&gt; As I predicted, you are okay with prosecuting victimless crimes<p>I&#x27;ve described what <i>is</i> a crime, not what <i>should be</i> a crime.<p>&gt; In any case, we&#x27;re on a slippery slope conditioning the masses for control.<p>Maybe, but essentially regulatory, preventive offenses like drunk driving <i>aren&#x27;t new</i>, so its hard to describe a &quot;slippery slope&quot; based on their existence. I mean, that type of offense has been around in the systems from which the US systems descend longer than the US itself has been around; if its a slippery slope, where is the slipping?<p>&gt; I wonder what&#x27;s next, jail time for prohibited speech and later prohibited thoughts?<p>While there has been some mixed results, I think the long-term trend in the time that regulatory, preventive, offenses have been around has been toward greater protection for speech and conscience, not less. So I don&#x27;t see those things as likely to be what&#x27;s next -- though, certainly, they do get proposed from time to time, and have even been enforced. (The use of the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act during the Red Scare, for instance.)<p>&gt; Am I really entitled to my opinion, though?<p>Yes.<p>&gt; It sounds like I probably shouldn&#x27;t be entitled to an opinion due to my dangerous ideas.<p>&quot;Sounds like&quot; based on...what actual thing that&#x27;s been argued in this thread?<p>&gt; (BTW, you had a run-on sentence there. You probably want to break that up so that others don&#x27;t nitpick you parenthetically [...])<p>I don&#x27;t mind parenthetical corrections, but I think if you go and diagram that sentence out you&#x27;ll realize that its just long, not a run-on.