Richard K Miller wrote: > I, OTOH, think the negative societal effects > of pornography are big enough that it ought to be treated more like a > drug. (I.e., the government doesn't let people enjoy cocaine in the > privacy of their own homes, nor child porn for that matter.)
What, exactly, are the negative societal effects of pornography you are talking about? It is one of the biggest industries in the world, it is one of the most in-demand products in the world, and it has always helped advance technology. Society seems to get along just fine with all the porn out there, as far as I can tell. Sure, there are always losers out there who can't control themselves, but IMO, that's hardly a reason to have the government treat porn like a drug. Do you really want the government to spend countless billions invading people's privacy in a war on porn, which will undoubtedly fail, just like the war on drugs? How do you treat porn like a drug anyway? Should neighbors who hear porno music coming from someone's house call the cops, just like they would if they suspected drug dealings going on there? Should people be arrested for possession of porn? I wonder what would harm a family more, a father who has a few hardcore videos in the closet that he watches now and then, possibly even with his wife, or a father who got arrested, taken away from his children, because of those videos. Obviously, I really don't understand your reasoning here, but aside from that, think about this. No politician is ever going to succeed in making pornography illegal, or treated like drugs, no matter how hard they try. The constitutional issues involved, along with the millions of Americans who would never support a plan like that, make it impossible. So why even worry about that as an issue? You can vote for a guy who says he will put an end to porn, but he won't actually put an end to it, so why even take that into consideration when deciding who to vote for? Doesn't it make more sense to vote for someone based on the real issues that politicians will actually spend real time on? I'm not trying to tell you who to vote for, it's just my opinion that caring about a politician's stance on pornography is pointless. Child porn is a different matter entirely of course, I hope you weren't lumping all pornography in with child porn but the way you worded your post makes it hard to tell for sure. But child porn is already illegal, and the penalties for possessing it are usually stiffer than the penalties for drug possession, so I'm not sure what else you think the government should be doing about that, except maybe having a back door into every single American's computer so they can do regular child porn audits. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
