Printable View
Is it still true that London black cabs have to carry a bale of hay to feed the horse?
My father in law, who's a bit nuts so we ignore him most of the time, asserts that there's still a law on the books here that you can be arrested for vagrancy if you don't have a piece of string in your pocket.
To get back on topic (where the hell did we get on drugs ? :)) : laws are in my opinion the fabric of society.
That is not to say that laws have to be rigid and set in stone. They can be adapted to deal with new situations but they are made by the government to serve broad consensus i.e. laws are generally a reflection of the current moral code of a society. So breaking them also means that you break the rules of society itself. Morally not acceptable to me but that doesn't mean you can't change it.
Want it changed ? Form a group of peers, run for legislation or submit your grievances with the current legislation for change of the laws, relocate or put up with them. Your individual opinion doesn't outweigh the opinion of the majority. Which in turn doesn't mean you can't persuade the majority to change their minds of course.
That happened with the stance on homosexuality. The majority that was once opposed to it gradually changed its mind and vision after being exposed to more information from the gay rights groups and decided that it is a socially acceptable form of living together. Politicians picked that up and changed the laws.
That's how change works not blatantly go around ignoring the law because it doesn't convene with you.
Wally Pip
With regards to the Netherlands,
The main point I was making was that cannabis use would not increase if it was legalised. Many people have the misconception that if you legalise drugs, you open the flood gates to huge increases in usage. As you rightly point out, it has increased but not out of line with other european countries which have a more oppressive policy. See http://www.trimbos.nl/ukfsheet/canna...tml#STATISTICS
It also refutes the argument that the use of cannabis leads on to the use of harder drugs:Quote:
The relatively free availability of cannabis in the coffee shops has not resulted in a significant difference between the rise in use in the Netherlands and that in other countries.
And it is interesting to compare the statistics of drug use between the Netherlands and America: http://www.taima.org/drugfacts/nl_usa.htmQuote:
Stepping-stone hypothesis
The assumption that cannabis users are more likely to start using hard drugs, particularly heroin, is known as the stepping-stone hypothesis. Opinions about the accuracy of this hypothesis vary. It is clear that the switch from cannabis to hard drugs cannot be explained by the pharmacological characteristics of cannabis. No physical tendency to switch from lighter to heavier drugs has been found. However, social factors do appear to play a role: the risk of hard drug use increases as an individual becomes increasingly integrated into an environment (subculture) in which hard drugs are available as well as cannabis. It is therefore important to separate the drug markets, and this forms the basis of the Netherlands’ current cannabis policy.
Harry
Your support is greatly recieved...;)Quote:
For the record, I am definitely with Simon on soft drugs. I am not sure about hard drugs, but I am finding Simon's arguments more convincing.
Wally Pip
And do you think that homosexuals stopped practicing while it was illegal and patiently waited for it to become legal? No, they carried on anyway and just did it behind closed doors.Quote:
That happened with the stance on homosexuality. The majority that was once opposed to it gradually changed its mind and vision after being exposed to more information from the gay rights groups and decided that it is a socially acceptable form of living together. Politicians picked that up and changed the laws.
The current fight against drugs is lost. Usage is increasing, crime is increasing, and deaths due to drug abuse is increasing.
So what do you do about it. Seems to me that legalisation, and not necessarily the Dutch model, HAS to be considered.
*Starts replying to Wally*
...
*Reads Simon's new reply*
...
What he said. *points at Simon's post*
Did you also read the part about "small amounts allowed" ?
I think I agree with Harry. Or maybe I think just the opposite. Better yet, I'm going next door to ask the fat lady watching Jerry Springer what my opinion should be.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
*Starts replying to Wally*
...
*Reads Simon's new reply*
...
What he said. *points at Simon's post*
And that made it legal ?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pip
And do you think that homosexuals stopped practicing while it was illegal and patiently waited for it to become legal? No, they carried on anyway and just did it behind closed doors.
of what? Just a little bit gay? ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Did you also read the part about "small amounts allowed" ?
Who are you aiming that at, Wally?
Who gives a **** whether it's legal? The question should be "is it morally justifiable?"Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
And that made it legal ?
Wally
If this was addressed to me, can you elaborate further please?Quote:
Did you also read the part about "small amounts allowed" ?
No, I'm just making the point that people tend not to comply with unjust laws. They just continue to break them until society at large see's sense.Quote:
And that made it legal ?
I read in the National Enquirer that doctors have discovered a cure for homosexuality.
To return the question : who the **** cares whether you think it is morally justifiable. Should be's don't exist, the question IS "is it legal ?" .Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Who gives a **** whether it's legal? The question should be "is it morally justifiable?"
Harry & Gaffer
I seem to have offended Arbiter. Do you think that I was out of line in what I said?
So, in your not so humble opinion, should these people have just stopped being gay?Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
To return the question : who the **** cares whether you think it is morally justifiable. Should be's don't exist, the question IS "is it legal ?" .
I shouldn't worry about it. He's a big boy, he'll get over it. Or maybe just turn up in your house in the middle of the night with a knife.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Harry & Gaffer
I seem to have offended Arbiter. Do you think that I was out of line in what I said?
But how was change brought on ? By the masses electing people who had a different view on gay rights. They got to the part that mattered, the part that made laws. Hence the fact that the law changed over time.
Crying merry hell in the streets because you don't agree with the law will yield you nothing, you infiltrate in the parts that matter. The part that makes the law. Once you get up there you can bring on the change, below it you can't.
So, in answer to your question : they had to comply with the law. If they didn't like it, which they did, they have to take up the matter to higher authorities or get into the higher authorities itself and make their case. They should not adopt a pick-and-choose attitude. Want to fight the law ? Fight it legally. Do it the way it is supposed to be done : get to the part that matters, that makes the law.
Wally
But that's exactly what changed the law for homosexuality. Protesting in the streets and open defiance of the law. This is what got through to the people what an injustice the law was.Quote:
Crying merry hell in the streets because you don't agree with the law will yield you nothing, you infiltrate in the parts that matter. The part that makes the law. Once you get up there you can bring on the change, below it you can't.
Wow, I've missed a lot of this thread. And yes, it isn't really going to go anywhere. I think the rational ones will reach the same conclusion regardless of this thread. Those who follow the conservative calling without thinking, will never see the light.
And those who simply enjoy the idea of benevolent dictatorship don't really need to participate, since their view will not change, nor gather more support.
I did see one post that almost made me laugh.
So, if the majority agrees, then regardless of the social injustice, the moral outrage, the crimes against humanity, liberty, justice, and freedom, an act can be committed legally, soundly, and to your approval.Quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
In response to a couple of your points. Homosexuality is not illegal (any more) because most people are falling into the live and let live approach. When the majority want drugs to become legal, they will be.
If the majority wants to ban homosexuality, then it is banned. If the majority wants to allow slavery, then it is allowed. If the majority wants to engage in genocide, then the great incenrators will fire up again.
Just because the majority agrees to something, doesn't mean it is right. It just means a group of people are forcing their will on the populous. If you want to live in such a place, fine.
I am not gay, black, or Jewish, so I'm not in any particular danger if we live in the Fourth Reich. But their policies, backed by the WASP majority, would still be wrong.
That's right cyberthug. If it is agreed then it is agreed by the majority. They are responsible for the moral part of it. If it is reprehensible then I suggest you get off your butt and do something about it. Go to the legislative part of your country and fight it there.
I've had it with salonrevolutionaries:
Preaching freedom from behind their keyboard and not willing to actually do something about it. If there's injustice then you file a law suit. If you want the law changed, go to the persons who make the law and convince them to change it. It's all too easy to say from your comfortable chair "You're wrong and reprehensible". Be a bit more social and do something about it instead of whining about your coveted freedom rights.
Wally, you seem to be of the opinion that the legal option is the only option. It's not. Blatant disregard for a stupid law does make a difference, whether it fits comfortably with your conformist attitude or not.
Wally
Oh, and another thing about your so called report on the Nethlands...
That's just not the case. One of the most successful achievments of the Dutch policy towards drugs is to seperate out the use of cannabis from the hard drugs. Now that users can buy their cannabis from cafe's, they no longer come into contact with dealers tryingto sell them harder drugs (the main reason for going on to harder drugs in the first place).Quote:
...an increased chance for overlapping with hard drugs...
Simon, that's what they're trying to achieve, a separation of markets. The separation itself however is not everywhere true.
Harry, that may be but it's also illegal.
You're the first to act up for freedom of the individual but also the first to complain if confronted with the less desired consequences.
If a minority thinks you should run over the elderly, should I pay attention to their personal freedom ? Why should they be favoured over a majority who regards it as murder ?
The greater good should always be favoured.
In the past that made for strange and uncomfortable laws but they have been changed over time.
If you just disregard law and justice then why have laws at all ? Then why elect a government ? Then why have a country ? Then why not let criminals go about and do what they want to do ?
Case in point :
A man who is happily married, has a daughter, has work and generally has a good life. A decent man, a provider, someone who cares, someone who does community work. Except when he touches alcohol or drugs. Then he becomes agressive, paranoid and dangerous. His inhibitions are gone due to drugs and he assaults his wife. The drugs he takes are against the law.
That is allright with you then ? You can't distinguish his anti-social behaviour as things happen inside the house and the wife doesn't talk about it, shamed and pained.
Personal liberty is all good and well as long as you can handle it.
As humans all over the world have proven time and again : they can't handle too much freedom, they need rules and regulations and stick to it. Otherwise it ends up in mayhem, violence, tears and possibly death.
But that's not as far as you care to look right ? As long as it suits you or your immediate vicinity it is perfectly allright. As long as you don't get caught you just go about your way, happily and uninhibited.
My question is who decides what laws are ok to break and aren't ok to break? If I can decide to break a law and get stoned and that's morally OK, then why can't I break a law and steal your car?
The whole point in laws like the one that says you can't steal my car is that you are infringing on my rights by depriving me of my car. If you smoke a joint, you are not depriving me of anything. Except a toke if you're not passing it around, ya selfish git.
Wally, the illegal drugs in your story don't need to be there. You can have the same effect with alcohol.
It doesn't matter what law it is.
If you break the drug law, I'm perfectly entitled to break the theft law.
If they allow you to get away with it, they should allow me to get away with it too.
That's not a problem if the law isn't enforced.Quote:
Harry, that may be but it's also illegal.
It is a direct result of drugs in general. Is prevention not in order ? How many times do you think that man can beat up his wife before you decide to act ? One time is already one time too many.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Wally, the illegal drugs in your story don't need to be there. You can have the same effect with alcohol.
Dude, I so wish I was stoned right now and the only reason I'm not is because I don't know anyone and I have really bad luck. First time I try to score some I'll end up in jail and my really bad job prospects will be even worse.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
The whole point in laws like the one that says you can't steal my car is that you are infringing on my rights by depriving me of my car. If you smoke a joint, you are not depriving me of anything. Except a toke if you're not passing it around, ya selfish git.
That being said, I don't agree with your sentiments. Drugs and especially alcohol, have proven to have serious adverse affects on society. I don't agree with Simon that the reason for the problems are because it is illegal. Alcohol is legal and it's the most dangerous and most abused drug in America. It ruins families, kills people, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand, I don't have a problem with people getting stoned as long as they don't hurt anyone. Some can do it and some can't.
But if what you're saying is that a law is ok to break when it's a victimless crime, then I tend to agree. I just don't like your example.
Right, so you think that if the police aren't enforcing a silly law that says taxis have to carry a bale of hay, then they shouldn't bother enforcing any laws?Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
It doesn't matter what law it is.
If you break the drug law, I'm perfectly entitled to break the theft law.
If they allow you to get away with it, they should allow me to get away with it too.
Do you seriously think this?
In other words : If I kill your girlfriend and you can't catch me or prosecute me, I did something legal ? At what point exactly did murder become legal ? At the point that I evaded the law, that I made sure that the law couldn't be enforced ?Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
That's not a problem if the law isn't enforced.
Wally Pip
See that link I posted. The seperation of the markets is one of the Dutch success stories when it comes to their policy on drugs.Quote:
Simon, that's what they're trying to achieve, a separation of markets. The separation itself however is not everywhere true.
You really are missing the point of what we're saying here.Quote:
If a minority thinks you should run over the elderly, should I pay attention to their personal freedom ? Why should they be favoured over a majority who regards it as murder ?
The greater good should always be favoured.
We're not saying that the rights of any given minority should be allowed if they they infringe on the rights of the majority. By the same token, the majority should not be allowed the freedom to walk over the rights of the minority.
If the majority wants to stop an activity of a minority, it needs to prove two things. Firstly, that the minority's activies are infringing on the rights of the majority. Secondly, that the problem can be remedied by prohibiting the minority. That is a fundamental principle of any true democracy.
You cannot take away the rights of individuals lightly. If you are, you'd better have a damn good reason.
Your example is highly contrived. People need to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. Stop blaming the drugs. Drugs don't inspire violent or anti-social behaviour. These tendancies must already lie within that person. OK, drugs may loosen the inhibitions that allow these tendancies to come out but they are not the root cause.Quote:
Case in point :
A man who is happily married, has a daughter, has work and generally has a good life. A decent man, a provider, someone who cares, someone who does community work. Except when he touches alcohol or drugs. Then he becomes agressive, paranoid and dangerous. His inhibitions are gone due to drugs and he assaults his wife. The drugs he takes are against the law.
Since most people can use drugs quite safely, it should be clear that there is nothing intrinsic in the drugs themselves that cause this type of behaviour.
Furthermore, I have given several reasons why legalising and regulating the use of drugs can actually reduce their dangers both to the users and society at large.
And that's what's important at the end of the day, right? Changing the situation for the better?
Hold on a minute.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
It is a direct result of drugs in general. Is prevention not in order ? How many times do you think that man can beat up his wife before you decide to act ? One time is already one time too many.
Which crime are you more concerned with here, the fact he took illegal drugs, or the fact he beat up his wife?
The one does not necessarily follow the other.
Get serious Harry. I understand what you're saying here, but everyone can quote an extreme example in their favor. I could tell you about the guy who smoked a pack a day and was drunk for the better part of each day and lived to be 115.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Right, so you think that if the police aren't enforcing a silly law that says taxis have to carry a bale of hay, then they shouldn't bother enforcing any laws?
Do you seriously think this?
Or the person who slept with thousands of partners and never got a social disease.
But the bale of hay is obviously out of date except maybe some select 3rd world countries. The drug/theft/murder issues are not.
No, because now we have a problem in that my girlfriend is dead.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
In other words : If I kill your girlfriend and you can't catch me or prosecute me, I did something legal ? At what point exactly did murder become legal ? At the point that I evaded the law, that I made sure that the law couldn't be enforced ?
It's not about legal and illegal, it's about moral and immoral.
If I smoke a joint, noone is going to die because of it. I can say that with a certainty approximately the as I can say that when I drive home from work today, I am not going to have a crash. I might do, but that doesn't mean cars should be banned.
Harry
Spot on!Quote:
Hold on a minute.
Which crime are you more concerned with here, the fact he took illegal drugs, or the fact he beat up his wife?
The one does not necessarily follow the other.
The fact is that physical violence hardly ever follows from drug use.
And the man beating up his wife is the crime. Not the drug taking (or at least it shouldn't be).
I was in Holland for 2 1/2 days and was accosted twice by people there who appeared to be stoned out of their minds. I wouldn't call it a success story for anyone but the stoners.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pip
See that link I posted. The seperation of the markets is one of the Dutch success stories when it comes to their policy on drugs.
The point is that it's not a reasonable law. What exactly that unreasonable law is doesn't matter. Just because one law goes unenforced, it doesn't mean laws in general shouldn't be enforced at all, which is what Wally seemed to be implying.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
Get serious Harry. I understand what you're saying here, but everyone can quote an extreme example in their favor. I could tell you about the guy who smoked a pack a day and was drunk for the better part of each day and lived to be 115.
Or the person who slept with thousands of partners and never got a social disease.
But the bale of hay is obviously out of date except maybe some select 3rd world countries. The drug/theft/murder issues are not.