murp0434

Theoretically, laws are enacted to prevent people from doing activities that would harm others, right? For example, it's illegal to kill people or do them bodily harm.

However, many thousands of people are in prison right now for crimes which actually do no harm to anyone outside of themselves. There are two immediate examples which come to mind, but remember these are not the only examples - merely the obvious ones.

First I guess would be prostitution. Now I know that terrible things happen when pimps and etc. get involved, but if in a given situation there are two people who wish to exchange money in order for the occurrence of sexual activity, what is the problem? If there are only two (2) people involved in the situation, and both of them agree that the situation is A-OK, why should the government be involved at all in the transaction? I would even go so far to say that, were the activity NOT illegal, the involvement of pimps, etc. would not be necessary.

Another obvious and easy example is smoking mary-jew-anna. If I have a pot plant growing in my yard (which I may or may not actually have ) and I take to smoking its bounty on a regular basis, why should I have to be afraid of the government? If I were to get robbed at gunpoint, and call the cops, it is more likely that I would get hammered for the pot plant than the robber would get pursued and prosecuted. Does that seem right to you?

Other examples of consensual laws would be polygamy (assuming all parties are consenting and of age), underage drinking, adultery, porn, abortion, using drugs in general, pre-agreed-upon euthanasia, suicide, or any other crime in which all the participants are consenting...

__________________
These are the good old days.


How did I become upright?

Xerxys

I'm sorry, but the things that you speak of are not to be taken lightly. They're not 'victimless' crimes or lacking of consequence. The country was shaped by (I'm assuming) your perception of 'prudes'. Just like parents, the laws in place are there to shape society into a morally well rounded civilization. A guide of what is to be avoided. Not a leash.

There are just some things you should embrace and recognize for their truthfulness. I may agree with you perhaps on a handful of issues you pointed out such as polygamy but I think I have hanged my mind when it comes to prostitution and underage drinking. I am of the thought the law is doing fine just as it is.

Dang' I'm such a conformist eh?

telekinetic

Well, they're not preventing the activity, just withholding the certificate
Wouldn't underage drinking BY DEFINITION not be an activity between consenting adults?
Where are adultery and porn illegal?
I wouldn't try that arguement with a pro-lifer, as they'll tell you they're missing a conspicuous signature on the abortion consent form.
Any drugs that don't cause you to rob me to pay for them, drive your car into me from their effects, or decide to try to eat my face, I have no problems with you doing in the privacy of your own home. The problem here is, other than MJ, most drugs WILL kill you...it's a policy question of whether the government has the right to save you from yourself.
See above

__________________
twisted no more

dlish

oh great topic murph..interested to see the discussions

TM - porn and adultery is illegal where i live.

at work at the moment, so ill write more when i get home.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

SSJTWIZTA

adulthood=18.

drinking age=21.


Australia, i think.

__________________
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for me And there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Pastor Martin Niemoller

llama_llama

I agree with you on some level on what you say but, those laws are out there to protect people. In a percent how many people prostitute, and are happy with what their doing and not drug-related. Its degrading to say the least.

I personally thing the drug situation is more confusing. Weed and ectasy(class A) are both illegal but ones a mellow drug and the other is just for clubbing use. The laws are more out their to hit the dealers, plus where would they draw the line to one plant pot or a whole cabbage field of your ahem .. plant pots lol. Plus E can be dangerous cause you dont know whats inside it and ive seen people become such bums smoking that stuff.

Then again if you didnt know if alcohol and cigs were to be re- released it would be banned as class A straight away .. just shows you how the goverment hold all the strings

tisonlyi

'Degrading' activities are only degrading to those who think of those activities as 'degrading'. Prostitution, to someone who doesn't regard their body, sex and love in quite a particular but commonly held manner, is not degrading.

With regard to substances that WILL kill you.

ALL substances, no matter how seemingly benign, WILL kill you in sufficient quantity. Many more somewhat toxic substances are dramatically MORE LIKELY to kill you if they are completely unregulated, controlled and dosed.

Crime/irresponsible behaviour is an issue of orientation of society, quality of education and relative inequalities.

The Swiss pretty much all have assault rifles... they're more interested in Nutella and Banking (grrr). They also just voted for a free-heroin for addicts program, iirc, after a dramatically successful harm-reduction trial.

The Dutch shmoke lotsh of weedsh. They're about to close 8 prisons after their prison population declined from 14,500 or so to about 12,000.

These two societies, overall, have a practical and grey rather than hysterical/moralising and Black&White tone to their outlook and politics. They're a lot more equal, peaceful, free (as in able to take up opportunities, express themselves, etc) and content with themselves than the Anglo-Saxon model societies... which have the highest prison populations, the most restrictive laws and, yeah, you get the picture.

You can't legislate morality and responsibilty into a population, you can only educate and condition it. Looking at repercussions and irresponsibility, etc without addressing the real, societal causes of of those undesirable effects is comparable to only treating the fever and pain of a person with a gaping, putrid wound.

My 0.02c.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Halx

Its a common staple of any social liberal to disagree with laws the restrict personal freedom. Welcome to the club. We are under constant bombardment from self-righteous people who think we need laws to keep society moral, but ignore evidence that a free society is a safer one. They tell us to be grateful for the freedoms that we do have, as opposed to the ones that we don't. We are held to their standard, which is originally a religious one.

Le sigh.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

llama_llama

I like your answer tisonlyi, but how many people actully have that trained thought of offering sex for exchange for money with out no self regard. Here in the Uk majority of women who Prostitute are addicts or illegal immigrants forced to by eastern european gangs.

Personally i dont think its degrading when someone of a stable mental attiude who isnt forced to perform sexual acts through addiction or social influcences i.e porn industry. But i havent met a case on the streets where that was the case.

True even water can kill you. Everything is toxic to a degree. Heroin isnt toxic in smallest of substance( iam not sure how small were talking here) but the addiction is so great people take more and more till they pass there limit and then the deadly repercussions occur.

It truely annoys me though Ecstasy kills less people then Aspirin and fishing(lol fishing pretty extreme) and cigs and booze even higher so why arent these regulated? If the goverment had made ecstasy offical like 200 years ago i wouldnt be surprised if we were to see them in shops today.

I really like what you said here ''orientation of society, quality of education and relative inequalities'' apart from education I live in London and ive seen the goverment try give best education and certain people just abuse this fact and just dont care. individuality is so strong here, one policeman said to me,
'People know their rights better then they know the law'. So many factors contribute to Crime/irresponsible but all i know is it has gotten worse in London.

lol Nutella and Banking

Halx

The thing is, the fact that things are illegal invariably attracts danger to them. Make things legal and you'll find that all the current worries about a particular thing or act are unfounded.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

ratbastid

Not true. Formal, legal marriage is a WHOLE lot more than just a piece of paper. There are all kinds of rights and benefits that go with it. Hence the assertion that some sort of nod at same-sex partnership isn't the same as full legal marriage. And being legally prevented from sharing that sort of arrangement with multiple partners is officially a Big Deal to a few of us...

cker

To my view, prostitution seems like it could/should be legal, but I would have a question about social benefits: if a woman loses her job and her unemployment et c. are contingent on her taking any job that's available, could that mean she might have to do prostitution as a "job" to keep her benefits? That's kind of a straw-man argument, but the notion bears though. How do you handle the management of the public health risks? How do you regulate it, if at all? What level of advertising do you allow - advertising tobacco is regulated, what about sex work? What about the inevitable picket-lines and intimidation from the more hardcore religious opponentes - theyre not going away, even if legalized prostitution is in place. In the US, though, the conversation will never get to that point because prostitution is morally offensive to a large chunk of the voting population, mainly for religious reasons. It seems to be okay to trade sexual favors for lavish spending, though; perhaps it's okay if you're using the barter system.

One conern that needs to be considered regarding legalization of certain self-administered pharmaceutical enhancements is, again, the social effect. I think marijuana should be, in some way, legalized. It's a fair question to ask what the social implications of legal weed would be - it's another intoxicant with which people can distract themselves. Consider the impact of alcohol abuse on employment, domestic situations, et c. Does it become an age-enabled right-to-buy or a licensed privelege? My hunch is that we'd see some slice of the population use for a little while - probably a bigger slice than anyone thinks - basically indulging in dissipative behavior... then it would calm down. The Netherlands has substantially lower marijuana usage than the US, despite the legalized status of cannabis in that country (at least according to drugfacts.org). In my opinion we need a rational drug policy, and if we're going to ban weed because it's harmful then tobacco should be taken off the market - it is FAR more harmful to public health. I've got no numbesr to back it up but I suspect the dollar-cost of tobacco in terms of healthcare, lost workforce, et c. is higher than any of us think.

But again - some people have a moral/religious dislike of certain intoxicants (seems like for most of that population, beer has become OK). I recall my parents hiding their drinking from the church people when it was pretty clear almost everyone drank there - but were intent on not acknowledging it in public.

ASU2003

The problem with polygamy is that there are only so many women to go around. If you allow certain males to have 2+ wives, then there will be lots of single males. And lots of single, sexually frustrated males in a society can become a problem.

The only way it would work is if men believe that it is ok to share a girl they're with with other men in the inverse type of relationship. And I don't see that happening.

(Sorry ratbastid)

genuinegirly

Suicide negatively affects the family if it's a parent with young children. Other than that particular case, I don't see why it's illegal.

Coming from a woman who is capable of loving (and pleasing) two men at once, this would be such a dream. I don't understand why men are so territorial.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

ratbastid

No need to apologize to me, amigo. My girls have all the freedom in the world to be with whomever they want, and to have that relationship be as formal or informal as works for them. I wouldn't want to legalize polygamy without also legalizing polyandry (remember, despite common usage, technically polygamy is multiple wives, not multiple spouses).

Now, there's the whole phenomenon of FLDS polygamy, for instance, that IMO needs to be illegal for other reasons. Those guys don't legally marry at all--none of them have marriage certificates obtained from the state, even for one wife. So they can't be charged with polygamy, technically. They have to get them on statutory rape, for the most part, when they "marry" underage girls. Plus making them wear those prairie dresses ought to be a crime.

llama_llama

Genetics, it all boils down to how the heck would he know if its his child if their is another man involved. Its why men are so territorial, I know I couldnt if I loved her and wanted a family with her, but if was just a fling then i wouldnt care

PonyPotato

Actually, no. Polygamy is defined as multiple spouses. Polygyny is multiple wives, polyandry is multiple husbands.

__________________
"Without passion man is a mere latent force and possibility, like the flint which awaits the shock of the iron before it can give forth its spark."
— Henri-Frédéric Amiel

ratbastid

Wow. I entirely lost my head there. I did know that, once, actually. Thanks PP.

tisonlyi

llama llama, re: education not being the solution on its own.

Spot on.

Conditioning is as important as education.

Are the familial environments, the prized social positions (tacit or explicit), the media that are pushed at people, etc all directed towards encouraging responsible and ethical behaviour likely to push the vast majority toward the many paths toward cultivating virtues?

Or, are they drenched in the glorification of crime, the objectification of every other human being, the complete lack and disregard for any and all ethical behaviour (even the elements that promote some sort of ethics do so in a self-consciously pious or hypocritical way), short term reward is all, sacrifice for others as being all-but stupid, etc...

I think we both know that people are constantly drenched in self-defeating and hypocritical 'standards' from birth onwards in the UK.

That's not just the right-wing press or a 'Thatcherite/Blairite' (pretty much Reaganite for USians) society model thing either... Britain is rudderless and flailing in the gutter, heading for the sewer. Its thin 'direction' is simply towards what people might superficially want at any given moment near an election.

That'll never be manipulated by mass media controlling interests. Oh no.

(I think there are 1 or 2 anglo-saxon models heading closer to the drain, faster than we...)

Also, on the topic of drugs, you might like a little look at the era of "The Great Binge".

http://www.heroinaddiction.com/heroin_hist.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Binge

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Reese

Add the seatbelt click it, or ticket laws to that list of crap I should be allowed to do. I do wear a seatbelt, just because it feels more comfortable but, I still think people have to right not to wear one.

__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

dlish

murph, pretty much everything you mentioned in yor post is illegal in some form or other here. ...except polygyny. no im not talking about australia here, i currently live in the UAE

contrary to what many think, this place isnt governed by shariah law like places like saudi. in actual fact, its probably the most lax arab nation...probably after lebanon. its tsill has issues with recieving crticism, and curbing disenting voices is always an issue, but there have been improvements in the last few years.

but you will find nearly everything you want here from openly gay male gatherings, to drugs, to prostitution in seedy bars..pretty much what you'd find anywhere else in the rest of the world.

do i agree with all the curbing of freedoms? no not really. some issues i freel stronger about than others, but generally curbing of freedoms is akin to a closed society, and i am totally against that. police states will become failed states one day.

on the other hand, i must say that i live in relative peace and harmony. crime here is extremely low and almost non existant. anyone can walk down the street without having to think about whether there is someone waiting around the corner ready to mug you, so the curbing of some freedoms and the introduction of laws makes this place a lot more livable than other 'free' nations.

what i do find reprehensible is the fact that freedom of expression and freedom to access information is curbed. but i wont go into that for obvious reasons

sorry, i thought id give my personal circumstances in order to answer the OP.

as far as laws being put in place to keep people from harming each other, i see no problem in that. in fact i have no problem in a little bit of restrictions to keep people civilised. driving at 180km/h on a highway for example is not going hurting anyone (provided you dont have an accident) but its definately illegal and should be curbed. the same goes with most laws, which include laws from harming yourself (underage drinking for example). so laws are not really a bad thing. it just depends on the interpretations that each nation used to deicde on how to implement these laws. this obviously comes down religious beliefs, cultural norms and a myriad of other factors.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

ratbastid

The only thing I'm not sure about this (except the issue I raised above) is when people's behavior indirectly but unquestionably impacts others.

Fewer seat belts worn means more injuries in car accidents means more backup in ER waiting rooms and higher insurance premiums. So I'm impacted financially and logistically by low seatbelt uptake. Does that justify mandating seatbelt use? It's not like I'm getting hit in the face by a swinging fist, exactly. Thoughts?

MSD

Regulated and unionized sex workers are safer and healthier than those where it's illegal. Nobody is forced into it, there was a rumor about a woman in Germany being forced by government employment services a few years ago, but it was a complete fabrication by one of World Net Daily's writers.
It's illegal so they can force you into psychiatric care if you try it.
I'm fine with anyone who wants to not wearing a seatbelt, as long as they're willing to put down a deposit beforehand with local emergency services to cover the cost of scraping their stupid asses off the road when they fly through the windshield in an otherwise survivable crash. Actually, I'm not because they can't control the car when they're busy being nothing more than a mass of x traveling at a velocity of y when the carrier vehicle z rapidly changes vectors and decelerates at a few hundred f/s^2 due to a collision with another vehicle or stationary object.

biznatch

I disagree with you there. I wouldn't want some 100+ lb person with bits of sharp winshield embedded in them flying at me at 70+ mph after crashing in a light pole.

As for MJ, I think it's the same as booze, or cigarettes. IMO, it's less addictive than cigarettes, and it's effects are less dangerous than booze.

Other drugs in general are far more addictive than marijuana, and have effects that are way more dangerous. And, FFS, someone who won 14 Olympic gold medals does it, it can't be that bad.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

levite

Yeah, this should be legal everywhere, and regulated and taxed. No reason for this to be illegal, and having it illegal only makes it easier for sex workers to be abused and suffer poor working conditions and so forth.

Weed should be as legal as alcohol, though I would favor requiring permits to grow more than five or ten plants, and taxes on commercial sales of weed, to ensure we get plenty of government revenue from it. I also have no problem with banning the smoking of weed in any public place that smoking cigarettes is not legal.

I'm in favor of legalizing most drugs, provided that laws are in place to prohibit driving while high or tripping on anything, and also, one should be prohibited from carrying or using a weapon while high or tripping. Those drugs not entirely legalized, IMO, should be mostly decriminalized, since it's better to treat addicts for their addiction than to just toss them in the clink and hope that somehow it will help their addiction to get prison-raped.

We should totally lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to be drafted into the military, vote, and get married, you're old enough to have a beer after the election, champagne at your wedding, or a lot of scotch after getting called up.

Adultery is a crime of religion. Secular governments should have nothing to do with it.

Porn should be legal everywhere.

The only arguments against abortion are religious. Therefore, secular governments should have no laws prohibiting it. If religious people don't believe in abortion, they don't have to get them.

I can't see a reason to outlaw polygamy. Government has no business poking its nose into what people do in their bedrooms. And if it's an article of religious faith, government has no place legislating about religion.

As long as there is a video record of the person indicating their wish to die, or there are duly witnessed records of the person stating their wish that, if certain medical circumstances come to pass, they wish to die (along with proper medical certification that such circumstances had come about), euthanasia should be legal.

It's ridiculous to outlaw suicide. On the other hand, it's also fair to say that suicide attempts can indicate mental illness. Therefore, I say that it's fair to say that if a person is brought into the hospital and revived successfully from a suicide attempt, and they have left no DNR or papers indicating they wish to die, it should be permissible for the hospital staff to demand a psych consult to determine the person's stability-- with the knowledge that the person might be declared sane but desirous of death, and they then cannot stop the next suicide attempt.

That's a pretty broad spectrum. Sometimes things are more complex than people may think. We'd have to get specific.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Plan9

Wow. +1. Levite for Prez.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

levite

"Top Ten Things I Never Thought I'd See Crompsin Say!"

I might have to frame this post.


...it's Miller time!

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

telekinetic

I think legally recognized polygamy will be a hold out past my generation, for the obtusely practical reason that it would break every database and form ever created

__________________
twisted no more

ratbastid

But only if you're over 21.

---------- Post added at 09:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 AM ----------

Very true. I've secretly built a couple of client's databases with marriage represented as a many-to-many relationship. No UI to add more than one spouse, of course, but the DB could handle it. So a FEW databases out there are ready...

Xerxys

**shields self from pitch forks**

Hmm, levite, you got most of it spot on but I disagree when it comes to abortion, suicide & pre-agreed-upon euthanasia, the drugs thing including marijuana and prostitution.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple. What is it they say, statue of limitations? How far can the line be drawn? A life is a life is a life. When you abort you refuse or even go as far as choosing someone Else's fate. You may ask what about inflicting a cruel life on somebody? I am for abortion if there are medical reasons involved that threaten the life of either parent or child. But in a civilization such as the USA, no. We can handle whatever is thrown at us so let the kid live!!

Pre-agreed-upon euthanasia implies suicide. We have DNR (Do not resuscitate) and I think that's as far as I am comfortable with. Suicide requires mental instability. I very much refuse to believe that a sane person would want to commit suicide. And also, here's a age old question for you to ponder, "do the ends justify the means"?

I'm pretty much going to quote MSD on the drugs. I would prefer that you don't wait around the corner to rob me so you could get another fix. I have seen aggression induced by hard drugs and marijuana is just a slippery slope. Don't get me wrong, I read tisonlyi's post, but this is the USA and not Europe. When we have 2000 years of history under our belt then why not. In the meantime, let's enforce the rules as they are because I highly doubt the general public outside this board can handle Marijuana running the streets like cigarettes.

As for prostitution, I'm just reciting my own prejudices here, but I believe the mental capacities required from a woman or man are the lowest of the low. It's all in the element of the situation. Going after streetwalkers is by no means a greater risk than Escorts. It's all in the perceived differences that different people feed off. That's why it can be different to, say, acting porn (the aesthetic requirements notwithstanding).

squeeeb

i'm totally against the seatbelt law, i think it's an invasion of my privacy and somehow taking away my personal rights.

people have told me that by not wearing a seatbelt, if i were in an accident, my body would fly around the car and injure them, and then i would cause insurance rates for everyone else to go up, so it affects others and not just me.

as far as the insurance rates getting raised, that is the insurance company who makes that decision.

as far as my body flying around the car, i think it would probably go forward into the windshield. i dont know, i have yet to see a good argument for seatbelts, other than "it will save your life."

---------- Post added at 08:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 AM ----------

are you standing next to that light pole selling dope and hookers?

i dont think the body could fly through a windshield and maintain 70+ miles per hour. if the car hit the lightpole, and the body flew out and hit you, that means you were standing in front of the lightpole, so i think the car would hit you first. sorry, your argument makes no sense.

__________________
onward to mayhem!

tisonlyi

It shouldn't be illegal to not wear a seatbelt, it should be made illegal tomanufacture or alter a car to start without the seatbelt engaged properly - except for very specific circumstances in the case of disabilities.

It's the same sort of argument as the argument in favour of permanent headlights being on (shudders), day or night, as wherever this has been implemented there's been a massive observed reduction in BOTH daytime and night time RTI's OR airbags, OR, OR, OR, OR...

Lots of people, suffering from major cases of survivors bias, reject harm reduction measures as unnecessary invasions of do-goodery, and some of that's right.

A ridiculously insignificant degree of my personal comfort doesn't even come close to an argument VS the collective benefit of dramatically reducing fatalities.

Practical harm reduction Vs Half-assed ass-hattery.

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

And the laws are doing so well in stopping suicide, prostitution, drugs et al, aren't they?

Abortion doesn't belong here, it's a completely separate debate.

Any honest doctor, at least in the UK, will tell you they hide an awful lot of euthanasia behind the policy of killing the patient with enough morphine to manage their pain.

Euthanasia is, was and always will be part of medical care.

Deal with it by denying it, or deal with it in an adult, regulated manner. (the same goes for the drugs, prostitution and suicide too...)

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

ratbastid

This issue just hit real close to home for me...

For the last three years I've been a very public figure in a training and development organization. I've put a WHOLE lot of myself into it.

In a conversation I just had with another leader, it was asserted that if my relationship(s) are against the law--even in a technical sense--it's inconsistent with leadership in this organization, at least at the level I'm at.

So I did some research. The only law in North Carolina that addresses adultery was enacted in 1805, and reads in pertinent part: "If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor."

Stella and I are a man and a woman. We're not married to each other. I'm not going to address the lewdness and laciviousness of it, but for sure we associate, bed, and cohabit together. The fact that lurkette is 100% behind it doesn't figure in. The fact of Stella and lurkette's lewdness and laciviousness together (which is ample) doesn't figure in.

In 2005, a former police dispatcher in a rural NC county was told by her boss that she needed to marry her boyfriend or quit living with him, or find another job--that her employment by the Sheriff's Department was inconsistent with her breaking the law, even "technically". Her lawsuit was upheld by the county federal court, who ruled that the law is unconstitutional. That ruling doesn't apply statewide, though.

In 2007, a bill was submitted to the NC General Assembly to repeal the 1805 law. Every non-married couple living together in North Carolina is breaking this law--an estimated 144,000 of them as of 2007 when the bill was drafted. NC is one of seven states with a law still on the books outlawing cohabitation. The bill notes that the law is rarely enforced, and when it is enforced, it's used in domestic cases by the estranged spouse. That bill has been languishing in committee since last May. Think any state congresspeople really want to be the one voting for adultery?

The opponents of the 2007 repeal bill argue that there is no other law on the books in the state outlawing adultery. Which is true, there isn't. Which means, cheat on your wife in hotels all you want--she can't even use it against you at the divorce. But love somebody and live with them without being married, it's a crime.

I'm really torn up about this. Not that my lifestyle is criminal, but that I may have to quit doing something I love because of it. And it'd be the right thing, too--I can't blame the organization. It's this antique of a law.

biznatch

Yes, because every light pole has nobody around for 80 ft except for hookers, and...drug addicts? Right?
Here, how about a tree next to a children's playground?
I'm talking about a situation where you'd fly past the light pole or tree, not into the light pole. You don't need to be standing between the car and the lightpole to get hit. It depends on the body's trajectory. Excuse my grossly done mspaint drawing.
Nothing here is in the correct scale, and should only be considered for illustrative purposes.

Yes, I know it's far fetched and stuff. At this point I don't care much if someone drives without a seatbelt, I just like the law being there so that the majority doesn't and that the EMS doesn't have to scrape too many people's face off the concrete/jungle gym.

Attached Images

childdeath.jpg (38.2 KB, 115 views)

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

biznatch

LMAO. Marijuana running the streets like cigarettes? What do you think is easiest for a 16 year old to get in your average sized USA city? Weed or cigarettes? Regulating MJ would do a better job at keeping it out of underaged kid's hands. Make the penalties for illegally selling high, but sell it in stores and tax it. I know that when I was underaged, cigarettes and alcohol were real tough to get by, but weed was obtainable by asking you nearest urban-looking youth where to find it.

Also, I've yet to hear about people mugging others to get their fix of weed. That's just BS.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

Halanna

Not all laws fall under this definition. Some laws are for the protection of individual rights, some are so the controlling rulers have peace among the masses, some are to protect the people from themselves and therefore society from the unbelievably stupid things people will when do on their own given free reign with no consequence. Underage drinking probably falls under the last description.

If the prevailing law of where you live states it's illegal for you to possess a pot plant, then yes, this makes perfect sense. You are circumventing your own right to the help of law enforcement in the event of an "at gunpoint" robbery. You have placed yourself in the position of not being able to ask for help because you yourself are breaking the law.

This is religious based. There are those that want to practice polygamy because of their religion and others who don't want them to practice polygamy because of their religion. Then there is the whole thing about "marriage is between one man and one woman" which is directed at those who are gay which is again, religious.

I'm confused by this one. Should the legal drinking age be lowered or abolished?


In the majority of states, adultery isn't illegal. While it can be offered as evidence in court for divorce proceedings, it isn't illegal to engage in adultry. Those states where adultery is illegal, it's rarely, if ever prosecuted.


Abortion is religious based. Drugs . . . well, I think it's pretty well known what the effect drug use by the populace has on society as a whole, euthanasia is illegal because it requires another person, what is needed is a "do it yourself" type of kit that will allow those wishing to end their life to do so without the involvement of others. As far as I know, suicide isn't illegal.

Just because all involved consents to the act, doesn't mean the act should be legal or the act can be viewed as having no consequence to society.

No government or rulers of others will ever be able to enact laws that everyone living under the umbrella of will agree with every single one.

murp0434

[/QUOTE]

And the laws are doing so well in stopping suicide, prostitution, drugs et al, aren't they?

Abortion doesn't belong here, it's a completely separate debate.

Any honest doctor, at least in the UK, will tell you they hide an awful lot of euthanasia behind the policy of killing the patient with enough morphine to manage their pain.

Euthanasia is, was and always will be part of medical care.

Deal with it by denying it, or deal with it in an adult, regulated manner. (the same goes for the drugs, prostitution and suicide too...)[/QUOTE]



Have to respond to this one...

You actually bring up a really good point, one which I myself have used in arguments about parenting. In my personal experience, I got away with a ton of shit even though my parents were really strict. So, better to have rules against everything, then people will get away with whatever they can, right?

Only problem is that the government is not my parent. The government is a (bloated) body of individuals chosen by the voting few to earmark money for individual goals and get taken out to lunch by lobbyists. I do not look to the government for moral guidance, nor do I look for personal structure from its laws.

If there are so many laws such as these that are either (a) widely ignored, (b) rarely enforced, or (c) both, why keep them on the books? What benefit does that have, besides breeding disrespect for laws in general? Why have laws that aren't enforced or that are impossible to enforce?

PS I see your point about abortion not belonging here but I disagree. Problem is that topic always opens up such a shitstorm that it becomes a waste of time to even bring up. But, for the record I do have to agree with prev. posters that laws based on religion in a country that supposedly separates church and state are rather hypocritical and absurd.

__________________
These are the good old days.


How did I become upright?

spindles

Adultery and Porn illegal? No. In fact prostitution is legal here (and is actually government regulated)

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Crack

Time changes everything, it used to be illegal for "Negros" to eat at the same counter as "Whites" in some places in the USA...

Hopefully the gubment will changes its views on the whole mary jane issue some day soon as well.

__________________
Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex.

~Halx

squeeeb

with grass roots (HAHAH GET IT?) organizations like NORML, with so many americans, including government employees, smoking weed, you would expect the government to legalize it.

supposedly its legal in denver.

DENVER LEGALIZES MARIJUANA 53% - 46%! | Cannabis Culture Magazine

__________________
onward to mayhem!