A Sexual Bill of Rights: Bickering over vibrators on the 11th Circuit

Slate ^ | Aug. 4, 2004 | Dahlia Lithwick

[Havoc]

And you're still a decietful liar. Case closed.

[Yudan]

Laws like this are ridiculous, archaic, and puritanical. It inhibits local commerce, and denies tax dollars to the Treasury. I could go on a long dissertation about "pole" taxes here, but I will resist. (Huh-huh-huh. Long. Huh-huh. Pole.)

In my opinion - just speaking personally here - it's rather silly to require someone to cross state lines should they have a sudden urge to...

"git they FREAK on."

Memphis, and Tennessee more generally, has a similar problem. But it's even more silly. You see, while you CAN buy sex toys in TN, and last time I knew about it strip clubes allowed dancers to be totally nude, you CAN'T buy wine in a grocery store, and you can only buy beer in a liquor store if it's >6% alcohol.

So here in TN, you can "git yo' freak on," you just better not be drunk when you do it.

An example of this silliness? My father-in-law is a wine afficionado. The in-laws recently took a trip to Northern California, and he found a wine at a particular vineyard that he just raved about. Steep - about $150/bottle - but apparently worth every penny. We decided to buy him a bottle for a gift. But they can't ship wine to a private citizen in Tennessee.

Ugh.

[tpaine]

Smithee wrote;

So you are saying that Jefferson was brilliant about shaping Constitutional principles, but he cared not one whit about subverting those same principles for political purposes. Yeah, that makes sense.

One whit? No, I don't say that, -- I'd say that he was human, just like the rest of us, and made mistakes. Your link shows us Jefferson at his most bizarre. -- Most of it reads like an attempt at parody or sick humor.

Have you ever considered that what Jefferson actually meant and the way folks like you interpret what he said and wrote aren't as close as you would like to think?

Yep, sure have.. I reject such abberant thoughts. You should try it; - might help your mental health.

Now, getting back to the case at hand smithee, I wrote earlier:

I have no problem with 'community standards' reasonably regulating the zoning of 'red light' type business.

However, I have a lot of problems with a States 'moral' majority decreeing prohibitions on the sale of any type of private property. -- CA's prohibitions on private weapons sales opened my eyes to allowing such abuses of power.

Do you agree that a State can 'regulate' the sale of guns between private individuals under its "reserved powers", smithee?