Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham
Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys. But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.
The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.
"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."
Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."
"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous." The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.
People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Do you feel the same way about the states' ability to regulate the legalization of marijuana?
I thought I already answered this question. I'll be happy to answer it again.
As with any law, absent Congressional action, the state has the power to regulate the commerce in their state. They can prohibit the sale of sex toys, for example. Since Congress has chosen to regulate marijuana, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to comply.
Are you saying that, despite federal action in this area, states should still be allowed to regulate marijuana as they please?
Point taken, rp; what was I thinking in debating what you actually did say? The thing is, I'm more comfortable debating things that have actually been said, and am not too sure how to do otherwise.
"Now if, as you postulate, there is no ill effect"
Oh, now I see. You merely assert that your opponent said something through a misleading accusation, and then debate the false point.
Thanks for the intro to straw-man debating. Is this really the way you wish to debate? Seems kinda worthless to me.
If you don't want them, don't buy them.
This is a false analogy, leading to an illogically false premise.
They are not the same.
The (legal) sale of sex toys is something that is consumed by the individual, for his/her own private use, with no other impact on society. It's uses and functions occur in the home, in private, in what should be well beyond the prying eyes of others, the omnipotent state included.
The ones you have mentioned in your false analogy all impact society because of their public manifestation. They are, in fact (except for OTB), illegal.
Demonstrations like this bring nothing to the table, but rather show you as someone who cannot successfully argue the point you wish to make.
If you really want to win converts to your cause, don't insult our intelligence like this.
CA....
Better a referendum.
Doggone it! There go my plans for the new concession stand in Hilton Head! Guess I'll just have to give them away now.
Well, out of fairness, grits make a lousy sex aid. Cooked or uncooked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mercy, I never knew that!!! You must lead a strange but interesting life.
Dildos, drugs, guns, boots, BBQ
Sounds like a new campaign slogan has been born. You gonna be the poster boy, totin' all that gear?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am in the process of copyrighting "Dildos, drugs, guns, boots, BBQ". That wil be the name of my new country rock group as soon as I can hire some performers. I plan to ask Hank Williams Jr. to come on board as advisor.
Are you saying that the citizens should not be allowed to petition their state legislature to prohibit these products? Are you saying that they must allow this in the name of "freedom" -- the priciple being "Freedom for me and not for thee"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paulsen, you have demonstrated incredible ability to get things "Bass Ackwards". Do you walk down the street that way? Is your car stuck in reverse?
The major benefit will be in winning bets that you can get some Google hits on that odd combination of words.
Well, that would include a lot of T.V.'s and DVD players, as well as many cable and dish installations. Not to mention Bill Clinton's cigars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.