And then what ? Allow it and increase the possibility that an idiot under influence kills innocents because he cannot contain his habit ?
Printable View
And then what ? Allow it and increase the possibility that an idiot under influence kills innocents because he cannot contain his habit ?
I think that in some circumstances it is morally justifable to break the law. take Euthanasia for instance. If I was on deaths doors, in incredible pain, and had absolutely no chance of recovery, I would rather decide for myself to end it instead of some court that has no personal interest in the matter.
Oh! and if you get worked up about the law, do what I did:
Find an ugly policewoman, so the next bit is easy, take her out, shag her, then dump her.
I don't feel good about myself, but I bet she doesn't either:D
nope... the Jury can rule whether the law should be applicable to a person... this has been done a lot of times before... the jury responds with not guilty..... only if the jury rules that the person is gulity can the judge hand punishment
i dont know what the f*** i am talking about... i am just happy that today is a relief from work !! i am free, no work today!! yipeee
Harry
Actually, you might be wrong here...Quote:
It is not the job of the jury to decide whether what someone did is right or wrong. The jury's job is to decide whether they are guilty or innocent of the crime with which they are charged.
I was talking to an American Libertarian the other day and he has this to say:
Quote:
What is one of the fundamental cornerstones of freedom? That's right, trial by jury. Trial by jury has been around far longer than the Constitution; it was invented by the Anglo Saxons a thousand years ago.
You assume that 12 randomly chosen citizens will not be your "peers." The peers portion of their makeup is secondary, by "peer" we really mean, ordinary citizen, not a member or extension of the government.
But the absolutely critical piece is not that they are peers, it is that they are randomly selected. This is the critical thing to understand, because randomly selected juries are the crucial check against the tyranny of law, and in this country, the tyranny of the majority.
First, you have to understand one thing about juries. When you are on a jury, regardless of what the judge may tell you (we'll get to this point later), it is your duty not just to simply rule on the facts of the case, but also to rule on the very law itself. Think about that. You cannot in good conscience convict a person of violating a law that you find unjust. Period. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. If the law is ****, you must acquit.
Throughout history, this is how bad laws have been overturned. A perfect example is the runaway slave laws in free states. Prior to the Civil War, man non-slave states had Fugitive Slave Laws that required runaway slaves caught in their borders be returned to their masters in slave states, and that citizens caught sheltering them or helping them make their way to states without fugitive slave laws were criminals, and subject to prosecution, imprisonment, and fines. And many were prosecuted.
But here's the kicker: the prosecutors couldn't get convictions. Approximately 25% of the population were Abolishonists. That meant that any randomly selected jury of 12 was virtually guaranteed to have 2 or 3 abolishonists, and they would hang the jury. Because the law was bad. Eventually, the prosecutors, worried about not maintaining their high conviction rates, stopped prosecuting the "crime" of helping runaway slaves. The law effectively died. It did not even have to be repealed, though in some places they were. It just went unenforced. Acquittal by jury carries no weight of law or precedent, but eventually those shoddy laws that fail its test eventually wither away.
This is called jury nullification, and it is critical to freedom. Think about it. What this means is that the majority cannot oppress the minority, if the system works as it is intended to. It may take only 51% to pass a law binding the other 49%, but do you think that randomly selected juries of twelve people would ever be able to convict on a law that around 6 members didn't agree with? Never!
In fact, it takes a greater majority than even an 11-to-1 ratio (91% majority) for a law to survive jury nullification. You could expect each jury to have 1 opposition member in that scenario. Some will have none and will convict, but most will have at least one or more, and will hang. I typed "acquit" here at first, it's not, it's a hung jury. But the effect is the same.
So in this system, where the overwhelming majority of people agree on crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery, the perpetrators of these crimes, if the evidence supports their guilt, will always be convicted. However, perpetrators of such "crimes" as smoking a joint, which has been done by 40% of the population, would virtually never be convicted, regardless of what the law states or what evidence is presented, and the law will fail.
This is not jurors acting rashly or improperly, it is their solemn duty and responsibility. You cannot convict someone of a crime that your conscience dictates is not a criminal act. This has been the basis of trial by jury for a thousand years.
Another case in point. Prohibition. Why do you think prohibition was repealed? Was it because the politicians finally saw the light, saw the crime they had created, the death and misery they had wrought?
Nope.
It was the people. The people on the juries. With greater and greater frequency, they refused to convict on "alcohol related charges." By 1928, prosecutors could not buy a conviction. Because the population knew in their hearts that there is nothing wrong with having a beer, or a glass of wine, or a shot of whiskey, nor with selling any of these. It's really funny; you see this lack of convictions portrayed nowadays as organized criminals paying off the jury (imagine "The Untouchables"), but it was really just jury nullification of an evil and oppressive law. Eventually Congress smelled the way the wind was blowing, and finally repealed the 19th amendment in 1933.
But wait . . . if this is all true, why then are our prisons overflowing with non-violent drug offenders? Why do we have to parole serial killers and most rapists to make room for those who smoke or sell pot, when 40% of the population has done so?
Wally Pip
But it's the act of killing innocents that is wrong, not the act of taking drugs. All the drug laws do is incriminate lots of people who actually do no harm to others in an attempt to stop the small minority who actually harm others.Quote:
And then what ? Allow it and increase the possibility that an idiot under influence kills innocents because he cannot contain his habit ?
Thus the law is inherantly flawed. It makes criminals out of people who aren't actually doing anything wrong.
Hence the need for revision. Which is what they are doing now.
Wally Pip
And I attest that they wouldn't be reviewing it if people didn't continue to break the law and take drugs anyway.Quote:
Hence the need for revision. Which is what they are doing now.
It's Chester, but you have to fire from within the city walls. Still, with a bit of practice I'm sure you'll do well :DQuote:
Originally posted by GlenW
Apparently somewhere in the UK if you use a bow and arrow you are allowed to shoot welshmen. Wish I lived there.:)
well.... u changed my view.... maybe it is so sometimes.... so now i'll just take crack and drive over some old lady crossing the street...
is your point that this law should be removed?
I think that laws that infringe upon the liberty of others need to be repealed. Laws should protect people's liberty and not infringe upon it.
Atlanta Journal
Quote:
The Ten Commandments contain 297 words.
The Bill of Rights is stated in 463 words.
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contains 266 words.
A federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.
Until a person exercising his liberties is infringing on someone else's. For example, that freedom of speech guy standing on my corner with a bullhorn is beyond his rights. He needs to go somewhere that people don't have to leave their homes to get away from him.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I think that laws that infringe upon the liberty of others need to be repealed. Laws should protect people's liberty and not infringe upon it.
finally cafeenman has stepped in... whose side are u on?
The side of common sense.Quote:
Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
finally cafeenman has stepped in... whose side are u on?
Aren't we all...? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cafeenman
The side of common sense.
:confused: i had a sleepless night... what is common sense?? And guess what! no work today!!Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
The side of common sense.
how did u like my new sig??
Too busy. I never read things like that because they require too much work to wade through it. My suggestion, for what it's worth, is to pick a couple things and then have move links on those pages for people who are interested.Quote:
Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
how did u like my new sig??
Nope. Just me. :pQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Aren't we all...? :rolleyes:
Simon
Liberty starts and end with yourself. How far are you willing to go with liberties ?
eg. I walk into your house, sit in your chair, switch on the television because I think I should be able to go where I please. What will be your reaction ? Probably "Who are you, what are you doing in my house and will you please leave". What if I think it is my right to walk into your house ? Would you say "oh, allright then" ?
I mean, at some point liberty becomes a nuisance to others. You live in a society and that means giving up personal space for the sake of that society. Don't like it ? Find yourself another society.
Point is that laws are designed to keep that society from destruction and that means that the greater good is favoured over the individual. Because society is more than just you and your family. For every you who can cope with drugs there are a dozen others who can't. You don't have to take them into account but those who make the law for the entire society do. And that's why you have sometimes weird laws, unpopular laws. But that doesn't mean they're rigid. They can be adapted and changed, as happened on numerous occasions. As society (i.e. people and their views and opinions in it) changes, the law adapts to the changes. You may not like it now but maybe in 5 years when soft drugs are made legal your views on law, some laws in particular and those who make them could change drastically.
That's why you are not a lawmaker.
I do however agree that law should reflect common sense. That and that everyone subject to it should abide it.
Well said Wally. Case in point:
There was a person I worked with at my last duty station who would go to breakfast when she arrived at work and bring back more food than I eat in a day. She would then proceed to eat until lunch. At lunch, she would go off and run errands. When lunch was over, she would go get her lunch and eat until the end of the day.
In the mean time, she would be chatting on the computer (which is a felony, by the way) as well as have an hour phone converstaion once each in the morning and the afternoon. Her work was never done and her excuse was "I have trouble formulating my thoughts," she told me while she was on the phone and chatting on the computer at the same time.
Basically I told her no more eating during duty hours, no chatting and restrict her phone calls to no more than 10 minutes. My supervisor jacked me up and said that if she can't eat, nobody else can snack during the day either.
Everyone else was within reason though. They might have a piece of fruit or a bag of chips and their work was caught up. But he didn't want to deal with the possibility of "discrimination" so we had to go with one size fits all.
Wally Pip
Yes, I realise that. In a society, there has to be a balancing act between allowing people to express their freedoms and protecting others who's freedoms might be infringed.Quote:
Liberty starts and end with yourself. How far are you willing to go with liberties ?
I believe that society should endeavour for what I call "Maximum freedom". That is, you allow as much freedom to individuals as possible until that freedom begins to adversely affect other people. Then you draw the line.
I believe the drug laws go beyond protecting the freedoms of society at large. Afterall, it is not the act of taking drugs, in it's self, that adversely affects others. My drug induced behaviour might, but that is another matter.
Thus, to allow maximum freedom to all, you only curtail my freedom when I begin to harm others and not when I take drugs.
Taking drugs does not infringe upon the freedom of others. My subsequant behaviour might, and it is then that I should be stopped.
Simon,
It's incredibly hard to determine where the line is when you begin to affect someone elses freedom.
For example, I can handle my drink very well and I'm a tremendous driver. As such, I can could drink four or five pints and still drive better than some of the muppets on the road who are sober. A 2 foot midget weighing 3 stone could drink two pints and be completely unable to walk never mind drive as the alcohol affects him more.
The legal limit for drinking and driving is only one pint. Should this be changed? No. It's better to prevent some people from driving on an amount they can handle than allow only one person to drive on an amount they can't and wipe out a whole bus queue.
And that is what our government has done. Possession isn't illegal but the resulting behaviour may not be a nuisance to others. If it is then you are in violation of the law.
I think that the tough laws were designed to prevent people from falling into a drug addiction and become a social nuisance.
In that view the lawmakers took the greater good over the good of the individual and formed the law. You can handle it but, as I said, for every you who can control himself there are dozens of others that cannot. "Should we allow them to go ahead and make a mess ?" was the question asked and at the time the answer was "no".
Laws are every bit as dynamic as the society they apply to. The greater good may not be satisfactory for you but it sure is satisfactory to a whole lot more people besides you. They are not your responsability but they are the state's responsability. Thus if the state rules in favour of the greater good you simply have to accept or protest with them in order to get change done or relocate. Breaking the law is never a good idea no matter how tempting or no matter how much it will yield you personally. You may be hampering or harming a lot more people than you can imagine. F.I. if government adapt your rules and laws, you will be responsible for the possible increase of drug addicts, deaths and drug related social misery.
I hope you realise that.
Arbiter
I never said it's an easy distinction to be made. It is an ideal that society should strive towards however.Quote:
It's incredibly hard to determine where the line is when you begin to affect someone elses freedom.
I know what you're saying here.Quote:
For example, I can handle my drink very well and I'm a tremendous driver. As such, I can could drink four or five pints and still drive better than some of the muppets on the road who are sober. A 2 foot midget weighing 3 stone could drink two pints and be completely unable to walk never mind drive as the alcohol affects him more.
I think that driving whilst under the effect of mind altering chemicals (of any sort) should be a crime. That is because, you are now in a position whereby the consequences of losing control are a lot graver.
Wally Pip
And what was the effect of these tough laws? They've actually succeeded in making drugs more dangerous to both the individuals who take them and more damaging to society at large.Quote:
I think that the tough laws were designed to prevent people from falling into a drug addiction and become a social nuisance.
In that view the lawmakers took the greater good over the good of the individual and formed the law.
On top of that, they've also incriminated thousands of people. In America, there are hundreds of thousands of people over the years who have been arrested, lost their job and possesions (yes, the government has the right to take your possessions) and their lives generally wrecked all in the name of protecting society at large.
How many innocent people must be sent to prison to protect themselves from themselves?
Thank god that these laws are slowly beginning to change. Thanks to all those thousands of people who have persisted and broken these unjust laws and sacrifised their future so that these evil laws would eventually be re-examined and repealed.
My point was I feel that, in that instance, I would be morallyQuote:
Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
Well first of all, whats your point? Its for a jury to decide the
punishment and not u... if u killed that person, u should be
prosecuted and put behind bars....
justified to break the law and kill the bast.
I would not be punishing him, punishment to me implies an end
result of learning a lesson.
I would be exterminating him, because in my eyes at that
moment he had given up any and all rights to stay living, since he
was attacking my daughter.
And, of course I would expect to be tried for that action.
Now as to being put behind bars, I would hope not. When
someone breaks the law, it does not necessarilly require
incarceration. If it was automatic, then there would be no reason
for trials or juries.
The breaking of a law, which is determined by comparing the act
you commited with the letter of the law, results in a trial. {usually}
And, if the Act is not in question, then:
A trial determines if you broke the spirit of the law as deterimined
by your peers. {usually}
Simon,
You're beginning to sound a little over the top now.
I personally am against drugs. I personally don't touch them, though I don't get on a soap box if people around me do.
I have seen a couple of peoples live wrecked through drug abuse. Not immediate friends, but people I've know and even that is enough to make the realise that they're not good.
I think the laws as they stand are practically fine. They're a bit tough on stuff like weed (ok, if you want to toot on a doobie, lie on the lounge floor giggling and eat 10 mars bars then that's ok with me), but I think they're right banning the harder drugs.
The vast majority of people are essentially stupid. They can't look after themselves with regards to drink and drugs and therefore these laws are there to protect them from themselves.
Ok, you're capable of knowing your limits and realising what's right and wrong (I imagine), but most people aren't. They'll drink themselves into a stupor and cause a fight. They'll do two lines and then drive into an orphanage trying avoid a giraffe wearing Speedos.
I agree that the laws are there to protect people and sometimes may seem a little daft - but most people need these laws as they don't posses the common sense they were born with.
With you on that. I'd destroy them, as scum like that shouldn't be allowed to live.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
My point was I feel that, in that instance, I would be morally
justified to break the law and kill the bast.
The polices response though is that you shouldn't take the law into your own hands. In this day and age it's pretty much the only thing you can do as police response can be measured in hours now, rather than minutes.
Of course, should you step in, then you're a criminal. It's madness, but there we go.
Arbiter
I just happen to feel very strongly about the injustice of our drug laws.Quote:
You're beginning to sound a little over the top now.
OK. I know a few people who've wrecked their lives through alcohol. Should alcohol be banned?Quote:
I have seen a couple of peoples live wrecked through drug abuse. Not immediate friends, but people I've know and even that is enough to make the realise that they're not good.
And while we're in the business of protecting people from themselves, are we actually helping these people by putting them in prison and giving them a criminal record (thereby making them effectively unemployable)? We help people who might do damage to themselves by turning them into a criminal? Yes, that makes sense...:rolleyes:
I think that all drugs should be legalised (although each should be legalised in a different way, taking account of the different issues realting to each drug).Quote:
I think the laws as they stand are practically fine. They're a bit tough on stuff like weed (ok, if you want to toot on a doobie, lie on the lounge floor giggling and eat 10 mars bars then that's ok with me), but I think they're right banning the harder drugs.
Take Heroin for example. It is a highly addictive drug and it is hard to live a normal life while addicted to that stuff. Personally, I would never touch it. However, what is gained by criminalising those who take it? How is that helping them, exactly? Also, Heroin has become more dangerous by being illegal. In actual fact, Heroin taken in pure form and in a safe dosage if actually quite harmless (addictive qualities asside). It being illegal means that the user cannot be sure of the purity or concentration of the dosages. Most heroin related deaths are caused either by accidental overdose or by poisening from an impurity (such as battery acid or ajax etc). The illegitimacy of Heroin has pushed the price up so high that many users have to commit theft to afford to sustain a habit. If Heroin was granted on prescription, free of charge, you would both elliminate most deaths and crime related to the drug.
In my experience (for both illegal drugs and alcohol) it is a small minority that make a nuisance of themselves after indulging. Why should the majority be criminalised for the crimes a small minority?
Alcohol is as bad and worse than many illegal drugs. Whatever the laws are that pertain to other mind-altering substances should also apply to alcohol.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
OK. I know a few people who've wrecked their lives through alcohol. Should alcohol be banned?
Sorry, I'm a little late on this thread, and I haven't read all the posts, so I am probably echoing what everyone else is saying, but... I'm bored. And this is such an easy question to answer.
Is it ever morally sound to break a civil law? Yes. When my wife goes into labor, I will have no reservations about going a little faster than the posted speed limit, provided road conditions allow. I broke the law, and had good "moral" justification.
In the case of laws that are morally unsound... you can break them, or you can mount passive resistance. Depending on the results of your actions, you could be morally just in breaking the law. For example, Prohibition. Why should it be wrong to brew my own beer in my own garage for my own consumption? Or even maintain my own still so I can drink my own shine? It would be morally acceptable to break that law as long as you don't endanger anyone else in doing so, or violate your moral standards.
In an ideal world, laws would only be written to enforce/dictate the community ethics, and not the morals. The difference being... it may be immoral to you to buy or consume alcohol on the Sabbath. But it is perfectly ethical to sell it, even if no one buys it. Currently in my state there are "Blue Laws" which enforce someone else's morals on the populace. If it isn't unethical, then it shouldn't be illegal.
And if you define ethics and morality in a manner different than my example, just substitute the words you would use so we can avoid a semantic debate.
Short answer, yes, ofcourse, duh.
Cafeenman
Personally, I would do it the other way round.Quote:
Alcohol is as bad and worse than many illegal drugs. Whatever the laws are that pertain to other mind-altering substances should also apply to alcohol.
Apply the same liberal laws that we currently apply to alcohol to illegal drugs.
I didn't say which way around they should be. Just that drugs and alcohol are essentially the same - they all should be either illegal or legal.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Cafeenman
Personally, I would do it the other way round.
Apply the same liberal laws that we currently apply to alcohol to illegal drugs.
And as long as we have no problem restricting who can drive and what one has to maintain to be eligible to drive (you need to have a liscene and insurance), then I see no problem making all illegal drugs legal under the same controls.
You have to maintain insurance and obtain a liscene, or something to that effect.
Really ...
It's as Ben says : some people need laws to control themselves. You can't make exceptions for the individual. Otherwise you'd have laws for every block in the city and inequality for all people.
I think it's simply selfish to say "Yeah, you're the governmend. I elected you so you listen to me".
It's wanting the goodies without caring for the consequences.
Do what you please, damned be the consequences you may bring on.
Wrong. The community elected the government and gave the government the authority to regulate that community. Then it is only normal that they favour the greater good.
If they think that the greater good is prevention rather than cleaning up the mess afterwards is better then so be it.
Don't agree with that, file an official complaint or address your local MP.
To turn things round :
Why should I be punished for not using drugs and suffer the social nuisance from a neigbour that throws parties every evening resulting in high and drunken people getting into trouble, vomit in my front yard, leaving junk everywhere, annoy passers by, make a hell of a noise and generally misbehave at my expense ?
Why should I suffer from a drunken neighbour that gets in a fight with his wife at 3 am because he's once again to drunk to stand on his own two feet ?
What have I done to deserve that ?
In that respect I'm glad there are laws and that some things are simply not allowed.
Sometimes it pays to be social rather than thinking selfishly about your own wellfare...
Simon,
You're missing the point.
Drugs are illegal to prevent people from taking them. Once they are taking them, then law has failed them and something should be done about it. That something is going to be to imprison them - if there's no deterrent (i.e. they are just put into rehab and allowed to retain their jobs after blowing thousands in tax payers money in hospital fees) then people are just going to take drugs.
Alocohol has been around for so long that making it illegal would cause riots across the country, so it's effectively not going to happen. But just because we have one substance that can ruin lives, we should legalise others?
Flawed logic methinks.
Tresspassing, destruction of private property, litteringQuote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Why should I be punished for vomit in my front yard
litteringQuote:
leaving junk everywhere
disturbing the peaceQuote:
annoy passers by making a hell of a noise
assault, assualt and battery, assualt with a deadly weaponQuote:
in a fight
I think she has more reason to be upset.Quote:
with his wife
distrubing the peaceQuote:
at 3 am
public drunkenessQuote:
to drunk to stand on his own two feet
All of this stuff is plenty illegal. We do we need to make drinking illegal on top off all of this, and punish those who can drink responsibly?
It is a case of overkill, of unplugging the appliance because you can't be bothered to fix the switch.
I'm with Simon (from a philosophical point of view, practicly it is impossible).Quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
Alocohol has been around for so long that making it illegal would cause riots across the country, so it's effectively not going to happen. But just because we have one substance that can ruin lives, we should legalise others?
I can understand passing laws to keep the public safe from individuals (speed limit). But why pass laws to keep individuals safe from themselves?
Why make suicide illegal?