What things should be legal

[albionmoonlight]

Just an informal straw poll. Check all that you think should be legal. "Legal" for these purposes can include taxing and regulating the activity. The devil can be in the details with this stuff--but for this, I am just curious about broad thoughts.

[JPhillips]

I picked everything except hard drugs and heavy weapons. Too many hard drugs are addictive with a single use and heavy weapons are too dangerous, IMO, for mass use.

[Logan]

Same, except someone needs to stand up for the trout, might as well be me.

[Johnny93g]

Is body armor illeagal?

[DaddyTorgo]

I picked everything except hard drugs and heavy weapons. Too many hard drugs are addictive with a single use and heavy weapons are too dangerous, IMO, for mass use.

+1

[molson]

I voted for everything, but I'd would seriously regulate and tax hard drugs. You'd have to pay up front and then stay basically locked up until you come down. I figure it'd be a good way to kill off some undesirables. You also of course, would have to sign a waiver declining participation in any government health care plan.

[panerd]

Hate to sound like an NRA mouthpiece here but a lot of the freest countries in the world also have the highest gun ownership. (USA, Switzerland, Australia, Finland, France, Canada, Norway, Sweden...)

My guess is that it is a lot harder to adopt a totalitarian type regime when the country's citizens have guns and can fight back.

[JPhillips]

Hate to sound like an NRA mouthpiece here but a lot of the freest countries in the world also have the highest gun ownership. (USA, Switzerland, Australia, Finland, France, Canada, Norway, Sweden...)

My guess is that it is a lot harder to adopt a totalitarian type regime when the country's citizens have guns and can fight back.

That argument doesn't really hold water. In 2007 the top five gun ownership per capita countries included Serbia, iraq and Yemen.

[panerd]

That argument doesn't really hold water. In 2007 the top five gun ownership per capita countries included Serbia, Afghanistan and Yemen.


I will take a wild guess... because of the wars going on there?

[JPhillips]

I will take a wild guess... because of the wars going on there?

I don't know, but it makes arguing a correlation between gun ownership and freedom rather difficult.

[lungs]

Hard drugs are kind of a difficult one for me. I don't think you should be able to go into the corner 7-11 and buy an 8 ball of cocaine. But under doctor supervision for any number of reasons, I don't have a problem. Heroin is probably a better example, as I'm not sure the medicinal value of cocaine except in dentistry.

[panerd]

I don't know, but it makes arguing a correlation between gun ownership and freedom rather difficult.


I think most historians will tell you that a combination of the Alps and well armed citizens who would shoot officers are one of the reasons the Nazi's left the Swiss alone. (and the Alps part is questionable seeing as they decided to go into Russia in the middle of the winter) Doesn't seem that difficult at all to understand the outliers of Iraq, Afganistan, Serbia, and Yemen on the list of basically the freest counties in the world. But that isn't the purpose of this thread so I will leave it at that.

[Lathum]

I pretty much went where everyone else did.

I would have liked to see online gambling on there as well. These are things that should be legal and have the shit taxed out of them.

[Lathum]

I think most historians will tell you that a combination of the Alps and well armed citizens who would shoot officers are one of the reasons the Nazi's left the Swiss alone.

I'm not really sure that is accurate. I think it is more they needed the banking system there and that they felt people of Nordic heritage were Aryan and in general left them alone.

I am about to go to class, the subject, Science in Nazi Germany, so maybe I can find out.

[JPhillips]

I think most historians will tell you that a combination of the Alps and well armed citizens who would shoot officers are one of the reasons the Nazi's left the Swiss alone. (and the Alps part is questionable seeing as they decided to go into Russia in the middle of the winter) Doesn't seem that difficult at all to understand the outliers of Iraq, Afganistan, Serbia, and Yemen on the list of basically the freest counties in the world. But that isn't the purpose of this thread so I will leave it at that.

So the Nazis were so afraid of personal firearms among the Swiss population that they instead decided to attack the Red Army's tanks, artillery and air force?

[Logan]

I pretty much went where everyone else did.

I would have liked to see online gambling on there as well. These are things that should be legal and have the shit taxed out of them.

Just curious what you mean since I know you're a player. Are you just talking about on the house side or do you think winnings should be taxed higher than they currently are (when they are legitimately played)?

[MikeVic]

Everything but hard drugs and heavy weapons.

[panerd]

I'm not really sure that is accurate. I think it is more they needed the banking system there and that they felt people of Nordic heritage were Aryan and in general left them alone.

I am about to go to class, the subject, Science in Nazi Germany, so maybe I can find out.

Ask about the famous Swiss quote about how they would fight off a million man army. "Each man will have to shoot twice." They are quite known for thier citizen militia. (Swiss army?)

[ISiddiqui]

I picked everything except trout fishing... damn fishermen :mad:

[panerd]

So the Nazis were so afraid of personal firearms among the Swiss population that they instead decided to attack the Red Army's tanks, artillery and air force?

Read a history book.

[Rizon]

Is body armor illeagal?

Only with a felony conviction.

[I. J. Reilly]

Not trying to call anyone out, but is there really someone who thinks caffeine should be illegal?

[Rizon]

Not trying to call anyone out, but is there really someone who thinks caffeine should be illegal?

And worse ... 18 people so far think trout fishing should be illegal.

[albionmoonlight]

I pretty much went where everyone else did.

I would have liked to see online gambling on there as well. These are things that should be legal and have the shit taxed out of them.

Dammit. I forgot gambling. Crap. Oh well, I assume, based on this board, that it would have ~90% approval as well.

[Chief Rum]

I said everything except assault weapons (and I may have forgotten to click Trout Fishing). I took the Libertarian bend on hard drugs, but that's one I am on the fence on. I wouldn't mind if that remained illegal.

[sterlingice]

I did the standard all but heavy weapons and heavy drugs. That said, I'm all for pretty strong sin taxes on any of the above including caffeine and even something like unhealthy food where the tax goes into a health care fund. People are still free to pay extra and do those things that can be viewed as harmful to society but if it has an additional cost to society, they should pay that *on top of* the price that it's most profitable for a company to sell those wares.

SI

[sabotai]

Portugal tried decriminalizing hard drugs. Not full-blown legalization, but if you are caught by police (if I'm reading it right), the only punishment is voluntary rehab, no jail time. Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html)

[RainMaker]

Hate to sound like an NRA mouthpiece here but a lot of the freest countries in the world also have the highest gun ownership. (USA, Switzerland, Australia, Finland, France, Canada, Norway, Sweden...)

My guess is that it is a lot harder to adopt a totalitarian type regime when the country's citizens have guns and can fight back.
Aren't most of those countries called "socialist" by many people in this country?

As for the poll, I would have added gambling to the list.

[AENeuman]

Why is prostitution so accepted? Is it because it is viewed as a victimless-consensual act? this profession is overwhelming driven by abuse, addiction and poverty

[Kodos]

I think the angle is that it would be safer for everyone involved if it was legal and the women were protected. Plus, we need room in jails for violent criminals.

[Fidatelo]

I think there should be a distinction on the personal firearms. I'd be fine with people having rifles and shotguns, but I don't think people should have handguns. I can defend myself from the Nazi's just fine with a rifle, but it's harder to sneak one into a club or conceal one in my pants.

[Rizon]

(and I may have forgotten to click Trout Fishing).

FOFC Card ... you've just forfeited it.

[Abe Sargent]

I went with everything but hard drugs. I think we need more military weapons in teh hands of citizens not less. I agree not stuff like missiles or nukes or anything, but I totally would be for limited purchases of things like assault guns and body armor and RPGs and stuff.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I voted for everything. I don't care what other people do. Speaking only for myself, the only thing that should be illegal is getting near me without my permission.

[Kodos]

Who exactly are the folks wanting assault guns and body armor afraid of?

[Kodos]

the only thing that should be illegal is getting near me without my permission.

It was only once, and I was just trying to get a peek!

[JPhillips]

Read a history book.

Touche. Wish I had thought of that one.

[panerd]

Touche. Wish I had thought of that one.

Except I have and that is why I know a lot about Switzerland and it's citizen militia. Whereas your agrument seemed to show little understanding of how the Swiss are able to stay neutral all these years.

[DanGarion]

Only with a felony conviction.

Because every non felony convicted citizen might need a little extra armor from time to time, when they are hunting or something.

[JPhillips]

You can rightly point out that the Swiss have a relatively strong militia and a high firearm ownership rate. What you claimed, that you haven't been able to back up, is that the Nazi's didn't invade Switzerland because they were worried about the high rate of firearm ownership. When you can show me actual German military leaders saying that's why they didn't invade I'll listen. You're just upset because you can't prove a correlation between gun ownership rates and political freedom.

I'm no expert, but I'll gladly go book for book on WWII with you.

[DanGarion]

Aren't most of those countries called "socialist" by many people in this country?

As for the poll, I would have added gambling to the list.

Exactly, they get everything for free...

[molson]

Because every non felony convicted citizen might need a little extra armor from time to time, when they are hunting or something.

Nobody needs extra firepower, but nobody needs any of the other things on this list either. And firearms are the only thing on the list that have some, debatable, constitutional protection.

[Karlifornia]

I voted everything but heavy artillery...even then, I wouldn't care too much if someone wanted an assault rifle.

[larrymcg421]

Nobody needs extra firepower, but nobody needs any of the other things on this list either. And firearms are the only thing on the list that have some, debatable, constitutional protection.

I disagree. The 14th Amendment covers the other items on the list.

I voted for everything but the trout fishing.

[Logan]

Nobody needs extra firepower, but nobody needs any of the other things on this list either

Just TRY to take my coffee from me.

[AENeuman]

Who knew Deadwood was such a Utopia?

[Abe Sargent]

Who exactly are the folks wanting assault guns and body armor afraid of?

I'm not afraid of anything, but I think to understand the Constitution's protections, you have to understand the era it was in. The idea that the government would serve best if its citizen was armed in order to keep it in line was important. In order to secure that, a citizen could have muskets, guns, etc.

Here's whats important though. The reason the government could be checked by citizens with muskets and such in case it became too dictatorial, was because the government itself had muskets and such. Citizens had the same military hardware the military had. There were even large numbers of private ships owned. The only major thing the USA that its citizens generally did not were cannons, and you could build a cannon in time of open conflict in a short time, and there were very few.

It makes sense, if you want the citizens to be he ultimate check on govenrment's abuse of power, then they need weapons that can do it. Today we allow citizens to have a much smaller quality of weapon than the military, and the result is that if the government were to start taking away our property, rights, and cancel elections, we would be unable to fight back with our hunting rifles and handguns. The original intent was to ensure that citizens were there to step in front of the govenrment if it went to far, and that is no longer the case. So I would support citizens owning military jeeps, body armor, RPGs, LAW rockets, etc. However, missiles are to me the modern version of cannons then, and I think that goes too far. You don;t need a nuke to have a fighting chance, but you have to have a way of destroying materiel like armored jeeps and such. Therefore, based on the original intent of the Constitution, I think things like assault rifles, body armor and heavy weapons and armored vehicles should be legally possessable.


It's not a right or wrong issue, it's just that I think that's what the Constitution says, and you should go with it until amended. Similarly, I think there is no legal right to privacy, because it's not mentioned there, but I would support an amendment to the Constitution to add it. Again, it's not an issue of right or wrong, because I don;t think that applies to gun ownership or privacy, but I think you have to go by what the document says ,not your hundreds of years later version of what it means.

[thesloppy]

I think it's somewhat interesting that prostitution is trending higher than tobacco.

[Abe Sargent]

I think it's somewhat interesting that prostitution is trending higher than tobacco.

I like the Canada legality of prostitution.

[RainMaker]

It's not a right or wrong issue, it's just that I think that's what the Constitution says, and you should go with it until amended. Similarly, I think there is no legal right to privacy, because it's not mentioned there, but I would support an amendment to the Constitution to add it. Again, it's not an issue of right or wrong, because I don;t think that applies to gun ownership or privacy, but I think you have to go by what the document says ,not your hundreds of years later version of what it means.
The document says arms. So shouldn't that mean suitcase nukes and grenade launchers should be legal?

[BYU 14]

Just out of curiosity, how does having body armor really level the playing field to keep the government in check when hypothetically they could just call in air strikes and Tanks?

All widespread availability of body armor and other ultra high powered weaponry would do is put the Police at an even greater disadvantage and probably insure a few more widows and orphans every year.

[QuikSand]

I went for the whole shebang.

Mentally, I guess I inverted the question, sorta for argument's sake, and re-asked "what things on this list are so essentially harmful for people to have and use that there's a compelling government interest to step in and outlaw not just the bad things we associate with them, but their actual possession and use itself?" And at that level, I found the big weapons and hard drugs to be only modestly difficult to eliminate.

[Fidatelo]

I like the Canada legality of prostitution.

Which is what exactly? I don't remember it being made legal up here, although I'll be honest I don't exactly scour the newswire for updates on prostitution laws. I do know that my province impounds the vehicles of John's and I believe there is some kind of shame list or something where names are made public.

[RainMaker]

I marked no on hard drugs but I could make exceptions. I think if the drug is used in the privacy of someone's home, I'm fine with it. Basically, if you want to use crack, stay in your fucking house. When you enter public on that stuff, you become a danger to others and should be arrested.

[BYU 14]

I marked no on hard drugs but I could make exceptions. I think if the drug is used in the privacy of someone's home, I'm fine with it. Basically, if you want to use crack, stay in your fucking house. When you enter public on that stuff, you become a danger to others and should be arrested.

Hmm, so what happens when all these crack addicts spend their mortgage money on drugs and then have to throw on their body armor, grab an assault rifle and some claymores and take down a bank?

[molson]

Just out of curiosity, how does having body armor really level the playing field to keep the government in check when hypothetically they could just call in air strikes and Tanks?



Well, you don't necessarily need to overthrow the U.S. army to cause a lot of change/havoc in this country.

If the U.S. uses air strikes/Tanks on their own people, a people whose "cause" is seen as just by a good portion of the population (both domestically and internationally) - that would definitely shake things up.

[Jughead Spock]

Why is it that every informal poll I see trends so highly on approving things like marijuana and prostitution, yet they rarely, if ever, have any traction when brought up for voting?

[BYU 14]

Well, you don't necessarily need to overthrow the U.S. army to cause a lot of change/havoc in this country.

If the U.S. uses air strikes/Tanks on their own people, a people whose "cause" is seen as just by a good portion of the population (both domestically and internationally) - that would definitely shake things up.

That first paragraph was TIC ;)

I did mean the second paragraph though.

[GrantDawg]

Why is it that every informal poll I see trends so highly on approving things like marijuana and prostitution, yet they rarely, if ever, have any traction when brought up for voting?


Because actual polls only show a third of people support legalization. If a politician even suggests it, then he would be killed by negative campaigning for being "soft on crime."

[panerd]

Because actual polls only show a third of people support legalization. If a politician even suggests it, then he would be killed by negative campaigning for being "soft on crime."

First of all I agree with you completely on the politicians but I think the medical marijuana voting results are closer to reality though than the "Do you support legalization?" polls. Its just like religion. The polls show a number a lot different than the number of cars in the chruch parking lots. But I do agree that politicians are spineless and all about reelection and not about freedom or at a minimum looking for additional tax revenue when states are laying off workers left and right. Hmmm... a huge additional source of revenue to spend on "jobs" or print a bunch of money to spend on pork project that does nothing but put as more in debt?

[albionmoonlight]

heh, trout fishing at just over 60%. Who knew we had so many animal rights activists at FOFC.

[Noop]

I would love to nothing more then to have sex with a drunk prostitute while I am high off weed and red-bull.

[Glengoyne]

I would love to nothing more then to have sex with a drunk prostitute while I am high off weed and red-bull.

No Guns? You disappoint me.

[SportsDino]

I would love to nothing more then to have sex with a drunk prostitute while I am high off weed and red-bull.

... and then shoot her, chop up her body to do some trout fishing while coked up, and use my grenade launcher on the cops if they give me any guff!

(Just trying to get full coverage here)

-----

As for the poll I voted legalize everything but heavy weapons and hard drugs. The hard drugs are too damaging/mind-altering with limited usage. As for weapons, it really would only encourage radicals to arm up and be able to cause even more damage when they go nutso. I'm all for a check on the government, but supposedly that is what the political process is for. If it gets to the point of military coup we have failed at way too many points along the way to begin with (or been so apathetic and lazy in our politics that we pretty much deserve to be enslaved sheep).

[Toddzilla]

I can't believe I voted yes for handguns...damn you Cam!!!

;)

[Marc Vaughan]

I voted yes for everything but weaponry (sorry I'm too english to be able to be comfortable with guns really).

Emotionally I'm against hard drugs being legalised - especially now I'm a parent, but I know statistically speaking it'd actually be much better for countries to do so really (if you look at most modern coutries where many drugs are legal they have no bigger problems with them than anywhere else - arguably less, the same thing can be found if you look at other prohibited substances such as alcohol etc. around the world).

Legalising them would allow regulation of them (so they'd be safer for people who do take them), remove a certain proportion of crime associated with them and bring in additional tax revenue to the goverment.

I also feel that EDUCATION is the most vital thing for any society to concentrate upon, if people learn enough to make informed decisions then most of them will avoid drugs and suchlike (and to some people making something illicit makes it even more appealing imho - its the 'risk' involved and the chance of being caught).

An interesting insight into the Amsterdam setup can be found here:

AMSTERDAM: FACTS AND FIGURES (http://www.drugtext.org/count/nl/adup951.html)

(and yeah despite that - if I ever catch my kids taking drugs they'll be impounded in their rooms for the rest of their childhood, home schooling here we come ;) )

[albionmoonlight]

(and yeah despite that - if I ever catch my kids taking drugs they'll be impounded in their rooms for the rest of their childhood, home schooling here we come ;) )

I think that it is a very rational position to take. You can believe that something should not be a crime, but that it is still stupid as hell to do. And you can (and should, IMO) in that situation, do what you can to prevent your kids from doing it.

I don't think that unmarried people having unprotected sex should be a crime, but I will do everything in my power to keep my kids from getting pregnant and/or causing someone else to be pregnant until they are old enough to handle having a baby.

[AENeuman]

Given that by far more people die from the heavily regulated alcohol than hard drugs, i'm not sure how the case can be made that regulating drugs and prostitution will make it safer.

[cartman]

A lot of folks also have a disconnect between the concepts of legal/illegal and regulated/unregulated. Just because something that was once illegal is made legal doesn't mean that it is automatically unregulated.

[Noop]

No Guns? You disappoint me.

I am not sure if I want any guns around while I am pile-driving a hooker.

[Samdari]

I don't think that unmarried people having unprotected sex should be a crime, but I will do everything in my power to keep my kids from getting pregnant and/or causing someone else to be pregnant until they are old enough to handle having a baby.

I am hoping my daughter has the common decency to wait until I die to have sex.