[extropy-chat] The problems with Alcor and the new proposed Arizona law
mlorrey at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 22 16:50:40 UTC 2004
--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> As much as I respect the "free spirit" of states in New England,
> I also trust that one can have backlashes. So for cryonics to
> ultimately be workable it has to look at legal entities where
> the specification of the disposal of ones body or trusts which
> hold ones body, etc. are not likely to be violated.
How about this: I am currently working with a few state legislators,
and another associate of mine (the LPNH chair) has held several
appointments from the Governor to various duties. We are crafting
liberty-oriented bills and getting them put before the legislature.
One of these has already passed the House and Senate, in two different
forms, is currently undergoing revision in the House to conform to the
Senate version, and will then go to the Governor. This is a bill to
eliminate the need for concealed weapons permits in the state, and to
issue permits to people who wanted them, for reciprocal carry out of
state. This is our success. We have more bills in the pipeline.
If we could get a bill passed that gave legal protection to people
freely choosing cryonics as a viable alternative to conventional
funerary options, would Alcor move here if Arizona became no longer
feasible? If so, what measures would Alcor want to see in the bill?
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
- Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
More information about the extropy-chat