Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which will be legalized first?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nakedboy06
    replied
    I think Marijauna most likely would be legalized first but only to certain people, and at certain times. Nudity? I don't think the Bible belt would approve of nudity being legalized. I think toplessness of women would be the first to be legalized, but only in certain states. Toplessness of women is already legal in Texas, and New York. I think we're looking at many years before nudity becomes legal...Because Playboy would go out of business,along with other porn industries and I'm sure billionaires of these porn industries would have a fit. Not only that but the fear of illnesses and disease would spread and people would become more paranoid than they already are. It might become legal in one or two states, maybe.

    Naked! It's the way I play
    Clint

    Leave a comment:


  • hommenudist
    replied
    I believe people in this country would rather deal with legalized drugs than nudity, what a shame. Violence, murder, mayhem, can be depicted on television & the movies. But have one nude person, not necessarily in a sexualy connotation either, and audience rating is strictly enforced and the scene is definitely cut from the commercial television version. Yet, permissible to watch a drugie shooting up. What a society.

    Leave a comment:


  • P.J.
    replied
    Marijuana certainly is not my choice! I'd much rather be nude with friends than be subjected to the goofy and idiotic behavior of potheads.
    However, I'm sure that marijuana will be legalized long before public nudity.
    I smoked marijuana when I was a teenager, but decided that I did not enjoy THC-generated euphoria. I then took a foolish course and became an alcoholic. (I've been sober for nearly 16 years.)
    Honestly, I hate marijuana and hope that it gets legalized...except for medicinal use.
    I wonder what my fellow neo-cons would say to this?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wiggle It
    replied
    Interesting suggestion, Josh. European films often show non-sexual nudity in a matter-of-fact way, as something that is part of life, in certain circumstances---which it is.
    As for the clothing standards on beaches, some swimsuits are barely there now, so they are almost naked in the thong bikinis and french cuts, etc. But there is still high resistance to total clothes freedom on beaches. The skimpy swimsuit wearer is trying to show as much as possible without showing all, for titillation. The naturist is comfortable naked, and doesn't mindif you look, but not necessarily trying to make you look. The little bit left covered piques the curiosity to wonder about what is not seen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Potterdude1991 a.k.a. Josh
    replied
    Well, pot is absolutely illegal, but nudism is more legal than pot. I mean, there aren't marijuana resorts, are there?

    What we can do to legalize nudity even more is to have the MPAA to only increase the rating of a film because of nudity if the nudity is sexual. Also, there could be less strict clothing rules on beaches.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trailscout
    replied
    If Mexico would legalize nudity (at least on the beaches, I think the nudists in the USA would flock there.

    Leave a comment:


  • nuada
    replied
    Given the temperment of society today, I'd say both but in a very long time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Baremore
    replied
    Which will be legalized first? Pot or nudity? Mexico may give a real clue to the answer. The legislature recently passed a bill de-criminalizing possession of small amounts of almost any illegal drug, pot, heroin, etc., for personal use. The president is expected to sign it into law. I don't think ou government is happy about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • missouriboy
    replied
    quote:
    Laissez faire ... Doesn't work of course, because power always acts to exempt itself from the risks of a real free market.
    Thanks for that insight, Mark. I've only read about laissez faire from those who advocate it, and this opposing viewpoint is good. As I said, food for thought.

    I like a lot of things the Libertarians stand for, but laissez faire may not be one of them. Another is total worldwide open borders. I think this wouldn't work unless the whole world goes libertarian simultaneously.

    But I tend to like the elimination of "victimless crimes," and the nanny-state attempts to disallow failure of any kind.

    Leave a comment:


  • NudeAl
    replied
    quote:
    Poll Question:
    I had an interesting conversation with my co-workers last night about whether or not marijuana would be legalized. I used a counter-example of public nudity being legalized (not too much in common, except common courtesy), and that got me to wondering; which would be legalized first. Three said nudity, four said pot. What do you think?



    What? You got something against crack? What's wrong with crack? It's one of the fastest growing drugs on the market. Backed by popular demand even.

    But seriously you name a drug and I bet it will be legalized before public nudity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    Is your definition of laissez faire economy the same as "lawless" economy? If it is, that's news to me. Food for thought.



    Basically, yes. Laissez faire means the elimination of economic intervention by the government. No laws, no rules, just the iron hand of the market. Doesn't work of course, because power always acts to exempt itself from the risks of a real free market.
    • The laissez-faire school of economic thought holds a pure or libertarian market view, that the free market is best left to its own devices; that it will dispense with inefficiencies in a more deliberate and quick manner than any legislating body could.
    • Like pure communism, pure capitalism has never existed in the reality, except possibly in current-day Somalia however this is more of an anarcho-capitalism which many do not consider true Laissez-Faire capitalism. The closest example are as mentioned previously Hong Kong and then late 1800s USA.[/list]

      Of course there are dissenting views of laissez-faire economics that allow limited government intervention and oversight: Laissez-faire does not mean the lack of regulation, but the lack of regulations that go beyond protecting individuals from force and fraud.

      Uh huh.

      Personally I like regulation to prevent barriers to entry, protection of the environment, the internalization of externalities so that corporations can not shift costs onto society while reaping private benefits (such as pollution), enforcement of fair standards of behavior, prevention of discrimination and racism in the workplace, and many other modern 'reforms' like safety regulations and the 40 hour work week. The invisible hand of the market did NOT work in the 1880's. What makes anyone think it would work today?

      -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • missouriboy
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
    Sounds good, but every modern Libertarian I have come into contact with had a full-on laissez faire economic policy - which would lead us right back to the era of robber barons and wage slaves. Ooops, looks like that is already happening.

    -Mark
    Is your definition of laissez faire economy the same as "lawless" economy? If it is, that's news to me. Food for thought.
    quote:
    There are plenty of pure libertarian societies in the world where society operates free from government coercion. Those are the places where warlords control everything - such as the border regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan.
    I've never ever heard those kind of primitive, lawless societies defined as "libertarian societies." The people here were alluding to capital L Libertarian political parties, which would have to work within a framework of civil law just like the other parties. Yes, it would reduce government coercion, which is just another word for "force," which it would be taboo to "initiate," whether by government, corporation, or civilian.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    Libertarianism is not Anarchy, and would still have government, and laws. Strictly enforced laws. There just would not any longer exist, the glut of "victimless crimes" that are so rampant today.



    Sounds good, but every modern Libertarian I have come into contact with had a full-on laissez faire economic policy - which would lead us right back to the era of robber barons and wage slaves. Ooops, looks like that is already happening.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • namedun
    replied
    Ugh...could we get maybe some facts about how weed is "dangerous". I'm sure on some small level it is, but how much so especially compared to alcohol? I'm quite convinced from personal experiences that marijauna induces far fewer situations where others become hurt. Drunk driving, angry drunks, bar brawls; when people smoke weed, they're usually too mellow and too relaxed to get up and drive or start fighting.

    Leave a comment:


  • NakedTao
    replied
    "Have you been smokin' mari-ju-ana? Mari-ju-ana's bad, m'kay." - Mr. Mackey on South Park

    I voted weed, which is sad. I work at a job - my security job - that's VERY anti-weed. Also, I've always been anti-drug, so being anti-weed kind of goes hand-in-hand with that. That's probably THE one area where I can even remotely be labeled conservative (because, believe me, I am not - I'm actually quite progressive).

    That said, if people want to legalize a drug that's known to be dangerous, they ought to legalize public nudity as well. I love being nude and would love to be able to do my daily activities without clothes and without fear of arrest.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X