This might not make me very popular....

[Richard]

I know, you can't legislate morality. To that extent I do not trust the govt in this matter. Who makes the rules? We do. You, me, them. First, for ourselves; 2nd, for society at large.

If an individual should want their way with an animal in the privacy of their own bedroom should that be okay? Forsaking the arguement that there is no harm in the act itself there is still the issue that that deviant thought pervades into society. We are not as free as we would like to think. There are natural laws but even still we are subjective to one another. Rather than begin a deeper philosophical discussion on human nature and thought I'll beg out right here.

 

[Alan]

Alan, from the other side of the equation, where do we stop the government from trying to legislate common sense? Where do we draw the line on new laws?

Alcohol is harmful taken to excess. Gambling, same (including state lotteries). Smoking cigarettes/cigars. Excessive fat or salt in your food. Soda. Sugar. Flying. Hiking. Etc. Etc.

All I'm suggesting is that we revisit where the line is drawn. Crimes that affect others (murder, assault, drunk driving, etc) remain crimes. "Sins" that don't affect others probably shouldn't be criminalized... but we need to make clear that people bear personal responsibility for their choices.

We need to get away from the government legislating our concience - whether driven from the right wing or the left wing.

Dunno where the line is. That's the question I was asking. Around here, the methamphetamine epidemic is ruining way too many lives. I don't know why they take their first dose, but they are hopelessly hooked and will risk all to cook another batch. Do we simply allow meth ingredient stores to operate openly? Who are they hurting beside themselves and their families?

I don't think morality can or should be legislated. I have never tried pot. Really! But I'm not sure it shouldn't be legal. I am, however, certain that methamphetamine and the rest of the currently illegal drugs should remain illegal.

 

[Greebo]

If an individual should want their way with an animal in the privacy of their own bedroom should that be okay?

Can an animal give adult consent?

Forsaking the arguement that there is no harm in the act itself there is still the issue that that deviant thought pervades into society. We are not as free as we would like to think.

Once upon a time, considering the world to be round was "deviant thought". Once upon a time, considering the Earth to not be the center of the universe was "deviant thought". In the 1800's in Salem, strong willed women were sometimes burned as witches for their deviant thoughs. In the 50's, thinking Communists had a point was deviant thought. A few years ago, in Afghanistan, a woman who talked back to a man was a deviant worthy of brutal punishments. The concept of Deviant Thoughts is hardly new, and hardly unique to WASP/C cultures.

The establishment of societal laws should come from more than the idea of 'not deviating from the norm'. The establishment of laws should be based in principles that do the most good for the most people without consideration of personal attitudes or opinions about matters which affect none but the individual.

There are natural laws but even still we are subjective to one another.

Natural laws are the only laws that can't be broken. (I keep trying to break the one about gravity...)

Rather than begin a deeper philosophical discussion on human nature and thought I'll beg out right here.

Oh well, someone else will come along I hope.

Dunno where the line is. That's the question I was asking. Around here, the methamphetamine epidemic is ruining way too many lives. I don't know why they take their first dose, but they are hopelessly hooked and will risk all to cook another batch. Do we simply allow meth ingredient stores to operate openly? Who are they hurting beside themselves and their families?

I don't think morality can or should be legislated. I have never tried pot. Really! But I'm not sure it shouldn't be legal. I am, however, certain that methamphetamine and the rest of the currently illegal drugs should remain illegal.

I agree with the making of the super addictive drugs illegal and the enforcement of keeping those out of society, because those drugs DO do serious harm to the people who use them and to the victims of the addicts who lose their self control because of the addiction.

 

[wsuffa]

Dunno where the line is. That's the question I was asking. Around here, the methamphetamine epidemic is ruining way too many lives. I don't know why they take their first dose, but they are hopelessly hooked and will risk all to cook another batch. Do we simply allow meth ingredient stores to operate openly? Who are they hurting beside themselves and their families?

I don't think morality can or should be legislated. I have never tried pot. Really! But I'm not sure it shouldn't be legal. I am, however, certain that methamphetamine and the rest of the currently illegal drugs should remain illegal.

Drawing the line is the problem. There are lots of religous fundamentalists in this country (and elsewhere) that want to use the government legislative process to impose their beliefs on everybody. That is the crux of the battle over gay unions, abortion, alcoholic consumption laws, and a whole host of other things. Morals cannot be legislated, but there's a group of folks that will try. And when it doesn't work, simply adopt a zero-tolerance policy so people will be punished over, and over, and over.

I am troubled by the meth thing.

As an ordinary citizen, I don't think I should have to provide photo ID, sign a form, and be investigated for wanting to purchase Sudafed for a head cold. OTOH, as you say, meth abusers will risk all to cook (or use) another batch. There is a terrible crime problem resulting from these drug abusers. Obviously, they should be held responsible for their actions, but those of us who occasionally want to use Sudafed are paying a price by having access to the legal drug restricted. I suppose as long as I can still access the legal drug when I need it, I am OK with reasonable restrictions on access (say, purchase limits). What I am not OK with is government tracking every single purchase I make of the item.

 

[SkyHog]

Example #2: Prostitution. In Nevada there are counties (perhaps the whole state, I don't really know, never been there) where prostitution is legal, and there are legal brothels in the state. There are women who work there who bring in six figure incomes and enjoy their work. Their customers have included not only single individuals, but also married and unmarried couples. I'm sure there are also married men who go there without their wives knowing - and while there is a moral wrongness to that, it isn't a reason for a law against prostitution. (And really, should adultery be a CRIMINAL offense? I think divorce courts handle that well enough...)

I'm gonna disagree with you on Prostitution. its not only a moral law, but it also keeps people who have power from prostituting women, abusing their power.

As far as adultery goes - I consider it a breach of contract, personally. You both signed the wedding certificate...

 

[Alan]

Drawing the line is the problem. There are lots of religous

(maybe me)
fundamentalists (Probably not me) in this country (and elsewhere) that want to use the government legislative process to impose their beliefs on everybody (kinda like the anti gun, pro abortion groups). That is the crux of the battle over gay unions, abortion, alcoholic consumption laws, and a whole host of other things. Morals cannot be legislated, but there's a group of folks that will try. And when it doesn't work, simply adopt a zero-tolerance policy so people will be punished over, and over, and over.

I am troubled by the meth thing. (As am I. Where will this line be drawn?)

As an ordinary citizen, I don't think I should have to provide photo ID, sign a form, and be investigated for wanting to purchase Sudafed for a head cold (I'm not sure what an "ordinary citizen is and how to tell them from unordinary citizens). OTOH, as you say, meth abusers will risk all to cook (or use) another batch. There is a terrible crime problem resulting from these drug abusers. Obviously, they should be held responsible for their actions, but those of us who occasionally want to use Sudafed are paying a price by having access to the legal drug restricted. I suppose as long as I can still access the legal drug when I need it, I am OK with reasonable restrictions on access (say, purchase limits). What I am not OK with is government tracking every single purchase I make of the item (they do that? Here they simply keep it behind tha counter.).

.....

 

[jkaduk]

I'd like to hear some examples of victimless crimes.

A stripper touching a customer where it is illegal to do so.
Blacks beach in San Diego - a nude beach that is tolerated where it is illegal. There's one in Lake Tahoe too. At least I think it is illegal there.
Smoking a joint from a plant you grew yourself if that is illegal in your locale. I think small amounts of pot are legal in some places. I don't know what the federal law is on small amounts of MJ.

 

[wsuffa]

.....

In some places they do track centrally. It's the only way they can tell if someone buys the legal limit at one store, then goes to another, then another, etc.

BTW, I agree that anti-gun zealots fall into the same kind of category as the fundamentalist, but not those that support legal abortions.

Why?

Because the anti-gun folks would deny everyone the ability to own a gun (they see gun violence as a societal problem), while the pro-gun side says "they're legal, own 'em if you want, but you don't have to own, no one is forcing you to buy one, it's your choice and your moral problem if it is used to kill someone". Those opposed to legal abortions would deny everybody the ability to have an abortion (they see abortion as a societal problem), while those supporting legal abortions would say "they're legal, you don't have to have one, making them legal doesn't force anyone to have one, it's your own choice - and your moral and ethical problem if you decide to have one".

Many folks (not saying you) opposed to legal abortion wrap it up in religous terms, hence my comment that the abortion debate is usually associated with religous fundamentalism.

 

[Alan]

In some places they do track centrally. It's the only way they can tell if someone buys the legal limit at one store, then goes to another, then another, etc.

BTW, I agree that anti-gun zealots fall into the same kind of category as the fundamentalist, but not those that support legal abortions.

Why?

Because the anti-gun folks would deny everyone the ability to own a gun (they see gun violence as a societal problem), while the pro-gun side says "they're legal, own 'em if you want, but you don't have to own, no one is forcing you to buy one, it's your choice and your moral problem if it is used to kill someone". Those opposed to legal abortions would deny everybody the ability to have an abortion (they see abortion as a societal problem), while those supporting legal abortions would say "they're legal, you don't have to have one, making them legal doesn't force anyone to have one, it's your own choice - and your moral and ethical problem if you decide to have one".

Many folks (not saying you) opposed to legal abortion wrap it up in religous terms, hence my comment that the abortion debate is usually associated with religous fundamentalism.

I'm not aware of the central tracking of Sudafed. Where do they do that?

As to abortion, I don't think I'm a "religious fundamentalist" (whatever that is) nor am I a "left wing Whacko" (whatever that is). But I do have empathy for a fetus that is killed/destroyed/aborted (call it what you please). I am really glad that I wasn't aborted. I'll bet most of us are.

Is it "my moral and ethical problem"? Maybe. I've never had a child of mine aborted. Yet, I am sorry for each budding life that has been denied.

 

[astanley]

In some places they do track centrally. It's the only way they can tell if someone buys the legal limit at one store, then goes to another, then another, etc.

This is correct. According to Chain Drug Review, Walgreens, CVS, Brooks, and Jean Coutu already track these sales.

Meth production has prompted this.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[ausrere]

This is correct. According to Chain Drug Review, Walgreens, CVS, Brooks, and Jean Coutu already track these sales.

Meth production has prompted this.

Cheers,

-Andrew

New laws in some states require them to track sales and keep drugs containing pseudoephedrine locked behind the counter. I believe Oklahoma was the first to pass the law. Texas just recently did.

 

[Anthony]

Only a crime if you don't own the mattress. Don't get me started on the usefulness of those tags tho...

You mean its OK to rip them off? Now I can sleep at night.

 

[gismo]

I am troubled by the meth thing.

As an ordinary citizen, I don't think I should have to provide photo ID, sign a form, and be investigated for wanting to purchase Sudafed for a head cold. OTOH, as you say, meth abusers will risk all to cook (or use) another batch. There is a terrible crime problem resulting from these drug abusers. Obviously, they should be held responsible for their actions, but those of us who occasionally want to use Sudafed are paying a price by having access to the legal drug restricted. I suppose as long as I can still access the legal drug when I need it, I am OK with reasonable restrictions on access (say, purchase limits). What I am not OK with is government tracking every single purchase I make of the item.

While I agree with you on the decongestant thing, I'm more concerned about the abuses of laws that allow asset seizure and no-knock searches. We've had cases where truly innocent people got caught up in both.