[UA] Explain American laws to me

[Allen Smith]

On Aug 31, 10:15pm, Epoch wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Patrick O'Duffy wrote:
> 
> > So it pointed out to me that I really don't know much about the laws in
> > America.  I mean, some things are obvious; murder is illegal, right?
> > But there are areas where our countries differ, and I need to know about
> > those so I can run GANGLAND effectively.
> 
> In general, what you're probably not getting is that the federal
> government was created by a bunch of people who had a very strong interest
> in preserving the rights of states.

> Now, it turns out that you can make some pretty
> far-ranging claims about what will and won't affect interstate commerce (a
> ban on guns near schools was justified as, "violence has a negative effect
> on interstate commerice"),

Actually, that particular one is an excellent example of someplace
where the states overrode the federal government - the Supreme Court
told the feds that that excuse wouldn't fly, and struck down the law
in question. When this happens, the feds have three basic choices -
deal with it by arm-twisting or otherwise persuading state governments 
to pass the laws in question (the most common solution), amend the US
constitution (not very likely...), or wait until some Supreme Court
justices resign or drop dead and appoint some more fed-friendly ones
(the possibility of this happening soon is one cause for interest in
the current Presidential election).

Counties (known as parishes officially only in Louisiana, so far as I
know - a remnant of its original French government) and cities are
another matter - unless a state constitution gave them special
privileges (possible, but a lot easier to change than the US
constitution), they can be overriden by the state without anybody but
the voters to override the state government.

> Indians (the American sort, not the Asian ones) are often granted special
> dispensation to have casinos in states which otherwise disallow it.
> Indians are a /very/ poor demographic in the U.S., and the bills are
> generally passed on the basis that this will help the tribes get some
> liquid capital.  It's utterly beyond me how this particular method of
> fundraising became the common one.

It's one that they can practice using that they have somewhat seperate 
sovereignty from the states. States that object to Indian casinos tend 
to lead to things getting tied up in court; states that have gambling
already don't have a choice in allowing Indian casinos, IIRC.

> >  Are there games that can be
> > played outside casinos?
> 
> In many states, slots are legal outside of casinos.

People seem to be forgetting bingo and similar games, typically played 
in religious (Catholic's the most common) or other non-profit
(American Legion et al) settings.

> > PORNOGRAPHY.  Legal everywhere?  How can it be sold?  Can you rent it
> > from video libraries - even hardcore material?  What about the
> > legalities of making it?
> 
> Pornography is federally protected free speach, so laws on it are
> /relatively/ consistent.  It's legal, unless it involves children, in
> which case the FBI hurts you a lot.

Children being defined in this as below 18 due to federal law, despite
that the age of consent for sex in most states is below that (16 is
the average)... another inconsistency. The Internet is making this
particular restriction rather silly, insofar as there are a number of
perfectly civilized countries (e.g., the Netherlands) in which the
minimum age is 16, and said countries tend to have web sites based out 
of them... Traci Lords videos are legal in the Netherlands, or at
least the ones of her after she was 16.

> In general, you have to be careful about exposing the
> material to children, and are otherwise mostly unrestircted.

There are currently large-scale arguments going on over how careful
the government can require you to be... mostly over the Internet,
filtering, etcetera. The courts have tended to rule that if something
places a significant burden on adults getting access, then it can't be 
justified by restricting children's access, but this does depend on
the court and is a current area of debate. See http://www.peacefire.org.

> > DRUGS.  I know you have very strict drug laws over there, but I'm not
> > sure how strict.  Are there legal shooting galleries or needle exchange
> > programs?  Is it true that you can be imprisoned just for being addicted
> > to, say, heroin?
> 
> No, you can't be imprisoned for being addicted to heroin.  At least, not
> in most places.

Being addicted, no. However, if you're on parole, you are required to
get drug tests, and if they pop up positive, you're back in jail, so
it's pretty close in some respects.

> You can be imprisoned for possession.  Some cities do
> clean needle programs or whatnot.

These tend to be prosecuted under statutes that try to make possession 
of drug paraphenalia (including needles, unless you've got a
prescription because you're a diabetic or similar) a crime. Aside from 
AIDS transmission and other reasons why this is stupid, I especially
find it ridiculous because we've got tons of needles over in the
Biochemistry lab where I'm a TA - they're needed for quite a number of 
experiments.

> > GUNS.  Are they really as common as TV implies?  Is it possible to buy
> > automatic weapons over the counter?
> 
> UA covers this pretty well, I think.  pp 56-57.  Most U.S. citizens do
> /not/ own a firearm, and of those who do, the vast majority do not
> regularly carry it.

However, there is at least 1 working firearm per adult in this
country... UA does exaggerate somewhat the difficulty of getting an
automatic firearm, BTW (the same is true of CofC). With the right
contacts and a significant chunk of change, they're available - street
gangs usually have them (with money paid for off of selling drugs
whose prices are inflated by their illegality).

> In California, you can drive at 16, vote, get drafted, and sign contracts
> at 18, and drink at 21.  That's pretty standard, though I think some
> states allow drinking at 18.  The Constitution specifically reserves the
> decision about drinking for the states and/or townships, and some
> townships in the U.S. are still "dry."

Louisiana is a bit of an exception in regards to drinking laws. They
were forced by the threat of deprivation of federal highway funds to
up it officially to 21, but all the law in question states is:
	A. you cannot purchase alcohol if you are under 21; and
	B. you cannot drink alcohol in an establishment that's
	   specifically for drinking (i.e., a bar, not a restaurant
	   that also serves alcohol) if you're under 21.
Aside from that, if somebody else buys the alcohol, you can drink
quite legally if you're under 21 in Louisiana. I graduated from
high school there, as it happens, and our after-graduation party (with 
teachers and principals present) was definitely alcoholic in nature.

There's also a general exception for religious usage of wine
(Communion et al) in all states. Technically, you could probably
outlaw alcohol even for this usage, since the amendment that removed
Prohibition but gave states power over alcohol is after the one
(First) protecting religious freedom, but there'd be so much
controversy if somebody tried that I really doubt it would pass. For
one thing, the anti-drinking Fundys are increasingly allied with
conservative-variety Catholics, so...

"Dry" counties (the most common way to divide states into dry and
"wet" is by counties) are places where you can't _buy_ alcohol, not
where you can't _drink_ alcohol, BTW. Amusingly enough, the county in
Tennessee where Jack Daniels is made is dry. In most cases, counties
are kept dry by two groups: fundamentalists and smugglers.

> > What exactly are 'Teamsters'?  The impression I get is that it's some
> > sort of transport workers union.  And what's the connection between
> > unions and the mob anyway?  (Unions were standard in Australia for
> > decades, although the current government is trying to destroy them.)
>
> The Teamsters is a transport workers union, yes.  They're also, I think,
> the largest union in the States.  The connection between unions and the
> mob is probably pretty much the same as the connection between anyone
> who's got a lot of money and power and the mob -- their interests often
> coalign.

They're also pretty well known for violence against strikebreakers and 
others who oppose them... I will refrain from commenting further
regarding unions, given that I'd prefer not to get in a flamewar with
union supporters.

	-Allen

-- 
Allen Smith				easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu
	

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua