I win, you lose. Go fuck yourself. I know quite a bit about prohibition, the events leading up to it, what all it banned (get this, it was more than booze) and how it happened.

Did you miss the part of "If what you put in your body makes you a danger to the people around you (try driving drunk or high) then it needs to be regulated."? "Danger to the people around you" means addicts who freak out, grab a gun, and go on a shooting rampage. It means sideswiping a school bus and killing the football team on the way back from the state championships because you were so wasted you didn't notice the red light.

Can these things happen without the drugs? Sure, but the drugs increase the odds of them happening. And no matter what you say, regulation is not a ban.

LOL. Iceray0, you idiot, not a single federal statute on that page makes being a prostitute illegal. It refers to aliens, children, and advertising across state lines, shit for brains.

@Ulysses - I actually agree with you. I should not have used the second example. But I have to point out that people as a whole are stubborn cusses and the seatbelt laws are great examples. People like my brilliant idiot of a father won't wear them despite being otherwise intelligent individuals because no one is going to tell them what to do.

Read it again, there is no limit on distance it has to be from anything military and the feds recently cracked down on a whore house in my area. Was weird seeing 4chan party vans in my town.

@ philcore - No it's officially Prop 19, but in the lead-up to it being on the ballot it was always called Prop 420, rather than the Marijuana-Legalization Bill.

Also, Obama's suing Arizona because he's a politician, and his liberal (see "dipshit") constituents want him to get the bill repealed. Don't get me wrong, I am pro-immigration and I think the US should loosen up it's immigration law. However, the laws are not decided by me so I think that illegal immigration is just that: illegal. Therefore, anyone in violation is a criminal and any law passed that helps crack down on that (and is in accordance with Federal law) should be allowed. The bleeding-heart liberals just call the law racist, conveniently forgetting it was the Democrats that passed the Jim Crow laws, and we Republicans fought them.

Abuh? Arizona's immigration laws aren't racist, because in the past democrats passed racist laws? I'm sorry LJ TYLER DURDEN. I'm afraid I don't follow you.

OK, actually I do, it's just not a very good point. Regardless of how the political parties align them selves with regards to racial issues, and how they used to in the past, Arizona's immigration laws are still racist. Or, perhaps to put it more accurately, they open the door for the authorities to harass racial/ethnic minorities. And experience tells us that when we give the authorities power like that, they will abuse it.

Also, it is logically inconsistent to say you think immigration needs to be reformed, but until those flawed laws are revised, we can pass more laws allowing them to be ruthlessly enforced, and that's a good thing. To use an analogy: I think prostitution laws cause more harm to prostitutes than no laws on the issue would, but until those laws are overturned, police should do as much as they can to throw prostitutes in prison, even though that increases the harm prostitution does to society, because I don't decide the laws, and that's what the law says. I'm not advocating breaking laws, but where you think a law is unjust, you are allowed to speak out against it, and to oppose any measures which strengthen it. That's why we have a democratic society. Speak out against injustice! Don't just sit by, let it happen, and say "well I don't decide the law."

Well, I'm just going to +1 Mafia instead of just repeating what (s)he said..

Thanks, and for the record, I am a dude.

@Iceray0 - The distance may be discretionary, but a court is going to consider the term reasonable and not allow the incarceration or fining of a person for practicing prostitution 20 miles from a military base. SecGen, SecNav and the like will have to show that the distance from the base was reasonable for the security of the base. But even this doesn't make all prostitution a violation of federal law. You fucking fail as you so bluntly told me earlier (though I think you were talking to yourself, shit for brains).

@ Iceray Don't put all the blame all on the Quakers. In most parts of the country it was the Baptist or other groups that had the most influance for inacting Prohibition and other restrictions.

Here is the 18th Amendment, Icerayn0brains:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


Please show me where there is any reference to prostitution or gambling or anything *except* alcoholic beverages.

And here is some info from wikipedia on the Volstead Act:

While the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited the production, etc., of "intoxicating liquors", it did not define "intoxicating liquors". A statute would be needed to define the term and implement the Amendment. A bill to do so was introduced in Congress in 1919.

The bill was vetoed by President Woodrow Wilson (largely on technical grounds, because it also covered wartime prohibition) but his veto was overridden by the House on the same day, October 28, 1919, and by the Senate one day later.[1] The three distinct purposes of the Act were:

1.to prohibit intoxicating beverages,
2.to regulate the manufacture, production, use and sale of high-proof spirits for other than beverage purposes, and
3.to ensure an ample supply of alcohol and promote its use in scientific research and in the development of fuel, dye and other lawful industries and practices, such as religious rituals.[2]
It provided further that "no person shall manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, or furnish any intoxicating liquor except as authorized by this act." It did not specifically prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors. The act defined intoxicating liquor as any beverage containing more than 0.5% alcohol and superseded all existing prohibition laws in effect in states that had such legislation.



Again, nothing about prostitution. You epic fucking fail every time.

@mafia "Arizona's immigration laws are still racist. Or, perhaps to put it more accurately, they open the door for the authorities to harass racial/ethnic minorities."

no and no. It specifically prohibits profiling based on any criteria including race. And it mirrors the US immigration law. Our immigration law says nothing about race. How can it be racist if it says NOTHING about race? We happen to border Mexico ... Mexico is a corrupt pierce of shit of a country (Government-wise, not people) that it's citizens are trying to get out of. Therefore, we have mostly Mexican illegals.

Yes, but the truth of the matter is that authorities are not going to stop little Sally with blonde hair, and ask to see ID. The law is not intended to single out any one race, but putting in a provision that says "Oh and you're not allowed to single out minorities." is not a solution. This law will be used to harass minorities. Experience tells us that when we give authorities power to do stuff like that, they will do it.

(I assumed above we are talking about the law in Arizona which allows police to ask people to see ID that proves they're not illegal immigrants. If we're actually discussing another law, then I have some reading to do.)

Also "How can it be racist if it says NOTHING about race?"
Well, that's the beauty of white privilege. You don't need to mention race in order for things to be unequal.

if little blonde Sally breaks some other law, she will be asked to see her ID. If she can't produce it, and she can't speak English (Maybe she's from Sweden) she can be asked for her travel papers. Just as I would be in Mexico or Sweden.

You can't stop someone because you think they're illegal - you can only persue the illegal angle if you stopped them for something else and you then have reason to suspect they're illegal.

as far as "white privilege" What a racist thing to say! So you're response to the question how can something be racist if there's no mention of race is that white people are inherently privileged and can therefor be racist without even mentioning it???

Are you fucking kidding me? This so effectively illustrates the stupidity and hypocracy of the left. I'm glad you brought it up.

For the same reason, I bet you'd argue that things like the NAACP, affirmative action, Miss Black America, BET, The Black Congressional caucus, La Rasa, The Hispanic Congressional Caucus are NOT racist organizations, even though the primary qualification for associan with these groups is ... you guessed it ... RACE

But "White privelege" requires that non-white groups organize to protect their equality, right?

you fucking racist pig!!!!

And yes, we're talking about the AZ law - but it doesn't allow any more than the federal law allows or the laws of any country you travel to allows. And it explicitly prohibits stoping someone for the sole purpose of determining their legal status. It only allows law enforcement to act on existing federal laws given probable cause during the commission of another crime.

As opposed to FORBIDDING law enforcement to act - as in sanctuary cities. this is in direct conflict with Federal laws, not the new AZ law. Don't suppose DOJ will sue San Francisco anytime soon though.

So in other words, the immigration law in Arizona isn't racist, because if you're white and wrongfully arrested, you'll be let go. If you're not white and wrongfully arrested, you may not be let go, will have to prove you belong in the country and if you can't, you risk deportation. That sounds like equality to me! (*sarcasm*)

And as for your second point, I don't think you understand what is meant by 'privilege', and you clearly don't understand race as an issue in modern society. What 'white privilege' means, is that our society is structured in such a way that white people, in general, have an easier time at making a life for themselves, and yet don't realize it. I'm not saying white people are all actively racist, but we all, myself included, accept social norms, structures and institutions which actually do in some way or another discriminate against people of other races. It's nothing like as radical an idea as you seem to think.
And yes, "white privilege" which takes the form of structural and institutional racism, does require that members of ethnic or racial minorities organize in order to gain equality, not to protect it. (After all, how can you protect that which you do not have?) In a society that advantages one group over all others, how is it wrong for members of those other groups to fight that?

You know what philcore? I've had this argument about a million times before. It always goes the same way. I'll make the point that people get screwed over by circumstances beyond their control, and one of the reasons that happens is race, and you'll refuse to accept that, arguing that any one can make it if they work hard enough. I'll end up banging my head against a wall for a few hours trying to prove that that's not how the real world works. Then I'll give up once this thread falls off the first page. And frankly, I'm not in the mood to bother with that again. So I propose we drop it, (you can post once more and get in the last word if you like) and let this thread return to marijuana legalization. K?

@Mafia - even if your white and arrested, you may well be asked to prove you identity and right to be in the country if you can't show proof you are a citizen of the US. this law doesn't apply to just Mexicans. It applies equally to everyone. Be you a Mexican, German, English, Irish, Japanese, Chinese, Scottish, Ugandan, South African, Indian (from the country, not Native American) or whatever your nationality. It is not racist. Hell, if an African American were stopped, I seriously doubt the police would be any more inclined to check if they were in the country legally than your "priviledged white" would be. It targets illegal immigrants. The fact that most are Mexican is the fault of Mexico, not the fault of those who wrote the law. Maybe if Mexico were a better place to live, fewer of its citizens would try to make a run across the border.

fighting racism by organizing based on race? Really? Seems to me like the perfect way to make the divide larger.

What I understand about "race as an issue in modern society" is that liberals are hell-bent on continuing it being an issue. Have you noticed, that conservatives don't really care? There was a time when what you are talking about was necessary, now that the time has past, these organizations wont go away because there's money and power at steak. Similar to unions, I wish all unions would go away tomorrow - they are a detriment to companies and workers and taxpayers. BUT, there was a time when they were absolutely necessary to stop the unfair treatment of workers by large corporations. They've done their job, now they should go away.

Mmmmm...I find that unlikely. At least, I see your point about them being less likely to ask an African-American for ID. But I suspect the people being asked for ID will disproportionately be Hispanic, or Latin American or what have you. Also, the excuse "Sorry I forgot my wallet at home." is that more likely to work for Steve Johnson, or Julio Marquez? I think the answer is pretty self evident. At any rate, we'll have to wait a little while longer to see how the law actually plays out in the long term, but I'm fairly confident I will be shown to be correct.

Draugnar, that's what the law states in theory; however, in practise, I think Mafia will turn out to be correct.

@mafia: "You know what philcore? I've had this argument about a million times before. It always goes the same way."

Ever consider that it's you who's not listening? I mean if a million people have told you the same thing, maybe they're the ones who are right? ya think? maybe?

And again, by ID, you mean some kind of papers that show they're here legally, right? Because we all get asked for IDs anytime a cop talks to us for any reason. We don't HAVE to show them (unless we're driving), but most people don't realize that.

So, will hispanics be disproportionately asked for proof that they are here legally? Yes! Absolutely they will. You know why? Because they VASTLY outnumber any other ethnic group who is here illegally. But does that prove anything about bias? nope. It's just a numbers thing. If 99% of the illegals in Arizona are from Mexico, then doesn't it make sense that 99% of the people who are asked for "their papers" are from Mexico?

"Ever consider that it's you who's not listening? I mean if a million people have told you the same thing, maybe they're the ones who are right? ya think? maybe?"
Possibly. Thing is, I'm not the only one who's had that debate. There are other people who take my side. I think the more likely scenario is that it's ideologically motivated. (On both sides.) People are loath to abandon their ideological principles. Naturally, I still think that I, and people who agree with me are correct. Naturally you disagree. I think ultimately the reason we all seem to hit brick walls here is because we're all ideologically motivated to not give up our convictions. To be fair though, I do have the vast majority of scholarly social scientific literature backing me up.

Also, so you're admitting that the law will be used to disproportionately target Hispanics (relative to other groups), and yet saying that police won't use it to harass or discriminate against Hispanics? I guess police in Arizona must be completely different from police everywhere else. Either that or your head is buried pretty deep in the sand.

Is the argument, then, that the law should not be made because those in authority might misuse the power the new law bestows upon them? Because there are a TON of laws -- good laws included -- that have capacity for misuse by unscrupulous individuals. And I don't think that such an argument should discredit the law itself.

That's a good point, President Eden. I don't pretend I actually have a solution to the problem of illegal immigration. I don't think that argument could apply in every case, but I think with regards to an issue like illegal immigration which is already fraught with racial/ethnic issues, giving the police more power to exploit those inequalities is wrong. And this law in particular seems a particularly egregious example of it. And it's not just a handful of unscrupulous individuals. Law enforcement agencies have a long history of prejudice and abuse that can't simply be ascribed to one or two jerks on the police force. It's a much more systematic problem.