I've described what is a crime, not what should be a crime.

> In any case, we're on a slippery slope conditioning the masses for control.

Maybe, but essentially regulatory, preventive offenses like drunk driving aren't new, so its hard to describe a "slippery slope" 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?

> I wonder what's next, jail time for prohibited speech and later prohibited thoughts?

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't see those things as likely to be what'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.)

> Am I really entitled to my opinion, though?

Yes.

> It sounds like I probably shouldn't be entitled to an opinion due to my dangerous ideas.

"Sounds like" based on...what actual thing that's been argued in this thread?

> (BTW, you had a run-on sentence there. You probably want to break that up so that others don't nitpick you parenthetically [...])

I don't mind parenthetical corrections, but I think if you go and diagram that sentence out you'll realize that its just long, not a run-on.