Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3441)	6/3/2004 8:24:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Karen, to late to edit so I'll post a reply to myself. A law striking down another law or regulation or regulatory ruling that prohibits something is not the same as codifying the original thing that was prohibited. If laws against drug use where struck down we would not be codifying drug use. Of course ladies night is a lot more specific but a law striking down another law or regulation that prohibited selling alcohol to minors or selling alcohol in bars after 2 AM would not amount to codifying the use of alcohol. Of course the use of alcohol and other drugs already is codified in the sense that there is a body of laws and regulations covering their use but I don't see any modification to or rollback of those laws to be an example of "codifying drug use". Similarly I don't see how it would be reasonable to call a partial rollback of the anti-discrimination legal regime (laws, regulations, judicial rulings, non-judicial rulings) to be "codifying discrimination". Tim