Come to New Zealand, where "you can marry a fag but you can't smoke one"

[Lan Barnes]

On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:06:44AM -0800, boblq wrote:
> On Saturday 11 December 2004 02:24 am, Alan wrote:
> > boblq wrote:
> > > I completely agree. Nobody forces anyone to go to a bar or to work
> > > in one., We should have bars that cater to the use of marijuana as
> > > they do in Holland. Also we should decriminalize all drugs and have bars
> > > that supply them.
> >
> > Perhaps, but smoking tobacco isn't illegal.
> > Pot is.
> 
> There are all kinds of subtle distinctions and levels of illegality. 
> 
> Smoking tobacco is illegal if you are under 18 years of age, for instance.
> 

It is our cultural decision that minors don't make good or informed
decisions and thus do need to be protected from themselves (statutory
rape, alcohol, smoking, other things). The magic age of 18 has somehow
been arrived at, don't ask me how. It's an area of law that leads to
lots of injustices (e.g., charging an 18-yr-old with statutory rape for
sleeping with his 17-yr-old girlfriend).

> > My personal feeling is if you want to "protect the public" from smoking,
> >   make it illegal. But then, I suppose the politicians would have to
> > give up all that lovely cigarette sin tax...
> 
> Right. 
> 

See my previous post on why I'm against laws that protect us from
ourselves.

The relationship between taxes and government behavior is real, and
underlines why we need to fundamentally change the way government gets
(needed) revenue.

> > If you aren't going to make it illegal, then quit telling private
> > business their customers can't participate in a legal addiction while on
> > the premises.
> 
> Uh duh. These are different things. One can carve laws all kinds of ways. 
> You clearly see a world where there are no such subtle (actually unsubtle,
> but clearly defined) distintitions.
> 
> Should I be allowed to do things in my own home that I cannot do in public? 
> 

Sure. Masturbate. 

> I think so. 
> 
> Should  private spaces outside my home exist that are intermediate areas with
> rules unique and published that apply to those areas? 
> 
> I think so. 
> 
> In Mexico there exist "Zonas de tolerencia" where all kinds of activity are 
> allowed. 
> 
> I think this is a good thing. Do you? 
> 

Sorta. "Red light districts." "Other side of the railroad tracks." It
makes for a nice social compromise between those who want to do things
that are considered sinful and those who want them banned (not mutually
exclusive groups, I might point out).

But if it leads to a two-tiered legal system, you're opening yourself up
to a new set of very real problems. 

> I believe freedom. Do you? 
> 

_Everybody_ believes in freedom ... except:

1. for them
2. for that
3. when it leads to ...
4. when it offends (my conception of) god
5. when it's tasteless
6. when it cuts into my profits
7. when they just _flaunt_ it
8. ... etc etc

It's like the First Amendment -- always for me, you I'm not so sure
about.

Believing in everyone else's freedom and rights is a constant challenge.
This is why I so admire (and support when I can afford it) the ACLU.

-- 
Lan Barnes                    lan at falleagle.net
Linux Guy, SCM Specialist     858-354-0616