The Survey that has been floating about

[richardf8]

I doubt many of you will be surprised by any of this:

Abortion?:	It is not the place of the state to make a woman's choices for her, or to force biased information or needless delays upon her.
Death Penalty?:	I was once for, but as I see the number of falsely accused, I can only conclude that people cannot be trusted to administer death.
Prostitution?:	What a crappy way to earn a living.
Alcohol?:	Our puritanical attitudes toward it foster abuse. Remove all restrictions on it.
Marijuana?:	Legalize it. Tax it. Don't let it be smoked in public. Pay off the Debt
Other drugs?:	Legalize them. Tax them. Pay off the Debt.
Gay marriage?:	Get the state out of the marriage business entirely. Let it issue civil unions to gay and straight alike, and let religions determine what they will sanctify.
Illegal immigrants?:	"Give me your tired, your hungry, your poor . . ."
Smoking?:	Keep your smoke out of my lungs.
Drunk driving?:	Should be as socially acceptable as incest and cannibalism.
Cloning?:	Step slowly. Keep it in the realm of pure science and out of the hands of industry for at least another decade.
Racism?:	If we don't hate based on race, we'll find something else.
Premarital sex?:	Use a condom.
Religion?:	Better for the peas and mashed potatoes to touch than church and state. And a not to Pope John Paul: Get your crozier out of my congress!
The war in Iraq?:	Dumbass.
Bush?:	Dumbass.
Downloading music?:	Hey, free promotion for the record companies! If only they weren't to stupid to see that.
The legal drinking age?:	Abolish it. All those years of denial lead to binging later on.
Porn?:	What a crappy way to earn a living.
Suicide?:	What? And miss the rolling credits?

What is your stand on..... brought to you by BZOINK!

Comments

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Funny, I thought I sent a message earlier today, but it hasn't registered:

My only surprise is at your attitude on alcohol and the legal drinking age. Do you have evidence that the repeal of restrictions would mean less abuse? That it's better to let infants drink beer? If you can find the evidence, I may join your position.

My opinion on abortion rights is borderline (rare, huh?) for the first time in my life. Ultimately I favor them because I expect that the same women would get them anyway, just under much worse conditions.

As for downloading music, I used to think it would put the record companies out of business, but look at newspapers: they've encouraged people for a decade to look online instead of buying subscriptions. There must be a profit to be had.

[richardf8]

Cultures where alcohol is taken for granted tend to have less trouble with abuse because it removes the "forbidden fruit" angle. Letting infants drink beer, however, is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum don't you think? In the first place, I don't think they'd like it, and in the second, they're dazed and confused enough without alcohol. On the other hand, in traditional circucision wine is used as an anesthetic.

Your opinion on abortion is the reason that Roe v. Wade was so important. Women were getting them anyway. And the poor ones often died. That is why the pro-choice march on Washington this weekend is called the March for Women's Lives -- because under a regime in which legal abortion is unavailable, women take matters into their own hands - coat hangers were a common tool, which is why the Pro-Choice Movement as a coat-hanger with a slash through it as a symbol.

As for music downloading via P2P networks, it does have the potential to put the record companies out of business -- but not because of copyright infringement. The record companies are using copyright infringement as a tool to attack and demonize P2P networks with the goal of legislating them out of existence. Here's why: A record company makes huge amounts of money delivering music from artists to listeners. But that delivery is their only actual product. If an artist can establish a direct relationship with his listeners, delivering music over the internet and receiving payment over the internet, the record companies no longer have any role. That's why the vast majority of them won't even have anything to do with above board, direct-to-consumer services like i-tunes (or else want i-tunes to raise its price). They see in this technology their own obsolescence.

Take rain_luong. All of his creative work is available for free on the internet. His eminently listenable tunes, Ozy and Millie, I Drew This -- all available for free. Now a creator giving his work away isn't so horrible, because he still needs to eat. But if DCS were to burn a CD and sell it through his Cafe Press store (which does publication-on-demand), I'd buy it. I suspect you would too. And that cuts the RIAA completely out of the picture. I pay less for the work product, and DCS makes more because we are using a lighter distribution system. Worse yet, if DCS were to charge for the downloads, why even the publication process would become the purview of the listener. The two things that the RIAA has to offer: publication and distribution, down the tubes.

And that's why the RIAA is going after downloaders. It isn't about the copyrights -- they survived the cassette recorder; it's about the prospect of their very business model becoming obsolete.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, last night I attended a college art museum exhibit, and there was nothing to prevent a minor from grabbing a beer at the snack table. I'm surprised the campus allowed that, but I must admit: the beer sure lost its badass image without the restrictions.

I'm with you now.

drunk driving

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

unfortunately that is one of the most basic illustrations of the difficulty in just *how* to legalize forbidden fruit.

for instance, with maryjane, it probably would be best to legalize it, yup. heck, it's a PLANT! can one point at a rock or a tree and say it doesn't pre-exist?

it's all sewn into management and responsibility, and nowadays, liability. that's why seat belt wearing is a law, and smoking is illegal in many places. essentially it's pressure to reduce cost by insurers, and to increase cost by lawyers, a constant tug of war. but that's yet another discussion.

and nearly all those drug-drugs (non-pot) are legal, under prescription. so again, it's management... how to do it.
how to keep people from drinking and driving, from toking and driving, or even... from smoking around those who want to preserve the health of their personal space.

in general, intoxicating agents are regulated because their use can affect innocent others, or are a great cost to insurance, not as much because they affect the ones who overdo it to themselves.

so if a workable way can be found to let weed be as free and out there as jack daniels, let 'em give it a go. :> as for the heavier drugs though, it's always gonna be a problem keeping them where they are useful to prescribed applications and away from abuses and crime. :/

Re: drunk driving

[richardf8]

unfortunately that is one of the most basic illustrations of the difficulty in just *how* to legalize forbidden fruit.

Bit of a catch-22, eh? My solution is kind of harsh - just accept that there is going to be bloodshed while people grow into their new rights. The problem with infantilizing people, is that they tend to act like infants.

Marijuana in particular is not even illegal because of its intoxicating qualities, but because Hearst and DuPont didn't want hemp fiber around to compete with wood fiber. Hearst had large timber holdings and DuPont had just patented a process for making paper from wood.

arf.

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

interesting the way big corporate interest can sway vast amounts of policy.. like how the tire companies pushed to eliminate L.A.'s favorite ole trolley system in the 1940s, so that they could get their tires onto all the buses, notto mention all the new cars we would need to make up for it too..

Ah well, learn sumpin' new every day! *wingpats ya*