Talk:List of items for which possession is restricted

From Academic Kids

Does sugar qualify for inclusion on this list? I haven't checked lately, but when I was in college in North Carolina, people buying more than about ten pounds of sugar at a time had to sign a book, the same as you had to do when you bought cough syrup with codeine in it, because large quantities of sugar could be used to make moonshine. (And some Southern Baptist ladies buying sugar to make goodies for their bake sales got more than a little bent out of shape at having to sign that book.) -- isis 04:23 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

---

What is the definition of "restricted"? Does quota and ration count as restriction?

I would say that quota for buying do not count (might be nice for a separate list), but that quota for possessing would fit well in this list, perhaps in a separate section. Patrick 13:56 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

What is the definition of "possession"? Physically holding? ownership?

-- voidvector

There are some legal differences with owning, but for the purpose of this list you can think of owning. If someone can point out cases where ownership is allowed but possessing is not or conversely that would also be interesting.

'Alcohol within sight of a football pitch in England', refers to having with you rather than possession. Perhaps that should be moved to a separate section.

Patrick 13:56 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

An interesting nicety, but if you look at the way the legal phraseology determines it, you will find that it is defined as the act of possession being a criminal offence. user:sjc

OK, you are right. See also below. Patrick 22:42 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

---

This is going to be a very big list and will probably need decomposition by country and/or legislature. user:sjc

---

"# Plants taller than 8" in yard" -- 8 inches ??? really? Could the article on that particular place explain, please? -- Tarquin 10:35 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Where would you like for me to post the newspaper clippings for you to see them? -- isis 10:41 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

ok ok I believe you :-) ... I was a little flabbergasted by the size, my first thought was that it was a typo for ' for feet. -- Tarquin

---

The Taliban banned practically everything. I suppose a great number of things are still banned somewhere in the world.

---

I truly do not see the point of this "article," at least as it is currently presented. The possession of almost everything is regulated and restricted. One may not own land in the US unless one pays taxes. You cannot possess an object that belongs to someone else, unless you have permission -- I mean, you can shoplift anything and fall under the domain of this article. I believe the article should be deleted -- or rewritten to make a point. Slrubenstein

A thief does not possess a stolen good. The fact that stealing is illegal has little to do with this list. Patrick 10:15 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

It is precisely because stealing has little to do with this list that the list needs a different title, and the point of the article must be explained clearly. Of course a thief possesses stolen goods -- that is precisely how many thieves are caught, they are found in possession of stolen goods. And this issue is precisely what is at stake in the matter of "invasions" in Latin America. 162.83.147.58

OK, the word 'possess' can be used in that way, I agree. Since stealing is obviously illegal, not much need to be said about that in this framework. What remains for this list are items that you should not have even though you have properly paid for it or made it yourself etc. Here we can distinguish what you should not have at all, and what you are not allowed to have with you in a particular situation, or that you are not allowed to put in a particular place. I had the former in mind, and for clarity I have put the entries falling in the latter category in the notes section. Patrick 22:42 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

FINALLY you begin to articulate a reasonable rationale for this list, when you write,

items that you should not have even though you have properly paid for it or made it yourself

I urge you to articulate this at the beginning of the article. Still, I challenge your use of words, for when you say "should not have" you really are writing not only of possession but of ownership as well; it seems to me that it really is ownership that is being regulated more than possession and you need to be much clearer about this one way or the other. Indeed, perhaps this should be linked to a lenghtyier discussion in the article on property. Slrubenstein

---

What is not allowed about food stamps? You mean trading, or saving? Patrick 12:06 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

Being in possession of them once they have been torn out of the "booklet" they come in. -- isis 23:05 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

---

I deleted this line

(but regardless of where they are kept)

because the list itself makes it clear that this is not an unconditional constant -- for example, the list claims that wild animals cannot be kept in cities, so "where" they are kept does make a difference. Ditto with weapons, concealed versus unconcealed. Slrubenstein

---

According to this article (http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:Q-_y7PxF2dUC:www.stacks.com/New%2520Folder%2520(2)/Double%2520Eagle%2520Press%2520Release.htm+1933+gold+coin&hl=de&ie=UTF-8) it's no longer forbidden to own the 1933 20 US$ coin. -- JeLuF

Correction, there is a single coin which it is now legal to own. All other examples are still contraband. --Dante Alighieri

According to the linked article all others have been destroyed, so there are no coins now illegal to own Patrick 03:19 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)

OK, forget the linked article. Two copies are on display at the Smithsonian, so there's two right there. Also, just because they were ordered destroyed does not mean that they were. At least 10 copies are confirmed to have been smuggled out of the mint prior to melting. So, that being the case, there probably ARE examples out there that are being held in contravention of US law. See this article (http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/articles/apr02/coin0402.htm), for example. --Dante Alighieri