# Resolved: Montgomery Cty, MD does not have the right to ban fortune-telling. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720 "2009-08-17T14:22:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/101 "2009-08-18T22:33:52Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Okay, you’re trying to argue that fortune telling isn’t fraud based on analogy. Why bother, when we can examine the issue based on what fraud acutally _is_? No, I’m saying that it could easily be fraud if a whole host of other things are as well. It’s not an argument based on analogy. It’s an argument based on comparison to unthreatened businesses. What makes fortune telling unique, and uniquely dangerous to the community? How many people are paying mega bucks to fortune tellers? I don’t have the slightest clue about that. Does anyone have some data? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/102 "2009-08-18T22:37:40Z")
> [@](#): > > No, I’m saying that it could easily be fraud if a whole host of other things are as well. But you’re doing that based on false analogies. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/103 "2009-08-18T22:43:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But you’re doing that based on false analogies. Yes, yes, because _you say so_. You’ll forgive me if I don’t find your saying so all that compelling. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/104 "2009-08-18T22:56:01Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > No, I’m saying that it could easily be fraud if a whole host of other things are as well. It’s not an argument based on analogy. It’s an argument based on comparison to unthreatened businesses. What makes fortune telling unique, and uniquely dangerous to the community? Presumably somebody decided it was a problem, and was persuasive enough or had enough friends to make it a law. Doubtlessly their reasons for seeing it as unique would differ from yours - should I start speculating on what they were? Would that help? I mean, it’s not to hard to imagine what the motivations _might_ have been - perhaps they had a gypsy problem and wanted a big hammer to swat it with. Perhaps somebody had a friend or family member that got scammed to heck and went on a crusade as a result. Perhaps some local religious leader decided to stamp out the competition. All of these are guesses, and like all other possible motivations they’re ones that wouldn’t be convincing to everyone, which is why fortune telling isn’t banned everywhere. But, are they what you’re looking for here? I’m not entirely certain what you want. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/105 "2009-08-18T23:03:52Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > All of these are guesses, and like all other possible motivations they’re ones that wouldn’t be convincing to everyone, which is why fortune telling isn’t banned everywhere. But, are they what you’re looking for here? I’m not entirely certain what you want. What I wanted was to give my reasons for finding a ban on fortune-telling silly. I gave those. That’s kinda what the forum is for, you know, talking about things we aren’t likely to agree on–else it would be called “Great Agreements.” ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/106 "2009-08-18T23:12:41Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > What I wanted was to give my reasons for finding a ban on fortune-telling silly. I gave those. That’s kinda what the forum is for, you know, talking about things we aren’t likely to agree on–else it would be called “Great Agreements.” Fair enough - you think it’s silly. I think that banning fortune tellers is excessive and probably not a good idea, but not irrational. Others might think that it’s well-justified. Not Great Agreements - but rather Great Opinions, then. Unless you hoped to demonstrate debatewise that it really is, objectively, silly? If so, I can confidently say that making dubious analogies to movies isn’t working, because the _critical_ issue - whether the ‘seller knows its fake/buyer thinks its real/seller takes advantage of buyer’ case is something likely to occur, doesn’t seem to be even _vaguely_ comparable between the two cases of documentaries and supposed psychics. Which is why **DtC** is not alone in criticizing your analogy. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/107 "2009-08-18T23:25:42Z")
If anyone is interested, I have started an ask the fortune teller thread in My Humble Opinions for the curious. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/108 "2009-08-18T23:38:43Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Where things get dicey is when the things the business is _actually selling_ are not verifiably what the business is claiming they are - which I seriously doubt is the case regarding your bookstore. That bible is really a bible. That rosary is really a rosary. All good - if you’re into that sort of thing, anyway. So what if a Catholic store sells the Bible, claiming it is a holy book? Bannable? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/109 "2009-08-18T23:39:38Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Fair enough - you think it’s silly. I think that banning fortune tellers is excessive and probably not a good idea, but not irrational. Others might think that it’s well-justified. Not Great Agreements - but rather Great Opinions, then. Unless you hoped to demonstrate debatewise that it really is, objectively, silly? If so, I can confidently say that making dubious analogies to movies isn’t working, because the _critical_ issue - whether the ‘seller knows its fake/buyer thinks its real/seller takes advantage of buyer’ case is something likely to occur, doesn’t seem to be even _vaguely_ comparable between the two cases of documentaries and supposed psychics. Which is why **DtC** is not alone in criticizing your analogy. I don’t think most buyers of fortune telling think it’s real. If you have stats or cites or something, whip 'em out. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/110 "2009-08-19T00:04:21Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > So what if a Catholic store sells the Bible, claiming it is a holy book? Bannable? Define “holy book”. 😃 (As a classification, the bible is _definitely_ the holy book of the Christian religion - whether or not it’s true.) If you like, I’ll tell you right now that if somebody sells you a bible promising that it will cure your boils and warts, and you can show it doesn’t, and you can show they knew they were lying (good luck with that), then sure. Take them to court. But I don’t believe that that is the _norm_ for mainline religious supply stores. I think most of them just stick the bible on the shelf and let you pick it up, or at _worst_ sell you some book whose author or publisher provided bunko promotional materials for, which is their fault and not the store’s. I think I’ve forgotten the larger point you were trying to make, here. Becuase if you’re trying to draw an equivalence between bible shops and fortunetellers, then I think it’s working about as well as the analogy between documentaries and fortunetellers - which is to say, it’s not working at all. To the degree that there is merit in banning fortunetelling, it’s based in the theory that fortunetellers are scammers who are preying on the public. That line of reasoning cannot possibly be applied to bookstores or documentaries as a class. (Religions themselves, on the other hand…but they have that pesky amendment buttressing them. ;)) > [@jsgoddess](#): > > I don’t think most buyers of fortune telling think it’s real. If you have stats or cites or something, whip 'em out. I think that many buyers of fortune telling think it’s real, and that most of the money _collected_ for fortune telling is from buyers who think it’s real. If you have stats or cites or something, whip 'em out. 'Cause I don’t - though I think it’s _obviously_ the case that nobody make a living telling five dollar fortunes to skeptics and recreational imbibers. Ah, Great Opinions. It’s a wonderful forum. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/111 "2009-08-19T00:06:21Z")
[14% of people believe in fortune-telling](http://www.csicop.org/articles/poll/). I’d wager good money that that group is overrepresented among customers of fortune-tellers, AND among fortune-tellers themselves. Remember that there are five criteria for fraud: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. If the purchaser of a service believes it’s real, I think #4 is met. But, and this is crucial, that’s only because I think #2 and #3 are so hard to meet. If nobody believes fortune-telling is true, then a victim’s reliance on the fortuneteller’s statement isn’t justifiable. If some folks believe it’s true, then the fortune-teller himself may be a believer, also. As I understand it, there are several categories of speech that may be limited in the US, including fraud, obscenity, threats, incitement to commit crimes, slander, etc. I think you’d run into serious trouble trying to limit the sale of some sorts of fortune-telling (e.g., a Tarot reading) but not others (e.g., the book of Revelations). ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/112 "2009-08-19T00:08:41Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I think that many buyers of fortune telling think it’s real, and that most of the money _collected_ for fortune telling is from buyers who think it’s real. If you have stats or cites or something, whip 'em out. 'Cause I don’t - though I think it’s _obviously_ the case that nobody make a living telling five dollar fortunes to skeptics and recreational imbibers. So, if a handful of believers spend a ton of money but a whole bunch of non-believers spend only a little, is that fraud? I asked for data because you’re the one saying it’s different than entertainment. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/113 "2009-08-19T00:28:31Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If the purchaser of a service believes it’s real, I think #4 is met. But, and this is crucial, that’s only because I think #2 and #3 are so hard to meet. > > If nobody believes fortune-telling is true, then a victim’s reliance on the fortuneteller’s statement isn’t justifiable. If some folks believe it’s true, then the fortune-teller himself may be a believer, also. I really _really_ don’t understand this. How can fortune-tellers possibly believe in what they’re doing when they have to make stuff up to tell a fortune? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/114 "2009-08-19T00:31:51Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Define “holy book”. 😃 (As a classification, the bible is _definitely_ the holy book of the Christian religion - whether or not it’s true.) > > If you like, I’ll tell you right now that if somebody sells you a bible promising that it will cure your boils and warts, and you can show it doesn’t, and you can show they knew they were lying (good luck with that), then sure. Take them to court. But I don’t believe that that is the _norm_ for mainline religious supply stores. I think most of them just stick the bible on the shelf and let you pick it up, or at _worst_ sell you some book whose author or publisher provided bunko promotional materials for, which is their fault and not the store’s. No: holy as in sacred, as in the book is the word of God, as in it contains the true story of Jesus’s resurrection, and it tells us what will happen when Jesus returns. If they sell it to you and claim it’s true, they’re claiming that you can purchase a supernaturally-created prediction of the future. > [@](#): > > I think I’ve forgotten the larger point you were trying to make, here. Becuase if you’re trying to draw an equivalence between bible shops and fortunetellers, then I think it’s working about as well as the analogy between documentaries and fortunetellers - which is to say, it’s not working at all. To the degree that there is merit in banning fortunetelling, it’s based in the theory that fortunetellers are scammers who are preying on the public. That line of reasoning cannot possibly be applied to bookstores or documentaries as a class. (Religions themselves, on the other hand…but they have that pesky amendment buttressing them. I’m not drawing an equivalence, unless you mean I’m saying that the same principle that applies to sincere fortune-tellers ought to apply to sincere booksellers, that is, booksellers who make and believe claims that certain supernaturally-sourced predictions of the future are genuine. If you agree that blanket restrictions on fortune-tellers are illegal, we’re not arguing. But it appears to me that you don’t think such blanket restrictions are okay. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/115 "2009-08-19T00:33:26Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > [14% of people believe in fortune-telling](http://www.csicop.org/articles/poll/). To me, that makes it really hard for someone to claim they are being defrauded by fortune telling. It’s a fringe product, not something the average schmoe off the street would think is real. CSI has more believers. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/116 "2009-08-19T00:34:58Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > I really _really_ don’t understand this. How can fortune-tellers possibly believe in what they’re doing when they have to make stuff up to tell a fortune? Seriously? When I was a teenager, I read Tarot cards for my friends (for free), and was impressed with my accuracy, and freaked some of them out with my accuracy. I had no understanding of the principles of cold reading at the time: I just used what I’d learned from the little pamphlet that came with my book of cards, and when card X came up I told someone that he was battling against internal strife in his family, and he was astonished at my perception: he hadn’t told anyone about how his mom and dad had been fighting! You don’t have to understand how cold reading works for it to go into effect. Is your theory that throughout history, all astrologers have known what they were doing was bullshit? Everyone who cast the I Ching knew it was nonsense? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/117 "2009-08-19T02:52:17Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is your theory that throughout history, all astrologers have known what they were doing was bullshit? Everyone who cast the I Ching knew it was nonsense? Good point. I’d been thinking more about the crystal ball and seance types–they require active fraud to get anything at all. I started a thread asking exactly this question about astrologers some time ago. After wading through far too many posts and arguments, I came to the following conclusions: 1. The people who _develop_ techniques for astrology are frauds. This includes pretty much all people who write astrology columns that make claims by sign (e.g., every single Gemini on the planet is going to travel this month). 2. Some of the people who _use_ those techniques actually do believe in what they’re doing. It is entirely possible that someone could read a book about astrology or i ching or reading rat entrails and convince themselves that it works and they can do it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/118 "2009-08-19T16:44:31Z")
IIRC, just because you call what you are doing a religion, doesn’t make it so. What if I wanted to sell marijuana in Montgomery County based on some religious belief that I have claiming that smoking marijuana makes you closer to God? Isn’t there some sort of standard that is allowed which a community can say, “Yes, this is a religion, but that is not”. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/119 "2009-08-19T20:28:13Z")
Here’s a possible benefit to society from fortune-tellers that I hadn’t thought of until now. In [**ZPGZealot** ’s Ask the Fortune Teller thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=528597), I asked what she does if someone comes to her looking for psychic help in committing a crime or concealing one from the authorities. She said that happens a lot (mentioned that in particular, people who skip bail often consult fortune-tellers), and she often contacts the police in those cases. She said that psychics often help police solve crimes in this way. Assume the presence of fortune-tellers cuts down on unsolved crime in some measurable way. Would that change anybody’s opinion about whether fortune-telling should be legal or not? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/120 "2009-08-19T21:03:29Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > So, if a handful of believers spend a ton of money but a whole bunch of non-believers spend only a little, is that fraud? > > I asked for data because you’re the one saying it’s different than entertainment. By my personal little definition, it’s fraudulent, but you don’t have a _case_ for fraud if you don’t fall for it. Call it ‘attempted fraud’, if you like. And of course, this only can _possibly_ apply if the person selling the product knows it’s crap and is hoping to convince you it’s not. Which **IS** different from entertainment, regardless of your attempt to form an analogy where none can be made. (At least, no non-false analogy, anyway.) > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No: holy as in sacred, as in the book is the word of God, as in it contains the true story of Jesus’s resurrection, and it tells us what will happen when Jesus returns. If they sell it to you and claim it’s true, they’re claiming that you can purchase a supernaturally-created prediction of the future. It ain’t fraud unless the seller doesn’t believe it. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m not drawing an equivalence, unless you mean I’m saying that the same principle that applies to sincere fortune-tellers ought to apply to sincere booksellers, that is, booksellers who make and believe claims that certain supernaturally-sourced predictions of the future are genuine. > > If you agree that blanket restrictions on fortune-tellers are illegal, we’re not arguing. But it appears to me that you don’t think such blanket restrictions are okay. There are four _possible_ categories of booksellers. 1. Ones who don’t believe in the factuality of the book, and don’t try to sell it to you based on that claimed factuality. 2. Ones who don’t believe in the factuality of the book, and **do** try to sell it to you based on that claimed factuality. 3. Ones who **do** believe in the factuality of the book, and don’t try to sell it to you based on that claimed factuality. 4. Ones who **do** believe in the factuality of the book, and **do** try to sell it to you based on that claimed factuality. Only the ones in category 2 can _possibly_ be committing fraud, yes? And also, to commit fraud, they have to do more than just let you read the add copy the publisher put on the book - they have to lie to you _themselves_. I think this is so rare as to be negligible - mostly because I don’t think most booksellers do much more to sell the book than put it on the shelf and maybe put up a sign given them by the publisher to attract attention to it. And also, I am _quite_ sure that the few cases where the seller actively sells you the book based on its factuality are in the majority of cases done by people who actually believe what they’re saying, making the thus-reduced set of fraudlent sellers virtually _nonexistent_. So it’s not so much that I think that booksellers and fortuntellers aren’t equivalent - I think that they’re _completely incomparable_. Merely _mentioning_ them in this thread strikes me as an attempt to cast them as being more equivalent than they are, because frankly their real level of equivalence doesn’t merit their mention. Now, if you were targeting book _writers_, that might not be the case, but booksellers have an extra layer of separation from the work that makes them as a class\* _completely_ incomparable, in my opinion. - Feel free to point out the exception that proves the rule. I won’t be much impressed, since the only way it could relate to this discussion is if the problem is prevalent enough to merit at least _considering_ banning the lot of them. > [@jtgain](#): > > IIRC, just because you call what you are doing a religion, doesn’t make it so. What if I wanted to sell marijuana in Montgomery County based on some religious belief that I have claiming that smoking marijuana makes you closer to God? > > Isn’t there some sort of standard that is allowed which a community can say, “Yes, this is a religion, but that is not”. Well, I’ve said I have _my_ standard - of course, if I think that a religion tells you should pay tithing, it’s automatically _quite_ dubious on the face of it. However others would disagree, probably including the US government. So far as I know there is no official standard for what defines a religion in the states, other than whether you self-identify as such. > [@Anne\_Neville](#): > > Here’s a possible benefit to society from fortune-tellers that I hadn’t thought of until now. In [**ZPGZealot** ’s Ask the Fortune Teller thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=528597), I asked what she does if someone comes to her looking for psychic help in committing a crime or concealing one from the authorities. She said that happens a lot (mentioned that in particular, people who skip bail often consult fortune-tellers), and she often contacts the police in those cases. She said that psychics often help police solve crimes in this way. > > Assume the presence of fortune-tellers cuts down on unsolved crime in some measurable way. Would that change anybody’s opinion about whether fortune-telling should be legal or not? Well, as noted, the question of whether it should be legal or not is based less on fraud law and more on whether you have a personal problem with fortunetelling specifically. So, such people would probably only have their opinion changed by this if they didn’t have that big a problem with fortuntelling to start with. For myself, I’m fine with it being illegal, and I’m fine with it being legal - and I recognize that making it illegal is not mandatory or even strongly suggested by other laws. (Of course, neither is the law telling you not to run stoplights. That it’s not implied by other laws is not a reason not to make undesired behavior illegal.) So, this unsolved crime thing _might_ sway me a little - but I currently would be quite surprised to learn that foretunetelling was making that big a difference in crime overall, so at the moment it doesn’t sway me to any discernable degree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720.md?page=7)