Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Definitely yes.

Leaning towards yes.

Maybe.

Leaning towards no.

Definitely no.

Undecided.

Other.

Don't care. / View poll.

[Shrugging Khan]

Tell me about it! I'm glad I only had ten on me the last time I went to a blackjack table...had I had more, I'd lost it all anyways.

Still, should be legal. What ought to be illegal is advertisement. "Smoke to be free, drink to be social, gamble to enjoy yourself - none of those to make us rich, oh no!".

[iceball3]

Tell me about it! I'm glad I only had ten on me the last time I went to a blackjack table...had I had more, I'd lost it all anyways.

Still, should be legal. What ought to be illegal is advertisement. "Smoke to be free, drink to be social, gamble to enjoy yourself - none of those to make us rich, oh no!".

In the US, that means gut-stabbing the first amendment right in the freedom of speech.

[Shrugging Khan]

There's a difference between being allowed to freely saying what you think and shouting so loud everybody is forced to endure your self-aggrandising speeches (I think we can all agree that it's basically impossible to not be subject to a fuckton of advertisement. Billboards alone!) especially when you're basically just flat out lying to any extent the law does not explicitly forbid.

!!Science!! says the human mind eats up any lie that's being fed to it often and loudly enough - so the argument that "we can choose not to believe advertisement" is a little shaky, IMHO.

[Grakelin]

There is no difference between being allowed to freely say what you think and shouting so loud everybody is forced to endure your self-aggrandizing speeches. Once you make the distinction, you lose the ability to stand up for your unpopular beliefs should it ever come up.

[Shrugging Khan]

Then he who shouts the loudest automatically has a greater right to be heard, and those with smaller numbers or quieter voices have their rights in this manner suppressed.

In that way, if the law promotes freedom without limits, that which is lawful lawful is also unjust.

[iceball3]

Then he who shouts the loudest automatically has a greater right to be heard, and those with smaller numbers or quieter voices have their rights in this manner suppressed.

In that way, if the law promotes freedom without limits, that which is lawful lawful is also unjust.

Those who shout louder don't GET the greater right, they EARN it. Even if they don't deserve it.
The reason freedom of speech is implemented in the US is because it doesn't give the freedom of speech. It protects it.
Understood?
This isn't me being a smartass, i just hope you understand.

[Shrugging Khan]

If I understand you correctly, you favour a Darwinian approach to who is heard and who is not, due to the innate difficulties in having the legislative modify law in an appropriate manner.

[fqllve]

Gambling addiction is on par with a heroin addiction, if not worse, yet gambling is legal.

In SOME places...

Here in North Carolina it's a state-sanctioned "education" lottery.

But I wouldn't say that it's anything close to worse than heroin addiction. It's absolutely terrible, but junkies spend all their money, and then waste away. The only things I'd consider worse than heroin are crack and meth.

Gambling is way up there though.

[Virex]

Then he who shouts the loudest automatically has a greater right to be heard, and those with smaller numbers or quieter voices have their rights in this manner suppressed.

In that way, if the law promotes freedom without limits, that which is lawful lawful is also unjust.

Those who shout louder don't GET the greater right, they EARN it. Even if they don't deserve it.
The reason freedom of speech is implemented in the US is because it doesn't give the freedom of speech. It protects it.
Understood?
This isn't me being a smartass, i just hope you understand.

Not to be annoying, but that "Understood?" really served to underline his point...

[Leafsnail]

In the US, that means gut-stabbing the first amendment right in the freedom of speech.

Not really... you already have advertising standards, right?

[iceball3]

In the US, that means gut-stabbing the first amendment right in the freedom of speech.

Not really... you already have advertising standards, right?

Mostly for lies, but none others that i can recall.

[ChairmanPoo]

I found this: http://www.lawpublish.com

This bit is interesting and relevant:

Congress amended Section 5 of the FTC Act to provide that an act or practice is unfair if the injury it causes or is likely to cause to consumers is:

substantial;
not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition; and
not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Legalize, Tax, Educate.

Educate, Legalize, Tax.

Can't legalize with the mass amount of incorrect voices out there spewing propaganda against it and being called "factual."

[DJ]

So you can out cigarette adds in kindergartens in USA?

[Criptfeind]

I believe cigarettes are the exception, don't quote me on this, but I believe you can not run TV adds for them. Or they don't at any rate. Who knows.

So you can out cigarette adds in kindergartens in USA?

Not really, it is not against the law, but like all things you will need to get the kindergartens permission. Not likely to happen. Now, putting a billboard across the street from a kindergarten is another matter entirely. You can do it, but on the other hand why would you want to? Kids genrally don't have the money+it is illegal for them to smoke.