Prohibition, Yea or Nay

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

I never made a claim that courts have ruled that way, so I don't intend to answer your CFR.

Danzo, the prohibition of alcohol was unconstitutional.  The government recognized that at the time.  That is why they made the 18th amendment to the constitution - to make it constitutional.  The 18th amendment didn't last.  It is the only amendment to ever be repealed in the constitution.  Just like alcohol, the prohibition of any liberty which does not infringe upon another's rights should require an amendment to the constitution.  The government is acting outside the constitution with the war on drugs and prostitution etc.  There is no amendment for such prohibitions.  The constitution is already hanging by a thread. 

By this definition the constitution has been hanging by a thread since it was written......

[cinepro]

On 3/16/2018 at 6:37 PM, pogi said:

If pornography became illegal, I don't even want to imagine what would happen and the desperate measures that people would take to get their fix, nor the horrific measures that would be taken to supply the demand. 

Here's one take on it:

The Case for Banning Pornography

I, for one, support only those laws that I think are remotely possible to enforce.  Even when pornography was illegally distributed as printed magazines and 16mm film reels, it was impossible to stop.  I don't need to tell you how the world has changed since then.

Prostitution and child pornography* are illegal now, and it is impossible to stop.  So I would say that when law enforcement proves itself good enough to stop illegal prostitution and child pornography, then we should look at giving them the responsibility to try and stop adults from making and distributing pictures of other naked adults.

 

*Obviously, child pornography should be illegal.

Edited March 18, 2018 by cinepro

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

For many that is true. But you can not say that about every marriage. Would you like me to link sites where people testify how the church broke up their families and marriages?

They blame the church, but in many cases it was the pornography that ended the marriage. The gospel doesn't destroy families, the gospel of Jesus Christ strengthens families. You can read and listen to many stories on how the gospel has been a blessing in marriages. You only read the opposite in recovery addiction forums because pornography simply destroys marriages. There is nothing good to say about pornography.  

Long-term prospective cohort studies show the devastating effects of pornography use. Yes, the studies that matter.  You won't find long-term prospective cohort studies showing the church is devastating because the gospel is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_cohort_study

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Viewing porn is sexual harassment?  It is all of those other negative things that you say, but it is not harassing anybody when done legally. 

The cashier is not forced to work at a store which she sells products she is uncomfortable with.  That's how free markets work. 

There are porn magazines in regular bookstores so it is sexual harassment.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/983967/Barnes--Noble-sued-over-porn-DVD-in-magazine.html

2 hours ago, pogi said:

And you have a healthy understanding of the underground/dark market in Kuwait and Macau? How so?

Studies show porn increases sexual violence. Rapists are not born rapists.

Edited March 18, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

*Obviously, child pornography should be illegal.

Yes with long prison sentences because of the severity. But our world is losing it's values. Immorality is increasing and there is no doubt we are living in the last days.

 

 

Parents please protect your children from the evil. Protect them with the gospel at all cost!

Edited March 18, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[cipriano]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

One story I can share because it became national public news is that of an acquaintance who lost his law enforcement job and his family after a passerby observed him watching porn on the computer screen in his squad car and reported him. His experience mirrored what I described above.

The person I feel bad for in this story is the busybody who turned the officer in. Why can't people just mind their own business?

Yes, I know he is a public employee, but so what. For all the busybody knew he might have saved several lives earlier that day. But because he viewed some dirty pictures, lets ruin his life.

[Meerkat]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

So long as their lifestyle does not infringe upon my rights, life, liberties, and property, the government has no right.

I have mixed feelings about your statement.  Porn is not a victimless crime.  The children that are damaged and abused; the women who are increasingly objectified throughout society; the marriages ruined; the false expectations imposed on young men and women; the estranged families, grandparents, parents and children; women subjected to ogling; the explosive anger of the addicts; the increasing demand for wilder experiences; many celebrities and even presidents;  others who are emboldened by pornography and go beyond it for a bigger thrill. All those things and people are weakening the fabric if our society and our world inasmuch as pornography and sexual exploitation influenced their behavior and others who kept silent.  They make it more difficult to find faith and purpose in life, and leave many damaged, mentally ill, unable to work, on the taxpayers dole.  I heard that Great Britain passed a law that it can't come into a home anonymously.  It must be subscribed to.  I think that could help.  My hat is off to every person who recognizes the damage it has caused in their lives and is overcoming the addiction.  There are many others who, after years of therapy and 12 step programs throw up their hands and say "This is too difficult.  I just can't do it.  Porn is normal.  There is no God." Do I think it should be illegal? Yes, but I don't know how at this point.  It is too rampant, and there is the dark web.  Victimless crime? No.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Meerkat
Victimless crime? No.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

For many that is true. But you can not say that about every marriage. Would you like me to link sites where people testify how the church broke up 

their families and marriages?

See what Meerkat wrote.  The church strengthens families, pornography destroys them.

There are too many stories of how the church strengthens the families and how pornography destroys families. 

Now look at the tragedy we are living in, society is becoming more sinful

 

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, cipriano said:

The person I feel bad for in this story is the busybody who turned the officer in. Why can't people just mind their own business?

Yes, I know he is a public employee, but so what. For all the busybody knew he might have saved several lives earlier that day. But because he viewed some dirty pictures, lets ruin his life.

Better a stranger discover it than a spouse or child?

On the other hand, his attention while on duty should have been focused 100% on his official responsibilities, not on sexual images on a screen. Years of deceit undid years of good service in Church, family and community. As I mentioned earlier, eventually the problem will be revealed, usually through carelessness. You know you have an addiction problem when you behave in an uncontrollable way that jeopardizes everything that you value. It might take decades, but it will eventually be revealed, and devastating consequences will surely follow. 

On the other other hand, help and redemption are available. After years of witnessing this pattern, my advice is to begin to deal with it by talking with a Priesthood leader or a professional counselor before it hits the fan. It’s not easy, but it can be done! The Savior’s atonement covers even this. It’s worth the struggle.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I have mixed feelings about your statement.  Porn is not a victimless crime.  The children that are damaged and abused; the women who are increasingly objectified throughout society; the marriages ruined; the false expectations imposed on young men and women; the estranged families, grandparents, parents and children; women subjected to ogling; the explosive anger of the addicts; the increasing demand for wilder experiences; many celebrities and even presidents;  others who are emboldened by pornography and go beyond it for a bigger thrill. All those things and people are weakening the fabric if our society and our world inasmuch as pornography and sexual exploitation influenced their behavior and others who kept silent.  They make it more difficult to find faith and purpose in life, and leave many damaged, mentally ill, unable to work, on the taxpayers dole.  I heard that Great Britain passed a law that it can't come into a home anonymously.  It must be subscribed to.  I think that could help.  My hat is off to every person who recognizes the damage it has caused in their lives and is overcoming the addiction.  There are many others who, after years of therapy and 12 step programs throw up their hands and say "This is too difficult.  I just can't do it.  Porn is normal.  There is no God." Do I think it should be illegal? Yes, but I don't know how at this point.  It is too rampant, and there is the dark web.  Victimless crime? No.

What Meercat said. Amen.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

On the other hand, his attention while on duty should have been focused 100% on his official responsibilities, not on sexual images on a screen.

I can only manage about 45% focus on my job on a good day. I made it to 68% but I was on some serious medication that day so it was more of a fluke. 100%? Either you are superhuman or a hypocrite......

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I have mixed feelings about your statement.  Porn is not a victimless crime.  The children that are damaged and abused; the women who are increasingly objectified throughout society; the marriages ruined; the false expectations imposed on young men and women; the estranged families, grandparents, parents and children; women subjected to ogling; the explosive anger of the addicts; the increasing demand for wilder experiences; many celebrities and even presidents;  others who are emboldened by pornography and go beyond it for a bigger thrill. All those things and people are weakening the fabric if our society and our world inasmuch as pornography and sexual exploitation influenced their behavior and others who kept silent.  They make it more difficult to find faith and purpose in life, and leave many damaged, mentally ill, unable to work, on the taxpayers dole.  I heard that Great Britain passed a law that it can't come into a home anonymously.  It must be subscribed to.  I think that could help.  My hat is off to every person who recognizes the damage it has caused in their lives and is overcoming the addiction.  There are many others who, after years of therapy and 12 step programs throw up their hands and say "This is too difficult.  I just can't do it.  Porn is normal.  There is no God." Do I think it should be illegal? Yes, but I don't know how at this point.  It is too rampant, and there is the dark web.  Victimless crime? No.

Yes, but what if it feels good?

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Mercy killing; assisted suicide; mutual suicide; group heroin, meth, cocaine parties, etc. All consensual. 

Maybe I am a little too libertarian for people on this board, but I think all of those should be protected rights.  I was a hospice nurse for 3 years. One cannot see what I have seen in end of life care and not think twice about where they stand on assisted suicide.  We find it humane and merciful to put animals down when they are suffering, but when it comes to humans, we refuse such mercies.  I don't believe that government should have a say in such matters.

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Danzo said:

I don't think that word means what to think it means.  Prohibition on a national level required an amendment. Prohibition on a state and local level has always been constitutional, and didn't need a constitutional amendment.  There were many dry states before the 18th amendment was passed. Not one of those state's dry laws were ruled unconstitutional.

I think when you say constitutional, you really mean something you want to be true really bad.

The courts have never ruled that prohibition by a local government was unconstitutional.  They have never ruled that laws against prostitution are unconstitutional.

You may think these laws are a bad thing but that has nothing to do with whether they are constitutional or not.

Actually prohibition of alcohol on a state level did require a constitutional amendment.  It is called the 21st amendment - the same on which repealed the 18th amendment.  It made state and local control of alcohol prohibition constitutional.  Before that, there was no constitutional protection for such state and local prohibition of alcohol.  

[cinepro]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

Actually prohibition of alcohol on a state level did require a constitutional amendment.  It is called the 21st amendment - the same on which repealed the 18th amendment.  It made state and local control of alcohol prohibition constitutional.  Before that, there was no constitutional protection for such state and local prohibition of alcohol.  

Until Prohibition, the 10th amendment would have allowed states to prohibit alcohol (and some did):

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

Here's one take on it:

The Case for Banning Pornography

I, for one, support only those laws that I think are remotely possible to enforce.  Even when pornography was illegally distributed as printed magazines and 16mm film reels, it was impossible to stop.  I don't need to tell you how the world has changed since then.

Prostitution and child pornography* are illegal now, and it is impossible to stop.  So I would say that when law enforcement proves itself good enough to stop illegal prostitution and child pornography, then we should look at giving them the responsibility to try and stop adults from making and distributing pictures of other naked adults.

*Obviously, child pornography should be illegal.

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

See what Meerkat wrote.  The church strengthens families, pornography destroys them.

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I have mixed feelings about your statement.  Porn is not a victimless crime.  The children that are damaged and abused; the women who are increasingly objectified throughout society; the marriages ruined; the false expectations imposed on young men and women; the estranged families, grandparents, parents and children; women subjected to ogling; the explosive anger of the addicts; the increasing demand for wilder experiences; many celebrities and even presidents;  others who are emboldened by pornography and go beyond it for a bigger thrill. All those things and people are weakening the fabric if our society and our world inasmuch as pornography and sexual exploitation influenced their behavior and others who kept silent.  They make it more difficult to find faith and purpose in life, and leave many damaged, mentally ill, unable to work, on the taxpayers dole.  I heard that Great Britain passed a law that it can't come into a home anonymously.  It must be subscribed to.  I think that could help.  My hat is off to every person who recognizes the damage it has caused in their lives and is overcoming the addiction.  There are many others who, after years of therapy and 12 step programs throw up their hands and say "This is too difficult.  I just can't do it.  Porn is normal.  There is no God." Do I think it should be illegal? Yes, but I don't know how at this point.  It is too rampant, and there is the dark web.  Victimless crime? No.

Let it be made clear that I (probably more then most people) recognize and appreciate the destructive nature of pornography.  It is not victimless. It can and does effect individuals, families, and societies in negative ways. I am not arguing against that.  I think the emotional reaction is to make everything that is "immoral" and potentially destructive illegal.  It seems to make sense from an emotional approach.  That approach might work for us, if we were the only Americans alive, as we share the same morals in regards to pornography.  However, in a society with mixed morals, mixed interests, mixed beliefs, mixed religiosity/secularism, then it is in all of our best interest to protect the free conscience and liberties/morals of others to the point that they don't infringe upon the constitutional rights of others (life, liberty, property).  Yes, porn is not victimless, but the constitution does not protect against the broken heart - nor should it.  It does not protect against self-destructive behavior.  The point is that there are different opinions about pornography, which we might disagree with.  Many find it to be a very moral and effective tool in sex-therapy.  And no, not all people who view it are addicted or naturally seek out more hard-core material.  No, it is not only a man problem.  Porn is also very popular among women, so we cannot pretend like all women are victims of porn.  No, porn doesn't ruin all marriages, in fact, it has been an effective adjunct to sex-therapy for many, many couples.  We may not agree with porn, we may not like that life-style, we may look upon it with disgust, but so do others look upon us with disgust.  The only way to protect both parties is liberty.  We might not agree with such morals, but when we give the government power to enforce one moral over another, then we put ourselves at risk of being on the other end of government overreach.  

Of course it is spiritually destructive. But we should not mix religion with government.  Even our scriptures state that! 

D&C 134:

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government..

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

See what Meerkat wrote.  The church strengthens families, pornography destroys them.

There are too many stories of how the church strengthens the families and how pornography destroys families. 

Now look at the tragedy we are living in, society is becoming more sinful

 

I hate this...this is the one thing about progression that really stinks..I don't get it.  In or out of religion, why take the wonder and mystery of sex/lovemaking...and make it just a sham and shame? 

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Until Prohibition, the 10th amendment would have allowed states to prohibit alcohol (and some did):

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th amendment does not grant States power to do whatever they want, though some have interpreted it that way.

Quote

States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby Lumber Co.,[16] reads as follows:
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

It seems clear that States get their power to regulate alcohol solely from the 21st amendment:

Quote

 

The hard lesson learned from nationwide prohibition was formal- ized into the twenty-first amendment, which gives states vast power to regulate the importation, distribution, and transportation of alcoholic beverages within their borders. The twenty-first amendment places con- trol of liquor regulation where it belongs-in the communities that feel the impact of these laws.4 This authority extends to all laws enacted under the amendment's core power-activities related to the regulation of consumption, importation, and distribution of liquor. In effecting this core power, states are empowered to establish a regulatory scheme to monitor the flow and production of liquor, and to prevent the diversion of liquor into commerce without its first being channeled through regula- tory safeguards. 

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1825&context=californialawreview

 

Even with the 21st amendment, the Court's are beginning to water down the 21st amendment and treat liquor like any other article of commerce:

Quote

These decisions have strangled much of the vitality from the twenty- first amendment. By treating liquor as just another article of commerce, the Court's decisions ignore lessons learned over a century of internal discord in this country. History has proven that liquor is different, and the Constitution recognizes that difference.' By refusing to affirm con- sistently the states' powers, to regulate liquor, the Supreme Court has taken a step toward nullifying the twenty-first amendment. This move- ment culminated in a 1990 decision' that replaces the deference toward state liquor regulations compelled by the twenty-first amendment with a scheme authorizing congressional preemption of liquor control. 

 

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Of course it is spiritually destructive. But we should not mix religion with government.  Even our scriptures state that! 

D&C 134:

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government..

I used to think I could be a Libertarian, were it not for their stances on abortion, legalization of drugs and social security.  I used to think it was a good idea to do away with social security until I needed it.  I am, however, opposed to using the Social Security Trust Fund for other things, thus reducing the amount available for benefits.

Regarding not mixing religion with government, I don't read the scriptures the same way you do.  Our laws are based on religious ideals.  Thou shalt not kill.  Thou shalt not steal.  Thou shalt not bear false witness.  Adultery used to be against the law, and was a deterrant.

D&C 134:2 talks about securing the protection of life.  I think controling pornography would come under that heading.  See my prior post.  Sex trafficking and slavery, STD's, destruction of the soul all have a connection to pornography, imo.  But those are just my opinions.  Slavery also used to be legal.  I think a correlation can be made with pornography under the category of protecting life of those involved in producing it.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Meerkat

[SamuelTheLamanite]

 

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I hate this...this is the one thing about progression that really stinks..I don't get it.  In or out of religion, why take the wonder and mystery of sex/lovemaking...and make it just a sham and shame? 

God doesn't approve sexual relationships outside a marriage. 

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Let it be made clear that I (probably more then most people) recognize and appreciate the destructive nature of pornography.  It is not victimless. It can and does effect individuals, families, and societies in negative ways. I am not arguing against that.

and not only pornography. All activities that don't invite the spirit can be destructive. There is abuse in unholy places like bars and casinos.  Pornography is the worst, but other wordily activities also do a lot of harm. 

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I can only manage about 45% focus on my job on a good day. I made it to 68% but I was on some serious medication that day so it was more of a fluke. 100%? Either you are superhuman or a hypocrite......

Please don't defend pornography. Just don't.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but what if it feels good?

There is so much abuse in pornography, it doesn't feel good. There is also abuse in other unholy places like bars and casinos, but pornography is much worst. One in three women on pornographic movies are raped on film. Women are forced to do it. Rape doesn't feel good. Pornography use needs to be severely punished. Watching pornography is watching rape. 

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Regarding not mixing religion with government, I don't read the scriptures the same way you do.  Our laws are based on religious ideals.  Thou shalt not kill.  Thou shalt not steal.  Thou shalt not bear false witness.  Adultery used to be against the law, and was a deterrant.

Hopefully adultery becomes illegal too. Everything that destroys the family such as pornography, adultery, gambling, alcohol, rated R movies, and prostitution shouldn't be tolerated. Meerkat than you so much for reminding us of the truth .

Edited March 19, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[cinepro]

Quote

Our laws are based on religious ideals.  Thou shalt not kill.  Thou shalt not steal.  Thou shalt not bear false witness. 

If someone needs religion to tell them that killing, stealing and lying are bad, then I hope to high heaven they never become an atheist.

[Hamba Tuhan]

56 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If someone needs religion to tell them that killing, stealing and lying are bad, then I hope to high heaven they never become an atheist.

This statement seems woefully ungrounded in any historical understanding.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Please don't defend pornography. Just don't.

I didn't and don't.

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

There is so much abuse in pornography, it doesn't feel good. There is also abuse in other unholy places like bars and casinos, but pornography is much worst. One in three women on pornographic movies are raped on film. Women are forced to do it. Rape doesn't feel good. Pornography use needs to be severely punished. Watching pornography is watching rape. 

And 75.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.

How do you suggest severely punishing it? Prison for creating it? Viewing it? The death penalty for creating it? Anyone with a cell phone can create it now. What is your practical solution to eliminating pornography? Or are you just mouthing indignant platitudes because it makes you feel righteous?

Pornography is spiritually dangerous and we should warn against it but your plan for severe punishment seems like howling at the moon.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I can only manage about 45% focus on my job on a good day. I made it to 68% but I was on some serious medication that day so it was more of a fluke. 100%? Either you are superhuman or a hypocrite......

I'm not superhuman (although I have convinced Sister Gui that I am), so I must be a hypocrite. 

On the other hand, this officer (an acquaintance) was on patrol duty in his cruiser, parked on a downtown street, watching porn on his police computer screen. One would expect him to at least be keeping one eye out for assorted miscreants, parking violators, jaywalkers, and shady dudes dealing drugs to elementary school kids while on duty, but maybe that's too much to ask. I can't think of a way, funny as you seem to think it is, to defend that, so I'll cop to the hypocrite accusation.

Not to be a hypocrite, I suppose, as a school teacher I should have been 100% focused on my job teaching the kiddos and keeping them from hitting and bullying each other instead of watching the Mariners/Yankees games on my school-provided desktop computer during orchestra rehearsal. Lucky for me I never got caught.  

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but what if it feels good?

Eh. I've seen too much of the real devastation and chaos it causes to make jokes about it.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

Maybe I am a little too libertarian for people on this board, but I think all of those should be protected rights.  I was a hospice nurse for 3 years. One cannot see what I have seen in end of life care and not think twice about where they stand on assisted suicide.  We find it humane and merciful to put animals down when they are suffering, but when it comes to humans, we refuse such mercies.  I don't believe that government should have a say in such matters.

Well all see things differently. Some things that are consensual should not be legal.