Thursday, May 21, 2009

I believe:

*that marijuana should be legal. It should be treated exactly like alcohol, and taxed heavily. Pot is no more dangerous or addictive than alcohol is. Like alcohol, it is plant-derived. Think of the new possibilities for farmers! And what a boost to the economy! The hunting down, prosecuting and housing (in prison) of pot dealers is a ridiculous waste of money and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

*that gay marriage is a civil right. As David says, they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

*in a terminally-ill patent's right to physician-assisted suicide. Why on earth should anyone be forced to suffer through pain, misery and complete loss of dignity when they are simply waiting to die anyway? Shouldn't each of us have the right decide when and how we are ready to go?

*that prostitution should be legal. Decriminalizing it would mean that sex-workers would no longer be under the control of violent pimps, they would have legal recourse when needed, and there would be fewer underage girls (and boys) involved.

*that polygamy should be legal, among consenting adults. Again, if it were out in the open (and regulated by the government) there would be fewer cases of young girls being coerced into the situation against their will.

What do you believe?

What do you think about the case of the 13 year old boy with Hodgkins lymphoma, who's parents want to pursue a more natural treatment? According to reports, after only one round of chemotherapy, he refused to go back. He said that he would "kick and fight" if he were made to go undergo further chemo. HE wants to try non-conventional treatment, and his parents support that choice. Should he, because he is a minor, be forced to undergo chemo and radiation, as the government insists? What would YOU do if you were his mother?


Jodi said...

I believe about 90% of what you do. The one I don't agree with is the boy with cancer. I think when kids are 18 they can choose to do as they wish, until then, it's up to their parents to protect them.

If this boy had been diagnosed with stage 4 and was going to die, then I can certainly see him perhaps wanting to not do treatment. However, since he has an oppotunity for a 95% cure rate, since his parents won't protect him then I think someone has to step in.

As you remember, we just went through this with a woman here, who died of a treatable cancer simply because of religion. Although it left her 4 children with no mother, I guess it was her "right" although I think it was selfish. But until 18, kids need to be protected and I believe this boy is being protected against his parents religious beliefs which shouldn't be allowed to take his life.

So, there you have it.

kate said...

You know I agree with you about your neighbor. I think it was a lazy, chicken-shit choice on her part to "let" herself die leaving 4young children without a mother. But do I think she should have been FORCED by the government to undergo treatment? Hell no.

I'm just torn about that kid. I really am. It sounds like, from what he said, that the doctors would LITERALLY have to tie him down to administer chemo, which he and his parents consider to be poison. It's a very slippery slope when the government can legally administer "medicine" against the will of the patient and/or his gaurdians.

Uuugh. I'm glad I'm not in their shoes.

Maggie said...

I agree with everything other than the boy and that's only because I know literally nothing about that story, so I don't have enough information to comment.

The other thing about legalizing M is that would mean people could grow and use hemp more easily and it is much easier on the environment than growing cotton.

As to assisted suicide, I was watching that HBO documentary about Alzheimer's the other night and I made my husband swear that if I got it and could no longer remember him or my son he would "Dr. Kevorkian" me. My mom (whose mother died of Alzheimers) has made the promise the same thing. I believe we should have the ability to make that choice without doing something illegal.

Fancy Schmancy said...

Kate, I also believe pretty much everything you do. I don't believe in the government's ability to force treatment on people who do not want it. It is very difficult to figure out where the line is between a legal right and a legal obligation. I'm not sure I'm capable of being the kind of person who could say this is 100% right for you over here, and 100% not right for you over there. It would be difficult to make laws black and white, without interpretation on a case by case basis.

Dee said...

Girls , girls, girls. With all the corruption , graft, lying, theft, etc.etc, ad neauseum-----how could "the government" manage our lives better than we can. There would be so many laws that prohibit our activities that our life styles would be narrowed down to toothpick size. I, for one, NEED to manage my own life and let others do the same.
Most of what you are asking about, freedoms----yes, but health care and (now my own soap box ) socialized medicine----keep the government out of it !!!!!!!!!

kate said...

Mom, that's what I mean. I want the government OUT of our PRIVATE lives (health care, physician-assisted suicide, who we can have sex with or marry). The only thing I want the governement to do now that they aren't is to stop pretending that if drugs aren't legal it will make them harder to get. Same with prostitution. I say legalize everything and let the people make their own choices! Dang...I should move to Amsterdam...

Dee said...

Don't you dare move to Amsterdam--dam it would be hard to ever see you and -----can you blog from there?

kate said...

Mom, I could blog NAKED AND STONED from Amsterdam!! Don't worry, I won't include photos.


robyn said...

Oh, Kate. We know you're blogging naked and stoned right now. You don't have to hide it from us.

Ok, here goes.

I agree with all the beliefs you stated above - marijuana, gay marriage, right-to-die (doesn't even need to be physician-assisted, in my opinion), prostitution, and even polygamy, which we've discussed here before and I played devil's advocate, but I'm all for anything between consenting adults. And I'm with you on the case of the 13 year old, though it opens up a whole can of worms. Yes, the government should in theory stay out of it, but... what if the kid was 5? I believe a 13 year old is probably pretty equipped to make the choice this child has. And I'd like to say I'd be ok with parents making that choice for a child who couldn't choose for themselves - but I just can't say that. Like Fancy said, such things need case by case consideration.

I'm curious, and understand that I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, but truly wanting to understand your viewpoint. When you say you want the government out of health care, does that mean you are for or against Universal Health Care?

kate said...

Hi Robyn! Long time no see!

When I said I wanted the goverment out of our health care, I should have said medical treatment.

I do like the idea of Universal Health care and/or single payer. Something needs to change because our current system is working for ONLY one sector: the insurance companies. They must have the most powerful lobbyists in DC.

robyn said...

Word. Insurance companies suck.