Police find 17 sex toys in local woman's car during DUI traffic stop

Longview News-Journal ^ | November 21, 2001 | John Lynch

[steve-b]

If the state passes a law that fits with the morality of the majority of its citizens (as evidenced by the election of their state representatives who believe as they do), it should be enforced.

If you're on an island with two cannibals and they want to cook and eat you, that's OK because they're the majority.

[riley1992]

but come on- who was harmed by this lady hauling around a bunch of sex toys?

Absolutely no one. No one except the taxpayers who will now have to pay to house her if they actually sentence her to jail time over this lunacy.

[steve-b]

those states should not be ridiculed

I already thought you were a spineless supplicant to the Cult of the Majority, and now it surfaces that you can't even stand a bit of ridicule (much less actual opposition). I've seen cornered villains from old melodramas who didn't snivel as badly as this.

[VadeRetro]

The Puritan Paradise of Texas.

You've either misspelled "taliban" or some country with a name that looks like "Texas."

[agrandis]

Back in the 90s, there was a sheriff in New Mexico that was nearly causing riots because he was going around enforcing a cohabiting law in his county. He said former lawmakers passed that law for good reasons (and he actually had the cajones to SPELL OUT the reasons on TV, which really made people gnash their teeth with rage as their consciences burned) and the law had not been repealed, and he was going to enforce the laws he swore to enforce. I don't know what happened to him, ultimately, but they probably just got rid of him, and kept the antiquated law, and his successor probably didn't have the fortitude to enforce the law. That's the peevish age in which we live: no reason allowed, no hard work to think through and examine the laws, and definitely no courage tolerated by the masses.

[longshadow]

What IS your argument, longshadow?

That government in a truly Free Society does NOT concern itself with whether or not citizens use mechanical devices to achieve sexual pleasure with themsleves or consenting adult partners, the sale of same, or other trivial matters that do NOT involve the protecting citizens from violation of their rights.

Furthermore, I argue that if strict majoritarian rule is permissible, then tyranny will follow shortly. If it is acceptable to ban vibrating objects because a majority thinks it is okay, then it too should be acceptable to regulate people on account of their skin color, or deny them ownership of guns, scissors, underwear, shoes, chewing gum, or any other object the "majority" thinks should be banned.

Just because a majority of folks approve of odious privacy-violating laws, doesn't make it any less a tyranical.

[steve-b]

The only exemption from that would be race, creed, and sex. The acceptance of someone based on their race or sex is important to our freedoms. However your argument over the right of the respective citizens to sell pornographic materials is invalidating standards that had been set by peers of either the Founders or one generation removed.

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

The standards set by "the Founders or one generation removed" said that it was OK to own black people as slaves if the state legislature said so. So much for your attempt to weasel out of the implications of majority totalitarianism with the "race, creed, and sex" exception.

[agrandis]

I don't agree with laws being used this way, but perhaps the state is piling on with this woman because their DUI laws have thus far been ineffective in stopping her endangering behavior (a repeat offender?), and they want to get her for everything they can get her on. That's why they searched the truck, no? Probably disappointed they didn't find Mary Jane.

[logic101.net]

You sir are 100% correct. I have no tolerance for people who are driving that drunk! However, the MADD idiots never push for tough penalties for extreme DWI cases, they just want to lower the limit for "legal intoxication". Personally I think it should be a graded system, with 4-5 categories; the lowest (say .01 - .09) just a warning, while being over .20 results in permenant loss of driving privlidges and few years in jail.

As far as the toys, let her keep them; gezz she'll need something to do in jail!

MARK A SITY
www.logic101.net

[steve-b]

those states are ridiculed, accused of limiting freedom, and basically broken

Which states are susceptible to being "broken" by ridicule? Wimpsylvania? Lousissyanna? Milksopota?

[kegler4]

My guess is that this lunacy was passed by moralistic idiots who believe masturbation is a sin and that women should not enjoy sex. I don't profess to have any proof of this.

In my state (Virginia), we still have a law that says I can be jailed for certain sexual acts with my wife in our own bedroom. It isn't enforced that way, but it can be. Most people in the state know this law is wrong, but the politicians won't do anything because they figure they won't lose any votes by leaving it alone whereas they MIGHT lose a few by getting rid of it. This has nothing to do with the will or the wishes of the majority; it has to do with with spineless, useless politicians who care about little more than votes.

Don't tell anybody, but my wife and I have been known to violate this law with impunity.

[longshadow]

A patriotic citizen, therefore, should exercise his First Amendment right in speaking out against such laws, until their supporters become too heartily ashamed of themselves to support them anymore.

Don't you understand? He thinks the will of the majority (and righteousness of its beliefs) supercedes your individual right to free expression (among others). The good of the many out weighs the rights of the few. The people must be told what is good for them. Shut up and take it, he knows what's best for you.....

[Equality 7-2521]

A patriotic citizen, therefore, should exercise his First Amendment right in speaking out against such laws...

Are those the same First Amendment that billbears doesn't believe that the Several States should recognize? By his standards, there is no reason why Texas shouldn't be able to pass a law disallowing all forms of free speech--provided they're passed by duly elected representatives.

[longshadow]

but my wife and I have been known to violate this law with impunity.

Goodness! You, and your wife, with "impugnity"? That would make it it a three-some!

;-)

[steve-b]

Well, then, they need to fix the DUI laws to crack down on repeat offenders. Otherwise, people will get off too easily in those cases where the cops can't find some other charge based on silly laws like this to throw at the perp.

[agrandis]

I know what you're saying, and I believe that under the compact of the U.S. Constitution the basic human rights have to be protected in each state (which is why I see abortion as one of the few issues that is NOT up to the states).

But I believe things not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Bill of Rights should be reserved to the states. If Massacheusettes wants to force its citizens to send their children to government-run indoctrination camps, then all responsible fathers will have to move out of the state (with their money and abilities), and relocate to a freer state. If Maryland wants to illegalize tobbacco, smokers will have to relocate themselves, their abilities, and their capital. If Alabama wants to illegalize whiskey, moonshiners will start making good money again, but law-abiding sots will have to move to another state. You get the idea. I believe things will take care of themselves if the states are allowed to have their own cultures, and their own laws. Life, political free speech, the Second Amendment, etc., must be upheld in any state wanting to live withtin the compact of the Constitution. While I believe the law being regarded in this thread is a superfluous law that should be repealed, I defend the right of Texas to pass it and keep it. Illegalizing food is one thing, but society can get along fine whether or not someone is allowed to get into the wholesale business of selling plastic penises.

[sox_the_cat]

I'm a little perplexed at how they arrived at 6 as the legal limit. Do you think maybe they had a debate in the Teaxes legslature? Can't imagine a politician like Senator Byrd arguing that anything less a dozen is an infringement of personal rights.

I wonder if anybody filibustered? Will this lead to an amendment to the Texas Constitution similar to the 2nd Amendent, The Right to Bear....?

I may have to get a look at these laws. What constitutes a device, as such? There must be some sort of guidelines describing what constitutes this contraband.

[biblewonk]

What scares me is that I know quite a few older Baptists that would be behind the law and want the woman jailed.

[agrandis]

Agreed. That is, if my speculation is correct about why they are pursuing this so diligently. Of course, the other thing is, the police has a duty to enforce the laws consistently. Can't blame the cops for that. If it's an unconstitutional law, you can blame them, but I don't see this law as unconstitutional, though I would be against it, because I think we have too many laws, and don't need this one. Another point is, I think obscure laws should be made widely known, or can't be effectively prosecuted. If a person breaks an obscure law that he could have no idea was a law, he should be treated leniently.

[Physicist]

By his standards, there is no reason why Texas shouldn't be able to pass a law disallowing all forms of free speech--provided they're passed by duly elected representatives.

Let's be fair to billbears. The Constitution does protect most forms of Free Speech, but the SCOTUS has ruled (unfortunately) that obscenity (insert subjective definition here) is not protected. Texas does have the Constitutional right to ban dildos, but that's not tantamount to a repeal of the First Amendment. For example, they can't ban forms of political speech, like soft money. (Oops! Well, theory and practice don't always line up, but anyway...)

Where I part company with billbears is when he maintains that all a Constitutional law needs in order to be a good law is popular support.