Did that happen in Wink of an Eye ? I remember that scene (Kirk pulling his boots on) in By Any Other Name, after Kirk finishes “stimulating” Kelinda the Kelvan.
Fear of lawsuits - ever since the landmark case of Kramer v Kramer v Kramer v Kramer v Kramer.
Yes, it was in “Wink of an Eye.” In “By Any Other Name,” Kirk and Kolinda never made it out of the rec room, or wherever it was they were necking standing up.
As for the transporter, we saw on TNG that it can indeed make replicas (Riker) and restore people afflicted by maladies (Dr Pulaski). The topic was also touched on in TAS, when the crew was (IIRC) aging backward. Captain April (the first commander of the Enterprise) restored them by putting them through the transporter at their original settings. When April’s wife raised the possibility of their doing it to rejuvenate themselves, he said it would be “wrong” and they should be happy with the full lives they’d already lived.
Riker on TNG was NOT pleased to meet his duplicate either; nor was he happy to find out he’d been cloned in another episode. (He actually killed the guy in that one.) His reasoning was that one William Riker is “special”; knockoffs of William Riker are not. Other members of Starfleet apparently share the same attitude, so the transporter is not normally used for purposes of replication.
In TNG’s “Relics,” we also saw that people can be recovered from the transporter after long periods of time, so long as their patterns haven’t degraded. (Scotty was brought back to life after, what, 70 years?) And in “Day of the Dove,” Chekov wanted to leave the Klingons (Kang and company) in the transporter, in a state he called “nonexistence.”
If they can actually do these things with people, it makes me wonder why starships have huge cargo bays. Why not just leave the things they’re carrying in the transporter and replicate them when they reach their destinations?
Power demands. Remember how Voyager rationed transporter use due to power demands? A starship has a lot of power, but it’s not infinite. There is also a data storage requirement for transporters, and again, Star Trek has a lot of computing/storage capability but that’s not infinite, either. If something happens to the ship/transporter that causes it to loose power then whatever is in the transporter goes >poof<
There are probably many instances where moving cargo in shuttles and storing it is more sensible than leaving it in a transporter buffer.
Don’t start looking too close at the transporter - that way lies madness.
Theoretically, it would be more efficient to just haul cargo. If you break it down into energy, and store the pattern in the transporter, the mass/energy has to stay somewhere. So not only are you hauling the mass anyway, but now you’re hauling the computers with the patterns. Now, if you just hauled the patterns, then use local mass to recreate the transported, then that would be fine.
But then, why not just transmit the patterns? Don’t send a ship, just send a radio message. (This is a variation of the replicators, actually.)
I’ve mentioned this before, but I keep my Star Trek transporter sanity by using my fan theory that the whole “convert to energy, beam down, reconvert to matter” is a lie. That’s what they tell everyone, to make transport palatable. What is really happening is that the transporter creates a situation where the quantum probablility of the person being on the pad is equal to the probablility of him being at the destination. When he is at the destination, the process stops. The sparklin’ pattern is not the disassembly of people into atoms, but the superposition of ALL probabilities, such as alternate universe people, having two people (one meek, the other violently animalistic) at the same time, or the probability where humans are decended from octopi, or having your organs on the outside (poor Sonak, we hardly knew ye!). This theory explains almost every transport accident episode much better than “pattern buffer errors” or whatever.
In “The Enemy Within,” we also saw the transporter can make “opposites” as well as duplicates, and we all know how that turned out.
Why couldn’t they have beamed down blankets and other unpowered survival gear to the landing party? Heaters wouldn’t work, but blankets and shelters presumably would.
This question becomes mute, of course, when you consider they could have just sent a shuttlecraft down for them. Maybe the winds were too high… 
As someone once said, half of them would have been evil blankets. You don’t want that.
Yeah, but they presumably have to beam the cargo on board in the first place, and the ships spend enormous amounts of power maintaining the space in the cargo bays (and other nonessential areas as well).
If they’re beaming cargo aboard and then keeping it in storage, wouldn’t it be easier (and more economical) to just leave the patterns in the transporter buffer until they reach their destination?
Definitely not! 
Yeah, the blanets would have smallpox. Or they’d try to smother you in your sleep.
They should have transported hot rocks.
Then they could have had hot rock soup!* 
*B.C. reference.
I always wondered this. If the transporter was splitting/duplicating whatever was transported, they could send down TWICE as many blankets. Although as noted, half the blankets would be evil and trying to kill you in your sleep while the good blankets are keeping you warm and cuddly.
Remember, the good blankets would be ineffectual (threadbare). The other ones would be thick and sturdy - the better to smother you.
It was very much a product of its time, so be prepared for some eye rolling. The casual sexism for one thing.
To add one thing to my transporter theory:
The reason they tell everyone ther “matter-energy-reassemble” lie is because the truth is far more scary than [McCoy rant] “having you atoms scattered halfway across the galaxy!”. Not only can the transporter divide you into two, or make an accidental duplicate who gets left behind, or make you ten years old, etc, which no one likes to talk about but they file under “acceptable risk”, but it can also (and probably does on a much more common rate than anyone wants to admit) have your transported self be the quantum probability version of you where you don’t remember where you left your keys, or what you had for lunch, or has cancer, or did/did not sleep with your HS prom date, or likes/no longer likes puppies. A million probabilities for versions of you with small undetectable differences. Transporter designers of course, and savvy operators also, know this, but they have chosen to keep it a secret for the greater good.
Another thing about transporter/replicator technology: They had it in Kirk’s era, and apparently used it to replicate things like flintlock muskets (“A Private Little War”) and gemstones (“Catspaw”). At the same time, they still carried “enough food to feed 430 people for five years” (“Mark of Gideon”). We don’t know exactly what form it was in, but at least some of it was “synthetic” (“Charlie X”) and had to be “reconstituted” (“Arena”).
How could they transport living beings and replicate jewels and firearms but not be able to produce a decent Porterhouse steak? 
Lifelong Trekker and cinematographer chiming in here. In the making of Star Trek there is a hilarious quote from the costume designer of the series whose name I believe was Greg Theiss. Apparently after some remarkably revealing costumes the network sent an edict to the West Coast which said that the woman’s costumes could go all the way down to just above the nipple but absolutely reveal nothing below the nipple.
To which the costume designer replied "What do they think grows under there? Moss?
Regarding the diffusion used on close-up shots of women in the series: this is a technique that had nothing to do with Star Trek and nothing to do with science fiction.
It is a technique that many Directors of Photography used for decades. In more subtle ways it is still used but it is also considered a fairly sexist technique. If you want to see an example that was incredibly egregious decades after Star Trek was shot please watch the television series " Moonlighting. "
Nitpick: The designer’s name was William Ware Theiss (“Bill”).
The Theiss Theory of Titillation states that a costume is erotic depending on (a) how securely it seems to be fastened and (b) what part of the body is exposed. If it’s a part that’s normally covered (e.g., the upper thigh) the costume is very erotic.
Or that spiffy concrete stuff McCoy used to heal the Horta, which he specifically said was intended to make emergency shelters…