How Far Can The State Go?

[M.D. Rawlings]

Here's some more of that political narcissism for ya, pogo, you intellectual midget.

Modern American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism: A Definition - Page 7 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[RandallFlagg]

Pogo, you're a pathological liar and a bore.

I believe you left out 'back-stabbing, ankle-nipping, dirt-eating, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, mouth-breathing mutt.'

Don't forget "Liberal Nazi"

 

[Pogo]

Here's some more of that political narcissism for ya, pogo, you intellectual midget.

Modern American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism: A Definition - Page 7 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Thanks for that, you synaptic paramecium. Foxy and I have been around on that merry-go-round before. I love her to death but a listener, she ain't. But maybe I'll go there and chew on something later on.

Meanwhile if it's an actual accurate definitions you need... don't let Randall Flagg see this, it'll spoil my sig line hilarity.... but that's pretty much where I'm at.

And see the part of Randall's sig line where he quotes me -- before he figures out he got played and removes it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Here's some more of that political narcissism for ya, pogo, you intellectual midget.

Modern American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism: A Definition - Page 7 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Thanks for that, you synaptic paramecium. Foxy and I have been around on that merry-go-round before. I love her to death but a listener, she ain't. But maybe I'll go there and chew on something later on.

Meanwhile if it's an actual accurate definitions you need... don't let Randall Flagg see this, it'll spoil my sig line hilarity.... but that's pretty much where I'm at.

And see the part of Randall's sig line where he quotes me -- before he figures out he got played and removes it.

Oh trust me fool - it ain't going anywhere.

 

[ogibillm]

That is the opinion that the state should somehow force one person to do something that they do not want to for no other reason than you demand it. That is rather silly.

You don’t have to serve tacos if you own a restaurant – that would simply be asinine. Why then does a pharmacy have to carry a specific drug? Why is it required to dispense that drug? And most stunning of all, why do you chose a drug that is NOT lifesaving or difficult to obtain to be the holy grail of MUST DISPENSE drugs.

Interestingly enough, no pharmacy carries the medication that my son requires. None of them are required to dispense it. Should I lose it or otherwise end up without it then I may have to drive a hundred miles to obtain more. If I do not administer it, my son will die.

Not one single person thinks it is some sort of ‘right’ that a pharmacy carry it though. I guess the medication that allows for you to more easily practice your chosen sex pattern is more important than another’s medication that is required to survive. The hypocrisy is utterly stunning.

The rather simple solution is to allow the business to handle it weather or not that means firing the employee or allowing them to work. That is called freedom – freedom to execute your life and business as you see fit.

As far as the euthanasia issue, I too would like to hear PC actually respond to that issue. It is utterly counter to the belief in freedom to demand that a person and their doctor cannot make end of life decisions. If you want to kill yourself – go ahead. Who the hell am I to demand that such an act be illegal/

well again, i'm not saying that your local pharmacy shouldn't carry the drug you need, or that they should have a ready supply on hand.

i do recognize that it is unreasonable to expect every pharmacy everywhere to carry every drug, but i do believe that it is not unreasonable to expect them, as part of being a licensed pharmacy, to facilitate getting the drug to you.

in other words i believe that you should be able to walk into a pharmacy, any pharmacy, present them with a script, and have that script filled within a reasonable amount of time at that pharmacy.

They don't facilitate anything. simple as that. They are not required to do so because they are a business in it to make a profit and that requires that they discriminate quite widely on the drugs they make available. Somehow, I don't see the difference in discriminating against a product out of principal or profit motive. Further, the particular product in question is an asinine choice to force a pharmacy to supply in general. It is clear that this is nothing more than political asshattery in order to satisfy the demands of a particular special interest group. I see that as a gross misuse of government power and completely unacceptable. You will to when that same exact force gets turned on something that you do not support.

that is the core problem with giving the government such powers - it WILL be used on something that you find abhorrent. The government has no right to demand that a business supply a specific product nor should it - that is the purview of the business. Just because this particular product appeals to some peoples sensibilities should not mean that we simply trow the rights of others aside - that is how you end up without rights at all.

Holland isn't here. Regardless if a pharmacist doesn't want to hand out legal drugs then they can find a new job.

and THAT is exactly right.

muslims and orthodox jews shouldn't work selling pork.

fundie christian extremists shouldn't be pharmacists.

Except that your analogy is somewhat off. This is the equivalent of stating that Jews and Muslims cannot operate a grocery story or a restaurant. They should be FORCED to serve pork at those establishments because, after all, YOU want it.

Of course we know that is actually outright false - they not only have the right to work there but the establishment has the right to not carry those products. You seem to think that the state has a right to demand that they carry such products though and that is certifiably insane.

Perhaps you can explain why the government should have the ability to force all grocers to carry and dispense pork? This should be good.

it is my belief that since an unlicensed individual, such as myself, has to go through a licensed agent - i.e. pharmacist - to purchase the drugs I need or desire that the licensed agent, as a condition of their license, should be required to facilitate my purchase.

a grocer, on the other hand, is not selling anything that I can't go direct to the source and buy on my own.

now i realize that a business can't stock all drugs for all things, but when presented with a valid prescription they should either fill it and failing that tell you when they'll be able to fill it and how much it will cost (within reason) or give the name of a different pharmacy that can fill it immediately with the choice of waiting or going elsewhere being yours.