Philotic Web

I have asked several people this question, recently, and I was wondering how my fellow PWebbers would answer.

If you could enact, change, or abolish any one law.. what would you do?

The drinking age...

In truth I don't reall enjoy drinking or do it that often... but I look around and see how stupid my peers can be, and I just feel that if they were legally exposed to alcohol at an earlier age then they wouldn't be so effing stupid. I'm sure that at first this would seem like a bad idea, but things like this need to kinda go through a few generations before the results start to look good...

Anyone caught in the crossfire there is subject to the laws of Social Darwinism...

Thatguy1944

Newton's law of gravity.

I always wanted to float and be weightless.

US laws, any legal laws anywhere, any kind of "law", what? Or is this to be open to interpretation?

The drinking age...

Wait, wait, are you saying you'd change it, or abolish it?

I'd actually agree with that drunk guy 1944 up there. At 18 you can vote, work, smoke, give away organs, put yourself into debt, join the army. You can't drink, though? Why?

Many countries it seems that the legal DRINKING age is 16. A parent can legally allow their 16 year old child to drink. However, they must be 18 to BUY the alcohol. This seems much more logical to me as if it is available there wouldn't be any wish to abuse it. It seems that by the time they can purchase it themselves most kids/now adults can drink it without wishing to go overboard with it and abuse it.

I'd probably also change the pot laws. It's safer and actually HEALTHIER on the body that cigarettes in smaller doses. Again, it seems that countries that allow you to be in possession of small amounts of pot don't really have problems with it. It'd be safer because you wouldn't have to worry if the pot you get off the street is laced with anything. Could even tax it and get some revenue off of the sale.

No, I don't smoke pot. I never have. I just think it's dumb to make something illegal that is safer than something so many other people use regularly.

thank god im not in america
i can drink at 18

Yea, but you're also a communist 3nder, so living outside the US is a double-edge sword.

sorryz i cant type proplez i iz drunk
zzzzz

but then again im only 14 so i cant get drunk right now

dam it....

Stop speaking Russian, commie.

"laughs"
i cant help it
sorry i cant help the drinking laws over there...

The laws of physics!!! I want to go faster than light!
LIGHT!!!

Stop speaking Russian, commie.

Russian Communists are soooo 1950s. Don't you know that the new face of communism is Latino?

Don't you know that the new face of communist is Latino?

My dad keeps asking if I'm a communist; I was wondering where it came from but it all makes sense now.

The laws of physics!!! I want to go faster than light!
LIGHT!!!

in australia a few scientists are being jailed for taking speed
a comody show (good news week) said this

if scientisis want to go at the speed of light they should lay off the speed because if they diddn't they might go faster than light and hit something in the dark

I'd abolish the law that stops me driving at 15 - it should not be done by age, but maturity level and responsibility. Might be hard to measure though.

Marijuana laws.

Start by laying off scientists who want to study it. Give them some time to come up with a breathalyzer that detects THC intoxication so that you still have some method of recourse against people who mix it with driving. Then, make it a legal, controlled substance. Let the tobacco companies get in to growing it, refining it, etc. Place governmental controls on potency and mixtures to keep things kosher. Tax the s*** out of it, and don't sell to minors.

It'll help the American economy, especially if the controls are as such that commercial growers from outside the US will have difficulty adapting. The cigarette companies, who have been losing money with everyone quitting, now have some way to bounce back. In Canada, the taxes on cigarettes have been getting higher and higher, as a method of deterring Canadians from smoking and putting too much pressure on the public health care system; and legalizing marijuana can help with that. That's not to say that smoking marijuana doesn't negatively impact your health in some ways, merely that it is less harmful to the user's body in it's current state than alcohol or cigarettes.

There is one economic flaw with this whole theory, and that's "what will the current growers/dealers do?" As so many people are concerned that pot is a "gateway drug" the immediate thought is "just go to selling harder stuff like coke." I think instead, though, you could combine this initiative with one that encourages the corporations who are going to take up production to seek out current growers to help them with their crop. This can provide current growers with a new, legitimate source of income where they can put their talents to use. And the dealers? Let em amp up what they sell; get f****** up on coke, start killing eachother, and the world's a better place with a couple dozen fewer drug dealers around.

You know, I once heard a professor who studies adolescents at risk say that we know that marijauna isn't the gateway drug -- tobacco is. (Haven't looked up the stats myself, just speculative hearsay.) You may know people who use coke/heroin/etc. who don't/haven't used marijuana but all of them smoke/have smoked.

This is not to say that all tobacco users are drug users, obviously. I'm just wondering -- if eventually the regulations cause fewer people to start using tobacco, will we see a similar decline in use of other drugs?

I have no idea what the answer is to this. Just think it'll be an interesting trend to watch over time.

Personally, I think the gateway drug is milk. Everyone on coke, heroin, etc. have also been on milk.

What movie/show was it were the mother was paranoid that people snuck drugs into kids milk at school and so always warned her kids not to take their eyes off their milk? But the kids were grown up and so they were joking about it. Or was this someone I knew in real life...GAH, it's driving me nuts!

This is probably unpopular, but I think cigarettes should be banned. They don't allow smoking in any public building (in most of Canada and I think in many places in the States as well). Why not just go all the way and ban it?
I know it's completely unfeasible and would take up way too much public money/time, etc, but I think this is mostly a fantasy thread anyway so...
I hate smoking. It's bad for you, it's bad for people around you. It stinks. Just make it illegal already.

Legalize gay marriage, already.

Personally, I think the gateway drug is milk. Everyone on coke, heroin, etc. have also been on milk.

Yes, but the difference is that people who have not used any drug, ever also drink milk. If you've never smoked, odds are you've never used any type of illegal drug, either.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that smoking causes drug use. For one thing, probably non-smokers are more likely to be non-rule breakers in general, which would lead to the correlation. But, still, if you buy the whole idea of a "gateway drug" that's the one to start with. That's most people's first experience with experimenting with some kind of substance they aren't supposed to touch, getting reinforced for it, and thus loosening mental restrictions on other "don't touch" substances.

Obviously, there are the smokers/non-drug user category, and I'm not ignoring that, but still. It makes more sense to me than the "marijuana = gateway drug" theory.

And, anyhow, I don't necessarily believe that a decline in starting smoking will automatically equal a decline in drug use. But it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Legalize gay marriage, already.

Yeah, this one gets my vote.

Legalize gay marriage, already.

Yeah, this one gets my vote.

More like, legalize civil unions. I don't know why people want it to be separated like that, but I think it stems from the fact that for a lot of history marriage has been a religious ideal. Spiritually tied to a partner through marriage with no aspect of government. Because of this, and because of religions having their own reasons to not allow two people of the same sex to marry, it causes a lot of problems. So, they decided to use the term civil unions! You're married to the person in all legal ways... next of kin, tax breaks, etc, however it allows you to stay removed from the religious aspect of marriage.

Now, I know some will argue that marriage is no longer simply a religious act, and you would be correct, however for many people it still is. For many religions that do not believe in same sex marriages, calling it marriage is going to cause problems with a LOT of people. This is a democracy, and those that are Atheist/do not believe in religion are still severely out numbered. For those that are for church and state separation, this is really ideal because it allows the couple to get 'married' under the states eyes. There are some stubborn couples that want the term 'marriage', however for many more they simply wish to receive the rights that a legally bound couple under the law are entitled to.

So, yeah, I'm for CIVIL UNIONS.

Legalize gay marriage, already.

Yeah, this one gets my vote.

More like, legalize civil unions. I don't know why people want it to be separated like that, but I think it stems from the fact that for a lot of history marriage has been a religious ideal. Spiritually tied to a partner through marriage with no aspect of government. Because of this, and because of religions having their own reasons to not allow two people of the same sex to marry, it causes a lot of problems. So, they decided to use the term civil unions! You're married to the person in all legal ways... next of kin, tax breaks, etc, however it allows you to stay removed from the religious aspect of marriage.

Now, I know some will argue that marriage is no longer simply a religious act, and you would be correct, however for many people it still is. For many religions that do not believe in same sex marriages, calling it marriage is going to cause problems with a LOT of people. This is a democracy, and those that are Atheist/do not believe in religion are still severely out numbered. For those that are for church and state separation, this is really ideal because it allows the couple to get 'married' under the states eyes. There are some stubborn couples that want the term 'marriage', however for many more they simply wish to receive the rights that a legally bound couple under the law are entitled to.

So, yeah, I'm for CIVIL UNIONS.

Too tired to bother.

Said marriage. Meant marriage.

Only if straight people's legal partnerships get changed in the law to become, "Civil Unions" as well. If marriage is a term for the religious sphere, then it should be that way for all people.

Separate but equal never is.

Yeah, I see where you are coming from. Then again, I see no reason why two people of the same sex can't say they're married even if the law calls it a 'civil union'.

I'd hope the reason gay couples would oppose the idea of a civil union is because they're being more legally 'low-balled' than a married couple rather than them just trying to force the word 'marriage' upon the law. I believe it is their right to have the same governmental perks of a married couple, however calling it marriage is just going to grind against a lot of people and cause more problems than solve. Those that wish it to be called marriage and have no real interest in it simply being a governmental thing are really being closed-minded and stubborn.

I do agree with you, however, that those not married within a church should also be considered to be within a civil union. It would be the most fair, and it would be ideal. However, that's not likely to happen, and then you'd just have stubborn people from the opposite side in opposition.

I know some will argue that marriage is no longer simply a religious act

As far as I knew, maybe I'm misinformed, marriages didn't even start off as a religious act; they were just formal and communal ways to complete a contractual transaction that passed the rights (and money?) from the father of the bride to the husband.

I know it's not that simple, but really, I thought marriage was largely done for economic reasons and religion was thrown in at some point.



Anyway, I concur. Legalize gay marriage.


I also think it's extremely difficult/impossible, but I'd honestly like to see cigarettes entirely banned, also. I hate second hand smoke with a passion and get sick of telling people to keep their cancer to themselves.

(ETA: Just to be clear, I don't want it to look like I'm taking any sort of credit from Jan...I was agreeing with her.)

I also think it's extremely difficult/impossible, but I'd honestly like to see cigarettes entirely banned, also. I hate second hand smoke with a passion and get sick of telling people to keep their cancer to themselves.

I completely agree with this.

I fought hard to beat cancer (twice.. but only once in my lungs). My family knows this. And, yet, most of them smoke. There are few things that make me more irate than this. But there is nothing I can really do.

Only if straight people's legal partnerships get changed in the law to become, "Civil Unions" as well. If marriage is a term for the religious sphere, then it should be that way for all people.

Separate but equal never is.

Agree, but without the "if". I would eliminate marriage in the legal sense and just use whatever kind of unions instead.

Also agreed with dap's marijuana post, even though I don't see myself using it either way.

Yes, but the difference is that people who have not used any drug, ever also drink milk. If you've never smoked, odds are you've never used any type of illegal drug, either.

But the difference is that people who have not used drugs also smoke tobacco products. And, if you've never drank milk, odds are you've never used any type of illegal drug, either.

I can play this game all day. The fact of the matter is this: pinning the "gateway drug" label on tobacco is at least as silly as pinning it on marijuana (or milk).

And, for the record, an estimated two-thirds of drug users also use (or have used) tobacco. And, while that's a huge percentage, it's not quite the "everybody who has used harder drugs" demographic. Milk is used (or has been used) by a much higher percentage, I'd say. And, since we're just implying any old causal correlation, I like the idea of milk being a gateway drug much better.


Oh, and just a note: I've never used any illegal drug (marijuana, heroin, cocaine, whathaveyou), nor have I ever smoked. I completely support my state's new ban on smoking in public areas (though my constitutionality sensor goes off when the government says it is also banned from private businesses). Despite that, I love the fact that people can only smoke fifteen feet from any building. It makes concerts, bars, clubs, even the workplace cleaner and more enjoyable, I'd say.

That doesn't mean I buy the relationship between them, though.

We need a paradigm shift on the concept of marriage. Abolish the marriage license completely and replace it with a breeding license.

You want to marry your shoe? Go right ahead.

You want to procreate with your shoe? You'll both need to pass a competency exam first. If the results show either of you to be ill-suited for parenthood, tough s***.

Yep, Josh...the U.S. totally needs to bring back the sterilization and eugenics of the 1900s. Let's just take that breeding license and go one step further for the benefit of all.

I think that a lot of religious people would get very offended if Civil Partnerships were changed to 'marriages' and also if what are today marriages were changed to 'Civil Partnerships'