NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a thought.It takes a license to own a car,shoot a gun,fly a plane.All these things take a hell of a lot of responsibility,and so does parenting.So,why the hell can any jackass be a father or a mother?
A father and his kid came in a few weeks ago,(they're pretty infamous through my village for being horrific parents),and the dad bought some vodka from behind the counter.He paid,and immediately gave it to the kid who slipped it in his pocket,and they left the shop.The kid is about ten.

Thing is,neither of this kid's parents are employed,and they have about six kids-most likely so they can claim child benefits for all of them.They have one girl,whose name I now know is Shannon,and she is about ten.She looks about 6 or 7,and she looks malnourished.The mother (who i think is called Sarah)openly treats her like a runt.It's disgusting.And it just made me think.Would parent licensing be such a bad thing?I'm sure it'll cause a stir with civil rights and the sort,and I'm inclined to agree,but with these parents raising their children I can't help but think there's some reasoning behind it.

What are your thoughts and opinions?




(If none of that made sense,I just got off a long shift at work.)

Funny enough, we have a NationStates issue about this...

Funny enough, we have a NationStates issue about this...

Good point,I forgot about that one.

Just a thought.It takes a license to own a car,shoot a gun,fly a plane.All these things take a hell of a lot of responsibility,and so does parenting.So,why the hell can any jackass be a father or a mother?
A father and his kid came in a few weeks ago,(they're pretty infamous through my village for being horrific parents),and the dad bought some vodka from behind the counter.He paid,and immediately gave it to the kid who slipped it in his pocket,and they left the shop.The kid is about ten.

Thing is,neither of this kid's parents are employed,and they have about six kids-most likely so they can claim child benefits for all of them.They have one girl,whose name I now know is Shannon,and she is about ten.She looks about 6 or 7,and she looks malnourished.The mother (who i think is called Sarah)openly treats her like a runt.It's disgusting.And it just made me think.Would parent licensing be such a bad thing?I'm sure it'll cause a stir with civil rights and the sort,and I'm inclined to agree,but with these parents raising their children I can't help but think there's some reasoning behind it.

What are your thoughts and opinions?




(If none of that made sense,I just got off a long shift at work.)

Under current UK law, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to buy alcohol, whether in a supermarket, a pub or an off-licence. It is also illegal to supply someone under the age of 18 with alcohol.

Anyone under the age of 14 is not allowed into the bar of a pub unless that establishment has a 'children's certificate'.

However, 16 and 17 year old children are allowed to buy beer or cider as an accompaniment to a meal, but only in an area set aside for meals.

The police have the power to confiscate alcohol from anyone they know to be, or reasonably believe to be under the age of 18.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/drugs/alcohol.shtml

I'm pretty sure that the father comitted an offence there. If your shop's security camera caught the transaction and the act of giving it to the child then that could be used in evidence against him.

But back on topic, The idea has it's merits but I think it violates a human right or two.

I seem to remember saying no to this in the issue on NationStates.

I suppose it all comes down to the rights of the parent (to have a family, see UN declaration) and the rights of the child (to have a good childhood, and the best chance in life).

Which is more important?

I'd say you let anybody have children, but offer plenty of help to those who want it, and crack down on those who are still bad parents.

What are your thoughts and opinions?Guns, cars, and all that aren't natural. Getting children is, which is why it shouldn't be licensed.

I seem to remember saying no to this in the issue on NationStates.

I suppose it all comes down to the rights of the parent (to have a family, see UN declaration) and the rights of the child (to have a good childhood, and the best chance in life).

Which is more important?

I'd say you let anybody have children, but offer plenty of help to those who want it, and crack down on those who are still bad parents.

Hmm,true,but how would you crack ddwn on the bad parents?Literally crack down on them with a giant hammer?
.....Ok,bad joke.But still.Expland.

They have one girl,whose name I now know is Shannon

Damning evidence - GUILTY!

Next case!

I personally have no problem with the idea of parenting licences. You're doubtless about to find out that many people do, however ;)

Damning evidence - GUILTY!

.....What?:confused:

Children shouldn't be a right, although state control on that scale is a little extreme (but more importantly impractical). Perhaps it would be more effective to routinly inspect a parents capability as a parent, and if they fail reduce or cancel state benefits for the parent.

It would also help reduce the degree of socialism in society.:p

.....What?:confused:

It was a joke about the name "Shannon". Sorry ;)

Hmm,true,but how would you crack ddwn on the bad parents?Literally crack down on them with a giant hammer?
.....Ok,bad joke.But still.Expland.

Any decent parent would clean up there act, or get help to do it, if there was even the slightest chance that the children might be taken away.

If they didn't react to that, then the best idea would be for someone to talk to the children at their school, to find out what THEY want. If their parents are really bad, they might want to leave them (though this would be a very small minority, I expect). If not, then, if you can't prosecute their parents for something (eg. supplying alcohol), and the children are not in danger, you would have to let them get on with it. You can't do any more without violating international law.

That's a confused post, but it's late.

I am pretty sure I wouldn't have been given license to breed based on my past, and my license would probably have already been revoked many times over for the socially unacceptable things that go on in our house. :(

It was a joke about the name "Shannon". Sorry ;)

Ah!I see.Well,it's late,might have got it a few hours ago,hehe.

Just a thought.It takes a license to own a car,shoot a gun,fly a plane.
But it shouldn't, and that's what matters.

Just a thought.It takes a license to own a car,shoot a gun,fly a plane.All these things take a hell of a lot of responsibility,and so does parenting.So,why the hell can any jackass be a father or a mother?
A father and his kid came in a few weeks ago,(they're pretty infamous through my village for being horrific parents),and the dad bought some vodka from behind the counter.He paid,and immediately gave it to the kid who slipped it in his pocket,and they left the shop.The kid is about ten.

Thing is,neither of this kid's parents are employed,and they have about six kids-most likely so they can claim child benefits for all of them.They have one girl,whose name I now know is Shannon,and she is about ten.She looks about 6 or 7,and she looks malnourished.The mother (who i think is called Sarah)openly treats her like a runt.It's disgusting.And it just made me think.Would parent licensing be such a bad thing?I'm sure it'll cause a stir with civil rights and the sort,and I'm inclined to agree,but with these parents raising their children I can't help but think there's some reasoning behind it.

What are your thoughts and opinions?




(If none of that made sense,I just got off a long shift at work.)

and how do you propose to enforce this?? is having a license going to prevent people having unlicensed sex? when there is an unlicensed pregnancy are you going to make abortion mandatory? remove the child from the family upon birth? who decides who is a fit parent?....

there are shit parents about they come from all strata of society but the poor will bear the brunt of any legislation, the wealthy will escape any sanctions or punishments.....

I understand the idea but it's impossible in a free society.....

But it shouldn't, and that's what matters.

No it really should take a license to fly, drive and (I'm tempted to put especially) own a gun.

Any decent parent would clean up there act, or get help to do it, if there was even the slightest chance that the children might be taken away.

If they didn't react to that, then the best idea would be for someone to talk to the children at their school, to find out what THEY want. If their parents are really bad, they might want to leave them (though this would be a very small minority, I expect). If not, then, if you can't prosecute their parents for something (eg. supplying alcohol), and the children are not in danger, you would have to let them get on with it. You can't do any more without violating international law.

That's a confused post, but it's late.

True,but the parents I mentioned in the OP probably wouldn't notice if one of their children went missing.
And it's sad we can't do more.The poor kid might never get a proper shot at life because he's abused in kiddyhood.I think that's probably the most totalitarian thing I'll say for a while.

the poor will bear the brunt of any legislation, the wealthy will escape any sanctions or punishments.....
As it should be.

I understand the idea but it's impossible in a free society.....
And that notion of a 'free society' is the problem.

and how do you propose to enforce this?? is having a license going to prevent people having unlicensed sex? when there is an unlicensed pregnancy are you going to make abortion mandatory? remove the child from the family upon birth? who decides who is a fit parent?....

there are shit parents about they come from all strata of society but the poor will bear the brunt of any legislation, the wealthy will escape any sanctions or punishments.....

I understand the idea but it's impossible in a free society.....

Indeed,I know it's logistically impossible.Enforcing it would be completely ineffective,and the backlog for licenses would probably be years with such things as background checks,maybe even interviews.I'm just musing over the fact that the downside of not having license checks are appalling families and abused kids,who end up physically and/or academically challenged in later life.

As it should be.


And that notion of a 'free society' is the problem.

Was that sarcastic or serious?
....Seriously,I'm too tired.

But it shouldn't, and that's what matters.

Do you really want any maniac owning a gun,or flying a plane?
I bloody well don't,I like my life.

Was that sarcastic or serious?
....Seriously,I'm too tired.

Serious, although perhaps a little extreme than my norm.

True,but the parents I mentioned in the OP probably wouldn't notice if one of their children went missing.
And it's sad we can't do more.The poor kid might never get a proper shot at life because he's abused in kiddyhood.I think that's probably the most totalitarian thing I'll say for a while.

I have a niece that is unfit to be a mother but she has two kids and it really bothers me to think what kind of life those kids are having......I don't think they can avoid a life of prostitution, drug abuse and crime I can't see it ending any other way....there is nothing we can do about it but deal with the kids in 10-20yrs.....

Serious, although perhaps a little extreme than my norm.

Perhaps a little.
Why should the rich be able to exploit the poor,and why should the poor remain poor?Why should the rich have a "safety net" ,as you will, and be able to skip merrily past sanctions and licenses while the poor bear the brunt?

I have a niece that is unfit to be a mother but she has two kids and it really bothers me to think what kind of life those kids are having......I don't think they can avoid a life of prostitution, drug abuse and crime I can't see it ending any other way....there is nothing we can do about it but deal with the kids in 10-20yrs.....

Sad,ain't it?

Perhaps a little.
Why should the rich be able to exploit the poor,and why should the poor remain poor?Why should the rich have a "safety net" ,as you will, and be able to skip merrily past sanctions and licenses while the poor bear the brunt?

Because thats how these things work in real life. The strong (economically in this case) are able to ignore the wills of others and impose their own on the weak.

No it really should take a license to fly, drive and (I'm tempted to put especially) own a gun.

Wrong.

Do you really want any maniac owning a gun,or flying a plane?
I bloody well don't,I like my life.

Tough shit.

Liberty is infinitely more important than safety.

Government's only role is to, after the fact, punish those who actually cause harm to others--not to prevent harm.

Wrong.

Care to justify that?

Because thats how these things work in real life. The strong (economically in this case) are able to ignore the wills of others and impose their own on the weak.

That shouldn't happen."Survival of the fittest" is a term used to describe evolution,not economic advantage,and you can't twist it,because it doesn't work.It somply isn't fair."The strong" you speak of have no natural advantage to those who are "weak."Everyone should be equal,everyone should be the same.There should be no rich and poor,there should be no "strong" or "weak," there should be humankind,we're all stuck on this planet together,and we need to realise that quickly.

Tough shit.

Liberty is infinitely more important than safety.

Government's only role is to, after the fact, punish those who actually cause harm to others--not to prevent harm.You're evil. :(

Wrong.

Now explain why I am wrong,don't just state what you think and expect everyone to believe it.

Tough shit.

Liberty is infinitely more important than safety.

Government's only role is to, after the fact, punish those who actually cause harm to others--not to prevent harm.

Bullshit.That's a great Governmennt line; "We won't prevent murder,but we'll catch the bastard who killed your wife!"
Why shouldn't the Government prevent harm?It's part of the Government's duty to protect it's people,not to just mop up the pieces when they get hurt.

Sad,ain't it?

It is..... some of the family have tried to help but their own families suffered from the attempt and they had to ban her from their homes.....continual theft prompted her own parents to change the locks on their home.....she drifts from place to place dragging her kids along living off the state....

Nope, the sole purpose of government is to protect individual rights.

When government imposes a prior restraint or restriction on actions, then it violates the individual rights of those who might be able to perform such actions without harming anyone else--thus, it is illegitimate.

Nope, the sole purpose of government is to protect individual rights.

When government imposes a prior restraint or restriction on actions, then it violates the individual rights of those who might be able to perform such actions without harming anyone else--thus, it is illegitimate.

See,now you're wrong,because there are different types of Government.Authoritarian,or democracy.Socialism,or capitalist.So many variants,and you're just generalising for one type.I'm not even sure which type.Just because a country is a dictatorship doesn't mean it's illegitimate.

The Government isn't just there to protect individual rights.
And surely an individual rights is freedom to walk around on the streets without fear of being stabbed,shot or mugged?

Nope, the sole purpose of government is to protect individual rights.

When government imposes a prior restraint or restriction on actions, then it violates the individual rights of those who might be able to perform such actions without harming anyone else--thus, it is illegitimate.The problem with this is that it allows people to engage in mass manslaughter legally.

The problem with this is that it allows people to engage in mass manslaughter legally.

Which could be considered a bad thing,no?

Guns, cars, and all that aren't natural. Getting children is, which is why it shouldn't be licensed.

marijuana plants are natural too, and that's illegal...

Children shouldn't be a right, although state control on that scale is a little extreme (but more importantly impractical). Perhaps it would be more effective to routinly inspect a parents capability as a parent, and if they fail reduce or cancel state benefits for the parent.

but reducing or cancelling benefits to an ineffective, neglectful or abusive parent only increases the harm to the child

Which could be considered a bad thing,no?I'd say so. I have no problem with restricting your right to freely get in a plane and fly it if you don't have a license to prove you can do so safely, because punishing you after what's left of your body gets scraped from the impact site in a residential area just isn't all that satisfying. Neither is the idea of allowing hundreds or thousands of people die or take permanent damage because we don't restrict people in their use of pesticides because its better to punish them afterwards if what they did turns out to be wrong a very good idea.

That shouldn't happen."Survival of the fittest" is a term used to describe evolution,not economic advantage,and you can't twist it,because it doesn't work.It somply isn't fair."The strong" you speak of have no natural advantage to those who are "weak."Everyone should be equal,everyone should be the same.There should be no rich and poor,there should be no "strong" or "weak," there should be humankind,we're all stuck on this planet together,and we need to realise that quickly.

First of all, being the treated the same and being treated equally are different.
Second of all, if the rich have no advantage then why are they rich? They must either be, or be the descendants of, an individual (or individuals) who was above average. They carry this capability, even if it is sadly diluted.

And yes, we are all on the same planet and I am aware of it, but evidently its not big enough for all of us.

Guns, cars, and all that aren't natural. Getting children is, which is why it shouldn't be licensed.

We ban/license/restrict lots of natural things.

Weed, for one.

Anyway, who's to say what's 'natural' and what's not. It's a fake distinction really.

Though none of this would be a problem if people supported my abortion policy.

marijuana plants are natural too, and that's illegal...Grinding up the leaves, rolling them in a piece of paper, and then smoking them isn't though.

Grinding up the leaves, rolling them in a piece of paper, and then smoking them isn't though.

So would you support unassisted birth and no medical treatment for the length of the pregnancy and for both mother and child after being compulsory?

I oppose licensing parenthood just as I oppose licensing for anything, because it is merely a ploy of the political class to parade as "protecting" the people while they use said licensing to benefit themselves at the expense of the producer class. For instance, the political class could use the licensing to try and make those demographics opposed to them die out, and use that licensing to make the demographics that support them increase. This is just one method; I'm sure there are many more.

See,now you're wrong
No, I'm not.

I'm not even sure which type.
The only objectively correct one.

Just because a country is a dictatorship doesn't mean it's illegitimate.
Of course not--the form government takes is irrelevant. All that matters is the substance--what it does. And a government is only legitimate to the extent that it respects individual rights, regardless of form.

The Government isn't just there to protect individual rights.
Yeah, it is.
And surely an individual rights is freedom to walk around on the streets without fear of being stabbed,shot or mugged?
Well, you have every right to be scared of a little bunny rabbit, or not mind a piano crashing down on you from ten floors above, yeah.

But I don't think that's what you mean :D

The problem with this is that it allows people to engage in mass manslaughter legally.

No, it doesn't.

It simply doesn't prevent it before happens.

There's a difference.

So would you support unassisted birth and no medical treatment for the length of the pregnancy and for both mother and child after being compulsory?Just as I support the banning of bicycles, cars and the internet. Get real :rolleyes:

Being "unnatural" isn't grounds for banning something, but something being natural is grounds for exempting it from licensing.

No, it doesn't.

It simply doesn't prevent it before happens.

There's a difference.That means it will happen. Essentially you're animating people to commit manslaughter and assault.

Just as I support the banning of bicycles, cars and the internet. Get real :rolleyes:

Being "unnatural" isn't grounds for banning something, but something being natural is grounds for exempting it from licensing.

Really, so a positive is beyond regulation while a negative is not. Why?

You're probably right.

So what?

Liberty for the innocent is worth it.

Really, so a positive is beyond regulation while a negative is not. Why?Because you get born with the ability to reproduce and you just can't license that.

You're probably right.

So what?

Liberty for the innocent is worth it.Waiting until someone gets hurt to punish things is to blame for quite a lot of harm.

Besides, I believe wholeheartedly in the strict regulation of pilot licenses. I don't want any idiot being allowed to use a plane and then crashing it into a residential area because they didn't know what they were doing. Same goes for cars; some people shouldn't and don't get the right to drive a car.

Grinding up the leaves, rolling them in a piece of paper, and then smoking them isn't though.

You're not allowed to eat them either.

Then you're wrong.

Liberty is more important. Tough shit for you.

Then you're wrong.

Liberty is more important. Tough shit for you.Well, tough luck for you, there being a general consensus that you need a license for flying a plane, driving a car, and owning a gun. :D

You're not allowed to eat them either.What's your point?

Because you get born with the ability to reproduce and you just can't license that.

Actually you don't get that till some years later, which gives you time to learn something of the world and sociology. This trains you to some extent for having children (although not always well, hence the thread). Similarly to learning to drive cars or fly planes you cannot expect to just know how, when and why to do it.

Well, tough luck for you, there being a general consensus that you need a license for flying a plane, driving a car, and owning a gun. :D

Then general consensus is wrong, and if its adherents wish to force it on me then I (as well as anyone else) am justified in engaging in violent revolution to end this blatant violation of my sacred individual rights.

Then general consensus is wrong, and if its adherents wish to force it on me then I (as well as anyone else) am justified in engaging in violent revolution to end this blatant violation of my sacred individual rights.

Then prepare to battle (as soon as I am authorised to pilot a fighter, drive an armoured vehicle or use a gun).

*Files for appropriate licences*

Actually you don't get that till some years later, which gives you time to learn something of the world and sociology. This trains you to some extent for having children (although not always well, hence the thread). Similarly to learning to drive cars or fly planes you cannot expect to just know how, when and why to do it.Nice try, but you do not develop the ability to drive a car the way you develop the ability to bear or father children.

What's your point?

It's natural. But it's also illegal.

What was your's again?

It's natural. But it's also illegal.

What was your's again?It's natural to chew a specific plant?

Nice try, but you do not develop the ability to drive a car the way you develop the ability to bear or father children.

No, with the car you have to learn how, then acquire the means. With reproduction you already have the means, but still not the knowledge of when and how to use it.
However in both cases the means can be controlled if necessary.

It's natural to chew a specific plant?

Look, all you want to do at this point is argue semantics. Forget it.

Just a thought.It takes a license to own a car,shoot a gun,fly a plane.]

Correction:

1. In most countries, no license is needed to own a car, and at least in the US it is not necessary to have a license to drive a car on private property.

2. Gun licensing is not universal either. I believe in in some EU countries you can purchase SOME firearms without a license and reality gets along just fine.

No, with the car you have to learn how, then acquire the means. With reproduction you already have the means, but still not the knowledge of when and how to use it.
However in both cases the means can be controlled if necessary.You are not biologically destined to be able to drive a car.

The problem with this is that it allows people to engage in mass manslaughter legally.

Why is that a bad thing? Overpopulation is a serious problem, after all. If we continue this line of thought we'll eventually end up overloading the environment upon which we depend, and die anyway. Anything that at least delays impending environmental catastrophe is good in my book. And the world has too many idiots anyway, and most people are idiots, so why not get rid of some of them? (i.e. "Not me." Nimby argument applies, of course. The obvious answer is to kill off those who won't/can't complain, like people who don't speak our language and the poor and unemployed.)

Aside from the hysterics that would be forthcoming from all the unquestioningly devout Catholics and Mormons (and others too numerous to mention), I think it would be a great idea. In any event, I think anyone on welfare should be given mandatory Norplant - no kids allowed until you are off welfare and gainfully employed.

I oppose licensing parenthood just as I oppose licensing for anything, because it is merely a ploy of the political class to parade as "protecting" the people while they use said licensing to benefit themselves at the expense of the producer class.

You forgot to add that they enlist the petty-bourgeoisie on their side to spit upon the name of glorious and inevitable revolution of the proletariat, and how the tentacles of the Fascist octopus are strangling the oppressed workers and only by overthrowing the chains inflicted upon them by the counter-revolutionaries and capitalist pig-dogs can they achieve just equality...

oh wait, forgot that rhetoric's no longer so fashionable today, eh? Now we stick to euphemisms. :rolleyes:

As a side note, I support the forced sterilisation of everyone with an IQ of under about 80 among other things, so if my comments come across as inflammatory it's because they probably are.

You are not biologically destined to be able to drive a car.

No of course not, I am socially destined to be able to drive a car. Whether or not something is biological should not be the basis for whether or not it is allowed. Going back to my earlier statement, surely a person is not biologically destined to recieve medical treatment (in fact if they are in a situation where they really need it they may be 'biologically destined' to die) but you would not say that people should need a licence to recieve it.

You are not biologically destined to be able to drive a car.

Nor are people biologically destined to bear children.

No of course not, I am socially destined to be able to drive a car. Whether or not something is biological should not be the basis for whether or not it is allowed. Going back to my earlier statement, surely a person is not biologically destined to recieve medical treatment (in fact if they are in a situation where they really need it they may be 'biologically destined' to die) but you would not say that people should need a licence to recieve it.I'm not saying that you should license things that aren't biologically destined, I'm saying you shouldn't license things that are.

Nor are people biologically destined to bear children.Arguing semantics, are we?

I'm not saying that you should license things that aren't biologically destined, I'm saying you shouldn't license things that are.

You are not destined to do anything. That you have any inclination to do something, boilogical or not, does not immediately justify doing it, nor does it mean that it should necessarily go unregulated.

Arguing semantics, are we?

Hardly. That's just a fact.

There has to be a last generation of homo sapiens. Under any cosmology I can think of it's inevitable, so it's not really a question of semantics.

I dont think that a parent should be forced to have a license to have kids, but I do think they shoudl get one if they want any kind of govt assistance

I dont think that a parent should be forced to have a license to have kids, but I do think they shoudl get one if they want any kind of govt assistance

OOOOH. I like that.

It's nearly as good as my abortion plan.

OOOOH. I like that.

It's nearly as good as my abortion plan.

what's your abortion plan? :eek:

I've had this convo with my friends before, I think there should be a required or maybe free class encouraged by the doctor (upon the confirmation of pregnacy) maybe if there was a few free classes the parents would learn a few more things about having kids before just giving birth.

what's your abortion plan? :eek:

It's kind of like the license plan, but we don't give the test until after impregnation.

I like this idea. Millions of people get driver's licences, just have people take some classes and pass a test, and bingo. Also, I figure people should be limited to three kids before they're sterilized by the government. We have too many idiot parents raising idiot kids in this country. And if someone has too many kids, the government should take them away and convert them into nutritious slurry.

Erm, this snowballed a bit, but I stand by it. It'll help the slurry industry and create jobs, which is kind of nice.

You forgot to add that they enlist the petty-bourgeoisie on their side to spit upon the name of glorious and inevitable revolution of the proletariat, and how the tentacles of the Fascist octopus are strangling the oppressed workers and only by overthrowing the chains inflicted upon them by the counter-revolutionaries and capitalist pig-dogs can they achieve just equality...

I hope you realize that you called one of the most extreme capitalists on this message board a communist. :)

Correction:

1. In most countries, no license is needed to own a car, and at least in the US it is not necessary to have a license to drive a car on private property.

2. Gun licensing is not universal either. I believe in in some EU countries you can purchase SOME firearms without a license and reality gets along just fine.

Yeah,I know,I was just generalising.Good point though.

Guns, cars, and all that aren't natural. Getting children is, which is why it shouldn't be licensed.

By the same logic, marijuana and mushrooms are naturally occurring plants; they should not be illegal...?

I like this idea. Millions of people get driver's licences, just have people take some classes and pass a test, and bingo. Also, I figure people should be limited to three kids before they're sterilized by the government. We have too many idiot parents raising idiot kids in this country. And if someone has too many kids, the government should take them away and convert them into nutritious slurry.

Erm, this snowballed a bit, but I stand by it. It'll help the slurry industry and create jobs, which is kind of nice.

:eek:

By the same logic, marijuana and mushrooms are naturally occurring plants; they should not be illegal...?

True,but we've also argued the point that grinding them,rolling them up into paper and smoking it is not natural.Which is a matter of opinion I suppose.