TaN: Amending a country’s fundamental law – the Constitution – should always be done on a piece meal basis, never opening it up completely. It is the better option to amend one provision at a time in order to have better control and focus. By focusing on a particular provision instead of making all provisions available, this guarantees that no “unscrupulous” changes can be made on provisions other than that which is being amended.
Opening up the Constitution renders all its provisions vulnerable to tampering by those who have hidden agendas and ulterior motives, who may want to insert, delete, or modify provisions for their own sinister and nefarious ends. There is very little – if any – opportunity or way of monitoring and ensuring that only the “agreed upon” provisions shall be “touched”. Its dangers are very evident when one examines and studies the many occasions when the Constitution is opened for amendments – especially in the case of the Philiipines – they have been “disasters”.
TaN: Every time you feel like you are SOMEBODY in this world, may I invite you to watch a clip from a tribute video of Carl Sagan, “The Pale Blue Dot”: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=895CF55442D8D8EDD2C9670BEE663E19. It will put you right into your proper place and bring you back to your senses.
TaN: “Smoking can be hazardous to your health” – this is the (paraphrased) statement that is printed on many a pack of cigarettes sold. It is intended to warn consumers/customers that the particular product has toxic properties and that its use or consumption is capable of causing detrimental or harmful health effects. Fair enough. It would appear that the government (which is supposed to be the one mandating its inclusion on the packaging of the cigarette pack) is very concerned about the harm that may befall the consumer and its presence on the packaging is supposed to serve as a warning – in the event that the purchaser/consumer is unaware of the harmfulness of the product.
However, aside from mandating the warning statement, the government also legislated an anti-smoking law which bans certain areas where smoking is not permitted, due to its unhealthy effects to the immediate environment of whoever will be consuming cigarettes (the unwitting “victims”). Moreover, it also allocated and is spending millions of taxpayers’ money in campaigns warning and educating people about the evils of smoking cigarettes. Again, these are very noble.
But, please permit me to take it from another point of view and argument. Why permit the manufacture and sale of a product and then only to enact a law limiting its consumption but even mandate a health warning in conflict with the product and spending precious and limited government revenue likewise in conflict with the product when it would be a lot more logical and simpler to just forbid the product in the first place? If cigarettes were prohibited from being manufactured (and sold) at the onset, all the efforts of mandating the warning, legislating the law, and campaigning against its consumption would have been unnecessary (or redundant)? To make matters worse, the millions of taxpayers’ money could have been allocated to something more important.
Should the argument be that business should be “free” to offer a product that will be profitable, provided that it ensures sufficient warnings and measures to inform the public about its bad effects and that the principle of Caveat Emptor shall apply to purchasers and consumers, then what is there to prevent the similar manufacture and sale of banned products and services such as shabu or cocaine? The business could, likewise, simply put a warning label on the product and the government could enact a law and launch campaigns against the product or service. Is this not insanity?