If i'm the one recommending that the government profits from the sale of these drugs and then channels those profits into rehabilitating addicts, then no, I don't think I'd be suing the government if they actually did it. As to people dying, tons of people die from alcohol related diseases, as well as cigarettes. No one's suing the government for that and I don't think anyone should start just because they add a few drugs that have been around for a while and weren't even always illegal.
Kids charged with Child Porn for texting nude pictures of each other!
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
If i'm the one recommending that the government profits from the sale of these drugs and then channels those profits into rehabilitating addicts, then no, I don't think I'd be suing the government if they actually did it. As to people dying, tons of people die from alcohol related diseases, as well as cigarettes. No one's suing the government for that and I don't think anyone should start just because they add a few drugs that have been around for a while and weren't even always illegal.
If I could simply -understand- what you're getting at, there might be a little more to this response.As long as the majority pays no attention, I think we could be ok. I'm sure that people can blame the government for abolishing prohibition too, but most people would laugh at the notion that the prohibition should be reinstated. One day, I'm sure people will laugh at the absurd nanny like properties of current governments.
A good song
. John, I'm definitely curious- were you named John because of John Lennon?What do you think? They're gonna have some giant-ass fucking garden of weed where they sell it on the block? Government makes a healthy amount of money off ciggs, and not too many complain that the government got them addicted.
And on topic, this thing is ridiculous. Man I really hope they don't check my old hard drive :runaway:
People dont prostitute themselves or rob their parents for ciggs. They sue tobacco companies after they get lung cancer.
Probably because they're cheap.. and legal.
I know that the tobacco companies had to pay quite a bit when they were forced to admit that yes, they -were- trying to get people hooked on cigarettes and yes, they -did- know they were addictive and bad for you. Those billions notwithstanding, however, it doesn't look like the tobacco industry is tanking.
I'm sure a drug like marijuana could do quite well legally; it's already doing quite well illegally. Not only that, but no one has actually died from taking marijuana. Yes, I've heard that big doses can be harmful, but then, drinking lots of coffee can be harmful too, and as mentioned before, cigs and alcohol can be more then just harmful.
As to the other 'harder' drugs, such as drugs derived from the coca plant and the poppy plant, they may take a while longer to get legalized, but I think that they will eventually get there as well.
I think people would do well to study what happened with alcohol; in the day of the 'light' alcohol from the prohibition times, prohibiting stronger stuff actually had the effect of getting people to drink stronger stuff. Why? Because if the stuff is illegal, you want to fit the most punch into the least amount of space. So, heavy duty licquors.
Now that it's legal, people are generally fine with the relatively low level of alcohol that beers have. I believe that this phenomenom may happen to the currently illegal drugs as well. The other important point is that if certain illegal drugs begin to get manufactured legally, you take the drugs away from organized crime; remember that Al Capone did swimmingly in the times of prohibition and many drug cartels do quite well these days as well. I definitely believe that groups like the CIA decided to get in on the action as well, making the government truly hypocritical. I certainly believe in the idea that if you can't beat them (because it goes counter to reason), join them, but be -honest- about it. It would be better for everyone as far as I'm concerned.
Exactly. Not only that, but when they did sue, they sued the tobacco companies for their misleading claims. I doubt that if certain illegal drugs were legalized that the new companies would make the same mistake.
Laugh
. This, too, shall pass this is the kinda shit that happens in a religious nation when you let the education and rationality standards slip
First i want to make it clear that i was not the one who brought this thread off topic.
Scott, nocotine is naturally in tobacco and when smoking was widely accepted by the public it was because people didnt know how bad it was. Now some local governments are trying to eliminate it because it is so unhealthy to do and the methods of making it very costly and eliminating it in public places is working. Addiction is a strange phenomenon and people get addicted to gambling but many do not and there is no substance in a slot machine that gets them addicted.
Believe ir or not be the so-called natural cigarettes actually contain more nicotine simply because they contain more tobacco.
Lets not be disingenuous and compare cigarettes to coke or heroin though because there is simply no reality in this. Addiction to these drugs is on a completey different level.
As far as the CIA, there are bad people in everything and money corrupts people but i cannot sit here and judge all Canadians on something you do.
I said that when a government decides to legalize hard drugs then in time the same people who wanted them legal will be the first in line with the lawsuits and i stand by that claim.
Scott, nocotine is naturally in tobacco and when smoking was widely accepted by the public it was because people didnt know how bad it was. Now some local governments are trying to eliminate it because it is so unhealthy to do and the methods of making it very costly and eliminating it in public places is working. Addiction is a strange phenomenon and people get addicted to gambling but many do not and there is no substance in a slot machine that gets them addicted.
Believe ir or not be the so-called natural cigarettes actually contain more nicotine simply because they contain more tobacco.
Lets not be disingenuous and compare cigarettes to coke or heroin though because there is simply no reality in this. Addiction to these drugs is on a completey different level.
As far as the CIA, there are bad people in everything and money corrupts people but i cannot sit here and judge all Canadians on something you do.
I said that when a government decides to legalize hard drugs then in time the same people who wanted them legal will be the first in line with the lawsuits and i stand by that claim.
Last edited:
passing the buck, as usual.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
If certain "morally righteous" individuals ever gain more influence, 17 year olds who have sex will be castrated.
how am I passing the buck?
well first it is always best for people to stay out of the sex lives of other consenting adults and who is to say at what time two people who believe they are in love can have sex- 17, 18, 19 i cannot say and it is none of my business. taking pictures of yourself in a sexual nature and sending them to your friends is counter productive to having others stay out of your personal life. and does nothing to enhance respect for women who often already suffer enough abuse.
PJ, you are passing the buck by making stuff up about some imaginary circumstances.
PJ, you are passing the buck by making stuff up about some imaginary circumstances.
Always equivocating. Nevertheless, the fact that a law is stupid is a good reason to not enforce it. Police, prosecutors, etc have discretion to charge or not for just this reason. They are supposed to use their common sence to decide when to charge someone with something and when not to.
Not much. If someone came across the pictures but didn't know the girl in question was under 18, that's no crime. Consider the case of Traci Lords who forged her ID to be allowed to appear in adult films when she was underage (16, I think). Should her costars be charged with statutory rape? Should anyone who rented the video be charged with possion of child porn? Should the producers be charged with producing child porn? Of course not. All that happened was that they pulled the videos off the market.
Happier. But it's not just the law, it's the interpretation of the law by the people involved that's incredibly stupid and that you were defending as if those involved has no choice in the matter.
Taking a picture of yourself, whatever your age or state of dress should not be illegal. Sharing said picure with your lover should also not be illegal. The only scenario in which the kids should be charged with child porn is if the intent was to sell the pictures. If we don't throw kids in jail for actual fucking, how the hell does it make sence to do so for taking pictures of it? Did you ever play "doctor" as a young child? Or "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"? Now suppose, while you were playing you had a camera phone in your pocket and took pictures of each other? Are you now sex criminals? You've done nothing different from what kids have been doing since the dawn of man, but now you're a pervert and should be branded for life as such?
It should simply be interpreted using common sence, that's all.
We shouldn't need a jury trial to decide such a simple issue.
If the picture shows an underage person in a sexual situation, it should be removed from the website. Beyond that, well, as you said:
The law should be interpreted using common sence. There should be no conflict.
Agreed. There are some outdated laws that the police frequently don't enforce; I can't remember one offhand, but I definitely think that this is a case where this type of a policy could be used, atleast until the offending law could be appropriately modified.
Clearly, the problem is that some people's sense is clearly irrational. However, I think that in time, people will see the irrationality of these types of actions and take steps to ensure that they no longer happen.
Ah, I'm not so sure about that one. The law can be somewhat absurd sometimes...
madanthonywayne said:
I agree with what should be done, given the laws of the land. And in the case of Traci Lords, since the incident was rather famous, apparently it was what was done. However, I have doubts that this logic was applied to all the less famous cases.