What Should Be Legalized (and not)

I've seen that a lot of the threads in OTC are based off of whether or not (insert questionable topic here) should be legal. Therefore, I've created a thread to pile all of this together. Just say what you think should be legal or illegal and (respectively) debate on other's.

Be sure to keep in mind:

• The USA Constitution or your native constitution (don't break it!)
• The ease of allowing people to do it and/or forbidding it from a leader's view
• The affects on the users from the legalizing/illegalizing

To get things started, here's a few of my opinions:

LEGAL

• Alcohol
• Moderate Gambling
• Drugs for Medical Reasons

ILLEGAL

• Abortion
• Tobacco Products
• Marijuana

What do you think?

Please be respectful, reasonable, and logical. Post away!

edited 1st Jul '12 10:49:00 AM by every108minutes

Do we really need another abortion debate?

Seriously.

You sound very young and idealistic 108.

OP, it would be nice if you would give your reasons for wanting to legalize/outlaw these things as opposed to just making lists.

I agree with above posts. Making a mega-thread listing what to legalize is just going to put the issues with the respective subtopics in one big thread, creating an even bigger mess.

Now a meta-debate on what authority should the government have, what should be considered civil liberties, etc., would be a good topic.

Or guidelines for making things legal vs. illegal.

'Be sure to keep in mind the Constitution'... Has it ever occurred to you that there might be people on this forum who are not from your country? There is no reason for me to 'keep in mind' the constitution of a foreign country thousands of kilometres away from here.

Anyway, personally, I have several different categories of "legalness" into which a certain act or product should have, as follows:

• Things which should not be legal at all, ever, anywhere. These include:
  • Hard drugs (e.g. cocaine, heroin, crack)
  • Sex with minors
  • Automatic firearms (except for use by the police and the military)

• Things which I think are problems in and of themselves, but which should not necessarily be illegal. The world would be a better place if these things didn't exist, but unfortunately they do, and it's impossible to get rid of them entirely. And in some places and circumstances, they cause fewer problems when legalised than when banned. Pragmatism is the word here.
  • Soft drugs (e.g. cannabis)
  • Prostitution

• Things which are not inherently harmful, but definitely potentially so. These should be legal, but heavily regulated (think licences, age restrictions, maximum amounts, and the like).
  • Alcohol
  • Tobacco
  • Gambling
  • Non-automatic firearms
  • Other weapons, such as swords and combat knives
  • Driving motorised vehicles
  • Body modifications (tattoos, piercings, etc.)
  • Research involving human or animal test subjects
  • Abortion
  • Euthanasia
  • IVF
  • Child adoption

• Things which should just be legal, without any further regulations. Whether and how people use these is really their own responsibility (or, for minors, their parents').
  • Sex involving consenting adults
  • Pornography involving consenting adults
  • Violent imagery
  • Strong language, including blasphemy
  • Cycling (no government is going to make ME wear one of those stupid helmets).
  • Junk food (still subject, of course, to safety and hygiene regulations like any foodstuff).

edited 20th Jun '12 10:27:36 AM by MidnightRambler

I could get on board with that Rambler.

As to the OP, everything on his list are things that I would have legal. Though making tobacco flat out illegal puzzles the shit out of me.

What would you have as illegal?

Hard drugs. Definitely. I'm for legalization of prostitution and marijuana if it is managed at the state level, and privatized instances are few and far between. And I would want those privatized instances to be extremely heavily regulated and scrutinized on a regular basis.

I'd also encourage stricter gun control in one specific way: A better test to declare competency with a firearm before buying a gun. The various state decisions on background checks and the like are sufficient in my opinion, as registered guns used by registered owners are a discountable percentage of firearms crime. My biggest focus is on accidents, and basically making it so that in order to purchase a gun, you need to be able to demonstrate that you know the basic rules of responsibility in using a firearm safely and responsibly.

Also, automatic firearms to be heavily regulated, beyond just a tax stamp like some states do it. Preferably prior military or police experience as a requirement.

For one though, I'd get rid of medicinal marijuana. There are way better drugs for pain medication and glaucoma treatment than weed. The mere suggestion is just stupid as all get out. In California, for instance, the medical marijuana industry is a huge statewide racket used to basically sell legal weed to anybody who can find a quack doctor and say something hurts.

edited 20th Jun '12 10:54:45 AM by Barkey

I'm of similar mind here. I'd rather more things be legal and tightly regulated than made illegal.

I disagree about medical marijuana being bunk, simply because I have known people who had a "green card" and didn't abuse it. I still think pot should be legalized and regulated though, and I completely don't understand the people who think that legalizing pot will make it so stoners can get stoned on the clock at work, or that it'll lead to a rise in people driving while high.

Yeah, I mean most people wouldn't show up drunk to work, no reason to think weed will be any different.

I guess being in So Cal has given me a very negative opinion of medicinal weed. I was a stoner in high school, don't get me wrong, but out of all the people in So Cal who HAVE a medicinal card, the vast majority don't need it or made an excuse to have it.

I mean really? They couldn't have just given you percocet? You specifically consider weed to be the best solution to your chronic pain? I wonder why the fuck that is. When I had my leg surgery, they put me on percocet. I was more or less lucid and functional the entire time, way more than I've ever been stoned.

But recreationally I'm cool with treating it like alcohol.

edited 20th Jun '12 11:16:25 AM by Barkey

I think Canada has decent gun regulations. The way I understand them is:if you want a licence for rifles and shotguns (unrestricted) you take a course for said weapons. If you want it for pistols (restricted), do the same. But yeah, Rambler's got a decent list.

Yeah, it makes me facepalm pretty hard when they go that route. Driving under the influence wouldn't suddenly become okay, and public intoxication would still be a misdemeanor. Treating it like alcohol would be roughly analogous enough for practical purposes.

I guess that one reason why people might legitimately use medical marajuana is because weed is far less addictive than, say, percocet or Vicodin. It could also be because people react differently to drugs.

If weed actually had a painkiller effect on me, I'd seriously consider getting a green card for my menstrual cramps. I currently have a prescription for Vicodin, but I'm a hell of a lot more cognizant when I'm stoned than I am when I'm on Vicodin.

edited 20th Jun '12 11:24:16 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

I wouldn't say percocet is that addictive, I spent weeks on the stuff, and it didn't really make me feel good. It dulled physical pain, dehydrated the hell out of me, but otherwise my thought process was the same.

But yeah, I think we're mostly on the same sheet of music on that regard.

On Canadian Gun Laws: I don't know much about their specifics, but I've really liked what I've heard. I know a guy with an automatic shotgun who lives in Canada... And it's legal! They actually used common sense that America has none of to say "Hmm, people don't shove a shotgun into their waistband and rob a liquor store, so we don't need to regulate those that much.... Pistols however.."

Which is something I've advocated for a long time on here.

edited 20th Jun '12 11:27:48 AM by Barkey

If seatbelts are mandatory for driving, so should helmets for cycling.

Anecdotal, I know; but I would have likely lost my father if my brother hadn't made him wear a helmet one day. That cemented my belief that cycling helmets should be mandatory.

Percocet is still a Schedule II drug because of the opiates in it, and it's technically addictive. I've heard of people taking it recreationally, but I can't imagine what they get out of it.

In regards to helmet laws, this is a good reason to wear them.

edited 20th Jun '12 11:34:40 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

Meh, helmets aren't mandatory here, and I like it that way.

I don't have a place to really put my helmet if I park my bike somewhere and go inside a store, and I'd rather not carry the damn thing with me.

Then again I'm also a massive offender of seatbelt laws.

I think that the law should only get involved when someone risks harming another. There should be clear warnings about things that can harm one's own self (unhealthy foods, marijuana, etc.), but I don't think that those things should be illegal.

edited 20th Jun '12 11:36:21 AM by RTaco

@ Barkey

Canadian gun control works like this:

Long arms (rifles/shotguns) are generally much less restricted (not much more than a background check).

Pistols/concealable weapons are restricted via licensing and competency requirements (getting your licence requires you to show safety competency and pass background checks). You also need to register the weapons.

Any weapon that gets used in a crime typically gets pressure to be placed on the "restricted" weapon list. For restricted weapons you need a lot of paperwork to show why you want it and whether it is safe in your hands (especially from theft).

Safety restrictions are fairly high; keep the guns and ammo in separate containers.

Weapons aren't used for self-defence so our safety rules usually preclude most of the ability of actually being able to defend yourself with those weapons. The rules are designed for the weapons to be used for sport or hunting.

And yes, some automatic weapons (like the AR-15) are on the "restricted" list but not actually banned. There's more paperwork involved in getting them.

edited 20th Jun '12 11:58:56 AM by breadloaf

Don't you mean semi-automatic? The AR is usually semi.

Right, semi-automatic. My mistake.

That's my biggest issue with gun control. I want a semi-automatic magazine fed carbine that doesn't have a stupid modification on it that california requires which makes it take forever to reload.

I don't want a machinegun or anything, just a good plinking rifle that isn't in .22LR. If that were better protected, I'd be totally good with most everything else.

EDIT: This post is about bicycles, as in the things propelled by muscle power, not about motorcycles. Motorcyclists definitely should wear helmets.

On cycling helmets: I happen to be from the Netherlands, one of the most bicycle-crazy countries in the world. Everyone cycles here, and nobody ever wears helmets, except for:

• Racing cyclists. Because of their high speeds, the helmets actually make sense for them. Cycle racing and everyday "practical" cycling (getting to class, to work, grocery shopping, etc.) are seen as two completely different things here anyway; we even have completely unrelated words for them - wielrennen for the former and fietsen for the latter.
• Small children with overprotective parents. This is usually seen as ridiculous and unnecessary.

Anyway, if the Dutch government proposed a bill requiring all cyclists to wear helmets, everyone would laugh at them, and the bill would never pass Parliament. As to how useful the helmets actually are:

• A British study showed that wearing a helmet actually makes you less safe in traffic, because motorists will consider you less vulnerable and drive less cautiously around you.
• The seat belt comparison is misleading, simply because cars are much faster than bicycles, meaning that the forces on your body in the event of collision will be greater and thus more dangerous.
• Helmets can be lifesavers in the "face plants" which happen in cycle racing. In our densely populated country, however, cycling accidents are much more likely to involve other traffic rather than the ground. If you get run over by a car, the helmet won't save you.

On gun regulations: I've always considered it ridiculous that in many parts of America, you can't drive a car (which is designed to be as safe as possible) without a driver's licence showing you've had proper training, but you can use a gun (which is designed to kill people) without any licence whatsoever.

edited 20th Jun '12 2:27:47 PM by MidnightRambler