Canada is a free country now

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I oppose:

The courts being too activist.

The courts are interpreting what is "indecent". In this case, members of a swinging club having sex with eachother was ruled to not be "indecent". Get over it.

The fact that you're now accusing judges of ruling in favor of liberty as being "activist judges" cements your position as a social conservative -- you're even stealing pages out of George W's book.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Richelieu


"Protecting" people from going to a place where they want to go so they can engage in an activity that they want to engage in?

You know you should remove the "Wiglaf" part from your sig.

So whore houses would be just fine from your POV?

[Asher]

They are from my POV. Legalize them, tax them, and regulate them: provide them with regular STD tests, provide them with condoms and education about STDs, etc.

[Richelieu]

Prostitution is not swinging.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Absolutely. Everybody knows the high chance smoking has for giving you cancer (I'd hope I don't have to even discuss that part).

Everyone should also know that condoms are very, very good at protecting against pregnancy and the spread of HIV. That's why gay couples can have one partner with HIV and the other never getting it, provided they have safe sex.

If you're going to take either position of (a) smoking doesn't give you a much higher chance of cancer, or (b) condoms doesn't substantially help protect against HIV, then you'll need to do so. But good luck...

You are assuming everyone will always use a condom. Can you produce stats on swingers that back you up?

And what if I want to have a club for smokers staffed by smokers? According to you it is just fine for the authorities to say no, I can''t do that.

I shouldn't be surprised that a computational scholar such as yourself would have a basic problem of logical consistency.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Prostitution is not swinging.

Why is it illegal for people to live off the avails?

After all, people are consenting to legal activities.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You are assuming everyone will always use a condom. Can you produce stats on swingers that back you up?

Common sense. Swingers aren't necessarily stupid people, they don't want to impregnate other women...

You're going to have to provide evidence to the contrary (ie, swingers are substantially higher risks for STDs than other people), not assume they all get AIDS like you are right now.

And what if I want to have a club for smokers staffed by smokers? According to you it is just fine for the authorities to say no, I can''t do that.

this is the third time I've had to say this: the difference is public healthcare. A smokers-for-smokers private club is fine, provided I don't pay for their cancer treatments.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Common sense. Swingers aren't necessarily stupid people, they don't want to impregnate other women...

You're going to have to provide evidence to the contrary (ie, swingers are substantially higher risks for STDs than other people), not assume they all get AIDS like you are right now.

You're the twit who is suggesting that promiscuity among strangers is a good idea. I think you should dig these facts up before you claim common sense for your side.

this is the third time I've had to say this: the difference is public healthcare. A smokers-for-smokers private club is fine, provided I don't pay for their cancer treatments.

I'm glad you are so glib about public health.

I should point out, I am in favour of a federal ban on tobacco if it is so harmful.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Or Tibet Town inside one of the major cities.

That's like castle in the sky.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're the twit who is suggesting that promiscuity among strangers is a good idea.

I'm the twit who is suggesting that the government should not oppress the people's ability to associate with who they want to in consentual relationships.

I should point out, I am in favour of a federal ban on tobacco if it is so harmful.

That just shows how little you understand about something you pretend to know a lot about.

The dumbest thing you could do is create a black market for cigarettes. Hooray for further funding of criminal organizations.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm the twit who is suggesting that the government should not oppress the people's ability to associate with who they want to in consentual relationships.

To bad that most of society disagrees with you, and whore houses and strip bars with public participation are likely to remain illegal.

That just shows how little you understand about something you pretend to know a lot about.

The dumbest thing you could do is create a black market for cigarettes. Hooray for further funding of criminal organizations.

There already is a black market due to massive taxation. Do you have a clue what you are on about?

[Asher]

It doesn't matter if there already is a black market -- outright banning it would make the market MUCH MUCH larger.

[notyoueither]

As an addict, I feel safe to 'testify' that quitting would be fairly easy were it not for cigarettes being everywhere. Being peddled to the addicts through legitimate businesses with the approval of all levels of government. The governments like it this way. They get to tax the hell out of it and add dollars to this year's budget.

Don't dare ask them to take the step of actually banning a supposedly lethal susbstance though. Ashers of the world will unite in their condemnation of the government doing something to prevent actual harm being done to people by businesses (and goivernment) seeking a buck. Yay for social liberals!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher
It doesn't matter if there already is a black market -- outright banning it would make the market MUCH MUCH larger.

You know this how?

[Asher]

Are you for real?

Most people who are buying cigarettes now aren't just going to say "okay, I guess I'm not going to smoke anymore".

I think there's already a historical example for this behavior -- which a MUCH less addictive substance. Prohibition...?