Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?

2007-06-03T19:27:13Z

Wooyi: /* Marijuana is, but alcohol and tobacco aren't */ +

{{debate}}

==YES==

If you start with any of these, you are likely to move on to harder stuff. -- (unsigned remark by [[User:Ed Poor]], who gave starting comments for both the "yes" and "no sections")

:Please define "likely" and your evidence that it is true. I drink and have never used either marijuana or nicotine. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 18:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle! An' the next thing ya know, your son is playin' for money in a pinch-back suit. And list'nin to some big out-a-town Jasper hearin' him tell about horse-race gamblin'. One fine night, they leave the pool hall, headin' for the dance at the Arm'ry! Libertine men and scarlet women, and ragtime, shameless music that'll grab your son and your daughter with the arms of a jungle animal instinct: mass-steria!
::—Meredith Willson, "Trouble," from ''The Music Man''
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

At one time in my life, I thought marijuana was great, why the hell is illegal? I thought that it was much better to smoke pot than drink alcohol (nobody beat their wife from smokin pot). I figured out later in life that the people I grew up with who smoked, no longer found the buzz suffucient, experimented with stronger drugs then they all ended up with coke problems, crack, ultimately strung out on prescription drugs like oxycotin. Weed: gateway drug? you bet it is. Alcohol is a gateway to insanity. Nicotine is a gateway to a painful decline of health and ultimately ones death.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Marihuana, yes, but only because it is illegal. Yes for the same reason to a lesser extent for the ethyl and the other leaf (illegal for under-21 and under-18). Why? Well, to quote an old friend, it gets you used to meeting seedy types in suspect environments and transacting clandestine deals. If it was legal, no one using it would learn how to buy illegal drugs. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:So if Marijuana were legalized, would it help prevent people from going on to harder drugs? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::That the conclusion that can be drawn from his theory, yes. They would still have yet to learn how to find drug dealers and interact with them, for example. [[User:Human|Human]] 12:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

There's another reason to say "yes", which also relates to society and its rules rather than the drugs in question. That is that the herbal jazz cigarettes are described to the uninitiated as being a terrible, terrible thing (in various education programs and pamphlets). If and when the youth actually ''tries'' the sweet leaf, they discover it's "not so bad" after all. Then they might very well question the things they have been told about "harder" drugs. [[User:Human|Human]] 12:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

There is no evidence for this. That's all a bunch of moralistic hooey. -- (unsigned remark by [[User:Ed Poor]], who gave starting comments for both the "yes" and "no sections")

:''Experts Discount Marijuana as Big Factor in Crime but Drive on It Will Be Pressed.'' Studies by the Committee on the Marijuana problem in the City of New York, appointed by Mayor La Guardia in January, 1939, have led the committee to the conclusion that ... "juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice o smoking marijuana." Further findings are ... that its use "does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocain[sic] addiction" and that "the publicity concerning the catastropic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded."
::—''New York Times,'' January 12, 1945, p. 22
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith: most people drink alcohol (some more than others) and most of them probably started in their teens, yet most people do not became heavy drug users as they get older, it's as simple as that.

:I think you mistook what I was saying. I didn't write the sentence that opened the section, Ed Poor did. I did indeed post a quotation from a news story about a 1945 mayor commision that concluded that the use of marijuana did not lead to the use of heroin or "cocain." In terms of which side I'm on, all I can say is that I haven't seen any convincing reason for treating alcohol and marijuana as being in ''different categories'' in terms of the law or public policy. Nicotine is interesting because it is probably more damaging to health and more addictive than either alcohol or marijuana, but does not cause intoxication, so nicotine users pose less of a risk to others... there's no issue of "driving while smoking." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:05, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As for Marijuana, how many of today's businesspeople, doctors, scientists, etc have smoked some while they were in college?
I don't claim to know the exact percentage, but I think that proves a point.
:::[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::::Add "ex-Presidents of the United States" to the list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Add current Presidents to this list. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:33, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I smoked marijuna every week for three years, but never tried anything harder. Since I moved back to the US in 2001, I haven't touched it. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:My various addictions, habits, and chemical/herbal recreations over the decades have never shown any correlations. And none of the good stuff (like single malt) led to nasty white powder problems. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
There is no such thing as a "gateway" drug, saying marijuana led to heroin is like saying Florida led to North Pole. It's all the Orwellian government and its corrupt minions. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 15:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana is, but alcohol and tobacco aren't ==
No, I don't happen to believe this is true, but of course this ''is'' the conventional wisdom, and an often-cited rationale for treating marijuana in a different way, in the law and as a matter of public policy, from alcohol and tobacco. Hey, Ed, exactly what were you up to when you put all three of them together? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:Agree, I would say it is people's natural instinct to resist change, "addiction to status quo". [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 15:27, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Definitely ==

== That's difficult ==
I would say that Marijuana is, but only because it is illegal, and therefore must be purchased from a guy who'd also like to hook you on anything he can, and isn't real scrupulous about how that gets done. Tobacco is, maybe. I think people are unlikely to try smoked drugs without first smoking cigarettes, but that may be because those two things are attractive to the same people, and cigarettes are a bit easier to come by. Alcohol is not.

Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?

2007-06-03T19:25:14Z

Wooyi: /* NO */ reply

{{debate}}

==YES==

If you start with any of these, you are likely to move on to harder stuff. -- (unsigned remark by [[User:Ed Poor]], who gave starting comments for both the "yes" and "no sections")

:Please define "likely" and your evidence that it is true. I drink and have never used either marijuana or nicotine. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 18:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle! An' the next thing ya know, your son is playin' for money in a pinch-back suit. And list'nin to some big out-a-town Jasper hearin' him tell about horse-race gamblin'. One fine night, they leave the pool hall, headin' for the dance at the Arm'ry! Libertine men and scarlet women, and ragtime, shameless music that'll grab your son and your daughter with the arms of a jungle animal instinct: mass-steria!
::—Meredith Willson, "Trouble," from ''The Music Man''
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

At one time in my life, I thought marijuana was great, why the hell is illegal? I thought that it was much better to smoke pot than drink alcohol (nobody beat their wife from smokin pot). I figured out later in life that the people I grew up with who smoked, no longer found the buzz suffucient, experimented with stronger drugs then they all ended up with coke problems, crack, ultimately strung out on prescription drugs like oxycotin. Weed: gateway drug? you bet it is. Alcohol is a gateway to insanity. Nicotine is a gateway to a painful decline of health and ultimately ones death.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Marihuana, yes, but only because it is illegal. Yes for the same reason to a lesser extent for the ethyl and the other leaf (illegal for under-21 and under-18). Why? Well, to quote an old friend, it gets you used to meeting seedy types in suspect environments and transacting clandestine deals. If it was legal, no one using it would learn how to buy illegal drugs. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:So if Marijuana were legalized, would it help prevent people from going on to harder drugs? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::That the conclusion that can be drawn from his theory, yes. They would still have yet to learn how to find drug dealers and interact with them, for example. [[User:Human|Human]] 12:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

There's another reason to say "yes", which also relates to society and its rules rather than the drugs in question. That is that the herbal jazz cigarettes are described to the uninitiated as being a terrible, terrible thing (in various education programs and pamphlets). If and when the youth actually ''tries'' the sweet leaf, they discover it's "not so bad" after all. Then they might very well question the things they have been told about "harder" drugs. [[User:Human|Human]] 12:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

There is no evidence for this. That's all a bunch of moralistic hooey. -- (unsigned remark by [[User:Ed Poor]], who gave starting comments for both the "yes" and "no sections")

:''Experts Discount Marijuana as Big Factor in Crime but Drive on It Will Be Pressed.'' Studies by the Committee on the Marijuana problem in the City of New York, appointed by Mayor La Guardia in January, 1939, have led the committee to the conclusion that ... "juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice o smoking marijuana." Further findings are ... that its use "does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocain[sic] addiction" and that "the publicity concerning the catastropic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded."
::—''New York Times,'' January 12, 1945, p. 22
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith: most people drink alcohol (some more than others) and most of them probably started in their teens, yet most people do not became heavy drug users as they get older, it's as simple as that.

:I think you mistook what I was saying. I didn't write the sentence that opened the section, Ed Poor did. I did indeed post a quotation from a news story about a 1945 mayor commision that concluded that the use of marijuana did not lead to the use of heroin or "cocain." In terms of which side I'm on, all I can say is that I haven't seen any convincing reason for treating alcohol and marijuana as being in ''different categories'' in terms of the law or public policy. Nicotine is interesting because it is probably more damaging to health and more addictive than either alcohol or marijuana, but does not cause intoxication, so nicotine users pose less of a risk to others... there's no issue of "driving while smoking." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:05, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As for Marijuana, how many of today's businesspeople, doctors, scientists, etc have smoked some while they were in college?
I don't claim to know the exact percentage, but I think that proves a point.
:::[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::::Add "ex-Presidents of the United States" to the list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Add current Presidents to this list. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:33, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I smoked marijuna every week for three years, but never tried anything harder. Since I moved back to the US in 2001, I haven't touched it. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:My various addictions, habits, and chemical/herbal recreations over the decades have never shown any correlations. And none of the good stuff (like single malt) led to nasty white powder problems. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
There is no such thing as a "gateway" drug, saying marijuana led to heroin is like saying Florida led to North Pole. It's all the Orwellian government and its corrupt minions. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 15:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana is, but alcohol and tobacco aren't ==
No, I don't happen to believe this is true, but of course this ''is'' the conventional wisdom, and an often-cited rationale for treating marijuana in a different way, in the law and as a matter of public policy, from alcohol and tobacco. Hey, Ed, exactly what were you up to when you put all three of them together? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Definitely ==

== That's difficult ==
I would say that Marijuana is, but only because it is illegal, and therefore must be purchased from a guy who'd also like to hook you on anything he can, and isn't real scrupulous about how that gets done. Tobacco is, maybe. I think people are unlikely to try smoked drugs without first smoking cigarettes, but that may be because those two things are attractive to the same people, and cigarettes are a bit easier to come by. Alcohol is not.

George McGovern

2007-05-30T22:03:31Z

Wooyi: cat

'''George McGovern''' (b. 1922) is a former university professor who became a [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] Congressman and Senator from [[South Dakota]]. As a populist, anti-war candidate who won the Democratic nomination for president in 1972, McGovern lost in a landslide against the incumbent [[Richard Nixon]].

The [[Democratic Party]] subsequently changed its procedures for nominating presidential candidates in order to give about one-third of the nominating (delegate) power to existing office-holders, in order to make it more difficult for a populist but unelectable candidate like McGovern to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

{{DEFAULTSORT:McGovern, George}}
[[category:US Senators]]

George McGovern

2007-05-30T22:03:12Z

Wooyi: cat

Talk:Pornography

2007-05-30T02:32:53Z

Wooyi: Addiction

* There is a draft of a proposed new version [[/draft|here]].

==Should there be an article on pornography==
It would, I’ve no doubt, take a lot of patrolling to keep this article site appropriate – it may be a real target for vandalism—but that being said, pornography and how it should be dealt with is one of the major political issues of our times (less now than 20 years ago, admittedly) and if we are going to provide an alternative to Wikipedia this is a very important place to do so (especially as Wikipedia’s page on this subject prominently features an image that is clearly not appropriate for children.). I’d like to see this page unblocked so we can take a stab a writing a good article for it—I’d take a stab at one (I know enough about anti-pornography feminism to start and could look into 1st amendment law) if the sysops think that it is worth trying to write an article appropriate to Conservipedia on this subject.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Drop me a note at my talk page when you're ready to post your first draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Will do! --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==First Draft==
I never say your note, so I just went ahead and wrote my own diatribe. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:"the fact is that in the history of erotic literature it is virtually impossible to find any depiction of normal marital relations." That's just a flat out lie and misrepresentation. You seem to be forgetting books like the Kama Sutra, Joy of Sex and videos that are created for couples to use. And the 2nd paragraph is a POV. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not much about marriage in either one - the assumption is that you can go ahead and snuggle whenever and with whomever. I read Alex Comfort's book, a pernicious piece of polymorphous perversion.

::Let's look at Reginod's draft: [[/draft]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I like Reginod's draft save one bit. I think the intro should read "what is widely regarded as an intimate act" and not just "an intimate act." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jrssr5--you forgot the Book of Solomon. And seeing how he had 50 wives, one assumed he knew a bit about marriage. --[[User:PassingThru|PassingThru]] 14:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there is a "Book of Solomon", and the Bible tells us he had seven hundred wives. Perhaps there is something faulty in your research methodology you should examine before making such obviously flawed assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Might that comment be intended to refer to the Song of Solomon? - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Now that I am back, I would like to implement the draft I proposed along with the changes that Ed Poor has made (thanks for those, by the way).
The only objection I’ve seen to the draft is that we don’t need an article on pornography at all on this site. I’ve explained above that pornography and how society ought to treat it is one of the more contentious social issues we face today (and it gets tangled up with a number of other ones). I’m open to hearing other concerns before I implement it, but I’m not going to wait to terribly long as anything that needs changing can be fixed once it is in the article as easily as it can be fixed in the draft.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add something about the word derivation, like: '''Pornography,''' from the Greek ''porne'' meaning "prostitute,'' ... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I had no idea. Thank you for making that addition.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod - you're welcome to use any of the following that's of any use to you. Shouldn’t an article on pornography at least have its definition correct?

The word "pornography" is about two hundred years old. It originated after the discovery of erotic drawings and sculptures uncovered in the archaeological excavation of the ruins of Pompeii. They included a sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat, and drawings of penises that were found painted on the walls of houses. The Victorians collected everything they found offensive and put it in a museum in Naples, which was called The Secret Museum. Only men were allowed in, and they were not allowed to laugh or make jokes. From 1849 to 1860 the Secret Museum was bricked up altogether.[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-07-38.html] Even today you need a permit and a guide to see the collection.

The word pornography derives from the Greek word ''porn'', meaning prostitution, and ''graphier'', meaning to write, and so it means to write of prostitution. The word was at first used to refer specifically to the Secret Museum, but began to take on a more general meaning by the middle of the 19th century.

Drawings and writings that were erotic were commonplace in earlier times, although they were not called pornography. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he writes about buying a French book called ''Escholle de Filles''. The book is a conversation between Francine and Susanne about sex, the older one telling the younger one all about it. Pepys saw the book in a shop, thought it was lewd and disgusting and did not buy it. However, he went back three weeks later and bought "the idle roguish book, L'escholle de filles; which I have bought in plain binding… because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it." He drank lots of wine, locked himself away, read it then burnt it. He said it was an idle and lewd book but it a good read for a sober man such as himself to read so as to learn about the villainy of the world.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bibles and pornography were the two items most likely to be confiscated by the Soviet Customs on entering the USSR. The common question from border guards/customs officers was always: "Are you carrying Bibles or pornography?"

Women respond to pornography in a way that is more similar to the way men respond than was previously thought. Erotic imagery elicits a faster and stronger electrical response in a woman’s brain than any other kind of image, recent research reported in the journal ''Brain Research'' reveals. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199474,00.html] The researchers expected lower levels of response, since previous research had indicated men that are more aroused by erotic images than women, but found that women’s responses were as strong.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m not sure where exactly in the draft you want to place all that information, but go ahead and add it on in. (I’ve added a few more sections to help place the information—I’d put the Museum part in the Modern History section, and the female response information in the effects on individuals section) think the draft is (at the moment) in good enough shape to replace the current article, and since the article is (I just noticed) locked (and for good reason I’ve no doubt) I encourage you to just add to the draft, just like it was a real article, until a sysop can be found to implement it. But, as I’ve said, it is a rough draft—I wouldn’t turn it in to a professor in the state it is currently in, but the wiki process is a collaborative one so I’m more than willing to put my work out there as a base for others to build on.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would gladly do that, but I don't know where the draft is!--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Try here [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pornography and erotica==
Thanks, Reginod & Britinme. Good draft, coming along nicely. I'll just make one quibble:

*Erotica uses sexually charged imagery for artistic purposes,

This isn't actually true. Not unless you think that "art" is entirely separate from politics, etc. Or unless you're trying to say that [[art]] is a category of [[free speech]], which gets into the "P*** Christ" and "D*** Mary" controversies.

In everyday use, [[erotica]] is [[pornography]]. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pornography is something that has degradation as its intent; it does not necessarily even have to contain sexual content. Erotica is material connected with love rather than sex, (though the love depicted is often of a sexual nature). So that although there is a large overlap between erotica and pronography, something can be one and not the other. For example the biblical book [[Song of Solomon]] might be readily categorised as erotica on the basis of its content, but few would call it pornography. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::As a literary genre, pornography is writing that has sexual arousal as its primary objective. Erotica is such material with artistic pretensions. Thus, the descriptive term pornography implies a statement about intentionality and instrumentality without reference to merit, whereas the term erotica is evaluative and laudatory. In Flesh and the Word, John Preston more baldly says, "The only difference is that erotica is the stuff bought by rich people." [http://www.glbtq.com/literature/erotica_pornography.html ]

:::Certainly some pornography with artistic pretensions ''calls itself'' erotica, often to avoid legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, for example. But this is in no way the same thing as ''being'' erotica. (That's a rather dodgy source you're using there, btw.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m inclined to agree with you that erotica is pornography. I’d say that it makes up a subset of pornography – I’d be hard pressed to find a clear distinction. I think, in common usage, erotica=socially acceptable pornography, and pornography=socially unacceptable pornography.
:Both erotica and pornography are intended to arouse sexual interest. Erotica, perhaps, more subtly than other pornography, but in the end it is about eros – love mingled with sexual desire. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Erotica is pornography for those who have some inteligence. It requires a high level of literacy, and artistic appreciation. It takes skill to make, while plain pornography needs nothing more than a camera. But underneath, it is still pornography. It strives to be respectable, and to some extent suceeeds. But porn is porn, and thats all it will ever be. Just because its a well-written story, or a painting that takes incredible skill to paint, does not turn it magically acceptable. Erotica is a subset of porn, not something completly different. - BornAgainBrit

: I'm not convinced by this. I wonder if we can make the distinction that pornography is solely concerned with sexual arousal and gratification through the graphic depiction of sexual acts, and that works of literary and artistic merit can contain passages of explicit sexuality that function as an integral part of the total work but are not intended purely for purposes of sexual gratification. The famous example of this in English law was, of course, the 1963 trial involving Penguin books and the [[D.H.Lawrence]] novel ''Lady Chatterley's Lover''. I have read that, and it's true to say that the passages objected to in 1963 are fairly graphic (though perhaps less so by today's standards). However, they are not the central point of the book, and their purpose is not arousal but a deepening of understanding of the themes of the nove. IMHO they add a great deal to the overall merit of the work. Personally, I found a book like ''American Psycho'' a great deal more distressing in that it explicitly ties sexuality to graphic violence. It seems invidious to me to single out the depiction of erotica as pornography while ignoring the graphic depictions of violence that seem to pass unnoticed. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Needed fixes==
Since the article is locked can someone make the following changes, marked in '''bold'''?

"Due to a series of liberal decisions beginning with the Warren Court, pornography is aggressive'''ly''' sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement'''{{fact}}'''. It is a $12 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans'''(POV)'''. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.[2]'''maybe include the article that claims this POV'''

Is there really such a large public concern about an alledged connection between pornography and porn? Check the link I provided in the debate about this subject for some statistics on the percentage of people who've ever seen porn or watch it on a regular basis, it might shock you to find that that multi-billion dollar industry only survives because it has many millions of consumers, not just the random perv, but lawyers, doctors, fathers and husbands.

I would also like to see a paragraph about erotica in ancient Rome, Greece, India, Egypt and the stone age, how it's related to human nature and that it does in some cases provide an outlet for potential rapists.
Just to make the article more balanced (and more serious).

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1343839.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] I think if you look at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] you’ll find a draft of an article that addresses some (but not all) of your concerns. Please add any relevant information to the draft. We are trying to get it into good enough shape that it can replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

It still lacks a paragraph about the psychology/sociology behind pornography, but, it's definitely a lot better than the current version.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I have no idea where to start on that paragraph as it stands the draft is touching the far edges of what I feel comfortable writing on (any more and I worry a bad source could steer me wrong). But if you point me to a good source I’ll work on it, or you could add it yourself – feel free to treat the draft like the article, improve it as you can.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Needs Citations ==

to be in line with commandment 5. This page states much opinion and needs to be fixed by one of the people with the power to do it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Needs deletion ==

Simply put: terrible. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:A draft (which I think is much better) is being worked on. See somewhere above for a link to said draft. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I came to this page to try to add a UK context but see that it uneditable. This is the sort of thing I was going to add.

"In the UK pornography continues to be used by the mass circulation tabloids to bolster sales. Since the 1970's the UK 'red-top' tabloids, in particular the News International Corp owned 'Sun' and the 'Daily Star' have used images of naked or semi-naked women to attract a readership of B2,C,D males. They then fill other pages in the paper with biased articles pushing their political viewpoint in an attempt to control clearly influencible minds. The Sun in particular influenced the result of the 1992 General election with their pornography-ridden viewpoint that they claimed to have won the election.

Other tabloids such as the 'Daily Sport' and the 'Daily Express' are owned by David Sullivan and Richard Desmond, both of whom made their fortunes in pornography before moving into newspapers."

Can this be added please. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 17:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Please add it to the draft at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] . The draft is editable and the better it is the more likely we are to get it to replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice. I've done that now. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
: What does "B2,C,D" mean? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It a form a categorization of people by social position and available income. A's are higher earner or those with wealth, B's not quite so much, B2,C & D are the classifications for either unskilled manual labour, the unemployed or the underclass. In the US this equates to blue collar etc. These were the groups considered most easily influenced by pornography and propaganda. Without their media-led political bias in the 1980's the political landscape of Britain would have been very different. That's why I added my bit in the Social Effects of Pornography section in the new draft. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Addiction ==

Pornography can be addictive, according to some source, especially ones involving violence. This fact should be added onto the article. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 22:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Tom DeLay

2007-05-29T21:24:47Z

Wooyi: cat

[[Image:Tomdelay.jpg|right|thumb|Congressman DeLay speaking at a Department of Transportation event]]

'''Thomas Dale DeLay''' (born 1947) is an American [[Republican Party|Republican]] politician. He served in the [[House of Representatives]] from 1984 to 2006, representing [[Texas]]. He was the House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005. DeLay stepped down from the post of Majority Leader and from Congress due to indictment corruption charges for allegedly receiving illegal funds from convicted lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]].

==External links==

*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000217 Official biography]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Delay, Tom}}

[[category:criminals]]
[[category:US Representative]]

Tom DeLay

2007-05-29T21:24:39Z

Wooyi: cat

Daniel Lungren

2007-05-29T21:23:54Z

Wooyi: add a bit info

[[Image:Lungrenmc.jpg|thumb|right|Rep. Dan Lungren]]
The Honorable '''Daniel Edward Lungren, M.C.''' is the current Representative for California's 3rd Congressional District. He has also served as [[Attorney General]] of [[California]] before elected to Congress, and during which he presided over the crackdown of medicinal use of [[marijuana]].<ref> [http://www.ndsn.org/SEPT96/CBC.html State Agents Raid Cannabis Buyers' Club in San Francisco] </ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:US Representative]]

Emma Goldman

2007-05-29T21:19:54Z

Wooyi: cat

[[Image:EmmaGoldman.jpg|right|thumb|Emma Goldman]]
Emma Goldman was born in 1869 in [[Lithuania]]. Goldman lectured throughout the [[United States]] advocating anarchy, birth control, and women’s rights. She was sent to jail several times and was eventually deported to [[Russia]]. She died in 1940.

When he arrived the [[Soviet Union]], however, she was shocked by the tyrannical regime of [[Vladimir Lenin]] and wrote the book ''My Disillusionment in Russia'' (ISBN 048643270X) in 1923.

A firebrand revolutionary, she nevertheless insisted on her femininity, and is famous for saying "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." However, as other early [[women's rights]] advocates, she did not support [[abortion]].<ref> [http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm#egoldman Voices of our Feminist Foremothers] </ref>

Emma Goldman is one of the characters in E. L. Doctorow's novel, ''Ragtime''. The musical ''Ragtime'' was based on Doctorow's novel.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Goldman, Emma}}

[[category:authors]]
[[category:women]]

Theodora

2007-05-29T21:19:38Z

Wooyi: cat

Daughter of a bear-keeper, she became the wife of [[Justinian]] (emperor of Constantinople during the 6th century) and advocated women's rights. She supported the monophysite heresy (stating that Christ's nature was almost exclusively divine).

[[category:women]]

Emma Goldman

2007-05-29T21:18:29Z

Wooyi: abortion

Emma Goldman

2007-05-29T21:14:42Z

Wooyi: sorting

[[Image:EmmaGoldman.jpg|right|thumb|Emma Goldman]]
Emma Goldman was born in 1869 in [[Lithuania]]. Goldman lectured throughout the [[United States]] advocating anarchy, birth control, and women’s rights. She was sent to jail several times and was eventually deported to [[Russia]]. She died in 1940.

When he arrived the [[Soviet Union]], however, she was shocked by the tyrannical regime of [[Vladimir Lenin]] and wrote the book ''My Disillusionment in Russia'' (ISBN 048643270X) in 1923.

A firebrand revolutionary, she nevertheless insisted on her femininity, and is famous for saying "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution."

Emma Goldman is one of the characters in E. L. Doctorow's novel, ''Ragtime''. The musical ''Ragtime'' was based on Doctorow's novel.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Goldman, Emma}}

[[category:authors]]

Emma Goldman

2007-05-29T21:11:46Z

Wooyi: the book about russia

[[Image:EmmaGoldman.jpg|right|thumb|Emma Goldman]]
Emma Goldman was born in 1869 in [[Lithuania]]. Goldman lectured throughout the [[United States]] advocating anarchy, birth control, and women’s rights. She was sent to jail several times and was eventually deported to [[Russia]]. She died in 1940.

When he arrived the [[Soviet Union]], however, she was shocked by the tyrannical regime of [[Vladimir Lenin]] and wrote the book ''My Disillusionment in Russia'' (ISBN 048643270X) in 1923.

A firebrand revolutionary, she nevertheless insisted on her femininity, and is famous for saying "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution."

Emma Goldman is one of the characters in E. L. Doctorow's novel, ''Ragtime''. The musical ''Ragtime'' was based on Doctorow's novel.

Talk:Harry Hay

2007-05-28T04:47:42Z

Wooyi: tweak

Where does this guy come from? I've not seen him in any newspapers or on TV coverage of "gay rights". [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 00:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The WP entry on him may be incorrect on his birth date; I have a source says he was born in England in 1912. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:18, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::The birth date isn't an issue. The thing I don't understand is that both this and WP article describe this person as important in the "gay rights" movement, while he isn't really well-known, if comparing to the Human Rights Campaign guys and Barney Frank, among others. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 00:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Harry Hay

2007-05-28T04:47:23Z

Wooyi: +

Talk:Hippies

2007-05-28T04:10:33Z

Wooyi: People

weird people i say. thats just my opinion. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you serious about this picture? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The picture looks like a bunch of guys who thought it was funny to get dressed up as hippies long after the movement was over.

:Removed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
----
*People involved in the hippie movement were, as long ago as the 1960s, part of the environmental movement. It could be argued that the recent trend towards recycling and adopting lifestyle changes to reduce humanity’s impact on the natural world has sprung from that movement, however risible it seemed to many Americans at the time.

*its opposition to the [[Vietnam War]],

We need a better history of the environmental movement and opposition to the U.S. defense of [[South Vietnam]] than a casual mention like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Merge? ==

==Yes==
As for me, I say they are about the same thing. get it over with. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Same thing, only plural - do it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 14:01, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Agree. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:05, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==No==

===Fake Picture===

What complete and total baloney. Were you truly unable to find an authentic picture of hippies? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 21:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== People ==

Where does that "Harry Hay" guy come from? The name sounds funny and I've never heard of him on any books/articles about hippies or even the "gay rights" movement. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 00:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Harry Hay

2007-05-28T04:07:08Z

Wooyi: what?

Where does this guy come from? I've not seen him in any newspapers or on TV coverage of "gay rights". [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 00:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Tom DeLay

2007-05-28T02:42:11Z

Wooyi: name, link

[[Image:Tomdelay.jpg|right|thumb|Congressman DeLay speaking at a Department of Transportation event]]

'''Thomas Dale DeLay''' is an American [[Republican Party|Republican]] politician. He served in the [[House of Representatives]] from 1984 to 2006, representing [[Texas]]. He was the House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005. DeLay stepped down from the post of Majority Leader and from Congress due to indictment corruption charges for allegedly receiving illegal funds from convicted lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]].

==External links==

*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000217 Official biography]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Delay, Tom}}

[[category:criminals]]

Tom DeLay

2007-05-28T02:40:37Z

Wooyi: link

[[Image:Tomdelay.jpg|right|thumb|Congressman DeLay speaking at a Department of Transportation event]]

'''Tom DeLay''' is an American [[Republican Party|Republican]] politician. He served in the [[House of Representatives]] from 1984 to 2006, representing [[Texas]]. He was the House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005. DeLay stepped down from the post of Majority Leader and from Congress due to indictment corruption charges for allegedly receiving illegal funds from convicted lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Delay, Tom}}

[[category:criminals]]

Tom DeLay

2007-05-28T02:40:23Z

Wooyi: image

[[Image:Tomdelay.jpg|right|thumb|Congressman DeLay speaking at a Department of Transportation event]

'''Tom DeLay''' is an American [[Republican Party|Republican]] politician. He served in the [[House of Representatives]] from 1984 to 2006, representing [[Texas]]. He was the House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005. DeLay stepped down from the post of Majority Leader and from Congress due to indictment corruption charges for allegedly receiving illegal funds from convicted lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Delay, Tom}}

[[category:criminals]]

File:Tomdelay.jpg

2007-05-28T02:39:20Z

Wooyi: Department of Transportation photo of Tom Delay, from [http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/fall96/p96au32.htm here]. Public Domain.

Department of Transportation photo of Tom Delay, from [http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/fall96/p96au32.htm here]. Public Domain.

Tom DeLay

2007-05-28T02:32:41Z

Wooyi: link

'''Tom DeLay''' is an American [[Republican Party|Republican]] politician. He served in the [[House of Representatives]] from 1984 to 2006, representing [[Texas]]. He was the House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005. DeLay stepped down from the post of Majority Leader and from Congress due to indictment corruption charges for allegedly receiving illegal funds from convicted lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Delay, Tom}}

[[category:criminals]]

Tom DeLay

2007-05-28T02:32:18Z

Wooyi: link

'''Tom DeLay''' is an American [[Republican Party|Republican]] politician. He served in the [[House of Representatives]] from 1984 to 2006, representing Texas. He was the House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005. DeLay stepped down from the post of Majority Leader and from Congress due to indictment corruption charges for allegedly receiving illegal funds from convicted lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Delay, Tom}}

[[category:criminals]]

Tom DeLay

2007-05-28T02:31:56Z

Wooyi: fix article, remove joke

'''Tom DeLay''' is an American [[Republican Party|Republican]] politician. He served in the House of Representatives from 1984 to 2006, representing Texas. He was the House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005. DeLay stepped down from the post of Majority Leader and from Congress due to indictment corruption charges for allegedly receiving illegal funds from convicted lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Delay, Tom}}

[[category:criminals]]

Mike Gravel

2007-05-26T15:50:14Z

Wooyi: stevens

[[Image:Mgravel.jpg|right|thumb|Senator Gravel]]

'''Maurice Robert "Mike" Gravel''' was a former U.S. Senator from [[Alaska]], serving from 1969 to 1981. He is currently running for [[Democratic Party]] nomination for presidency in 2008. However, he is a long-shot candidate because he has largely retired from politics for two decades long. In Senate, he was once the colleague of the current Alaska senator [[Ted Stevens]].

His platform includes a fair tax plan, a more participatory democracy, and universal health care.

==External links==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000388 Official biography]
*[http://www.gravel2008.us/ 2008 campaign website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gravel, Mike}}
[[Category:US Senators]]

Mike Gravel

2007-05-26T15:48:21Z

Wooyi: platform

[[Image:Mgravel.jpg|right|thumb|Senator Gravel]]

'''Maurice Robert "Mike" Gravel''' was a former U.S. Senator from [[Alaska]], serving from 1969 to 1981. He is currently running for [[Democratic Party]] nomination for presidency in 2008. However, he is a long-shot candidate because he has largely retired from politics for two decades long.

His platform includes a fair tax plan, a more participatory democracy, and universal health care.

==External links==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000388 Official biography]
*[http://www.gravel2008.us/ 2008 campaign website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gravel, Mike}}
[[Category:US Senators]]

Mike Gravel

2007-05-26T15:47:39Z

Wooyi: add

[[Image:Mgravel.jpg|right|thumb|Senator Gravel]]

'''Maurice Robert "Mike" Gravel''' was a former U.S. Senator from [[Alaska]], serving from 1969 to 1981. He is currently running for [[Democratic Party]] nomination for presidency in 2008. However, he is a long-shot candidate because he has largely retired from politics for two decades long.

==External links==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000388 Official biography]
*[http://www.gravel2008.us/ 2008 campaign website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gravel, Mike}}
[[Category:US Senators]]

Mike Gravel

2007-05-26T15:46:11Z

Wooyi: image

File:Mgravel.jpg

2007-05-26T15:45:47Z

Wooyi: Mike Gravel, senator portrait, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000388

[[Mike Gravel]], senator portrait, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000388

Mike Gravel

2007-05-26T15:45:10Z

Wooyi: name

'''Maurice Robert "Mike" Gravel''' was a former U.S. Senator from [[Alaska]], serving from 1969 to 1981. He is currently running for [[Democratic Party]] nomination for presidency in 2008. However, he is a long-shot candidate because he has largely retired from politics for two decades long.

==External links==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000388 Official biography]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gravel, Mike}}
[[Category:US Senators]]

Mike Gravel

2007-05-26T15:44:35Z

Wooyi: add

'''Mike Gravel''' was a former U.S. Senator from [[Alaska]], serving from 1969 to 1981. He is currently running for [[Democratic Party]] nomination for presidency in 2008. However, he is a long-shot candidate because he has largely retired from politics for two decades long.

==External links==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000388 Official biography]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gravel, Mike}}
[[Category:US Senators]]

Mike Gravel

2007-05-26T15:43:57Z

Wooyi: tweak

'''Mike Gravel''' was a former U.S. Senator from [[Alaska]], serving from 1969 to 1981. He is currently running for [[Democratic Party]] nomination for presidency in 2008. However, he is a long-shot candidate because he has largely retired from politics for two decades long.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gravel, Mike}}
[[Category:US Senators]]

Tom DeLay

2007-05-26T15:38:23Z

Wooyi: New page: '''Tom Delay''' is an American politician. He was once the Majority Leader in the House of Representatives. He is indicted for various corruption charges, since he was a very, very, very c...

'''Tom Delay''' is an American politician. He was once the Majority Leader in the House of Representatives. He is indicted for various corruption charges, since he was a very, very, very corrupt man.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Delay, Tom}}

[[category:criminals]]

Mike Gravel

2007-05-26T15:35:36Z

Wooyi: cat

'''Mike Gravel''' was a former U.S. [[Senator]] from [[Alaska]]. He is currently run for Democratic nomination for presidency in 2008. However, he is a long-shot candidate because he has largely retired from politics for decades long.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gravel, Mike}}
[[Category:US Senators]]

Mike Gravel

2007-05-26T15:35:10Z

Wooyi: New page: '''Mike Gravel''' was a former U.S. Senator from Alaska. He is currently run for Democratic nomination for presidency in 2008. However, he is a long-shot candidate because he has l...

Marijuana

2007-05-25T17:04:53Z

Wooyi: THC

'''Marijuana''' is a [[Schedule I]] [[Controlled Substance]] in the United States of America, and it is subject to various degrees of legality in different parts of the world. It comes from the ''Cannabis'' [[plant]].

The main active ingredient in marijuana is [[THC]], or tetrahydrocannabinol, an organic chemical compound.

The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, mild hallucinations, and an impairment of physical and mental functioning. Proponents of marijuana have claimed that it has medicinal benefits although other treatments can also deliver these benefits to various ailments without hallucinations and the impairments to judgment. Some have advocated for decriminalization. <ref>[http://www.leap.cc Law Enforcement Against Prohibition]</ref>. Many people of varying political alignment advocate its legalization. <ref>http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml</ref>

Most [[conservative]]s, especially social conservatives, oppose legalization of marijuana in any form, believing any usage of mind-altering substance is immoral and inimical to conservative values. However, there are exceptions, such as [[William F. Buckley]] and [[Larry Elder]]. Some [[liberal]]s support legalization, but most instead advocate for drug treatment and rehabilitation. [[Libertarian]]s are usually the staunch supporters of marijuana legalization.

A religious or sacramental use of marijuana is reported in various cultures such as those of the Rastafari movement or the Sadhus of India. Use of marijuana in a religious capacity is legal for members of the Native American Church, however, members must be registered with the Church and government.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Illegal substances]]

Marijuana

2007-05-25T17:01:14Z

Wooyi: expand a bit

'''Marijuana''' is a [[Schedule I]] [[Controlled Substance]] in the United States of America, and it is subject to various degrees of legality in different parts of the world. It comes from the ''Cannabis'' [[plant]].

The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, mild hallucinations, and an impairment of physical and mental functioning. Proponents of marijuana have claimed that it has medicinal benefits although other treatments can also deliver these benefits to various ailments without hallucinations and the impairments to judgment. Some have advocated for decriminalization. <ref>[http://www.leap.cc Law Enforcement Against Prohibition]</ref>. Many people of varying political alignment advocate its legalization. <ref>http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml</ref>

Most [[conservative]]s, especially social conservatives, oppose legalization of marijuana in any form, believing any usage of mind-altering substance is immoral and inimical to conservative values. However, there are exceptions, such as [[William F. Buckley]] and [[Larry Elder]]. Some [[liberal]]s support legalization, but most instead advocate for drug treatment and rehabilitation. [[Libertarian]]s are usually the staunch supporters of marijuana legalization.

A religious or sacramental use of marijuana is reported in various cultures such as those of the Rastafari movement or the Sadhus of India. Use of marijuana in a religious capacity is legal for members of the Native American Church, however, members must be registered with the Church and government.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Illegal substances]]

Marijuana

2007-05-25T16:57:14Z

Wooyi: who supports legalization?

'''Marijuana''' is a [[Schedule I]] [[Controlled Substance]] in the United States of America, and it is subject to various degrees of legality in different parts of the world. It comes from the ''Cannabis'' [[plant]].

The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, mild hallucinations, and an impairment of physical and mental functioning. Proponents of marijuana have claimed that it has medicinal benefits although other treatments can also deliver these benefits to various ailments without hallucinations and the impairments to judgment. Some have advocated for decriminalization. <ref>[http://www.leap.cc Law Enforcement Against Prohibition]</ref>. Many people of varying political alignment advocate its legalization. <ref>http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml</ref>

Most [[conservative]]s oppose legalization of marijuana, believing any usage of mind-altering substance is immoral. However, there are exceptions, such as [[William F. Buckley]]. Some [[liberal]]s support legalization, but most instead advocate for drug treatment and rehabilitation. [[Libertarian]]s are usually the staunch supporters of marijuana legalization.

A religious or sacramental use of marijuana is reported in various cultures such as those of the Rastafari movement or the Sadhus of India. Use of marijuana in a religious capacity is legal for members of the Native American Church, however, members must be registered with the Church and government.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Illegal substances]]

Fourteenth Amendment

2007-05-20T19:29:59Z

Wooyi: /* The Exciting Journey of the Due Process Clause */ rephrase

{{discrimlaw}}
== Legal History & Constructions of the Fourteenth Amendment ==
===Passage===
The Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment as a Constitutional Moment
Passed in the heat of the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was only shortly debated in Congress. In fact, after the long debate on the first of the [[Civil Rights Act]], few were willing to debate the Amendment for long. Other strange circumstances surrounded the passage of the Amendment; notably, its ratification was rescinded by a few Northern states shortly after passage, and ratification was secured only by compulsion in the Southern states. This has led to scholarly speculation about the "legality" of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the subject continues to be debated in academic circles, though, the argument's practical validity has declined sharply: it is an integral part of America's constitutional framework, as it stands, and encompasses the most frequently litigated causes of action today. To call it illegal, and end its domain, would be to tear down 1/2 of American constitutional law. Further, a general historical consensus advocated by legal academia is that the Amendment was passed in a [[Constitutional Moment]] - i.e., a period of crisis when the state of affairs justifies a suspension of standard procedural rules, and instead, the country takes stock of its base morals in an extralegal, but moral, sense.<ref>Michael W. McConnell, The Forgotten Constitutional Moment, 11 Const. 115</ref>

===Original Intent & Modern Construction===

The history of the construction of the Fourteenth Amendment is as varied as was each period of [[United States]] history in which it has been used. Truly, its construction has changed from the broad, to the narrow, and back again several times. Current jurisprudence construes the Amendment broadly, and it is argued that this is inconsistent with the narrow “framer’s intent” of the [[Reconstruction Congress]]. However, several prominent legal scholars argue that the true “framer’s intent” of the Fourteenth Amendment was not to set its construction squarely in time in the 1860s, but rather, that the framers deliberately intended the Amendment’s application to vary and expand with time. These scholars couch their interpretation in legislative history, where [[Radical Republicans]] on the Senate floor made many concessions to conservative Southern Democrats on the theoretical construction of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also deliberately switched from a narrow “civil-rights only” phraseology to a broader, generalist draft text of the Amendment, that eventually became law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al., “Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases & Materials,” 5th Edition (Aspen Publications, 2006) 898-925.</ref> The intent of these “framers,” it is argued, should be given controlling meaning. This reading became widely popular after the [[Brown v. Board of Education]] of Topeka, Kansas decision, which suggested that Fourteenth Amendment case law must be re-evaluated by modern norms.<ref>Brown v. Board of Education of Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, herinafter “Brown”</ref> Thus, “framer’s intent” of the Fourteenth Amendment becomes a more dynamic issue than “framer’s intent” in most other amendments, which is argued as being frozen in time.

===Different Prongs of the Fourteenth Amendment===

The Amendment is litigated under three different substantive prongs: the [[due process clause]], the [[equal protection clause]], and the [[privileges and immunities clause]].

The “privileges & immunities clause” urges that the states cannot abridge those privileges that come with national citizenship. The clause has largely been “drained” of meaning.<ref>See Brest & Levinson, supra</ref> The [[Slaughterhouse Cases]] were largely responsible for this, as this case line limited the “privileges & immunities” that state citizens are entitled to very sharply indeed, and placing anything other than civil rights (even political rights) in the exclusive control of the states. While this understanding has been largely abrogated, the clause is still rarely invoked, absent a brief 1999 revival.<ref>the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, and Sans v. Roe.</ref> However, it is read to import the restrictions imposed upon the federal government by the [[Bill of Rights]], onto the state governments.

Contrary to the privileges & immunities clause, the equal protection clause is a clause basic to modern segregation law, and law in general. The clause was invoked in the justly reviled case [[Plessy v. Ferguson]], which held that while blacks and whites do deserve equal protection under this clause, segregation into “separate-but-equal” facilities do not abridge the right, and in fact preserve the public interest by separating the races, to the benefit of all.<ref>Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537</ref> Under this case, “equal protection” was narrowly construed to serve a racist end. However, the equal protection doctrine was vindicated by the landmark case Brown v. Board, which required that equality is never served by segregation, and as always, our Constitution demands equality.<ref>Brown, supra</ref> This lauded declaration of the equal rights of mankind came only after a vigorous legal struggle, led by the [[NAACP]] and [[Thurgood Marshall]], who systematically tore down in court the conception that separate could ever be equal.<ref>see, e.g., Sweatt v. Painter (339 U.S. 629), see also Brest & Levinson, supra</ref> Since this revival, the equal protection clause has underpinned many other significant civil rights advances, especially in state law jurisprudence.

===The Exciting Journey of the Due Process Clause===

“Due Process” is the doctrine which has undergone the most significant change throughout United States history. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is in effect a carbon copy of the same clause of the Fifth Amendment. The clause there protects against deprivation of property without process of law. Early on, this was understood as encompassing only procedural limitations on deprivations, as in, the government cannot take property without a fair hearing, which has come to be called “[[procedural due process”]].<ref>For modern understandings of procedural due process, see, e.g., Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319</ref> However, the justly hated case of “[[Dred Scott]],” for all its deeply troubling racist connotations, included also the first discussion of [[substantive due process]], which has ironically become a powerful weapon against racism.<ref>Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393</ref> This case first held that the individual held certain rights which the government could not take without due process of law, as distinct from defining what procedural types of process are adequate.<ref>Brest & Levinson, 240</ref> Early civil rights cases nonetheless largely ignored the Due Process Clause: it is treated only in passing by the [[Slaughterhouse Cases]], and narrowed by the [[Civil Rights Cases]], which held that the Constitution only protects an abridgement of rights undertaken by [[state action]] (subsequent cases have significantly confused the state action doctrine, to the benefit of the civil rights movement).<ref>The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, for weakening of the state action doctrine, see e.g. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (holding that judicial enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant qualifies as significant state action, which must be struck down therein).</ref>

However, during [[Melville Fuller]]'s tenure, the Supreme Court often used the Due Process Clause to protect industry from being regulated by government, striking down laws to limit working hours or to establish a minimum wage. The most prominent case among them was ''[[Lochner v. New York]]''. During the [[New Deal]], the Due Process Clause was used to strike down various New Deal programs. President FDR almost packed the court to implement his New Deal. Later the court abandoned this approach and generally upheld expansion of governmental power, and the New Deal programs were enacted and implemented.

Nonetheless the due process clause has grown significantly in the substantive field in other areas. One of the first cases in the area held that a black man convicted by a jury empanelled with discriminatory screening of black jurors was denied due process of law, since he lost the substantive right to an unbiased and race-neutral jury.<ref>Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303.</ref> The true explosion of substantive due process, though, came in the 1900s. In a companion case to Brown, the Supreme Court held that segregation was a deprivation of a substantive right without due process of the law.<ref>Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497</ref> Although much debated, as well, the landmark case [[Roe v. Wade]] enshrined substantive due process firmly in the landscape of American jurisprudence, holding that the right to choose is a substantive right which cannot be removed without rational governmental basis. The Court held that, since the [[fetus]] was not alive at the time of Roe’s abortion, there was no rational basis for governmental intervention, and the substantive right is therefore supreme.<ref>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113</ref> This expansion of substantive due process has been much criticized, especially by conservatives such as Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] and Supreme Court nominee [[Robert Bork]].<ref>Brest & Levinson, supra, 930</ref> The idea of substantive due process was especially strongly asserted in the 2003 case [[Lawrence v. Texas]], which held that [[sodomy]] is a substantive right that cannot be abridged without rational basis, biblical objections and moral incentives not qualifying therein as rational basis.<ref>Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref> Justice Scalia sharply dissented, arguing that this expansion of substantive due process would be “the dicta that ate the rule of law.”

Despite this objection, substantive due process and its expansion still enjoys a majority on the Supreme Court, certainly at least through the retirement of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]]. The framer’s intent on the expansion of the Fourteenth Amendment to this level can, of course, be debated, and it will be. Arguments mentioned above certainly apply here – on the one hand no conservative Democrat in the Reconstruction Congress would have intended the Amendment to go that far. Certainly no Radical Republican foresaw this expansion, either. However, it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.

== The Text ==

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Constitution]]

[[Category:United States law]]

Fourteenth Amendment

2007-05-20T19:27:37Z

Wooyi: /* The Exciting Journey of the Due Process Clause */ melville fuller's tenure

{{discrimlaw}}
== Legal History & Constructions of the Fourteenth Amendment ==
===Passage===
The Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment as a Constitutional Moment
Passed in the heat of the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was only shortly debated in Congress. In fact, after the long debate on the first of the [[Civil Rights Act]], few were willing to debate the Amendment for long. Other strange circumstances surrounded the passage of the Amendment; notably, its ratification was rescinded by a few Northern states shortly after passage, and ratification was secured only by compulsion in the Southern states. This has led to scholarly speculation about the "legality" of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the subject continues to be debated in academic circles, though, the argument's practical validity has declined sharply: it is an integral part of America's constitutional framework, as it stands, and encompasses the most frequently litigated causes of action today. To call it illegal, and end its domain, would be to tear down 1/2 of American constitutional law. Further, a general historical consensus advocated by legal academia is that the Amendment was passed in a [[Constitutional Moment]] - i.e., a period of crisis when the state of affairs justifies a suspension of standard procedural rules, and instead, the country takes stock of its base morals in an extralegal, but moral, sense.<ref>Michael W. McConnell, The Forgotten Constitutional Moment, 11 Const. 115</ref>

===Original Intent & Modern Construction===

The history of the construction of the Fourteenth Amendment is as varied as was each period of [[United States]] history in which it has been used. Truly, its construction has changed from the broad, to the narrow, and back again several times. Current jurisprudence construes the Amendment broadly, and it is argued that this is inconsistent with the narrow “framer’s intent” of the [[Reconstruction Congress]]. However, several prominent legal scholars argue that the true “framer’s intent” of the Fourteenth Amendment was not to set its construction squarely in time in the 1860s, but rather, that the framers deliberately intended the Amendment’s application to vary and expand with time. These scholars couch their interpretation in legislative history, where [[Radical Republicans]] on the Senate floor made many concessions to conservative Southern Democrats on the theoretical construction of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also deliberately switched from a narrow “civil-rights only” phraseology to a broader, generalist draft text of the Amendment, that eventually became law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al., “Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases & Materials,” 5th Edition (Aspen Publications, 2006) 898-925.</ref> The intent of these “framers,” it is argued, should be given controlling meaning. This reading became widely popular after the [[Brown v. Board of Education]] of Topeka, Kansas decision, which suggested that Fourteenth Amendment case law must be re-evaluated by modern norms.<ref>Brown v. Board of Education of Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, herinafter “Brown”</ref> Thus, “framer’s intent” of the Fourteenth Amendment becomes a more dynamic issue than “framer’s intent” in most other amendments, which is argued as being frozen in time.

===Different Prongs of the Fourteenth Amendment===

The Amendment is litigated under three different substantive prongs: the [[due process clause]], the [[equal protection clause]], and the [[privileges and immunities clause]].

The “privileges & immunities clause” urges that the states cannot abridge those privileges that come with national citizenship. The clause has largely been “drained” of meaning.<ref>See Brest & Levinson, supra</ref> The [[Slaughterhouse Cases]] were largely responsible for this, as this case line limited the “privileges & immunities” that state citizens are entitled to very sharply indeed, and placing anything other than civil rights (even political rights) in the exclusive control of the states. While this understanding has been largely abrogated, the clause is still rarely invoked, absent a brief 1999 revival.<ref>the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, and Sans v. Roe.</ref> However, it is read to import the restrictions imposed upon the federal government by the [[Bill of Rights]], onto the state governments.

Contrary to the privileges & immunities clause, the equal protection clause is a clause basic to modern segregation law, and law in general. The clause was invoked in the justly reviled case [[Plessy v. Ferguson]], which held that while blacks and whites do deserve equal protection under this clause, segregation into “separate-but-equal” facilities do not abridge the right, and in fact preserve the public interest by separating the races, to the benefit of all.<ref>Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537</ref> Under this case, “equal protection” was narrowly construed to serve a racist end. However, the equal protection doctrine was vindicated by the landmark case Brown v. Board, which required that equality is never served by segregation, and as always, our Constitution demands equality.<ref>Brown, supra</ref> This lauded declaration of the equal rights of mankind came only after a vigorous legal struggle, led by the [[NAACP]] and [[Thurgood Marshall]], who systematically tore down in court the conception that separate could ever be equal.<ref>see, e.g., Sweatt v. Painter (339 U.S. 629), see also Brest & Levinson, supra</ref> Since this revival, the equal protection clause has underpinned many other significant civil rights advances, especially in state law jurisprudence.

===The Exciting Journey of the Due Process Clause===

“Due Process” is the doctrine which has undergone the most significant change throughout United States history. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is in effect a carbon copy of the same clause of the Fifth Amendment. The clause there protects against deprivation of property without process of law. Early on, this was understood as encompassing only procedural limitations on deprivations, as in, the government cannot take property without a fair hearing, which has come to be called “[[procedural due process”]].<ref>For modern understandings of procedural due process, see, e.g., Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319</ref> However, the justly hated case of “[[Dred Scott]],” for all its deeply troubling racist connotations, included also the first discussion of [[substantive due process]], which has ironically become a powerful weapon against racism.<ref>Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393</ref> This case first held that the individual held certain rights which the government could not take without due process of law, as distinct from defining what procedural types of process are adequate.<ref>Brest & Levinson, 240</ref> Early civil rights cases nonetheless largely ignored the Due Process Clause: it is treated only in passing by the [[Slaughterhouse Cases]], and narrowed by the [[Civil Rights Cases]], which held that the Constitution only protects an abridgement of rights undertaken by [[state action]] (subsequent cases have significantly confused the state action doctrine, to the benefit of the civil rights movement).<ref>The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, for weakening of the state action doctrine, see e.g. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (holding that judicial enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant qualifies as significant state action, which must be struck down therein).</ref>

However, during [[Melville Fuller]]'s tenure, the Supreme Court often used the Due Process Clause to protect industry from being regulated by government, striking down laws to limit working hours or to establish a minimum wage. The most prominent case among them was ''[[Lochner v. New York]]''. During the [[New Deal]], the Due Process Clause was used to strike down various New Deal programs.

Nonetheless the due process clause has grown significantly in the substantive field. One of the first cases in the area held that a black man convicted by a jury empanelled with discriminatory screening of black jurors was denied due process of law, since he lost the substantive right to an unbiased and race-neutral jury.<ref>Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303.</ref> The true explosion of substantive due process, though, came in the 1900s. In a companion case to Brown, the Supreme Court held that segregation was a deprivation of a substantive right without due process of the law.<ref>Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497</ref> Although much debated, as well, the landmark case [[Roe v. Wade]] enshrined substantive due process firmly in the landscape of American jurisprudence, holding that the right to choose is a substantive right which cannot be removed without rational governmental basis. The Court held that, since the [[fetus]] was not alive at the time of Roe’s abortion, there was no rational basis for governmental intervention, and the substantive right is therefore supreme.<ref>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113</ref> This expansion of substantive due process has been much criticized, especially by conservatives such as Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] and Supreme Court nominee [[Robert Bork]].<ref>Brest & Levinson, supra, 930</ref> The idea of substantive due process was especially strongly asserted in the 2003 case [[Lawrence v. Texas]], which held that [[sodomy]] is a substantive right that cannot be abridged without rational basis, biblical objections and moral incentives not qualifying therein as rational basis.<ref>Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref> Justice Scalia sharply dissented, arguing that this expansion of substantive due process would be “the dicta that ate the rule of law.”

Despite this objection, substantive due process and its expansion still enjoys a majority on the Supreme Court, certainly at least through the retirement of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]]. The framer’s intent on the expansion of the Fourteenth Amendment to this level can, of course, be debated, and it will be. Arguments mentioned above certainly apply here – on the one hand no conservative Democrat in the Reconstruction Congress would have intended the Amendment to go that far. Certainly no Radical Republican foresaw this expansion, either. However, it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.

== The Text ==

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Constitution]]

[[Category:United States law]]

Fourteenth Amendment

2007-05-20T19:24:28Z

Wooyi: /* The Exciting Journey of the Due Process Clause */ whoa, wrong link, corrected

{{discrimlaw}}
== Legal History & Constructions of the Fourteenth Amendment ==
===Passage===
The Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment as a Constitutional Moment
Passed in the heat of the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was only shortly debated in Congress. In fact, after the long debate on the first of the [[Civil Rights Act]], few were willing to debate the Amendment for long. Other strange circumstances surrounded the passage of the Amendment; notably, its ratification was rescinded by a few Northern states shortly after passage, and ratification was secured only by compulsion in the Southern states. This has led to scholarly speculation about the "legality" of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the subject continues to be debated in academic circles, though, the argument's practical validity has declined sharply: it is an integral part of America's constitutional framework, as it stands, and encompasses the most frequently litigated causes of action today. To call it illegal, and end its domain, would be to tear down 1/2 of American constitutional law. Further, a general historical consensus advocated by legal academia is that the Amendment was passed in a [[Constitutional Moment]] - i.e., a period of crisis when the state of affairs justifies a suspension of standard procedural rules, and instead, the country takes stock of its base morals in an extralegal, but moral, sense.<ref>Michael W. McConnell, The Forgotten Constitutional Moment, 11 Const. 115</ref>

===Original Intent & Modern Construction===

The history of the construction of the Fourteenth Amendment is as varied as was each period of [[United States]] history in which it has been used. Truly, its construction has changed from the broad, to the narrow, and back again several times. Current jurisprudence construes the Amendment broadly, and it is argued that this is inconsistent with the narrow “framer’s intent” of the [[Reconstruction Congress]]. However, several prominent legal scholars argue that the true “framer’s intent” of the Fourteenth Amendment was not to set its construction squarely in time in the 1860s, but rather, that the framers deliberately intended the Amendment’s application to vary and expand with time. These scholars couch their interpretation in legislative history, where [[Radical Republicans]] on the Senate floor made many concessions to conservative Southern Democrats on the theoretical construction of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also deliberately switched from a narrow “civil-rights only” phraseology to a broader, generalist draft text of the Amendment, that eventually became law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al., “Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases & Materials,” 5th Edition (Aspen Publications, 2006) 898-925.</ref> The intent of these “framers,” it is argued, should be given controlling meaning. This reading became widely popular after the [[Brown v. Board of Education]] of Topeka, Kansas decision, which suggested that Fourteenth Amendment case law must be re-evaluated by modern norms.<ref>Brown v. Board of Education of Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, herinafter “Brown”</ref> Thus, “framer’s intent” of the Fourteenth Amendment becomes a more dynamic issue than “framer’s intent” in most other amendments, which is argued as being frozen in time.

===Different Prongs of the Fourteenth Amendment===

The Amendment is litigated under three different substantive prongs: the [[due process clause]], the [[equal protection clause]], and the [[privileges and immunities clause]].

The “privileges & immunities clause” urges that the states cannot abridge those privileges that come with national citizenship. The clause has largely been “drained” of meaning.<ref>See Brest & Levinson, supra</ref> The [[Slaughterhouse Cases]] were largely responsible for this, as this case line limited the “privileges & immunities” that state citizens are entitled to very sharply indeed, and placing anything other than civil rights (even political rights) in the exclusive control of the states. While this understanding has been largely abrogated, the clause is still rarely invoked, absent a brief 1999 revival.<ref>the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, and Sans v. Roe.</ref> However, it is read to import the restrictions imposed upon the federal government by the [[Bill of Rights]], onto the state governments.

Contrary to the privileges & immunities clause, the equal protection clause is a clause basic to modern segregation law, and law in general. The clause was invoked in the justly reviled case [[Plessy v. Ferguson]], which held that while blacks and whites do deserve equal protection under this clause, segregation into “separate-but-equal” facilities do not abridge the right, and in fact preserve the public interest by separating the races, to the benefit of all.<ref>Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537</ref> Under this case, “equal protection” was narrowly construed to serve a racist end. However, the equal protection doctrine was vindicated by the landmark case Brown v. Board, which required that equality is never served by segregation, and as always, our Constitution demands equality.<ref>Brown, supra</ref> This lauded declaration of the equal rights of mankind came only after a vigorous legal struggle, led by the [[NAACP]] and [[Thurgood Marshall]], who systematically tore down in court the conception that separate could ever be equal.<ref>see, e.g., Sweatt v. Painter (339 U.S. 629), see also Brest & Levinson, supra</ref> Since this revival, the equal protection clause has underpinned many other significant civil rights advances, especially in state law jurisprudence.

===The Exciting Journey of the Due Process Clause===

“Due Process” is the doctrine which has undergone the most significant change throughout United States history. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is in effect a carbon copy of the same clause of the Fifth Amendment. The clause there protects against deprivation of property without process of law. Early on, this was understood as encompassing only procedural limitations on deprivations, as in, the government cannot take property without a fair hearing, which has come to be called “[[procedural due process”]].<ref>For modern understandings of procedural due process, see, e.g., Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319</ref> However, the justly hated case of “[[Dred Scott]],” for all its deeply troubling racist connotations, included also the first discussion of [[substantive due process]], which has ironically become a powerful weapon against racism.<ref>Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393</ref> This case first held that the individual held certain rights which the government could not take without due process of law, as distinct from defining what procedural types of process are adequate.<ref>Brest & Levinson, 240</ref> Early civil rights cases nonetheless largely ignored the Due Process Clause: it is treated only in passing by the [[Slaughterhouse Cases]], and narrowed by the [[Civil Rights Cases]], which held that the Constitution only protects an abridgement of rights undertaken by [[state action]] (subsequent cases have significantly confused the state action doctrine, to the benefit of the civil rights movement).<ref>The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, for weakening of the state action doctrine, see e.g. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (holding that judicial enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant qualifies as significant state action, which must be struck down therein).</ref>

Nonetheless the due process clause has grown significantly in the substantive field. One of the first cases in the area held that a black man convicted by a jury empanelled with discriminatory screening of black jurors was denied due process of law, since he lost the substantive right to an unbiased and race-neutral jury.<ref>Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303.</ref> The true explosion of substantive due process, though, came in the 1900s. In a companion case to Brown, the Supreme Court held that segregation was a deprivation of a substantive right without due process of the law.<ref>Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497</ref> Although much debated, as well, the landmark case [[Roe v. Wade]] enshrined substantive due process firmly in the landscape of American jurisprudence, holding that the right to choose is a substantive right which cannot be removed without rational governmental basis. The Court held that, since the [[fetus]] was not alive at the time of Roe’s abortion, there was no rational basis for governmental intervention, and the substantive right is therefore supreme.<ref>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113</ref> This expansion of substantive due process has been much criticized, especially by conservatives such as Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] and Supreme Court nominee [[Robert Bork]].<ref>Brest & Levinson, supra, 930</ref> The idea of substantive due process was especially strongly asserted in the 2003 case [[Lawrence v. Texas]], which held that [[sodomy]] is a substantive right that cannot be abridged without rational basis, biblical objections and moral incentives not qualifying therein as rational basis.<ref>Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref> Justice Scalia sharply dissented, arguing that this expansion of substantive due process would be “the dicta that ate the rule of law.”

Despite this objection, substantive due process and its expansion still enjoys a majority on the Supreme Court, certainly at least through the retirement of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]]. The framer’s intent on the expansion of the Fourteenth Amendment to this level can, of course, be debated, and it will be. Arguments mentioned above certainly apply here – on the one hand no conservative Democrat in the Reconstruction Congress would have intended the Amendment to go that far. Certainly no Radical Republican foresaw this expansion, either. However, it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.

== The Text ==

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Constitution]]

[[Category:United States law]]

Controlled Substances Act

2007-05-20T16:24:18Z

Wooyi: /* Constitutionality */ typo

In the US, the '''Controlled Substances Act''' regulates [[pharmaceutical]]s. It divides [[drug]]s into classes called schedules and established rules for enforcement of the schedules.

==Drug Schedules==

Required findings as followed:

===Schedule I.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
:(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Examples of Schedule I drugs include heroin and other opiates, MDMA (ecstasy), [[LSD]], [[marijuana]], and mescaline.

===Schedule II.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Schedule II drugs include some opiate pain medications (e.g., morphine, methadone), cocaine, Ritalin, methamphetamine, opium, and barbiturates.

===Schedule III.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychologicaldependence.

Anabolic steroids, ketamine, and certain pain and stimulant medications are listed on Schedule III.

===Schedule IV.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

Examples of Schedule IV substances include many [[psychotropic medication]]s (e.g., Xanax, Ativan, Provigil), diet drugs (e.g., Redux), rohypnol, and Ambien.

===Schedule V.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Substances on Schedule V primarily include medications containing smaller doses of opiates (e.g., cough syrups).

==Constitutionality==

The constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act has been disputed. In 1972, the [[National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse]], commissioned by President [[Richard Nixon]], reported questioned whether the Act has violated various constitutional limitation on federal power. Nixon and the Congress ignored the committee's findings and the Act was implemented anyways. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided in case ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'', in a 6-3 decision that the Controlled Substance Act did not violate the [[Commerce Clause]] in [[United States Constitution]].

==References==
<references/>
[http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html Controlled Substances Act from U.S. DEA website]

[[Category:United States law]]

Controlled Substances Act

2007-05-20T16:24:07Z

Wooyi: /* Constitutionality */ link

In the US, the '''Controlled Substances Act''' regulates [[pharmaceutical]]s. It divides [[drug]]s into classes called schedules and established rules for enforcement of the schedules.

==Drug Schedules==

Required findings as followed:

===Schedule I.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
:(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Examples of Schedule I drugs include heroin and other opiates, MDMA (ecstasy), [[LSD]], [[marijuana]], and mescaline.

===Schedule II.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Schedule II drugs include some opiate pain medications (e.g., morphine, methadone), cocaine, Ritalin, methamphetamine, opium, and barbiturates.

===Schedule III.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychologicaldependence.

Anabolic steroids, ketamine, and certain pain and stimulant medications are listed on Schedule III.

===Schedule IV.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

Examples of Schedule IV substances include many [[psychotropic medication]]s (e.g., Xanax, Ativan, Provigil), diet drugs (e.g., Redux), rohypnol, and Ambien.

===Schedule V.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Substances on Schedule V primarily include medications containing smaller doses of opiates (e.g., cough syrups).

==Constitutionality==

The constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act has been disputed. In 1972, the [[National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse]], commissioned by President [[Richard Nixon]], reported questioned whether the Act has violated various constitutional limitation on federal power. Nixon and the Congress ignored the committee's findings and the Act was implemented anyways. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided in case ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'', in a 6-3 decision that the Controlled Substance Act did not violate the [[Commerce Clause]] in U.S. [[United States Constitution]].

==References==
<references/>
[http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html Controlled Substances Act from U.S. DEA website]

[[Category:United States law]]

Controlled Substances Act

2007-05-20T16:23:47Z

Wooyi: add secion

In the US, the '''Controlled Substances Act''' regulates [[pharmaceutical]]s. It divides [[drug]]s into classes called schedules and established rules for enforcement of the schedules.

==Drug Schedules==

Required findings as followed:

===Schedule I.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
:(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Examples of Schedule I drugs include heroin and other opiates, MDMA (ecstasy), [[LSD]], [[marijuana]], and mescaline.

===Schedule II.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Schedule II drugs include some opiate pain medications (e.g., morphine, methadone), cocaine, Ritalin, methamphetamine, opium, and barbiturates.

===Schedule III.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychologicaldependence.

Anabolic steroids, ketamine, and certain pain and stimulant medications are listed on Schedule III.

===Schedule IV.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

Examples of Schedule IV substances include many [[psychotropic medication]]s (e.g., Xanax, Ativan, Provigil), diet drugs (e.g., Redux), rohypnol, and Ambien.

===Schedule V.===
:(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
:(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
:(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Substances on Schedule V primarily include medications containing smaller doses of opiates (e.g., cough syrups).

==Constitutionality==

The constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act has been disputed. In 1972, the [[National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse]], commissioned by President [[Richard Nixon]], reported questioned whether the Act has violated various constitutional limitation on federal power. Nixon and the Congress ignored the committee's findings and the Act was implemented anyways. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided in case ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'', in a 6-3 decision that the Controlled Substance Act did not violate the [[Commerce Clause]] in U.S. [[Constitution]].

==References==
<references/>
[http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html Controlled Substances Act from U.S. DEA website]

[[Category:United States law]]

G. Gordon Liddy

2007-05-20T16:11:42Z

Wooyi:

'''G. Gordon Liddy''' was a [[FBI]] agent who was involved in the [[Watergate]] scandal of [[Richard Nixon]]. He was imprisoned after Watergate, and became a [[conservative]] radio host after release.

[[Category:Criminals|Liddy, G. Gordon]]
[[Category: Broadcasters|Liddy, G. Gordon]]

G. Gordon Liddy

2007-05-20T16:08:56Z

Wooyi: cat

'''G. Gordon Liddy''' was a [[FBI]] agent who was involved in the [[Watergate]] scandal of [[Richard Nixon]]. He was imprisoned after Watergate, and became a conservative radio host after release.

[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category: Broadcasters]]

G. Gordon Liddy

2007-05-20T16:06:46Z

Wooyi: FBI, not CIA

'''G. Gordon Liddy''' was a [[FBI]] agent who was involved in the [[Watergate]] scandal of [[Richard Nixon]]. He was imprisoned after Watergate, and became a conservative radio host after release.

G. Gordon Liddy

2007-05-20T16:04:32Z

Wooyi: New page: '''G. Gordon Liddy''' was a CIA agent who was involved in the Watergate scandal of Richard Nixon. He was imprisoned after Watergate, and became a conservative radio host after ...

'''G. Gordon Liddy''' was a [[CIA]] agent who was involved in the [[Watergate]] scandal of [[Richard Nixon]]. He was imprisoned after Watergate, and became a conservative radio host after release.