If there was one illegal thing you would legalize...

[Cheka Man]

what would it be?

With me, it would be the relegalisation of firecrackers (only sellable for 10 days in November though, to stop them going off all the time.)

[Huginn]

Good question. I think I would take a step to fight the draconian laws over copyright. I think India took a great step in this regard and it seems an ideal to me.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/22/indias-copyright-bil.html

[Jude]

Taxation of churches.

[Vekseid]

I'd go for intangible patents (software patents, 'business method' patents, story patents, genetic patents, and other such BS) before copyright reform, personally. While our current copyright system is horribly broken, it's not (yet) quite as disruptive as our broken patent system.

[Mathim]

Any laws that have to do with obscenity/censorship in any way, shape or form.

'Cause I'm seriously pissed about South Park's latest episode getting censored and banned by the perceived threat of fanatical Muslim terrorists.

[Sabby]

I'd second that. They took 'being cautious' with depicting Muhammad to an unreal extreme for comedic effect, and still there's an outcry. Its rediculous.

[Mathim]

Amen to that. It looks like the terrorists have officially won.

[Brandon]

If anything south park should have tried to push it through, leaving it to the network to decide whether to show it or not. Also, interestingly, theres an older unedited episode of south park that showed Muhammid. It was the one with the Jesus pals (Super friends only the members were of religious figures) and I dont think its ever been talked about

I dont even understand why there seems to be this ban on showing Muhammid in any light. I dont suppose someone can explain that to me?

Edit: Also we should all call for it to be aired and by extension show the extremists that we wont be intimidated

[Mathim]

If anything south park should have tried to push it through, leaving it to the network to decide whether to show it or not. Also, interestingly, theres an older unedited episode of south park that showed Muhammid. It was the one with the Jesus pals (Super friends only the members were of religious figures) and I dont think its ever been talked about

I dont even understand why there seems to be this ban on showing Muhammid in any light. I dont suppose someone can explain that to me?

Edit: Also we should all call for it to be aired and by extension show the extremists that we wont be intimidated

The banned episode contained the Super Best Friends from that past episode you mentioned, but the image of Muhammad was censored. As for why it's taboo (at least nowadays) to show Muhammad...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jyllands-Posten_cartoons_controversy

And no one is willing to take the risk to piss of potential terrorists. It is absolutely disgusting that a few people have managed to vilify an entire religion and everyone who follows it.

BTW, my bad on accidentally hijacking this thread. I'm just frustrated because of the above travesty of violating freedom of speech, and that I don't have any roleplays at the moment to engage me intellectually.

[Vekseid]

Any laws that have to do with obscenity/censorship in any way, shape or form.

'Cause I'm seriously pissed about South Park's latest episode getting censored and banned by the perceived threat of fanatical Muslim terrorists.

That has nothing to do with being illegal and Comedy Central just being cowards.

[Sabby]

Brandy, the same points have been named many times on the show. Cartoon Wars, where the joke originated, stated that showing the image would be supporting free speech and that the censorship was showing Terrorists that we would bow to intimidation.

In 200, Stan does point out that he saw Muhammad, but is met with an outcry, and then finds that he has indeed been replaced by a black censor bar on The Super Best Friends.

The plot revolves around celebrities like Tom Cruise pressuring South Park into providing them with Muhammad, so they they can steal his ability to completely avoid ridicule, and most of the comedy is the discussions of what is and is not an appropriate way to do this...

They eventually settle on having him in a windowless van, but when you hear a small, meek word from within, there's a collective, unsettled shuffling. "Ooohh, is that okay?"

Uhm, we should take this into a new thread. Maybe a nice Mod could split the South Park issue? :)

[Mathim]

As I had kind of hinted at, it was not my intention to have that happen but it seemed to get away from me there.

[Brandon]

Ah, I was under the impression that it was a new episode, not the old one.

Anyway, I think you misunderstood me. I remember the danish cartoons. What I dont understand is why the Muslim faith disagrees with any representation of Muhammid anywhere. Whether its positive or not

I also agree, a new thread might be best for this discussion

[Jude]

Ah, I was under the impression that it was a new episode, not the old one.

Anyway, I think you misunderstood me. I remember the danish cartoons. What I dont understand is why the Muslim faith disagrees with any representation of Muhammid anywhere. Whether its positive or not

I also agree, a new thread might be best for this discussion

Graven images of Allah or Mohammud are prohibited in Islam.  Shirk, I think it's called.

[Stan']

One free kill.  Restricted to untalented, undeserving, attention-seeking "celebrities".

Plenty of choice then.

[HockeyGod]

gay marriage

[Brandon]

gay marriage

Isnt gay marriage legalized in some states already?

[Trieste]

Yes, although it has been legalized only through legislature and not yet through a popular vote. Every state that's brought it to referendum has voted it down, so.

Alx, that image dun' work.

[GeekFury]

Cannabis, it's actually been medicaly proven here in the UK to be less harmful than alchahol and ciggerets.

[Stan']

These "medically proven" reports are always uncertain.

After all, how many times have we heard that certain foods are good for you one minute, then extremely harmful and cancerous the next?

[Chelemar]

The ban on gay marriage.

Yes, there are a limited few states that allow gays to marry.  Now, if only we all lived in those states.  :)

Though really, erm no.  I love where I love.  I don't wanna move to Boston, I never learned out to spell massachuchetess.  See!

I can't even pronounce it.  Not that it's not a perfectly wonderful and lovely state.  It's just not mine. 

I want to be married to my honey here, and when we visit her relatives in California and in every darned state in between.  And when we are old and grey, I want her to be the one to say,

pull the dang plug already,

not some "family" member who doesn't know my real wishes from dogswaddle cause a hospital's lawyers says "gotta go with what the nearest living relative says." 

Cause I get achingly tired of having people who don't quite know what they are talking about say,  "Oh well, you are together sure, but you aren't like a husband and wife would be... well you know.  YOU KNOW come on?  Right?" 

What, we don't pay our taxes? car insurance, house payment, buy groceries, cook dinner, worry about our parents getting older, get pissed because we cant buy freeking auto insurance together on the same policy?  That if one more WOMAN moves into our house that isn't related, we could get into trouble cause they have "NO BROTHEL" LAWS.  OK, that's my reasons... just a few.

Maybe I need to snip this and move it to  why I get pissed....>.>

[RubySlippers]

Squatting, I think its just wrong to have all these empty and unused buildings that could provide shelter and those that are homeless or poor that could use the space to be a bit more comfortable.

[Jude]

These "medically proven" reports are always uncertain.

After all, how many times have we heard that certain foods are good for you one minute, then extremely harmful and cancerous the next?

Conflicting information there usually comes from poor journalism, not poor science.  A particular study will indicate a possible link, then journalists act like it's a new discovery and sound the foghorn of progress.  The problem with that is, one study by itself proves nothing, one of the key components of a good scientific study is reproducibility.  Without that, the particular effect observed could merely be chalked up to chance.

This poor trend of science reporting has brought us such falsehoods as Mozart Baby Tapes and the intellectual link between Music and Math.

As far as the Marijuana thing goes, it's been proven numerous times, it's basically a scientific fact.

[Hemingway]

There are lots of things I could go with, such as legalizing drugs. But considering that could conceivably happen without magical intervention, it'd be like getting a free wish, and wishing for a car. It's a waste. I think I'd have to go with theft instead, or something similar that would really rock the foundations of society, and have all kinds of unexpected consequences. Who knows what would happen, aside from ... things being stolen, all the time?

[Neroon]

what would it be?

With me, it would be the relegalisation of firecrackers (only sellable for 10 days in November though, to stop them going off all the time.)

Actually you can buy them at anytime, however, most shops are only licensed to sell them at certain times of the year.  It's only category 4 fireworks that you can't buy and those are the ones used in professional displays.

Cannabis, it's actually been medicaly proven here in the UK to be less harmful than alchahol and ciggerets.

While I might agree that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, I must take issue with it being less harmful than cigarettes.  The cannabis sold in the UK for smoking has such a high ignition temperature that it is mixed with tobacco to make it smokable.  Therefore, if you're smoking cannabis, you're also smoking tobacco with all of the health risks that entails.

[HockeyGod]

Isnt gay marriage legalized in some states already?

So are other things pointed out in this thread.

[Prefect Mos]

Prostitution.

This one might seem odd coming from me as I don't have a lot of interest in it, Full disclosure I have hired one for a hand job Just to do it in my never ending quest to experience life , I mostly wanted to talk to her and get her opinions but for some reason she wanted to provide service wile doing so. I even feel weird in strip clubs (only been twice ) both seemed to be more degrading than i would like to see, but the girls at least seamed happy, and a few of the girls that worked there were in my Vampire larp, and said that they loved working there.

However, we do plenty of things for money, and plenty of near sex things for money.. legalizing and regulating will only make it safer, and open up less degrading and more variety of services offered. People say that this would weaken the American family.. I say no, but im not a big believer in monogamy. what I am a big believer in is American freedoms to decide for ourselves as long as safety concerns are looked after by a third non interested party such as the goverment, that insures that standards are meant. It works great in Nevada and Amsterdam.. why not here?

[Kate]

I personally feel Cannibals vs ciggarette usage comparison would show weed being the better option for one reason
Even if "one pure-spliff vs 1 cigarette" (same filter) revealed toxin levels of the spiff being worse - the quantity and regularity smokers consume would make up for it - in my opinion.

If i had the power to "unban" something it would be a tossup between bestiality and weed .. practically if i wanted to lift both - then removing the ban on weed would be the most sensible as it would be easier when more of the population is of the mindset of

"yeah dude ... freedom brother - let live - live dude ... Im cool - they are cool we are cool - all is cool if we choose to be cool about stuff. No more 1984 big brother stuff - we are beyond that now" :)

[desert ashes]

Gay marriage. 

My second choice would be cannabis, but, I can't help but feel (some) States are already shifting in that direction a lot quicker than they are for gay marriage. 

[Xenophile]

Just one thing?

I guess illegal downloading (of movies, games, series, tv-shows, etc) would be on my list. I can't thing of anything else, not right this instant anyway, that's illegal in my country, Sweden, that should be legalized.

[Stan']

Well the problem with legally downloading copyrighted games and movies would be that the big publishers would just stop funding developers, and thus the quality of the medium would go downhill at the speed of light.  There'd be no more films of Avatar quality, no more games of Uncharted and Metal Gear quality, it'd be back to guys making things in their bedrooms, 2D side-scrolling platformers that look right at home on the old Atari's.

Do you really think Activision -- the greediest bastards in the world -- would keep on making Call of Duty games if they didn't make any money on them?

[Callie Del Noire]

Well the problem with legally downloading copyrighted games and movies would be that the big publishers would just stop funding developers, and thus the quality of the medium would go downhill at the speed of light.  There'd be no more films of Avatar quality, no more games of Uncharted and Metal Gear quality, it'd be back to guys making things in their bedrooms, 2D side-scrolling platformers that look right at home on the old Atari's.

Do you really think Activision -- the greediest bastards in the world -- would keep on making Call of Duty games if they didn't make any money on them?

Considering they have lost a handful of guys from Infinity Ward in the last few months, I doubt the next one will be as good.

[The Baron]

That has nothing to do with being illegal and Comedy Central just being cowards.

I thought it was ultimately Viacom (the company that controls Comedy Central) making the decision? I could be wrong on that.

As for my one thing, cannabis here in the U.S. Unoriginal but it's unoriginal for a reason.

[Xenophile]

Well the problem with legally downloading copyrighted games and movies would be that the big publishers would just stop funding developers, and thus the quality of the medium would go downhill at the speed of light.  There'd be no more films of Avatar quality, no more games of Uncharted and Metal Gear quality, it'd be back to guys making things in their bedrooms, 2D side-scrolling platformers that look right at home on the old Atari's.

Do you really think Activision -- the greediest bastards in the world -- would keep on making Call of Duty games if they didn't make any money on them?

I disagree. Can you tell me if you noticed a change in the quality of movies and video games when illegal downloading was at it's height?

People will still go to movies, own the DVD's and buy the internet-demanding games that they love enough to support and encourage the production of quality goods.

Do you honestly believe that companies would give up on games and movies if they became less valuable? No, that would encourage a more efficient market with cheaper production and supplying methods, like Steam and Spotify where the price is noticeably cheaper then the packaged goods.

Illegal downloading will encourage efficiency. I mean, without illegal downloading, would we have iPods with a 160 gig hard drive on the market?

[Stan']

You disagree with me?  Do you REALLY think Activision will continue publishing games if no one is paying for them?  What about EA?

Or what about Universal making films?  Fox making TV programmes?

Don't be so naive.

[Jude]

I agree that downloading pirated material should be legal, but providing the download for others should not.  No sense in punishing people too poor to afford the content with massive legal fees and settlements, just make it to where they can't attain the illegal data to begin with and the problem is solved without beating up on the poor and ignorant for using a simple file sharing programs.

However, I sincerely doubt that if all pirating was made legal people would continue to purchase electronic content.  It would inevitably and obviously lead to a decline in quality, because developers are supported (in part) by video game sales, therefore devote their life to making games.  Take that away and they will need to get other jobs and thus have less energy, time, and passion to devote to making groundbreaking experiences.

Don't believe me?  Play any game that has user generated content and check out the average levels created by the official team and the levels created by modders.  The quality difference is obvious.

[MercyfulFate]

Marijuana, of course.

[badasskicker]

In some country's Marijuana is legal. You can go to that  country and enjoy  freedom.

[Caela]

Gotta join the gay marriage folks. With a divorce rate that is quickly climbing up over 50% I don't think any of us straight folks can really make a claim about the "sanctity" of marriage with a straight face and it's not as if you could force a priest/pastor/rabbi to marry someone. I've never seen a good reason to deny anyone the legal rights and protections that come with marriage as a legal institution.

[Nico]

Same sex marriage, and freedom of speech.

(sorry, both is equally important to me)

[Paladin]

I have to say same sex Marriage, and Weed.

(Sorry, but they do have equal imprtance)

[MercyfulFate]

I have to say same sex Marriage, and Weed.

(Sorry, but they do have equal imprtance)

While both are important, people die, are jailed, and lives are ruined daily because of marijuana prohibition. While same sex marriage not being legal is wrong, people aren't dying or going to jail by the thousands because of it.

[Argent]

While both are important, people die, are jailed, and lives are ruined daily because of marijuana prohibition. While same sex marriage not being legal is wrong, people aren't dying or going to jail by the thousands because of it.

I'd go a bit wider and say 'globally decriminalize homosexuality'. With the deepest respect, perhaps playing misery poker isn't the most constructive way to think of theses issues, but if you want to go that way, the number of people who are being killed, tortured or imprisoned, simply for being is pretty staggering and horrifying. As much as I want my full rights as a citizen of the country of my birth, I'd gladly put them off a decade or two if gay people in Iraq, Jamaica, Uganda and dozens of other countries had a chance to live under the protection of the law.

And that isn't to say that I disagree with legalizing marijuana either. Not because I'm particularly fond of it but because the tax revenue could do a lot of good on the local, state and federal levels. There is something inherently amusing to me about funding better schools through a stoner tax.

[Trieste]

Drugs in general. The funds we put toward the war on drugs, the so-called crime barons, all of that would be needless if we would just allow recreational drugs to be administered legally by professionals.

[MercyfulFate]

I'd go a bit wider and say 'globally decriminalize homosexuality'. With the deepest respect, perhaps playing misery poker isn't the most constructive way to think of theses issues, but if you want to go that way, the number of people who are being killed, tortured or imprisoned, simply for being is pretty staggering and horrifying. As much as I want my full rights as a citizen of the country of my birth, I'd gladly put them off a decade or two if gay people in Iraq, Jamaica, Uganda and dozens of other countries had a chance to live under the protection of the law.

And that isn't to say that I disagree with legalizing marijuana either. Not because I'm particularly fond of it but because the tax revenue could do a lot of good on the local, state and federal levels. There is something inherently amusing to me about funding better schools through a stoner tax.

I agree, but since nothing can be globally decriminalized (The UN could I guess, but it would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture with no enforcement) so I'm just focusing on the US for what I said.

[Hunter]

Handguns.

The government seems to think that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves, their families, etc.

[MercyfulFate]

Handguns.

The government seems to think that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves, their families, etc.

I've had the gun ban argument with countless people, and what I've found is that gun bans do NOT prevent or lower almost any crime anywhere it's been done. It's hard to sift through the BS though, because both sides skew the statistics.

However, Washington D.C. here in the US banned handguns, and gun crimes rose significantly. It happened in Australia and other places, while places like Switzerland have tons of guns, and very low gun crime rates.

It's not the guns, it's the people. Take away the guns from violent people, and they'll get illegal guns or use other weapons.

[Vekseid]

Do you have stats on Australia? I had read those numbers were creatively calculated and the ban rather had little material effect. Restricting the possession of anything that cannot be detected and traced to source easily (uranium and other nuclear related radiological materials, for example) is a difficult prospect in the long run.

I'm pro-gun ownership, though I do believe it should be the right of establishments to ban guns on their premises, and there are people who cannot be trusted with a weapon that can be otherwise trusted in larger society.

[Hunter]

I'm pro-gun ownership, though I do believe it should be the right of establishments to ban guns on their premises, and there are people who cannot be trusted with a weapon that can be otherwise trusted in larger society.

+1

[Trieste]

The only thing I can say about gun ownership is that I have personally heard and seen more guns and gunfire in an anti-gun state than I ever did in a right-to-carry state.

[MercyfulFate]

Do you have stats on Australia? I had read those numbers were creatively calculated and the ban rather had little material effect. Restricting the possession of anything that cannot be detected and traced to source easily (uranium and other nuclear related radiological materials, for example) is a difficult prospect in the long run.

I'm pro-gun ownership, though I do believe it should be the right of establishments to ban guns on their premises, and there are people who cannot be trusted with a weapon that can be otherwise trusted in larger society.

I'll see if I can find them for you, it was some time ago and on my old laptop. I think I had them bookmarked, but you may be right about them being skewed. Like I said it's hard to find the real numbers because the anti and pro gun crowds both skew the facts in their favor. I just haven't seen much to suggest that gun bans reduce gun crime in any significant way.

If you banned guns in the continental US for example, they'd simply bring illegal weapons over the borders to compensate. The only people without guns would end up being the legal gun owners, because criminals will always find a way to acquire them as they do with anything that's banned.

[Cheka Man]

Handguns (to an extent), swords, and firecrackers (again, to an extent.)

[Ironwolf85]

probably some of the less harsh drugs, i don't use, but the income would be spectacular. probably take the regulated way the Dutch have with it.
small calibur handguns completely and easily legalized, but not the military hardware (no civilan has a "right" to carry a rocket launcher) however all citizans owning a firearm must be properly trained, documented, and take a test once a year.

probably free up the market a bit, but have more oversight

[Kate]

Why are so many pro-hand guns.

Why do people want them ?

I don't understand.

[Silverfyre]

Why are so many pro-hand guns.

Why do people want them ?

I don't understand.

There are a plethora of reasons, both personal and professional. Some want them to protect themselves, their families, and their property. Some want them just to have, like a collector. Some just enjoy shooting. It's their right to have them, at least in some countries.

[Callie Del Noire]

There are a plethora of reasons, both personal and professional. Some want them to protect themselves, their families, and their property. Some want them just to have, like a collector. Some just enjoy shooting. It's their right to have them, at least in some countries.

That sums up most of the reasons my friends and family own them. Mostly they enjoy shooting them (my brother does about 1 trip to a range a month minimum and I know 1 friend goes weekly)

[Trieste]

Why are we necro-ing a thread for an off-topic post?

[Callie Del Noire]

Why are we necro-ing a thread for an off-topic post?

To be honest I've been thinking about the subject of the thread since my post. I'm still thinking on it. :D I honestly can't think of anything I'd legalize that is currently illegal. (Though I am thinking hard!)

[Silverfyre]

Why are we necro-ing a thread for an off-topic post?

Don't look at me.  I just responded to the necromancer's post.  I didn't see the expiration date!  Why wasn't this thing thrown out for freshness?!  ~Flails~

[TheGlyphstone]

And here I was ready to make a joke about making thread necromancy legal. :P

[Kate]

necromancer ? Um ok :)

My apologies

[Oniya]

necromancer ? Um ok :)

My apologies

Aye, the thread hadn't been posted in for 6 months.

[ausyandy]

If I could legalise one thing it would be same-sex marriage.

[Silverfyre]

If I could legalise one thing it would be same-sex marriage.

No kidding.  +1

[Talia]

If I could legalise one thing it would be same-sex marriage.

No kidding.  +1

No doubt. +1

Throwing in an additional "I think weed should be legalized too."

[Kate]

picking three would help

[mystictiger]

If I could legalise one thing, it would be freedom of speech the world over. No more would repressive governments be able to intimdate opponents, voters, the media and hang on to power through fear and terror. When speech and thought is free, it becomes inevitable that society and economy also frees up - look at the way that China has and continues to change, or the experience of South American and European countries.

[Kate]

what about "true" free speech ? or true expression ?

Countries believing they support free speech don't really, as something things are deemed secret / treasonous etc.

[Callie Del Noire]

what about "true" free speech ? or true expression ?

Countries believing they support free speech don't really, as something things are deemed secret / treasonous etc.

Now now Kate, keep it to it's forum. This is not the one. Me? I think I had something but forgot it again. Breakfast with my future sister-in-law was just too funny

Like some of the suggestions I've heard though.

[mystictiger]

There is no such thing as 'true' expression or 'true' speech. There are merely degrees of freedom. I would be quite happy getting everyone to the fairly basic standard in which there's a small degree of regulation of the press on grounds of national security that we experience in the EU, US, Canada, Australia, NZ, and so on. Sod the handgun - an idea is a far more dangerous things.

[Kate]

Fair comments all.

Please though dont believe the US, or Australia (not sure about candana) trumpets true speech.

We do more than some countries... it doesnt mean its free.

Speech itself is not free - there are condictions an "else" imposes that puts regulation options on it brutally.

Why ?

Because it threatens a something, someone "else" with a vested interest it in being muted or deed "an else" can not manage with other means. An act of desparation from an "authority".

Claiming doing so puttting lives at risk.... makes me think one thing.

Why are lives at risk if a secret stops being secret ? Is their position or objective necessary ? Is their nature of operations right ? Justified ? True ? What my tax I want to be supporting ? What I voted for my tax to support ?

[Zakharra]

Fair comments all.

Please though dint believe the US, or Australia (not sure about Canadian) trumpets true speech.

We do more than some countries... it doesn't mean its free.

Speech itself is not free - there are con dictions an "else" imposes that puts regulation options on it brutally.

Why ?

Because it threatens a something, someone "else" with a vested interest it in being muted or deed "an else" can not manage with other means. An act of desperation from an "authority".

Claiming doing so puttting lives at risk.... makes me think one thing.

Why are lives at risk if a secret stops being secret ? Is their position or objective necessary ? Is their nature of operations right ? Justified ? True ? What my tax I want to be supporting ? What I voted for my tax to support ?

We are freer than most. Certainly a lot freer than many African, South/Central American, Middle Eastern and Asian countries. Are we 'truly free' as you say? No. No nation is, or ever will be. Some things need to be kept secret.

Why are lives at risk if a secret stops being secret ?

Because if that secret is known, their lives are in danger. Intelligence agencies, police departments and the military have a very real need for secrecy. If it's known who their contacts, operational people are, our enemies -will- go after them.  In police work, what do you think happens if a mob informant turns states evidence and that is known?  That person is targetted for death. Or an 'anonymous' source is outed? The same thing.

A terrorist contact that is willing to help? Dead.  People willing to help in subtle ways against bad guys?  Dead or intimidated into not helping.

Your idea of 'true freedom' will only work if everyone follows it. The moment someone uses it for his ends, that 'freedom' no longer exists since they will use it against you.

[Callie Del Noire]

Fair comments all.

Please though dont believe the US, or Australia (not sure about candana) trumpets true speech.

We do more than some countries... it doesnt mean its free.

Speech itself is not free - there are condictions an "else" imposes that puts regulation options on it brutally.

Why ?

Because it threatens a something, someone "else" with a vested interest it in being muted or deed "an else" can not manage with other means. An act of desparation from an "authority".

Claiming doing so puttting lives at risk.... makes me think one thing.

Why are lives at risk if a secret stops being secret ? Is their position or objective necessary ? Is their nature of operations right ? Justified ? True ? What my tax I want to be supporting ? What I voted for my tax to support ?

Can we keep on topic and keep our debates in other threads there?

[LordVetinari]

Well I would legalise marijuana, but that's for personal reasons.

To bring something new up, at my school this week we had a talk from an ex-drug addict (I'm talking about serious addict, spending £1,000 minimum per week, stealing etc.)

And he told us that all the heads of police in each region in the UK had a vote on what they would legalise out of drugs. Every single one voted to legalise heroin(!) At first everyone was shocked (obviously...)

But the reason is out of all illegal drugs, heroin takes up the VAST majority of deaths, yet it is the most easily 'fixed' if people weren't afraid of going into a hospital.

Also nearly every single one of those deaths is cause by impure heroin.

So I would legalise heroin, personally never want to take it, but seems like a good idea for the country.

[Dizzi]

one thing to legalize?  Hmmm... I would say Marijiuana.  I don;t use it, but at the same time: People will have a lessened chance to get it laced, it will go down in price, etc.

However, I don't think that it would be.  Seeing as I live in Canada, most of our laws for things like Marijuana are (Seem to be) copied from the US.  And the US won;t legalize marijuana because at a vote, drug dealers will vote it down.  They would lose way too much money.

[Will]

Marijuana getting laced?  That doesn't make much sense.  And speaking of those dealers, do they really make up a large enough percentage of the population that they can affect the outcome of an election?

[Oniya]

Some people used to lace it with PCP - but as a whole, it's one of the drugs least likely to be tampered with.  (Unless you cut it with oregano or catnip, or something.)

[Will]

It just doesn't make sense for a supplier to add other drugs to marijuana, and then sell it as if they hadn't done so.  You're taking a loss on whatever you added.

The only sources I can find that talk about marijuana being laced with PCP don't refer to it being sold that way to unknowing buyers, so I don't see how legalizing marijuana would fix it.

[Oniya]

To my knowledge, the dealers didn't market it as plain marijuana.  There are slang terms for it in '60s literature like 'superweed', and they probably did charge more.  They may or may not have disclosed what made it 'super', and that's where a casual user could run into problems.  It's like not telling people what's in the 'deluxe bridge mix'; you could run into someone who has a bad reaction to Ingredient X because they don't know that it's present.  Now, with legally available products, the FDA requires that the ingredients be available in some manner, so the dealer of hypothetical legal marijuana would have to put down 'marijuana with phencyclidine (0.1%)' or something like that. 

[Sandman02]

My answer to this question is marijuana, 100%. And it's not because I want to freely smoke it - it's because drug busts are the number one reason why people are committed to lengthy jail/prison terms, and out penitentiary system has reached a breaking point in terms of overpopulation. Oh, and it will also help to defuse the frequent slayings in Mexico.

Stop people from being from be jailed for pot, you save money. Tax the legal sale of marijuana, you *raise* money. Everybody wins. Except for the Prison Lobby, who knowingly reap the rewards by committing an excess number of people to jail while never truly rehabilitating them (it's no surprise that this lobby sponsored the Arizona immigration law). The only way to truly to this right is to legalize pot nationally, however, not at a state by state basis.

[AtlasEros]

Taxation of churches.

I'd agree with this

[Bayushi]

Fair comments all.

Please though dont believe the US, or Australia (not sure about candana) trumpets true speech.

We do more than some countries... it doesnt mean its free.

Speech itself is not free - there are condictions an "else" imposes that puts regulation options on it brutally.

Why ?

Because it threatens a something, someone "else" with a vested interest it in being muted or deed "an else" can not manage with other means. An act of desparation from an "authority".

Claiming doing so puttting lives at risk.... makes me think one thing.

Why are lives at risk if a secret stops being secret ? Is their position or objective necessary ? Is their nature of operations right ? Justified ? True ? What my tax I want to be supporting ? What I voted for my tax to support ?

Many people who support the ideas you support (which are respectable on their own merits, ignoring real world implications) do not understand a very simple concept.

Words (speech) has consequences. Insult the school bully? Prepare to get your ass handed to you. Share secret military plans with the enemy? Soldiers die.

Your words (speech) will not always have consequences for yourself, but could possibly have consequences for others. As a Libertarian(ish) American, the concept is simple: Your rights end at the tip of my nose. You forfeit your right to do or say something when your actions or words cause harm to another.

On topic now...

If there was anything I'd "unban", it would be homosexual marriage. Yes, I'm a lesbian. But no, I have little-to-no interest in getting married.

My only issue with the states where it is allowed is that the voters said 'No', but an activist judge ruled 'Yes' by fiat, invalidating the will of the people.

[Callie Del Noire]

Marijuana getting laced?  That doesn't make much sense.  And speaking of those dealers, do they really make up a large enough percentage of the population that they can affect the outcome of an election?

I had a friend in high school who had some marijuana that had been laced with PCP. It was a terrible ride for him and he came out of that weekend a very different person. He was a language buff but after he got out of the hospital he just.. tuned out and never had any drive for any of the things he did with. (He was hurt pretty bad when he repeatedly slammed his head in a wall.)

[AtlasEros]

I'd make prostitution legal.  It would be a great way to rasie money.  If it were carefully gov regulated, it would be safe for the sex workers, decrease the spread of STDs, and be helpful to the mental state of people who weren't able to get sexual satisfaction otherwise; which is likely to decrease a good amount of other social problems.

[Serephino]

Yeah, I'd vote to legalize prostitution.  If I want to sell myself for money, it's nobody's business but mine.  It blows my mind that it's legal to be a porn star, but not a prostitute. 

[AtlasEros]

Yeah, I'd vote to legalize prostitution.  If I want to sell myself for money, it's nobody's business but mine.  It blows my mind that it's legal to be a porn star, but not a prostitute. 

I've used that point before when making this case.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah, I'd vote to legalize prostitution.  If I want to sell myself for money, it's nobody's business but mine.  It blows my mind that it's legal to be a porn star, but not a prostitute. 

Oddly enough, though I have no moral issue with prostitution if it was regulated and legalized, I'd never made the cognitive jump between it and porn being legal.

[Serephino]

If you think about it, both prostitutes and porn stars are having sex for money.  The major differences are that a prostitute does it in a hotel room or the back of a car, and a porn star does it in a film studio in front of a camera crew and the producer. 

[TheGlyphstone]

Y'know, I think I've actually read about a court case or two where the defendent was charged with soliciting prostitution, but argued (can't remember if it was successful or not) that because he had filmed it, it counted as pornography instead.

[AtlasEros]

If you think about it, both prostitutes and porn stars are having sex for money.  The major differences are that a prostitute does it in a hotel room or the back of a car, and a porn star does it in a film studio in front of a camera crew and the producer. 

The biggest difference there is just safty, making it legal would make it so much safer.

[Kira Kimaru]

Legalize all drugs for several reasons.

1) Because the way things are now if you're caught with an illegal drug it will be on your record forever and you can't ever leave the country. This is a huge issue if it was a mistake of youth... Imagine in your youth did something stupid and are going to be paying for it for the rest of your life.

2) Eliminates a lot of income for the underground market.

3) So citizens who are doing the drugs can be safer. When you buy drugs illegally you don't know for sure what's in them, it could be laced with other drugs or chemicals or whatever. Either way it's not safe.

4) So it's easier to get treatment for those who are struggling with their addiction. (More openness will result in more people confessing and more treatments sold in every day pharmaceutical companies like what's going on with tobacco. )

[Silverfyre]

1) Because the way things are now if you're caught with an illegal drug it will be on your record forever and you can't ever leave the country. This is a huge issue if it was a mistake of youth... Imagine in your youth did something stupid and are going to be paying for it for the rest of your life.

I am curious what nation you live in where a drug conviction prevents you from leaving the country.  Or am I just blind to this?

[TheGlyphstone]

Legalize all drugs for several reasons.

1) Because the way things are now if you're caught with an illegal drug it will be on your record forever and you can't ever leave the country. This is a huge issue if it was a mistake of youth... Imagine in your youth did something stupid and are going to be paying for it for the rest of your life.

2) Eliminates a lot of income for the underground market.

3) So citizens who are doing the drugs can be safer. When you buy drugs illegally you don't know for sure what's in them, it could be laced with other drugs or chemicals or whatever. Either way it's not safe.

4) So it's easier to get treatment for those who are struggling with their addiction. (More openness will result in more people confessing and more treatments sold in every day pharmaceutical companies like what's going on with tobacco. )

All drugs might be overkill. Simple stuff like marijuana, sure, maybe even 'harder' drugs like heroin (someone mentioned that earlier). Stuff like crystal meth or crack cocaine will seriously screw a person up though - even on the first dose, and shouldn't be openly available.

[Kira Kimaru]

I live in canada and we have that law... if you have any charge on you, you can't leave the country...




As for the hard drugs well i guess your right but at the same time if we allowed it we could be able to have more research done on those hard drugs and try to make there effects less severe.

[Star Safyre]

As for the hard drugs well i guess your right but at the same time if we allowed it we could be able to have more research done on those hard drugs and try to make there effects less severe.

The lovely irony of that (at least in the US) is that all those up to and including marijuana are Schedule I substances.  Schedule I substances are considered by the government to have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and it is further undisputed that the drug has at least some potential for abuse".  These drugs cannot be used for testing because of this, and because they cannot be tested, we cannot discover any medicinal value.  Yes, this is a Catch-22.



On-topic: I'd legalize nationwide emergency involuntary commitment.  It's ridiculous that authority figures and concerned family members cannot ensure the safety of their loved ones suffering from dangerous mental illnesses in times of emergency.  Knowing how often my own family has needed to invoke the Baker Act, I pale to think of what might have happened if in our greatest times of family crisis we had not had the ability to get them the help they needed but refused.

[Trieste]

All drugs might be overkill. Simple stuff like marijuana, sure, maybe even 'harder' drugs like heroin (someone mentioned that earlier). Stuff like crystal meth or crack cocaine will seriously screw a person up though - even on the first dose, and shouldn't be openly available.

Not always.

I think it would be much more humane to implement something like a hostel system (or small clinics). You go in, and you pay for your drugs/stay. You are seen to by a nurse, or a CNA, or an otherwise trained professional, and shown to a small room similar to the napping rooms they have in airports. Said trained professional administers the drugs you've paid for - a single, nonlethal dose - and leave you in peace in the room to doze away your downer. Or you can head into a socializing area where you can party with others on uppers. Condoms are made easily accessible, as is the morning-after pill. If something goes wrong - if your heart stops, if you dehydrate yourself, if you start to hallucinate - there would be people there trained and ready to help. It would have a similar insurance plan or liability setup to a mental hospital or some such. In essence, it would be an outpatient facility.

I haven't sat down and thought of every detail. I'm sure that you could pretty easily punch holes in my quick sketch. However, it's worlds and worlds preferable to the current system where drug addiction is shameful, illegal, and a stigma that keeps you from getting the help you need. Considering most 'hard' drugs were criminalized due to propaganda in the first place, it's paternalistic and overbearing for them to remain illegal. I think they should be not only legalized, but sanctioned.

And there you have it.

[mystictiger]

Simple stuff like canabis?

You mean the stuff that gives you a statistically significant risk of increased lung-cancer and psychiatric complications? The study to support these conclusions was done on Danish Army conscripts. Best job ever.

[Jude]

I think a lot of drug abuse stems from the fact that using drugs is a rebellion in and of itself.  People who tend to not trust authority to begin with are largely the same people who take these potentially damaging substances, and I think that has something to do with the fact that they don't trust the medical and social establishment enough to believe that drugs have negative consequences that are as pronounced as is constantly claimed.  And there's a good reason they don't:  a lot of the information people are exposed to are outright lies (based on old cultural notions and bunk science that has since been discredited).  Marijuana is no where near as dangerous or harmful as authority figures constantly parrot to our youth, and the moment they try it for themselves and see, that the trust is broken.

I for one think it seems incredibly suspicious from the perspective of a child who is well versed in history that lots of substances that were legal not too long ago (cocaine for example was made illegal in 1970) and widely used are now regarded as instant death and addiction chemicals.  Add on top of that the fact that it is illegal to see for yourself if cocaine is as damaging as is often claimed, I think drug policy in the United States is practically conspiratorial from some perspectives (not my own, nor do I think this is true objectively, but I can see how some people may feel that way).

I really do believe that if we legalized drugs and told people the straight up truth about what happens with them the rate of use would probably climb for the safer substances, but the problem of the harder substances would largely solve itself.

EDIT: To Mystic's point, I don't disagree that Marijuana is harmful to one's health, but so is alcohol, and that's completely legal.  Overeating is harmful to one's health and the state of being overweight probably has negative psychological associations, that doesn't mean we should control behavior in those people.  I just don't see how a free society has any business controlling behaviors that do not hurt anyone but the individual partaking in them.

[Serephino]

Yes, alcohol is legal, and I've been told by some people that it's actually more harmful to your health than marijuana.  Whether or not that is true, I don't know.  I do know that alcohol is abused by many people, my own mother included.

Nicotine is also legal, and very addictive.  I don't smoke myself, but I know a lot of people who do, and I don't want to be around any of them when they're out of cigarettes. 

It just makes no sense to me.  Many of the arguments people use against other drugs can also be said about alcohol and nicotine. 

[Silverfyre]

Simple stuff like canabis?

You mean the stuff that gives you a statistically significant risk of increased lung-cancer and psychiatric complications? The study to support these conclusions was done on Danish Army conscripts. Best job ever.

So kinda like cigarettes and nicotine, eh?  Yeah, nicotine addiction is just as devastating, yet they are perfectly legal. 

[TheGlyphstone]

Personally, I think cigarettes should be banned as well, but this is a thread about illegal things to legalize, not vice versa.

EDIT: To Mystic's point, I don't disagree that Marijuana is harmful to one's health, but so is alcohol, and that's completely legal.  Overeating is harmful to one's health and the state of being overweight probably has negative psychological associations, that doesn't mean we should control behavior in those people.  I just don't see how a free society has any business controlling behaviors that do not hurt anyone but the individual partaking in them.

Unless we go with Trieste's (interesting, though likely flawed somehow) scenario of legal 'drug clinics' where you can get high under controlled and monitored conditions, many of the nastier drugs are in a different category than overeating because they have an excellent chance of hurting people other than the users. Methamphetamines, PCP, and crack cocaine all have euphoric states, disorientation, or outright temporary psychosis as direct or side effects, which can make their partakers threatening to innocent bystanders.

[mystictiger]

So kinda like cigarettes and nicotine, eh?  Yeah, nicotine addiction is just as devastating, yet they are perfectly legal.

Nicotine abuse has no psychological effects beyond dependency; there is no increased risk of psychiatric complication. The problem with cigarette consumption is in inhalation of partial-combusted hydrocarbons and benzeen rings - what we can carcinogens.

The resulting burden on society is so high when it comes to medical care that they should be taxed into oblivion. Indeed, if the social cost of alcohol, cigarettes, and so on were taken into account, then they'd be far more expensive.

Besides, argument by analogy is always a poor substitute to proper argumentation. They let you kill people during war, so we should always be able to kill people.

[Trieste]

The 'burden on society' argument is invalid unless you choose to punish other lifestyle choices that will lead to extensive medical care.

Obesity
Diabetics who don't take their medication or eat correctly
Motorcyclists who don't wear a helmet

And so on.

... which strikes me as very 1984, and quite horrifying.

[mystictiger]

The 'burden on society' argument is invalid unless you choose to punish other lifestyle choices that will lead to extensive medical care.

Obesity
Diabetics who don't take their medication or eat correctly
Motorcyclists who don't wear a helmet

And so on.

... which strikes me as very 1984, and quite horrifying.

Or if you have a national healthcare system in which tax expenditure goes to provide medical care. In such situations I think it is entirely warranted that you pay an increased contribution if you are an increased burden.

Edit: An increased burden by your conscious and deliberate acts or omissions.

[Trieste]

The whole point of nationalized healthcare is to make sure that the populace receives the care that they need but which they cannot afford. Taxing the holy hell out of people because they choose a lifestyle - a legal one - that is not popular is essentially coercing those people to make the 'correct' choices despite being within their legal rights to choose otherwise. It's racketeering: you make the choices I want you to make or you pay the hefty price.

No.

If cigarettes place an undue burden on the healthcare system (or on society), then gather the oomph to make them illegal. If alcohol does the same, gather the support to make it illegal. (Oh, wait, we tried that. How'd that turn out, again?) It's the same with any drug, any poison, any leisure activity. Is there a skydiving tax? "Bad example," you say, "because skydivers are supposed to use parachutes and not die." Okay, then - what about a failed-suicide tax? If someone tried to kill themselves and failed, they have made personal choices that place an avoidable burden on the healthcare system. But it's almost unthinkable to tax someone like that.

It's not a case of "Well, I'm trying to keep an eye out for the healthcare system". It's "Well, I don't think this is acceptable, and I don't want my tax dollars going for this, so clearly this person should pay a whole lot of taxes to assuage my indignation over it". And that is wrong.

Edit: It's been kindly pointed out to me that I've gotten off on a bit of a tangent, which I didn't mean to do. Gonna bow out now, with my apologies. ^^

[Jude]

People who live unhealthy lifestyles are an increased burden on the healthcare system -- and?

People who drive are an increased burden on their local roadways.  Truckers are an increased burden on the national interstate system.  Shall we set up taxes penalizing them for the way they live?  Should people who choose not to drive pay a lot less?  Hey, what about carbon emissions, shall we start taxing people based on their carbon footprint?  How about people who choose to live in dangerous neighborhoods as they're likely to need police services.  Lets tax people who are poorly educated as well because they're more likely to commit crimes against society and receive welfare which costs us all.

Government services never benefit society equally.  It would be impossible, and probably not even ideal, to create a society where they would be equal.  And when you start penalizing individuals for how they inadvertently affect the whole, you create a group-think society that chains down the individual to unintentional consequences in the name of protecting the greater society.

I value personal freedom too much to buy into that.  I think that the society as a whole can sustain the cost of an individual's actions a bit here and there, since it asks so much of individuals to begin with in the social contract itself, a little give and take would be nice.

[mystictiger]

This is way off topic - will gladly talk more but it has nothing to do with legalisation ;)

[Jude]

It doesn't?  I'm arguing for (EDIT:  against) a whole class of laws.

[Wyrd]

Being able to bring Kender surprise eggs across the border to the USA. I mean, really? What a stupid law law.

[Trieste]

O_o

The border guards actually confiscate Kender eggs?! That's so ridiculous. Most harmless thing ever.

[Oniya]

Apparently, it's because of having something non-edible artificially enclosed in a food item that isn't actually used in consuming it (popsicle or lollipop sticks are exempt as a result of being 'handles', fruit seeds and meat bones are naturally enclosed in their respective food items).

[Trieste]

Well, I know that's why they don't allow them to be sold in the U.S. but I would think they'd allow it across the border. I mean, unless you've loaded your pickup truck with nothing but Kender goodness.

[TheGlyphstone]

I remember Kender eggs...when I was younger, my father (commercial pilot) would bring them home after every trip as presents for the kids, and he never had a problem with customs. I built up quite a collection of those little toys...

[Wyrd]

I'm still building my collection :) It's my fave chocolate treat. I lknow it's meant for kids but they are really good. Oh! I'd also like to make pot legal so that government can tax the hell out of all the pot head losers who do it. And to put some money into the Canadian economy.

[Syndrome]

Group sex is now illegal in China. Legalize that!

[Wyrd]

THOSE DAMN, COMMIES!!!!

[Syndrome]

THOSE DAMN, COMMIES!!!!

Everyone hates commies, even us Chinese folks.

[Wyrd]

Everyone hates commies, even us Chinese folks.

Ha ! i know. my fiance is Chinese.

[Aeval]

*whispers* I just bought a Kinder egg in my local small grocery store tonight and I live in the Midwest, USA!

[Bayushi]

and I live in the Midwest, USA!

*moves to the Midwest* ^^

[Wyrd]

I'm totally telling. But first must find a way to the USA... Quick! To the Wyrdmobile!!

[Syndrome]

Ha ! i know. my fiance is Chinese.

Really? How did you guys know each other?

[Wyrd]

Well she does not live in China :P. We met at the Toronto fan expo if you can believe it. :P

[Syndrome]

Well she does not live in China :P. We met at the Toronto fan expo if you can believe it. :P

Wow, that's really something.

[Wyrd]

I'm surprised that you're so interested.

[Syndrome]

I'm surprised that you're so interested.

Well, I've always been interested in racial mixing, intermarriage between different races.

[Trieste]

If you guys want to continue to chat, please feel free to take it to PMs. :)

[Syndrome]

If you guys want to continue to chat, please feel free to take it to PMs. :)

Sure, sorry!

[Wyrd]

lol!

[Black Orchid]

I don’t know if it’s been said, but censorship; it’s crazy over here, one moment the radio can say “Bitch” but they can’t say “Suicide”. "Damn" was banned for a while, then it came back, "Bitch" gotten band, then came back, and now everything (Damn, hell, ect) is banded but "Bitch", and I don’t understand the point in that (I think "Bitch" is banned once again, actually…). Censorship is getting so stupid, that even when singers uses "code" words to replace the “Bad ones” those get blocked, too; I don’t understand the point in blocking words that sensor themselves. I’ve listen to a few songs where it was practically silent for half the song, because the person’s words were censored—what’s the point of even putting that on the radio? I get where censor is coming from, but really, think of the age you wouldn’t want your children listening to such words, and then think if you truly want them listening to that song censored or not. I’ve yet to hear a song on the radio I’ve wanted a minor to hear (a minor that shouldn’t be subjected to cursing), I believe if a parent doesn’t want their children to hearing these “bad words” then they shouldn’t allow them to listen to the radio at all. Why don’t we let the parents censor their kids, and not have the government censor everyone.