Illegal Everything (John Stossel)

[Nine]

Hmm, lets see, pretty much everyone I know smokes weed or has smoked weed. Weed is still illegal... so no, it doesn't work.

I cant see it being long until its legal in more and more places.

[Tiberius]

Everyone you know is only a small subset of everyone in the country, so I don't think you can claim it "doesn't work" with such a small dataset. There are probably far more people who don't smoke weed than there are that do.

[Rhizomorph13]

Well, yeah, you're probably right. I do live in Oregon which is known for its pot consumption so my sampling of people is from a liberal state and I tend to gravitate toward those types of people.

[Minimalist]

I've said it many times before ... If the government wants to end your life in this country, they can do so at any time. The freedom we have is mostly an illusion and you only get access to it if you play by their rules at all times.


This video is a good reminder to all foreigners ... Americans are not the bad guys, it's our government that is evil incarnate.

I have to disagree, Cinj.

[Welsh cake]

If the government wants to end your life in this country, they can do so at any time.

The presumption of course, is that you even matter to them in the first instance to pose enough of a threat for them to take notice of you.

They'll most probably ignore you because its just not profitable for them to end your insignificant life in any case, not if they want the illusion of free-speech, freedoms rights and virtues to be sustained.

In the very unlikely event that you somehow do manage to piss them off they'll simply limit even more of your already-limited choices in jail. Simple as.

What do people with power want? More power. They can't exert their power over you if you're dead.

Want to really frighten the government? Its incredibly simple and yet unattainable at the same time. Scare them with birth control.

Less people in the world means their power-base shrinks dramatically. But that'll never fucking happen as we all know, so long as men swagger around like complete bastards who think they own women, and women themselves aspire to be nothing more than baby factories as opposed to mothers, and both behave like its their inherent god-given fucking right to drag innocent children into a world where resources are dwindling, the cost of living is sky-rocketing, 2.5 billion humans are either starving to death or lack basic sanitation and our bloody useless capitalistic ideology means we have a bloom-bust economy that can at any moment satisfy the wants of the rich and their banker-friends while screwing over the basic needs of the working-class and put everyone out of work and on welfare.

No, the likes of you and me will never win any attention whatsoever from the owners of our countries so that they'll stop counting their trillions for one minute.

[/rant]

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It's not just new laws; have a look at old laws (say over 100 years old) still on the books.


EG In the UK,technically,it is still illegal to drive a motor vehicle without having a man with a red flag walking in front. Law makers tend to just paper new laws over old ones,without bothering to repeal the old ones.This is because statute law makers (as opposed to common law makers ,who are judges) tend to be politicians. Such people tend to be self interested,short sighted, lazy and stupid,believing any problem can be solved by passing new laws*. My all time favourite is the 18th Amendment. Wasn't THAT a bang -up success!


*like the moronic chicken-little types whose first ,and often last reaction to anything they don't much like is "ban it!"

[paintpooper]

Yes no one here is important enough for the government to care about us. The second we start making a scene, in public, or protesting, it then becomes their issue, because just like with OWS they shut them the fuck down, then told MSM to stop reporting on it. Pretty simple. They say a threat to their establishment and eliminated it, by using stupid laws THEY created lolz. Same with the Tea Party, who ended up getting hijacked by those Koch asses. Tea Party + OWS = Revolution. Don't you find NDAA and SOPA introduced at an odd time, we have wars, and economic issues, unemployment, and all they can do is create bills like that? That shows they do not give a fuck about us, D's and R's.

Also I don't think making "legalization" laws are the way to go either. How about just no laws on certain things. No laws for OR against drugs. Drugs are drugs, take them if you want, BUT if you commit a crime while on drugs, theft, rape, murder, you then become a criminal by breaking a law, and the penalty will be harsh.
Gay marriage, same thing, shouldn't be illegal, or legal, it shouldn't be in the realm of "justice" and laws, its a fucking personal thing. If I'm gay I'm gay, no law can say different. And if I want to live with a dude I will, the government has NO place in personal affairs, marriage should not be a legal thing, for hetero or homo couples.
So there are tons of laws that are pointless and don't even need to be laws. That is why the system is so messed up, they feel it is their job to continually create laws, when they need to just enforce the basic laws instead. Murder, theft, assault, rape, pedophilia. But rape/pedo fit into assault. So really there are only a few things IMO that us humans can do that is prison worthy, and that is when we effect the well being of another human.
If I have 20 heroin needles in my body sitting on my couch FUCKED out of my mind, who gives a rat's ass. But the second I go and do something criminal while on the drugs it makes me a criminal, drugs don't kill people, people kill people. A person who wishes to have 20 heroin needles in them, made the choice to kill themselves. The "drugs" didn't kill the person they killed themselves, and doing that is not a crime. We should educate the fuck out of the population, but in the end, we shall do what we want, but until we commit a crime, leave us the hell alone. But also educate people on harms of x and y so they are more responsible if they choose to use.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be difficult to separate the law from marriage unless you simultaneously abolished all transferable private property. So, probably not a good idea.

[paintpooper]

It would be difficult to separate the law from marriage unless you simultaneously abolished all transferable private property. So, probably not a good idea.

Do you mean like death rights to transfer wealth and property if one spouse dies?

[The Grand Nudger]

Or litigation upon divorce, or transference of property to children from marriage after divorce, etc etc etc. Tip of the iceberg obviously.