|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 171 of 331:
| 
Feb 28 17:51 UTC 2006 |
nharmon there is a difference between going across a state line to do
something, like getting a prostitute, and going across a state line to get
something and bring it back, such as a gun or drugs. Or to have an abortion.
If a state has such laws, it is to prevent not only use of guns or drugs, but
to prevent those things from being brought back for use in the state. Or to
prevent a pregnant citizen of that state from becoming not pregnant there or
anywhere else. Laws in other states can make it impossible to enforce such
laws in these states. IMO you cannot have gun control laws that mean anything
unless they are federalized.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 172 of 331:
|
Feb 28 18:06 UTC 2006 |
How do abortions fall under the catagory of "getting something and
bringing it back, such as a gun or drugs"? If anything, it should fall
under the catagory of "going across a state line to do something".
|
tod
|
|
response 173 of 331:
|
Feb 28 18:07 UTC 2006 |
re #156
PRO-CHOICE supports that a female is a human being with the intellect to
decide for herself whether or not she wishes to carry her child to term
You mean carry the foetus to birth, right?
Terminating a pregnancy happens even naturally. How can you outlaw it?
|
richard
|
|
response 174 of 331:
|
Feb 28 19:36 UTC 2006 |
also if Other had actually been to Nevada, he might know that prostitution
is actually ILLEGAL there in all but one or two counties now. One of which
is NOT Las Vegas by the way. Why did Nevada change its prostitution laws over
the years? Pressure from the border states naturally.
Personally I think prostitution should be legal everywhere, it is not for the
government to tell any adult citizen what they can or cannot do with their
bodies, be it have an abortion or have sex for money or whatever
|
tod
|
|
response 175 of 331:
|
Feb 28 19:40 UTC 2006 |
Didn't the White House have a gay prostitute running around not long ago?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 176 of 331:
|
Feb 28 20:32 UTC 2006 |
nate..wirthlin poll? really?!
lol!
|
mcnally
|
|
response 177 of 331:
|
Feb 28 20:38 UTC 2006 |
re #174:
> Personally I think prostitution should be legal everywhere, it is not
> for the government to tell any adult citizen what they can or cannot
> do with their bodies, be it have an abortion or have sex for money or
> whatever
Right. That's really more for their pimps to decide..
It's true that a substantial amount of the motivation behind prostitution
bans comes from attitudes about sex, but there's also another part of the
law that's meant to protect women (actually, girls mostly..) from being
pressured or forced into prostitution.
|
richard
|
|
response 178 of 331:
|
Feb 28 20:53 UTC 2006 |
it is not the responsibility of the law to protect consenting adults from
themselves. in a free country, you should have the right to do what you want
with your body, whether its get it tattooed or have sex with it or whatever
|
rcurl
|
|
response 179 of 331:
|
Feb 28 20:56 UTC 2006 |
A lot of problems have been associated with prostitution - mobs, disease,
"white slavery", etc. But these have mostly been regulated out of existence
in places where prostitution is now legal.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 180 of 331:
|
Feb 28 21:02 UTC 2006 |
re #178: I agree that the law is best left out of personal arrangements
between consenting adults but your argument is simply *assuming* the fact
that the prostitutes are consenting. In fact, many are coerced into
prostitution to varying degrees (everything from what we would consider
wholly voluntary to some truly horrifying scenarios.)
|
richard
|
|
response 181 of 331:
|
Feb 28 21:12 UTC 2006 |
mcnally the law can only assume that prostitution is consenting, just as the
law can only assume that drug use is consenting. otherwise aspirin would be
illegal because somebody could force a whole bottle of the stuff down your
throat and make you overdose
|
tod
|
|
response 182 of 331:
|
Feb 28 21:15 UTC 2006 |
Street morphines are illegal, richard.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 183 of 331:
|
Feb 28 21:16 UTC 2006 |
Re 176: Whats so funny happyboy? And why do you have such a problem
with expressing complete thoughts on here?
|
richard
|
|
response 184 of 331:
|
Feb 28 21:27 UTC 2006 |
re #182 and tod I don't think they all need to be. you are more of a danger
to society as a shitfaced drunk behind the wheel then you are stoned on
morphine
|
tod
|
|
response 185 of 331:
|
Feb 28 21:47 UTC 2006 |
re #184
Are you saying that a morphine addict is less likely to turn into a thieving
derelict to support their habit? A heroin junky is going to stay employed
as long as a boozer? I very highly doubt that.
As for drinking and driving, I think a heroin junky wouldn't even be able to
sit up in the driver's seat let alone drive it. I wouldn't condone driving
in either case, anyway.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 186 of 331:
|
Feb 28 21:50 UTC 2006 |
re183:
i find it funny that you cited something coming from
a republican polling firm
why are they to be believed?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 187 of 331:
|
Feb 28 22:05 UTC 2006 |
They're not. I found it confusing and interesting that a republican
polling firm would bias a poll in favor of pro-choice by defining it
as including people who believed in taking away that choice during the
later 2/3rds of a pregnancy.
Maybe it was a ploy to make pro-life look invincible. I dunno.
|
richard
|
|
response 188 of 331:
|
Feb 28 22:17 UTC 2006 |
re #185 tod yes I am, alcohol is a more addictive and more debilitating drug
than many drugs that are illegal. Plenty of people can use hard drugs and
participate properly in society, just as many people can be drunks and do so.
Sherlock Holmes was a morphine addict ya know, and he did best crime solving
while he was sitting at Baker Street getting high :)
|
richard
|
|
response 189 of 331:
|
Feb 28 22:28 UTC 2006 |
why for instance shouldn't marijuana be legal? its less addictive than
alcohol or nicotine. marijuana doesn't cause psoriasis of the liver, it
doesn't cause cancer. Its a painkiller but not as strong as Alleve. Why
shouldn't be legal?
|
edina
|
|
response 190 of 331:
|
Feb 28 22:28 UTC 2006 |
Wow - you can tell you live on the East Coast....just wait - a meth lab will
soon open near you!!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 191 of 331:
|
Feb 28 22:44 UTC 2006 |
richard, smoking pot doesn't cause cancer or emphysema?
|
richard
|
|
response 192 of 331:
|
Feb 28 22:50 UTC 2006 |
re #190 you don't need a meth lab, you can buy the cold medicines over the
counter and cook the stuff yourself
|
scholar
|
|
response 193 of 331:
|
Feb 28 22:51 UTC 2006 |
look at the studies.
it very well may not cause cancer.
|
scholar
|
|
response 194 of 331:
|
Feb 28 22:53 UTC 2006 |
slip. :(
re. 190: with what?
in other words... without a meth lab?!
also, uh, i think generally, uh, the thought is that, uh, most people wouldn't
be able to make methamphetamine on their own. :(
methcathione, though!
|
edina
|
|
response 195 of 331:
|
Feb 28 22:54 UTC 2006 |
Re 192 True. Which is why you can't buy more than two boxes of sudafed at
at time here in AZ now. Meth is a *huge* problem out here, and it's only a
matter of time before it's going full tilt, nationwide. Heck, on the cover
of my hometown newspaper (The Tecumseh Herald), there was an article about
a meth lab being busted.
I tend to find illegal drugs to be a horrid problem in this country, and
what's sad is that I have no real clue as to how to go about ending it.
|