Select Page

Structural Change

I have proposed – if I am elected – to hold pre-constitutional conventions around the state in order to discuss the states structural problems.

Voters are asking what a pre-constitutional convention is. In this state the only way to amend the Constitution is for each branch of the legislature to enact an amendment by a two-thirds majority and then for voters to approve the amendment by a simple majority.

There is nothing in the Washington Constitution about constitutional conventions, much less pre-constitutional conventions. However, there would be nothing wrong with convening a meeting to discuss needed constitutional and structural changes. Hence, I have made up the term “pre-constitutional convention”. Call them town meetings if you would like.

The aim of such pre-constitutional conventions would be to inform voters regarding needed structural changes, elicit feedback, and try to build consensus. I would then present the results of these conventions to the legislature. The aim would be to build the political support that legislators would need in order to take a major step such as enacting major legislation or amending the Constitution.

Voters have asked what issues require structural change.

First, and most obviously, we need a new statute or a constitutional amendment which would enact a Washington version of the Safe Drinking Water Act, specifically the prohibition against adding anything to drinking water to medicate us.

So-called fluoride is added to prevent tooth decay It is ineffective at doing that, but that is the intent. Thus, so-called fluoride meets the state and federal definition of a drug:

articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and … articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.

The Safe Drinking Water Act says:

No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.

I believe that this law applies to states, cities, and local water districts, however supporters of so-called fluoridation argue that cities can medicate our drinking water because a city fluoridation ordinance is not a “national regulation”.

To clarify the issue, we need a state statute or constitutional amendment which would prohibit adding any substance to our drinking water for preventive health care purposes, except for substances such as chlorine which treat the water and kill bacteria. Fluoride is not intended to treat the water but to treat us.

I usually do not agree with the slippery slope argument, however, in this case, I think it applies. Water districts elsewhere have added lithium to drinking water, and there are those who favor doing this. Manipulators are making serious plans to add such drugs to your water, and San Diego has built the equipment and will be starting to add lithium soon. San Diego right now is gearing up to filer sewer water using reverse osmosis and return that water to the drinking water system. This recycled water would contain lithium, because lithium waste from brake grease runs off streets and into the sewage system.

Fluoride has the effect of making one more docile. It should not be added to our water.

%d bloggers like this: