I am responsible..............

There are only 1.4 million people living in retirement homes during non-scamdemic years. Good luck attempting to kill 9 million children with flu-like COVID

I am not advocating anything, no one knows jack shit and everyone's opinion on what to do isn't worth jack shit, including the so called experts. I am not asking a question about masks I am saying that mask manufactures don't endorse anything that so called health experts are saying about masks. And with that said I will go back to what I said in the beginning forcing me to wear a mask against my will without due process of law is a violation of my constitutional rights. I also believe it is a form of torture.  It is not natural to wear a muzzle over your face 8 hours a day 5 days a week or even longer for month or years on end. This could last for years and there is no reason to believe it wont. 

A lack of endorsement is not an endorsement against. Which is probably the best course of action to take when manufacturers cannot offer relevant medical advice, and that endorsement of masks when not having relevant or requisite medical knowledge opens you up to liability. 

The supreme court has already ruled on the constitutionality behind exercising power in the interests of public health in Jacobson v Massachusetts, and more recently in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom. Obviously this does not mean anyone will hold you down and force a mask on you. But it does mean that you have no legal recourse if you get slapped with a fine.

Hysterical nonsense.

Nor is wearing clothes or using electronic gadgetry. Appeal to nature summarily dismissed.

Perhaps on a global level sure. But I imagine that it could be mostly eradicated in a more localized sense if there were a sufficient community effort to reduce spread via self-isolation, quarantining, social distancing and/or wearing masks. 

Your OPINIOINS based on all conflicting information on Covid 19 are noted

haven't had time to verify, but apparently now the claim is that's unlikely if not virtually impossible to catch covid off of objects, which is NOT what was being said before.

Ya I just read an article that the death rate from covid 19 under the age of 45 is near 0.  And in other news I read an article that we will have to wear masks for years. If I have to choose between wearing a mask for years and you or anyone else getting covid 19 I choose that you or anyone else gets covid 19. This would be akin to mental torture to be forced to wear masks for years. If the govt does this it must provide them all free of charge to everyone. I will not spend my own money to buy masks. I am not funding govt regulations with my own after tax money.

sadolite like to make up constitutional rights, out of thin air

Last I checked due process of law is a constitutional right. The law says it must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that I am a threat to society. It's your opinion that I am not afforded this right.

so where does it say you have a right not to wear a mask?

you assume the use of the phrase 'due process' means you don't have to wear a mask? due process just means you get process rights, if you violate the law you get to be seen by a court to plead your case that you didn't violate the law. due process doesn't mean you do whatever you want or the state can't make said laws. if we were to assume that due process goes that far as to give you unstated rights, where does it end? you are giving unelected beaurocrats a lot of power, the judiciary, and basically allowing that branch to make whatever laws it sees fit, judicial law making. how can they say you need a fishing license? almost any ban you can think of could be said to be unlawful. i guess the law is whatever sadolite sees fitting and right? 

no serious legal scholar would think the way sadolite does. the state has the presumption that it can make laws and bans. that's the way it's always been. so the state can only outlaw actual negligence it can't outlaw high risk acts that lead to negligence? so if you want to demolish your house with explosives, you have the right to given that you might not hurt anyone? this kind of thinking is retarded, and like i said, no serious legal scholar would think this way. they might question whether a governor alone has the power to make these dictates, but no one seriously thinks the legislative branch doesn't have the power. 

can you find one serious legal scholar who thinks you have a fundamental right not to wear a mask? if legal scholars actually thought this way, this would be an actual issue, and there would be respectable people arguing this. but no legal scholar is arguing this. this idea of a right not to wear a mask is only mentioned by lunatics and ignorant people

here is an FYI excerpt that conventional law is on my side....

"Do you have a constitutional right not to wear a mask?

More importantly  is wear does it say I have to wear one without due process of law. Look I get you don't give a shit about your rights. It must be proved I am a threat to the public. If I am, then put me in quarantine.

Just so you know, Declaring a state of emergency does not do away with due process of law nor does it give unilateral power to the Governor of any state to write new laws. They still have to follow established legislative protocols.  All it does is give power to unilaterally move resources and spend money without legislative approval. I repeat it does not give power to write new law. Due process is still in place. If you are really serious about Covid 19 why doesn't the Governor just unilaterally declare all people who test positive to be euthanized to stop the spread. I see no difference in the legal argument in forcing me to wear a mask. The stated goal is to stop the spread, Since the govt doesn't have to abide by due process as you argue what is to stop the govt from euthanizing people who test positive? No feelings based arguments please or that's to extreme, those are opinions, not legal arguments. The govt kills and  puts people to death all the time.

i can agree that a govenor doesn't have authority to declare everyone must wear a mask, but it's possible for the states to declare it. i notice you haven't shown any respectable legal scholar who thinks you have a right to not wear a mask. i cited the american bar association, and noted the lack of anyone who says otherwise. you cited yourself. who should we listen to, the legal establishment, or some lunatic on the internet who thinks he knows better than all those lawyers and judges? 

There is no text anywhere that addresses  what you ask for in terms of legal arguments. There is also no text to support your legal claim

the quote i gave above had a statement by the american bar association that was pretty much on point. it also included links to established legal understandings on this issue exactly on point. also, try googling it yourself. "do i have a right to not wear a mask". you will find that my ideas are the established legal understanding. again, you cite no one but yourself. i cite current legal understanding.  so, who should we listen to? prove me wrong

also, i would think you would have by now, but google whether masks are effective.  i'm sure not all masks are created equal, but they just came out with a study that said places  that required them saw a lower infection rate. this is also basic accepted understanding, that masks are generally effective

 "all powers not specifically given to the federal government, " Due process of the law is a federal law not a state law. It is a constitutional right and supersedes all state law. You are arguing using the law you stated that a state Govenor can declare everyone and anyone is a threat and quarantine anyone for any reason with no due process. Your interpretation makes the the Governor  a dictator with unlimited power. This is simply not the case and is patently false. 

Never read a study that didn't show exactly what they wanted it to show.  You say the Governor has the power to unilaterally take what ever means he deems  necessary to stop the spread of a pandemic according to how you interpret the law.  Euthanizing all people who test positive would stop the spread, using your interpretation of the law, what is to stop a Governor from doing so if he or she deems it necessary? And please spare me that is to extreme, Governors put people to death all the time, they are afforded that power under the law. Of course due process must come first. The people can not be trusted to self quarantine or wear masks properly so in the interest of public safety all people who test positive should be euthanized.

you misread... i agree with you that a governor cannot require masks from his own authority. 

you keep ignoring the fact that i am citing and showing through google that you the legal establishment agrees with me, that states have the power to require masks. i keep asking, but you keep ignoring to show one respectable authority that says you have the right to wear not wear a mask no matter what. 

it's a fact that some masks effectively slow the spread of the virus. it's a fact that all masks help slow the spread at least to some degree. you just choose to ignore these things. in fact, i think you use pretext in your arguments. instead of just stating that you dont want to wear a mask, period, you argue that some masks might not be effective so you wont wear one. what you should be doing, if that is your position, is to find the masks that are effective, and wear them. but, i know that wouldn't change your argument because you're just arguing just to argue and have no good point there. 

you're anti science, anti legal establishment, stupid, and a bad person to think you have no obligation to anyone else. 

I said I am entitled to due process of law to be forced to wear a mask. I never said no matter what. I keep arguing the state must show cause that I am a danger to the public and you keep ignoring that.

Listen to the "health experts"

I absolutely LOVE the response the health expert said when he was challenged on why he was asking for hydroxy.

He pulled the HIPAA card and told the pharmacist to fill the damn prescription.

the control issues are just frightening.  Personally I would have added "President Trump also passed the right to try law"  just as an extra dig.

I like how there are 19 different opinions in this thread. DART is thriving!

I’m still confused as to why liberals aren’t staying at home. Why does the govt have to tell them to stay at home to stay at home?

Which ones? They all say different things

Basically you have to use common sense to figure out which "expert" is more likely to be right than wrong.