facts about drugs and
prohibition, and sadistic creeps like the Russian Rehab Racket. But what about
McDonalds?

The day may yet come,when rotting in jail will be preferable
to going into some slipshod privitized,outsourced treatment
program nightmare......