I wouldn’t want the regulating body to be the government just a non profit of pharmacist. Like other professional regulating authorities.

Pharmacies are non-profit?

The government could say you need to be licensed but not themselves be involved in regulation or collection of revenue.

Wasn't aware of that.

I don’t think I used the correct term.

But there are professional regulating authorities that aren’t the government but have some monopoly on regulating a profession.

Which is granted by the government.

Nonprofit vs Not-for-Profit

I believe you'd have to take down existing regulations that the government has on selling cannabis.

I am fine with this lol

Because remember, the system exists currently, with the exception of valid medical reasoning.

Excess Revenue over Expenses is a Fancy Term for Profits.

I'm really libertarian but even I think there are reasons for government regulation. (And I'm reeeally liberty-minded)

I think professions are generally good at self regulation. If you hurt the consumer you hurt the profession. Basically I think we should be able to buy anything as long as we can make informed choices. Then if you sold without being a pharmacist you would just be committing some sort of licensing crime. I don’t know what that would be like but what’s the crime of say, selling legal advice without being a lawyer? Not pretending to be a lawyer just selling something without being a lawyer?

(I am not a libertarian though)

The Who, Where and Why is what makes it messy IMO.

Some regulation is needed but regulation results in regulatory capture. Which is basically crony capitalism.

Hardly very anti-liberty.

Though that compass test is hugely inaccurate.

@Maw "Health" and "Safety" seems to be an overused Term?

Depends on what you're talking about.

My 8values results from yesterday would probably scare a lot of people though. lol

I am against administrative law for the most part. I think they should just be involved in providing transparency. The actual laws should go back the legislature.

It seems to be a GoTo for Regulatory Agencies.

I prefer liberty over safety

Same, in most instances.

The government seems to want to protect me from success 😂

Example. Ban Pit Bull Ownership. Grass/Lawn Height Regulations.

The instances where I say "Naw" are ones in which you endanger the safety of others.

"Where your rights end are where my rights begin"

@Maw are there Bad Pit Bulls or Bad Pit Bull Owners?

For me it depends. I am strongly 2A. No background check, no finger printing. Full auto, CHL. If you lose your gun rights you probably shouldn’t be walking around. But let’s say you have someone unstable. They can be on a list.

I'd be careful with the latter half of that statement.

What I read was “I’m really libertarian but I’m not really libertarian 😂😂😂

@blueorbit, you just advanced to level 4!

What the government deems worthy of suspension of rights should always be questioned.

Yep.

With background checks we are all in a list. So I think it checks out.

The label is different than the idea.

I am trying to get off the list.