Homyrrh
06-06-2008, 08:55 AM
Over yonder in the reefer thread, I made this comment in response to QUENTIN's remark about marijuana penalties (too specfic to quote for this thread):
Regardless of whatever morality is or isn't inherent of the law, it's still illegal. When people do things that are illegal, there has to be a consequence. As of now, since it is still illegal, this consequence should include something beneficial to the state, i.e.--fine, community service, record, etc., as opposed to costing the state resources, i.e.--prison time, intensive rehabilitation/courses, etc. All of this would of course be dependent on the degree of the offense.
These were the ensuing responses:
Laws should only be followed when the laws are just, legitimate, fair, and reasonable. The laws reflect the stability and functionality of the state. If the laws are flawed, then it proves the inherent wrongness of the government which made these laws. There is theoretical justification to overthrow a government if and when it becomes "wrong". But the peaceful way of proving a state's wrongdoing is through civil disobedience, which many pot-smokers happily participate in doing (ie. pot-marches, public displays, etc.)
Just because a law is law does not mean it has to be followed. If that were true, Martin Luther King Jr. would never have led the Civil Rights movement to end laws that forbid Black Americans to certain priviledges their white counter-parts enjoyed.
No, because that's entirely subjective. What's legitimate and fair to one may not be to another. Eric Rudolph can bomb abortion clinics and many will think of him as a monster, but some people will think of him as a crusader for the rights of the unborn. No one person can draw a line in the sand.
The case for breaking a law is best if it doesn't fall in line with the most basic of our human rights (which humans created, but I digress). King led the fight for civil rights because of the inhumanity brought on by segregation and discrimination.
Sorry to say it, but the world could do just as well without drugs. It just wouldn't be as fun.
That's true, but if you wanted to get into the legality of the issue, smoking marijuana purely for hedonistic sake can fall into the right to Life, Liberty and Security. You have to wonder at what point the state's jurisdiction over civilians begin and end, or what the extent of society's power is that it can legitimately exercise over the individual. As mentioned by QUINTIN, where is the harm in doing something in your own house that you do purely to your own body?
"Social or state interference in individual liberty is justified only when necessary to prevent harm to others" - John Stuart Mill
Your example of blowing up an abortion clinic is alittle extreme for what I'm talking about, since the person is directly harming others for the sake of expressing his views. Yes he is taking action against something that he might consider unlawful, but it isn't being done peacefully. I said that when laws are not (possibly subjectively) just, reasonable, etc., you have two options: revolt or peacefully protest. Since revolts tend to be disastorous, peaceful protests work best in plainfully communicating with (what should be) an open-minded government. Civil Disobedience requires the protestors to accept punishment for their crime.
What is considered "legitimate" and "fair" is subjective, true. But the manner in which you conduct your objections to the law that ignores these two values is crucial to both preserving the peace and taking an enlightened stance against the issue.
It'd be great if we could extend this debate of sorts to a greater, philosophical level in this thread instead of focusing on marijuana
I subscribe to the thought that the state is where my obedience and allegiance is unfalteringly owed. I sit right, but would just as soon go to war for a leftist president or follow his (not hers! Ha, bitch!) laws, regardless of my intangible, ideological stance. It is, as mentioned, entirely too subjective to start making these grand discernments about which law is just and which isn't.
If I disagree with my tax bracket designation because I only make so much and my rich uncle banks twice as much and pays half as much, well, that sucks for me. While I personally wouldn't, I have the right to protest. I can do what I feel is neccesary for tax adjustments, like voting certain officials in, lobbying, writing to Congress, etc., but I still have to pay them without question.
Not observing and disobeying the established judicial hierarchy is, at the grandst and msot extreme of scales, the basis of anarchy. While pure facism is loathesome, a legitimate Constitution and Congress will forever prevent this totalitarianist state.
The virtue of making peace with the establishment, and realizing the importance of the state over myself, is one of the most essential in the realm of politics. JFK's old quote from his inaugural address interestingly said it best.
Regardless of whatever morality is or isn't inherent of the law, it's still illegal. When people do things that are illegal, there has to be a consequence. As of now, since it is still illegal, this consequence should include something beneficial to the state, i.e.--fine, community service, record, etc., as opposed to costing the state resources, i.e.--prison time, intensive rehabilitation/courses, etc. All of this would of course be dependent on the degree of the offense.
These were the ensuing responses:
Laws should only be followed when the laws are just, legitimate, fair, and reasonable. The laws reflect the stability and functionality of the state. If the laws are flawed, then it proves the inherent wrongness of the government which made these laws. There is theoretical justification to overthrow a government if and when it becomes "wrong". But the peaceful way of proving a state's wrongdoing is through civil disobedience, which many pot-smokers happily participate in doing (ie. pot-marches, public displays, etc.)
Just because a law is law does not mean it has to be followed. If that were true, Martin Luther King Jr. would never have led the Civil Rights movement to end laws that forbid Black Americans to certain priviledges their white counter-parts enjoyed.
No, because that's entirely subjective. What's legitimate and fair to one may not be to another. Eric Rudolph can bomb abortion clinics and many will think of him as a monster, but some people will think of him as a crusader for the rights of the unborn. No one person can draw a line in the sand.
The case for breaking a law is best if it doesn't fall in line with the most basic of our human rights (which humans created, but I digress). King led the fight for civil rights because of the inhumanity brought on by segregation and discrimination.
Sorry to say it, but the world could do just as well without drugs. It just wouldn't be as fun.
That's true, but if you wanted to get into the legality of the issue, smoking marijuana purely for hedonistic sake can fall into the right to Life, Liberty and Security. You have to wonder at what point the state's jurisdiction over civilians begin and end, or what the extent of society's power is that it can legitimately exercise over the individual. As mentioned by QUINTIN, where is the harm in doing something in your own house that you do purely to your own body?
"Social or state interference in individual liberty is justified only when necessary to prevent harm to others" - John Stuart Mill
Your example of blowing up an abortion clinic is alittle extreme for what I'm talking about, since the person is directly harming others for the sake of expressing his views. Yes he is taking action against something that he might consider unlawful, but it isn't being done peacefully. I said that when laws are not (possibly subjectively) just, reasonable, etc., you have two options: revolt or peacefully protest. Since revolts tend to be disastorous, peaceful protests work best in plainfully communicating with (what should be) an open-minded government. Civil Disobedience requires the protestors to accept punishment for their crime.
What is considered "legitimate" and "fair" is subjective, true. But the manner in which you conduct your objections to the law that ignores these two values is crucial to both preserving the peace and taking an enlightened stance against the issue.
It'd be great if we could extend this debate of sorts to a greater, philosophical level in this thread instead of focusing on marijuana
I subscribe to the thought that the state is where my obedience and allegiance is unfalteringly owed. I sit right, but would just as soon go to war for a leftist president or follow his (not hers! Ha, bitch!) laws, regardless of my intangible, ideological stance. It is, as mentioned, entirely too subjective to start making these grand discernments about which law is just and which isn't.
If I disagree with my tax bracket designation because I only make so much and my rich uncle banks twice as much and pays half as much, well, that sucks for me. While I personally wouldn't, I have the right to protest. I can do what I feel is neccesary for tax adjustments, like voting certain officials in, lobbying, writing to Congress, etc., but I still have to pay them without question.
Not observing and disobeying the established judicial hierarchy is, at the grandst and msot extreme of scales, the basis of anarchy. While pure facism is loathesome, a legitimate Constitution and Congress will forever prevent this totalitarianist state.
The virtue of making peace with the establishment, and realizing the importance of the state over myself, is one of the most essential in the realm of politics. JFK's old quote from his inaugural address interestingly said it best.