CDZ Illegal things that should be legal

[Dekster]

I don't want to keep chickens. I want my neighbor to keep chickens so I can steal the eggs.

Just steal the eggs from the grocery store.

Not nearly as fun and they don't taste as good. Fresh chicken eggs are the bomb.

I don't know if I would be able to tell the difference once the eggs are scrambled.

LOL. Non-commercial chicken eggs usually have richer, thicker, deeper colored yolks. They are quite good if you get them fresh. I am sure they are good if you don't get them fresh, but the longer they sit, the less sure you can be as to exactly how old they are IMO. Plus, you don't need to keep them in the fridge as long as you don't wash them.

Commercial eggs are not fertilized, so you don't have to worry about little chickens in the eggs.

If you steal them fresh, you won't have to either (though I have had commercial eggs that had chicken forming in them. Some places keep a rooster running up and down the hen rows to encourage laying but is is abut as rare as a double yolk egg).

 

[Dekster]

I see no reason it should be legally binding at all.

No legal bindings mean no legal benefits.

There shouldn't be any legal benefits.

What benefits aren't legal? Do you have examples?

I didn't say any of the benefits are illegal. The government should be indifferent to the whole marriage issue. There shouldn't be special benefits that you can get when you are married that you cannot get when you are unmarried. The property of married people shouldn't be shielded from judgments against one of them when the property of unmarried joint owners is not. Spouses should not automatically be favored in estate law when unmarried partners are not.

If the law is followed and advanced, why should there not be greater benefits included in those more complex procedures?

If you can jump 5 meters high, why should you not be able to see the scenery beyond the 5 meter wall?

Why should husband's and wives be insulated from paying their bills as long as they keep it in one name or the other? Why shouldn't a creditor be able to attach a lien to their property if they could if they weren't husband and wife?

 

[Holos]

Why should husband's and wives be insulated from paying their bills as long as they keep it in one name or the other?

You mean why should husbands and wives have their own shared property when they could have a property each without marriage, independent from each other and independent from marriage?

That's a good question. Perhaps because a property owned by more than a single person, regardless of the name they attribute to it legally, would have a greater civil value if those persons are equally involved in improving it?

Why shouldn't a creditor be able to attach a lien to their property if they could if they weren't husband and wife?

Because even if husband and wife were not a desired or promoted civil title, citizenship would still be a civil title of more producing value than that of a lien attaching creditor.

 

[OldLady]

Drugs? Okay, but not addictive ones. We're just beginning to persuade doctors not to over prescribe them legally. Opiates destroy lives.
Prostitution. Absolutely. I have never understood why it is illegal. Has it always been?

Those, especially, should be legalized. If they're legal, they can be controlled. The opiate epidemic now is out of control primarily because patients are cut off by their doctor when they're hooked and go to the street. If we make clinics open to those trying to rid themselves of addiction without dying from withdrawals (which would necessitate decriminalization), we could effectively cure the addiction problem.

Prison. Doesn't. Work. See what Portugal and Switzerland have done.

I agree with your approach. Treating addicts, not throwing addicts in jail makes sense, but making opiates "legal" and therefore more accessible/acceptable is not a good idea. We have Drug Court and clinics to treat addiction already; that is not solving any problems.

Treating heroin addicts is a very hard thing to do. after a very short time using, the brain starts looking for the heroin for various things like the release of Dopamine.
even after stopping use, the "cravings" for the drug can last for 7 to 10 years. (has to do with conversion and storage of metabolites in the fat cells)
oh, and nobody is going to die from Heroin withdrawal. They may want to die for a week after they quit, but God is not that good to them. They suffer, they get over it. Unless they use suboxone to step dwon, or (not my choice at all) methadone.

Did I say they'd die? I said their lives were ruined. I know more about opiate addiction than I care to. Addicts have a life long struggle in front of them to stay clean, but the actual motivation to stop, to get clean in the first place, becomes fainter and fainter as time goes on. Your plan sounds fine as far as it goes, but you are not taking into account the fact that most addicts have no desire to stop. The easier you make it for them to get their hands on opiates, the less successful any treatment program will be.

Your assessment sounds fine on the surface but, I do know that there is a point that heroin use becomes necessity and not desire. They would rather be clean. Just this one last time then I'm going to quit....
Just to clarify, I am an addiction counselor, certified. I work at a facility for the mentally ill and chemically addicted. Long term stays, not the 29 day programs. I also run interventions upon request from family or friends of heroin addicts. I attend N/A meetings with these people usually 5 times a week. I am a certified Medication Technician.
I will have my third degree in a year and a half. (current is in internet security, an Associates in substance abuse and the next one will be my BA in Psychology)
I do have some insight.
Now, I will agree with you 100% that there are addicts out there that have no desire to quit. (known as the pre-contemplative stage of recovery) Our job if we know these people is to move them to the contemplative stage of recovery so the desire will grow.
Sad part about my job is that I deal with so many that have actually toasted their brains in a permanent way with the abuse.
Take Dabs for instance (pure THC extract dried and smoked) Smoking dabs can cause psychosis, take away the dabs and the psychosis will go away in time. However, continue using and the psychosis can become permanent. A recognized psychosis that continues without improvement, or increases over a watched 6 month period can then often be categorized as schizophrenia, which is permanent.

Okay Maryland. I worked with clients for 9 years as a CPS worker, mostly in the precontemplative stages of addiction, and that is probably why I questioned your assumption that if opiates were decriminalized, everyone would get treatment. That seemed to be what you were saying, anyway. You guys do good work; no question about it. I worked very closely with S.A. counselors treating my clients and am familiar with what you describe. I realize some people are very successful on methadone, suboxone, and I actually had one or two clients who went cold turkey and stayed clean for years. Those were determined, stubborn women with a lot of heart. The successes keep us going, I guess, even if they're fewer and farther between than we would like.
I don't think we're disagreeing on much.

 

[Dekster]

Why should husband's and wives be insulated from paying their bills as long as they keep it in one name or the other?

You mean why should husbands and wives have their own shared property when they could have a property each without marriage, independent from each other and independent from marriage?

That's a good question. Perhaps because a property owned by more than a single person, regardless of the name they attribute to it legally, would have a greater civil value if those persons are equally involved in improving it?

Why shouldn't a creditor be able to attach a lien to their property if they could if they weren't husband and wife?

Because even if husband and wife were not a desired or promoted civil title, citizenship would still be a civil title of more producing value than that of a lien attaching creditor.

Property owned by a husband and wife is no different than property owned by a brother and sister, yet the former gets special protections the latter does not.

 

[oldsoul]

Low-dose Antibiotics

Aren't these already legal? I know they must be in D.C. and Maryland because I've never faced any challenge getting a scrip for them filled. Maybe, however, you and I are thinking of two different things???

3-Wheelers

This again may be an instance where you and I have different things in mind? I know I saw someone driving on I-495 with one a few weeks back. Perhaps they were in violation of the law???

Yes, we are talking about different things. I'm referring to OTC antibiotics, such as what I am told one can obtain in places like Finland. Oddly enough, in Finland it is illegal to purchase Cloreseptic (sp.?) spray (you know, the stuff for sore throats).

As for the 3-wheelers I'm referring to things like this:

 

[alang1216]

Property owned by a husband and wife is no different than property owned by a brother and sister, yet the former gets special protections the latter does not.

Marriage has traditionally been seen as a way to provide for a non-working spouse and children. Marriage law is mainly for their protection.

 

[oldsoul]

After some contemplation I think I need to revise my previous list, um "slightly".
I would be in favor of legalizing, or at least de-criminalizing many, many things, but have extremely high penalties should someone cause harm to another while participating in/using such things. I'll give you an example:

Say, for arguments' sake (and I am not advocating this, merely using it as an example), that drunk driving where "de-criminalized". There would be no penalty for doing so. However, should one get into an accident while driving drunk, here is what would happen:

• Only property damage, no one else involved = restitution for damages, suspension of driving privileges for 1 year (second offense would be permanent revocation nationally), a $10,000 fine, mandatory MADD, DADD (or similar group) meeting attendance for a period of one year, and counseling for alcohol abuse.
• No injuries, with other people involved = Assault with a deadly weapon (per person), with penalties already in place.
• Someone else is injured (not requiring hospitalization)= maximum penalty for assault with a deadly weapon.
• Someone else is injured requiring hospitalization = Attempted vehicular homicide with penalties already in place.
• Any fatalities = vehicular homicide with penalties already in place.

Now, how long do you think it would take for people to seriously re-consider driving themselves home from dinner that includes a drink or two? For those who would do it anyway, it would not take long for most, if not all of them to be removed from the drivers' seat entirely. Let's look at an example: Germany, as I understand, has (or had) a two strikes and your out rule with drunk driving. First time, you don't drive for a year, second time you never legally drive again. Result, very low rates of drunk driving. Again, I have not verified this, it is my understanding from people I know who have lived there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Machineguns produced after May 1986.
"Assault weapons' in the states that banned them
"High-capacity' magazines in the states that banned them.
Concealed carry of a firearm by legal gun owners in the states that do not not grants permits for same.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Hitting people who are annoying. Provided it can be proven that they were annoying to a reasonable person.

 

[hauke]

illegal things that should be legal.. easy

prostitution, get real prostitution is the oldest trade, make it legal make regulations.

drugs. make all drugs legal, make regulations. people want drugs, if they are illegal you make crime.

to prevent crime make them legal

do you want druglords having billions off dollars ? i dont

 

[Maryland Patriot]

illegal things that should be legal.. easy

prostitution, get real prostitution is the oldest trade, make it legal make regulations.

drugs. make all drugs legal, make regulations. people want drugs, if they are illegal you make crime.

to prevent crime make them legal

do you want druglords having billions off dollars ? i dont

When considering legal or not legal in reference do drugs, do we as a society have any shared responsibility when it comes to keeping the public safe?
And yes, alcohol fits into this question. Ive always wondered about the no driving impaired laws while there is a bar within driving distance of every home. Bars promote drinking and driving, just no way around it. Is a bar owner any less responsible for the results that are caused by drunks leaving his bar to drive home?

 

[Holos]

Why should husband's and wives be insulated from paying their bills as long as they keep it in one name or the other?

You mean why should husbands and wives have their own shared property when they could have a property each without marriage, independent from each other and independent from marriage?

That's a good question. Perhaps because a property owned by more than a single person, regardless of the name they attribute to it legally, would have a greater civil value if those persons are equally involved in improving it?

Why shouldn't a creditor be able to attach a lien to their property if they could if they weren't husband and wife?

Because even if husband and wife were not a desired or promoted civil title, citizenship would still be a civil title of more producing value than that of a lien attaching creditor.

Property owned by a husband and wife is no different than property owned by a brother and sister, yet the former gets special protections the latter does not.

If the properties are no different between the two bond categories, suggested as being socially discrepant within lawful procedure, why would they even require any protection if any of the bond categories are lawful themselves in their activities? Special protection isn't different from simple protection, if we are analyzing society, civility and law, and the law exists to serve, not to protect.

 

[kwc57]

I'd like to see marriage expanded. I think any number of consenting adults should be allowed to marry. If there is medical reason to worry about incest then it should be regulated. Otherwise anything is allowed.

Sure, and why don't we change the age of consent to 14 while we are at it? It's the next "logical" step.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I'd like to see marriage expanded. I think any number of consenting adults should be allowed to marry. If there is medical reason to worry about incest then it should be regulated. Otherwise anything is allowed.

Sure, and why don't we change the age of consent to 14 while we are at it? It's the next "logical" step.

not as long as the requirement of Adult is left in the wording.
but actually, when it comes to adult mentally as far as brain development goes, the age should by all standards be somewhere around 25

 

[hauke]

every person has the right to decide for themself if they want to take drugs or not, no gouvernement has the right to make the decision for the individual

 

[hauke]

and every person decides, its just illegal and druglords earn billions

 

[hauke]

if i want heroin or cocain, if i want hashish or extasy if i want a drug i can get it, making it illegal just makes crimelords rich

 

[hauke]

if you make drugs illegal you are supporting crimelords your supporting crime

 

[alang1216]

I'd like to see marriage expanded. I think any number of consenting adults should be allowed to marry. If there is medical reason to worry about incest then it should be regulated. Otherwise anything is allowed.

Sure, and why don't we change the age of consent to 14 while we are at it? It's the next "logical" step.

What would be logical, but impossible, would be setting the age of consent based on an individuals maturity. Absent that the age of consent must be arbitrary. If you can make a case for 14 I'm willing to listen.