Weigh in on letting bathhouses re-open & whether speed (crystal meth) can be used responsibly

I vaguely know that a "bathhouse" is associated with gay culture, but
I have no idea what it is. Will someone enlighten me?

  The "2007 Men's Minds Survey" online includes some questions

asking

about bathhouses, including whether they should reopen (Question

#50).

Public bathhouses were prohibited by law in the 1980s during a time
when many people were dying of AIDS. Prior to that, there had been
numerous such facilities catering to gay men in San Francisco.

These

small businesses should be allowed to exist.

  Please add your voice to this survey to let them know you

think

bathhouses should be allowed to reopen:

http://www.isparksf.com (click on "survey" on the top right side

of

the page)

  The questions about bathhouses are on page 8 of the 10-page

survey,

but you can continue through without answering any questions until

you

get to that page, if you don't wish to take the whole survey.

  There are also questions about speed use on page 9.

Unfortunately

there are no questions asking whether people should have the choice

to

use speed, which I assume is deliberate. But there are a couple
questions (#s 58 and 60) asking whether it's possible to use speed
responsibly, and whether one can responsibly use speed and have

sex.

Starchild:

Why is the Libertarian answer obviously "yes" to whether one can
responsibly use speed and have sex? What does that have to do with
Libertarianism?

  The "2007 Men's Minds Survey" online includes some questions

asking

about bathhouses, including whether they should reopen (Question

#50).

Public bathhouses were prohibited by law in the 1980s during a time
when many people were dying of AIDS. Prior to that, there had been
numerous such facilities catering to gay men in San Francisco.

These

small businesses should be allowed to exist.

  Please add your voice to this survey to let them know you

think

bathhouses should be allowed to reopen:

http://www.isparksf.com (click on "survey" on the top right side

of

the page)

  The questions about bathhouses are on page 8 of the 10-page

survey,

but you can continue through without answering any questions until

you

get to that page, if you don't wish to take the whole survey.

  There are also questions about speed use on page 9.

Unfortunately

there are no questions asking whether people should have the choice

to

use speed, which I assume is deliberate. But there are a couple
questions (#s 58 and 60) asking whether it's possible to use speed
responsibly, and whether one can responsibly use speed and have

sex.

The "2007 Men's Minds Survey" online includes some questions asking about bathhouses, including whether they should reopen (Question #50). Public bathhouses were prohibited by law in the 1980s during a time when many people were dying of AIDS. Prior to that, there had been numerous such facilities catering to gay men in San Francisco. These small businesses should be allowed to exist.

  Please add your voice to this survey to let them know you think bathhouses should be allowed to reopen:

http://www.isparksf.com (click on "survey" on the top right side of the page)

  The questions about bathhouses are on page 8 of the 10-page survey, but you can continue through without answering any questions until you get to that page, if you don't wish to take the whole survey.

  There are also questions about speed use on page 9. Unfortunately there are no questions asking whether people should have the choice to use speed, which I assume is deliberate. But there are a couple questions (#s 58 and 60) asking whether it's possible to use speed responsibly, and whether one can responsibly use speed and have sex. Clearly the libertarian answer to both questions would be yes.

Love & liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Starchild:

Since I have 4 children, it would be irresponsible for me to take an
extremely high-risk job like leader of a bomb-detonation squad. But
obviously there shoudl not be a law against this.

If taking certain actions greatly raised the risk of catching or
passing an STD, then I would say that too would be irresponsible.
But I would not support a law against whatever it is, unless there
were clear and present negative externalities, like driving drunk for
instance.

I suppose all this hinges on one's definition of "responsible"

-Derek

  If it's impossible to do something responsibly, that would

imply that

a law against it is OK. People should be responsible for their own
actions; when they aren't or can't, that's when it's appropriate

for an

external force to step in.

Love & liberty,
      <<< starchild >>>

> Starchild:
>
> Why is the Libertarian answer obviously "yes" to whether one can
> responsibly use speed and have sex? What does that have to do with
> Libertarianism?
>
> >
> > The "2007 Men's Minds Survey" online includes some questions
> asking
> > about bathhouses, including whether they should reopen (Question
> #50).
> > Public bathhouses were prohibited by law in the 1980s during a

time

> > when many people were dying of AIDS. Prior to that, there had

been

> > numerous such facilities catering to gay men in San Francisco.
> These
> > small businesses should be allowed to exist.
> >
> > Please add your voice to this survey to let them know you
> think
> > bathhouses should be allowed to reopen:
> >
> > http://www.isparksf.com (click on "survey" on the top right side
> of
> > the page)
> >
> > The questions about bathhouses are on page 8 of the 10-page
> survey,
> > but you can continue through without answering any questions

until

> you
> > get to that page, if you don't wish to take the whole survey.
> >
> > There are also questions about speed use on page 9.
> Unfortunately
> > there are no questions asking whether people should have the

choice

> to
> > use speed, which I assume is deliberate. But there are a couple
> > questions (#s 58 and 60) asking whether it's possible to use

speed

Starchild:

Yes, that's exactly how I feel.

-Derek

Derek,

  Presumably you think *some* people can take a high-risk job

like

leading a bomb-detonation squad, or increase their chances of
contacting an STD (by having sex, for example) responsibly. Unless

I

misunderstand you, you're not asserting that it's *impossible* to

do

these things responsibly, only that it would be irresponsible for

*you*

to do them. As long as it's possible for some people to do

something

responsibly, the activity itself should not be illegal, wouldn't

you

agree?

  To some degree I do agree that it depends how one defines
"responsible." In other contexts, I might argue that it's OK for a
person to spend his or her money "irresponsibly," for example. But

it's

clear to me that this survey is a public referendum of sorts on the
issues of bathhouses and speed use, so I'm OK with voting on the

side

that will be taken as supporting the legal right to engage in these
activities, even if the questions are not worded with as much

attention

to distinctions like those being drawn here as I might prefer.

  If it goes too much against the grain for you to respond to

the survey

in this spirit of practicality, I encourage you, instead of

responding

to the questions directly, to comment in one of the spaces for
additional comments provided in the survey to the effect that you

may

not think speed use, or unsafe sex is responsible, but that it

should

be legal, and that bathhouses should be allowed to open in SF, if
that's how you feel.

Love & liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

> Starchild:
>
> Since I have 4 children, it would be irresponsible for me to take

an

> extremely high-risk job like leader of a bomb-detonation squad.

But

> obviously there shoudl not be a law against this.
>
> If taking certain actions greatly raised the risk of catching or
> passing an STD, then I would say that too would be irresponsible.
> But I would not support a law against whatever it is, unless there
> were clear and present negative externalities, like driving drunk

for

> instance.
>
> I suppose all this hinges on one's definition of "responsible"
>
> -Derek
>
> >
> > If it's impossible to do something responsibly, that would
> imply that
> > a law against it is OK. People should be responsible for their

own

> > actions; when they aren't or can't, that's when it's appropriate
> for an
> > external force to step in.
> >
> > Love & liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Starchild:
> > >
> > > Why is the Libertarian answer obviously "yes" to whether one

can

> > > responsibly use speed and have sex? What does that have to do

with

> > > Libertarianism?
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>

wrote:

> > > >
> > > > The "2007 Men's Minds Survey" online includes some questions
> > > asking
> > > > about bathhouses, including whether they should reopen

(Question

> > > #50).
> > > > Public bathhouses were prohibited by law in the 1980s

during a

> time
> > > > when many people were dying of AIDS. Prior to that, there

had

> been
> > > > numerous such facilities catering to gay men in San

Francisco.

> > > These
> > > > small businesses should be allowed to exist.
> > > >
> > > > Please add your voice to this survey to let them know you
> > > think
> > > > bathhouses should be allowed to reopen:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.isparksf.com (click on "survey" on the top right

side

> > > of
> > > > the page)
> > > >
> > > > The questions about bathhouses are on page 8 of the 10-page
> > > survey,
> > > > but you can continue through without answering any questions
> until
> > > you
> > > > get to that page, if you don't wish to take the whole

survey.

> > > >
> > > > There are also questions about speed use on page 9.
> > > Unfortunately
> > > > there are no questions asking whether people should have the
> choice
> > > to
> > > > use speed, which I assume is deliberate. But there are a

couple

> > > > questions (#s 58 and 60) asking whether it's possible to use
> speed
> > > > responsibly, and whether one can responsibly use speed and

have

> > > sex.
> > > > Clearly the libertarian answer to both questions would be

yes.

If it's impossible to do something responsibly, that would imply that a law against it is OK. People should be responsible for their own actions; when they aren't or can't, that's when it's appropriate for an external force to step in.

Love & liberty,
      <<< starchild >>>

Basically a bathhouse is like a spa, where sexual conduct is allowed. Can be loosely seen as a sex club with bathing areas. Like Steamworks in Berkeley, or the Watergarden in San Jose.

Love & liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Derek,

  Presumably you think *some* people can take a high-risk job like leading a bomb-detonation squad, or increase their chances of contacting an STD (by having sex, for example) responsibly. Unless I misunderstand you, you're not asserting that it's *impossible* to do these things responsibly, only that it would be irresponsible for *you* to do them. As long as it's possible for some people to do something responsibly, the activity itself should not be illegal, wouldn't you agree?

  To some degree I do agree that it depends how one defines "responsible." In other contexts, I might argue that it's OK for a person to spend his or her money "irresponsibly," for example. But it's clear to me that this survey is a public referendum of sorts on the issues of bathhouses and speed use, so I'm OK with voting on the side that will be taken as supporting the legal right to engage in these activities, even if the questions are not worded with as much attention to distinctions like those being drawn here as I might prefer.

  If it goes too much against the grain for you to respond to the survey in this spirit of practicality, I encourage you, instead of responding to the questions directly, to comment in one of the spaces for additional comments provided in the survey to the effect that you may not think speed use, or unsafe sex is responsible, but that it should be legal, and that bathhouses should be allowed to open in SF, if that's how you feel.

Love & liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>