Finally, an enquiry into a politician [Ming]

Einhard

Tahuti wrote: »

The most succinct definition would be 'Harm none'.

That's a nice ideal, but how on earth would that govern, say, corporate finance? Or the planning laws? And how do you define "harm"? Is emotional damage included? Would divorce be illegal then? Would animals be included? Would meat-eating be prohibited? I'm not being facetious here, I'm curious as to how you define it, and apply it.

invinciblePRSTV

Einhard wrote: »

Fair enough. And those who think the anti-drunk driving laws are daft, can just tell the law to go fook itself. Those who practise FGM can act similarly. Those who have a penchant for fighting dogs and cocks can ignore a law they think is unjust and daft.

What a Utopia. Every citizen with the right to ignore any law they think is daft!!

Were you born with a mental retardation? i only ask because you are equating a silly antiquated law - the cultivation of a plant - with FGM, blood sports and drink driving. Even the less bright in our society can see there is quite a difference between cannabis cultivation and your extreme examples.

One more time in case you can't comprehend it:

Growing a plant in soil is not the same as dogs been bred to fight for gambling purposes, or disfiguring womens genitals.

When the laws on cannabis are eventually modernised to reflect 21st century Ireland, stupid posts like yours will thankfully still be available to laugh at, people will chortle at the nonsense repeated by moralizers like Grainne Kenny and family who should know better.

AskMyChocolate

Einhard wrote: »

Eh, yes there is. Tends of thousands of people are prosecuted for DOI every year. I've seen numerous RTE reports where rurual people, especially the elderly, fulminate against the stupidity of laws which, in their eyes, will further isolate them.



I'm not arguing that the laws are similar, or the effects of breaking them are similar. I'm asking rather, why should you be allowed to disobey a law which you think is daft and unjust, when you'd deny that perogative to those rural folk who want a few pints before driving home.



You're assuming I'm particularly pro-establishment.




Jesus Christ, such mumbo-jumbo. The reason I prefer legislative law is because it's objective and, in a democracy, can't be made up on the spot to suit one particular cause over another. What exactly is natural justice? Seriously? Who interprets it? Who decides what is natural law, and what isn't? Can the man who assaults a woman on the street claim natural law in his defence- afterall, that happens in nature all the time.




No, I'd have it overturned by the Supreme Court, or failing that, have it overturned under the Un Convention on the Rights of the Child. Or, better still, by the European Court of Human Rights.

Probably though, I'd ignore it. You know why? Because there's no comparison between legislating for the rape of children and the prohibition of dope!!!

Arguing out of both sides of your mouth chief. And you know it. I think it's why you felt the need to shout there at the end. You have been arguing all the way through this thread that it is the obligation of every citizen to obey the laws of the democratically elected government regardless of how ridiculous or unjust they may feel them to be. Now, you're invoking the principles of natural justice to defend your right to disobey a law which is patently unjust. Unworthy chief, unworthy.

Einhard

karma_ wrote: »

Cats alive, I'm not arguing that at all, I know that smoking a joint is an offence but I'll do it regardless. My argument is that it should be legalised post-bloody haste.

I'm not arguing against that. But if we allow one group of people to ignore the law because it contrasts with their convictions, how can we deny that to other people, with similarly strong convictions. I've nothing against Ming or weed users at all, but I think, in a democratic society, the law should be entirely objective.

I'm also arguing that the police should be investigating bankers and other politicians whose crimes rank higher in seriousness rather than this bullshít of investigating a man who grows a couple of plants and then smokes the leaves. Patently ridiculous it is.

Well I don't think many people would disagree with that. And, AFAIK, there are investigations ongoing into Anglo etc. But, even were no investigations launched, I don't think that's reason to ignore all other law breaking.

Tahuti

prinz wrote: »

The irony.

Could you point out where I was condescending towards you?

For future reference.

Not really. It would have to applied according to the wording of the law and argue it out in court.

The vague wording?

If it has been blatantly broken and proven in court, yes.

Thanks for answering.

You asked me a question which I answered. Then you kept asking it, I answered again, and again. Your point went from a direct question to me, to some Muslims causing riots out in Pakistan or wherever over a Danish cartoon, then back to the question to me which I had already answered, then you told me my opinion was irrelevant anyway. I'm not convinced you still know what the point you were trying to make was.

Yes.

You're aware common law requires a victim?

prinz

karma_ wrote: »

Cats alive, I'm not arguing that at all, I know that smoking a joint is an offence but I'll do it regardless. My argument is that it should be legalised post-bloody haste..

Great, so you are breaking the law in the mean time and you are fully aware of that. You may well be prosecuted meh. When the law is changed maybe we could sit down and smoke a joint together.

karma_ wrote: »

I'm also arguing that the police should be investigating bankers and other politicians whose crimes rank higher in seriousness rather than this bullshít of investigating a man who grows a couple of plants and then smokes the leaves. Patently ridiculous it is.

The gardaí are pursuing investigations along those lines.I don't want to live in a society where a blind eye is turned to some crimes and not to others depending on what the popular mobsense of the day is.

drdeadlift

Nothing will come of this,its just a slow news day.
Having this weed stuff illegal is costing us more money every year.
If you choose to smoke it go for it,take the chance of ****ing your health up its your own body.
Look at all the anti drinking ads on tv,but still no one listens or gives a ****.

Did anyone here take a stroll through temple bar on paddy day? It was like a warzone full of pist zombies.

thebigbiffo

all this comparing smoking a joint at home to FGM, drink driving and the like is making me ill.

yer man down rural ireland has to accept that people get killed drink driving, that's why the law is there and the vast majority believe it should be obeyed.

ming has the potential to harm nobody - barely even himself - by smoking a joint and growing his own, that's why this law is flaunted. there are very few other laws out there that are more worthy of breaking than this one...to argue otherwise is madness.

Einhard

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Were you born with a mental retardation? i only ask because you are equating a silly antiquated law - the cultivation of a plant - with FGM, blood sports and drink driving. Even the less bright in our society can see there is quite a difference between cannabis cultivation and your extreme examples.

I'm not equating those laws at all. Even the less bright in our society can see that. Perhaps my point is a bit too subtle for you? If so, I'd suggest that I'm not the one with comprehension issues...

prinz

Tahuti wrote: »

Could you point out where I was condescending towards you?

I'm completely ignorant of world affairs and current news remember. I need some of your enlightenment pronto.

Tahuti wrote: »

Thanks for answering.

I answered it pages back, still don't see what it has to do with my opinion that that I haven't seen anything serious enough to come under the Defamation Act blasphemy section on boards though.

Tahuti wrote: »

You're aware common law requires a victim?

What are you talking about now? Care to expand on that?

Tahuti

Einhard wrote: »

That's a nice ideal, but how on earth would that govern, say, corporate finance? Or the planning laws? And how do you define "harm"? Is emotional damage included? Would divorce be illegal then? Would animals be included? Would meat-eating be prohibited? I'm not being facetious here, I'm curious as to how you define it, and apply it.

I haven't fully applied the philosophy to most of those things.

It doesn't include having your door kicked in and thrown in a cage for growing flowers. Will that do for now?

strobe

prinz wrote: »

It is fairly simple. We have it there in black and white. If you don't like it we also have the proper ways to go about changing it. Simple.

So homosexuals should have refrained from engaging in homosexuality and just campaigned hoping the law would be changed at some point? Rosa Parks should have moved her stubborn black ass to the back of the bus, people should have avoided purchasing condoms prior to '79, Ghandi should have kept his filthy mits off that salt etc etc? (Although I think I may be using the wrong examples there considering my audience for number 1 and 3.)

It's a nice ideal Prinz. Think a law is unjust, well obey it while asking for it to be changed, the state is reasonable after all. It's nonsense of course, but it's nice all the same. Can you give me a few examples of unjust laws that were changed while no one was breaking them? They only ever are changed in part because eventually the state realises people will break them regardless. Precisely because people don't sit around saying, well I disagree with this but it is the law so I will obey it while it is in place.

(before you object to my use of the examples above, I'm not claiming they are equivalent, I am just using examples like you did throughout the thread.)

Einhard

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Arguing out of both sides of your mouth chief. And you know it. I think it's why you felt the need to shout there at the end. You have been arguing all the way through this thread that it is the obligation of every citizen to obey the laws of the democratically elected government regardless of how ridiculous or unjust they may feel them to be.

I wasn't suggesting that it's the obligation of every citizen to obey the law. I don't always obey the law! I was arguing that anyone not doing so, can't argue that they have a special privilege to ignore it.

Now, you're invoking the principles of natural justice to defend your right to disobey a law which is patently unjust. Unworthy chief, unworthy.

No, I'm arguing that that there is a patent difference between child rape, and cannabis cultivation. Seriously this is getting ridiculous. We have many safeguards in Ireland against the infrigement of human rights. We have our laws, our Constitution, our courts, the EU HUman Rights Charter, the UN we are signatory to. None of these have found that cannabis cultivation is a human right, or that the law prhobiting it is unjust. Just stating so, doesn't make it so!!

As I pointed out, plenty of people think the DOI laws are daft. Should they be allowed to break them because they hold such a conviction (no pun intended )?

Tahuti

prinz wrote: »

I'm completely ignorant of world affairs and current news remember. I need some of your enlightenment pronto.

You claimed to be unaware if a cartoon of Mohammed would offend Muslims, so I asked if you watched the news.

A fair enough question, I thought.

I answered it pages back, still don't see what it has to do with my opinion that that I haven't seen anything serious enough to come under the Defamation Act blasphemy section on boards though.

What are you talking about now? Care to expand on that?

No, I'm not going to bother.

Read back through the posts and you should be able to figure it out.

Yakult

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

'

Cannabis is not harmless. But the law against it does more damage than the substance itself. This is a fact of sheer common sense.

Tell me why, seeing as you know so much about it?

Einhard

Tahuti wrote: »

I haven't fully applied the philosophy to most of those things.

It doesn't include having your door kicked in and thrown in a cage for growing flowers. Will that do for now?

Well, not really. You stated that we should be governed by natural law. Either natural law governs everything, as legislative law does, or it doesn't cover anything. There can't be bits and pieces where the law doesn't, and cannot apply. That's why I think natural law is wonderful in the abstrat, unworkable in practise.

invinciblePRSTV

Einhard wrote: »

I'm not equating those laws at all. Even the less bright in our society can see that. Perhaps my point is a bit too subtle for you? If so, I'd suggest that I'm not the one with comprehension issues...

Yeah we get your point, but it's a silly one, which is my point. Do you agree with the current laws regarding cannabis?

Oh_Noes

Einhard wrote: »

I don't always obey the law! I was arguing that anyone not doing so, can't argue that they have a special privilege to ignore it.

As I pointed out, plenty of people think the DOI laws are daft. Should they be allowed to break them because they hold such a conviction (no pun intended )?

I don't remember seeing Ming quoted anywhere saying that he has special privilage to ignore the law. Maybe you have a source for that.

I don't see many people here arguing that he shouldn't be arrested either. The best thing that could happen for the pro-cannabis community is having a member of parliament with a very solid mandate being arrested for cultivating cannabis.

I'm not sure plenty of people think the DUI laws are daft. Maybe a very small few do, a lot less than those who would advocate cannabis decriminalisation.

RichieC

Yakult wrote: »

Tell me why, seeing as you know so much about it?

It's not harmless.. I'm very much pro weed and i smoke it regular enough, though not every day by any stretch, but I don't kid myself about it being harmful. it's just less harmless than Drink and heroine and all that crack.

Einhard

strobe wrote: »

So homosexuals should have refrained from engaging in homosexuality and just campaigned hoping the law would be changed at some point? Rosa Parks should have moved her stubborn black ass to the back of the bus, people should have avoided purchasing condoms prior to '79, Ghandi should have kept his filthy mits off that salt etc etc? (Although I think I may be using the wrong examples there considering my audience for number 1 and 3.)

I think most people would consider that Parks and gays wer exercising fundamental human rights. At the moment though, there is no consensus that cannabis should veen be legalised, let alone considered a basic human right.

It's a nice ideal Prinz. Think a law is unjust, well obey it while asking for it to be changed, the state is reasonable after all. It's nonsense of course, but it's nice all the same. Can you give me a few examples of unjust laws that were changed while no one was breaking them? They only ever are changed in part because eventually the state realises people will break them regardless. Precisely because people don't sit around saying, well I disagree with this but it is the law so I will obey it while it is in place.

As I've pointed out, there are people who object to the laws on drink-driving and FGM as strenuously, and in their eyes, with as much conviction, as those who object to our current cannabis laws. If the law is to be subjective, then surely they would have the right to ignore such laws? I'll trust that you'll understand that I'm not comparing, let alone equatin, all three.

O'Coonassa

prinz wrote: »

The gardaí are pursuing investigations along those lines.I don't want to live in a society where a blind eye is turned to some crimes and not to others depending on what the popular mobsense of the day is.

I don't want to live in a country where the cops are so retarded as to widely announce individual targets of their investigations and state what they are to be investigated for before they commence investigating.

I'd rather they just kept it hush hush and went to judge and got a search warrant and then went and investigated and then announced any success.

In fact in the case of drug crimes is the latter not what they usually do?

One Law for the people and another Law for TD's it seems. Not Mings fault of course but I hope for the sake of moving the debate forwards he doesn't take the ample opportunity he's been given to let himself off the hook.

RichieC

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I don't want to live in a country where the cops are so retarded as to widely announce individual targets of their investigations and state what they are to be investigated for before they commence investigating.

Hopefully it just means they are making a noise to shut that FF pleb up.

Tahuti

Einhard wrote: »

Well, not really. You stated that we should be governed by natural law.Either natural law governs everything, as legislative law does, or it doesn't cover anything. There can't be bits and pieces where the law doesn't, and cannot apply. That's why I think natural law is wonderful in the abstrat, unworkable in practise.

I did not state that we should be governed by natural law. I said I believe in natural/common law principles ie. where there is no victim, there is no crime.

prinz

strobe wrote: »

(before you object to my use of the examples above, I'm not claiming they are equivalent, I am just using examples like you did throughout the thread.)

Well, basically you are, because you are trying to insinuate that I would be a hyprocrit to say Rosa Parks was right in what she did, but Ming was wrong... thereby comparing racial segregation to growing cannabis. Two entirely different things, contexts, scenarios and campaigns.

Tahuti wrote: »

You claimed to be unaware if a cartoon of Mohammed would offend Muslims, so I asked if you watched the news.
A fair enough question, I thought..

I was referring to your posting of it on this website and how many Muslims might have been browsing this thread waiting to get offended. Not the first time it has been posted on the site and I am not aware that any of our fellow posters have raised the matter with the gardaí. Then again I pointed out that I wasn't Muslim myself so it doesn't mean much to me, so I was confused as to what you were trying to get me to admit.

Tahuti wrote: »

Read back through the posts and you should be able to figure it out.

No, still can't. We live in a common law jurisdiction and as far as I am aware there has been no major divergence on the interpretation of the laws on cannabis growth and use between statutory provisions and judge's implementations. By the way common law in general refers to the entire system not whatever subsection you think it does.

Einhard

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Yeah we get your point, but it's a silly one, which is my point. Do you agree with the current laws regarding cannabis?

So you understood that I wasn't equating the laws I cited, yet still accused me of doing so, and impugned mental retardation on that purely invented basis? Why would anyone do such a thing?


Seriously, either you're completely dishonest, or you're making things up as you go along. Either way, I'm not having an argument with someone who imposes scenarios on other people, and then abuses them on the basis of his own delusional misconceptions.

Tonyandthewhale

prinz wrote: »

Ah yes all those studies and scientists and psychologists. They are all part of the grand cover up, I see.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/217728.php

No potential victims whatsoever.

I haven't finished reading through the entire thread yet so I don't know if this has been dealt with yet (appologies if it has). If you actually bothered to read the link you posted you'd see that it says there's no evidence to suggest a casual link between cannabis and mental health problems. The link is simply correlational and might be down to a number of reasons, the article in question posits the idea that people with mental health problems may self-medicate with cannabis.

Tahuti

prinz wrote: »

No, still can't. We live in a common law jurisdiction and as far as I am aware there has been no major divergence on the interpretation of the laws on cannabis growth and use between statutory provisions and judge's implementations. By the way common law in general refers to the entire system not whatever subsection you think it does.

There is a difference between common law and legislative statutes.

The drug laws don't fall under common law.

thebigbiffo

Einhard wrote: »

I think most people would consider that Parks and gays wer exercising fundamental human rights. At the moment though, there is no consensus that cannabis should veen be legalised, let alone considered a basic human right.

i am arguing that my basic human rights are being enfringed. i decide i want to cultivate a naturally occouring plant, dry it and smoke it yet i'm outlawed for doing so...this to me is the moral equivilent to what Rosa Parks did.

As I've pointed out, there are people who object to the laws on drink-driving and FGM as strenuously, and in their eyes, with as much conviction, as those who object to our current cannabis laws. If the law is to be subjective, then surely they would have the right to ignore such laws? I'll trust that you'll understand that I'm not comparing, let alone equatin, all three.

these comparisons have to stop in this thread! conviction is one thing, but potential or waton harm to another human being is another. growing and smoking your own cannabis has NO VICTIM. it can barely be argued it harms the individual so it's ridiculous to keep bringing them up.

a law without a real or potential victim is unenforceable!!

strobe

Einhard wrote: »

I think most people would consider that Parks and gays wer exercising fundamental human rights. At the moment though, there is no consensus that cannabis should veen be legalised, let alone considered a basic human right.

...and the people who purchased and used illegal contraception and Ghandi with his illegal salt manufacturing? Fundamental human rights being exercised? I gave four examples of various differences for a reason.

But I'll bite. Yes, I would consider having dominion over your own body, in your own home, a basic human right.

As I've pointed out, there are people who object to the laws on drink-driving and FGM as strenuously, and in their eyes, with as much conviction, as those who object to our current cannabis laws. If the law is to be subjective, then surely they would have the right to ignore such laws? I'll trust that you'll understand that I'm not comparing, let alone equatin, all three.

If they can put forward a valid and supported argument that their drink driving and FGM are harming nobody but themselves and do not involve coercion, then yes they have the right to ignore them. They can't of course. While I accept that you are not comparing, let alone equatin, all three, can you provide a different example that meets that criteria?

Einhard

Oh_Noes wrote: »

I don't remember seeing Ming quoted anywhere saying that he has special privilage to ignore the law. Maybe you have a source for that.

I don't see many people here arguing that he shouldn't be arrested either.

Ming hasn't. Never claimed he did.

However, if you are going to argue, on this thread of all places, that people don't believe he should be allowed to break the law, then I don't think it's even worth my while responding further.

I'm not sure plenty of people think the DUI laws are daft. Maybe a very small few do, a lot less than those who would advocate cannabis decriminalisation.

Many people are convicted every year dor DUI offences. Everytime there is a lowering of the DDL, RTE does a feature on rural communities, where many people state that they think the laws are unjust. Should these people be allowed ignore a law which they genuinely believe is unjust?

Tahuti wrote: »

I did not state that we should be governed by natural law. I said I believe in natural/common law principles ie. where there is no victim, there is no crime.

Again, wonderful in theory, breaks down in practise. How does one define victim etc? Does emotional harm count? What, in the case of FGM, if the child agrees? What if the person we consider the victim, does not consider themselves to be so?

O'Coonassa

RichieC wrote: »

Hopefully it just means they are making a noise to shut that FF pleb up.

'Scuse my ignorance, I take it one of the soldiers of density was complaining but who is he?

RichieC

O'Coonassa wrote: »

'Scuse my ignorance, I take it one of the soldiers of density was complaining but who is he?

Fianna Fail councillor John Coonan

prinz

Tahuti wrote: »

I did not state that we should be governed by natural law. I said I believe in natural/common law principles ie. where there is no victim, there is no crime.

Let's say I bribe the person giving me a driving test to pass me. Who is the victim?

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

I haven't finished reading through the entire thread yet so I don't know if this has been dealt with yet (appologies if it has). If you actually bothered to read the link you posted you'd see that it says there's no evidence to suggest a casual link between cannabis and mental health problems. The link is simply correlational and might be down to a number of reasons, the article in question posits the idea that people with mental health problems may self-medicate with cannabis.

LOL, maybe you should pay more attention to the link... perhaps you should read the findings of the study rather than the pre-existing questions.. if you had you would have noticed the study found self-medicating was not a factor..

However, it is not clear whether the link between cannabis and psychosis is causal, or whether it is because people with psychosis use cannabis to self medicate their symptoms. So a team of researchers, led by Professor Jim van Os from Maastricht University in the Netherlands, set out to investigate the association between cannabis use and the incidence and persistence of psychotic symptoms over 10 years. The study took place in Germany and involved a random sample of 1,923 adolescents and young adults aged 14 to 24 years. The researchers excluded anyone who reported cannabis use or pre-existing psychotic symptoms at the start of the study so that they could examine the relation between new (incident) cannabis use and psychotic symptoms.The remaining participants were then assessed for cannabis use and psychotic symptoms at three time points over the study period (on average four years apart). Incident cannabis use almost doubled the risk of later incident psychotic symptoms, even after accounting for factors such as age, sex, socioeconomic status, use of other drugs, and other psychiatric diagnoses. Furthermore, in those with cannabis use at the start of the study, continued use of cannabis over the study period increased the risk of persistent psychotic symptoms. There was no evidence for self medication effects as psychotic symptoms did not predict later cannabis use. These results "help to clarify the temporal association between cannabis use and psychotic experiences," say the authors. "In addition, cannabis use was confirmed as an environmental risk factor impacting on the risk of persistence of psychotic experiences."

Tahuti wrote: »

There is a difference between common law and legislative statutes. The drug laws don't fall under common law.

Yes. So what was your point about again?

Agent Smith

GIVE HIM THE CHAIR!!!!

thebigbiffo

Einhard wrote: »

Ming hasn't. Never claimed he did.

However, if you are going to argue, on this thread of all places, that people don't believe he should be allowed to break the law, then I don't think it's even worth my while responding further.


Many people are convicted every year dor DUI offences. Everytime there is a lowering of the DDL, RTE does a feature on rural communities, where many people state that they think the laws are unjust. Should these people be allowed ignore a law which they genuinely believe is unjust?




Again, wonderful in theory, breaks down in practise. How does one define victim etc? Does emotional harm count? What, in the case of FGM, if the child agrees? What if the person we consider the victim, does not consider themselves to be so?

LAWS WHICH HAVE A VICTIM ARE NOT IN DISPUTE!

old johnny can complain all he likes, but the anti drink driving laws are there because it's a proven fact that drink driving has the POTENTIAL to maim or kill. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH CULTIVATING CANNABIS FOR PERSONAL USE!!

Tahuti

Einhard wrote: »

Again, wonderful in theory, breaks down in practise.

Here's an expanded definition...
You cannot...
1) Harm another human being
2) Damage someone else's property
3) Use fraud or mischief in your contracts

How does one define victim etc?

Someone who feels they've been wronged under the law. They bring the case presumably, and the courts decide on it.

Does emotional harm count?

From a break up? I'd have to say no.

What, in the case of FGM, if the child agrees?

In TahutiLand, a child wouldn't be able to make that sort of decision until adulthood.

What if the person we consider the victim, does not consider themselves to be so?

They wouldn't press charges, I guess.

strobe

prinz wrote: »

Well, basically you are, because you are trying to insinuate that I would be a hyprocrit to say Rosa Parks was right in what she did, but Ming was wrong... thereby comparing racial segregation to growing cannabis. Two entirely different things, contexts, scenarios and campaigns.

prinz wrote: »

No, I wasn't comparing smoking cannabis and shoplifting. Either catch up on the point I was making or continue down your own cul de sac of an argument.

No I wasn't comparing smoking cannabis to racial segregation. Either catch up on the point I was making or continue down your own cul de sac of an argument.

prinz

strobe wrote: »

No I wasn't comparing smoking cannabis to racial segregation. Either catch up on the point I was making or continue down your own cul de sac of an argument.

What was your point so, because as far as I can see your question has been long dealt with. Should Rosa Parks have put up with racial segregation? Of course not. Is institutionalised racism on a par with laws dealing with growing cannabis...eh no. So the comparison is irrelevant.

Do people break laws all the time, yeah. Do I think elected T.D.'s should openly and publicly admit to breaking laws and then waltz into the Dáil to act as legislator, no I don't.

Einhard

thebigbiffo wrote: »

these comparisons have to stop in this thread! conviction is one thing, but potential or waton harm to another human being is another. growing and smoking your own cannabis has NO VICTIM. it can barely be argued it harms the individual so it's ridiculous to keep bringing them up.

a law without a real or potential victim is unenforceable!!

What about the planning laws? There are many laws in place which don't have an identifiable victim. Should these be ignored also?

strobe wrote: »

...and the people who purchased and used illegal contraception and Ghandi with his illegal salt manufacturing? Fundamental human rights being exercised? I gave four examples of various differences for a reason.

I agree that not all laws are equally valid, but I'd point out that modern society has an extensive framework dedicated to protecting human rights, at the national, European, and wider international level. Indeed, one the the more regular gripes amongst many on AH, is the pervasiveness of such institutions. I don't think therefore, that one can compare the prohibition of cannabis, which accords with all those conventions, with past laws which would pervert all such conventions, and in the former instance, wasn't the product of the popular will in India.

But I'll bite. Yes, I would consider having dominion over your own body, in your own home, a basic human right.

If they can put forward a valid and supported argument that their drink driving FGM are harming nobody but themselves and do not involve coercion then yes they have the right to ignore them. They can't of course. While I accept that you not comparing, let alone equatin, all three, can you provide a different example that meets that criteria?

How about the planning laws? Building a house on land one owns hardly harms another individual. It hardly creates a specific victim. But it does cause collective harm to society. Which is why, in many instances, it is banned. Sometimes collective rights override individual rights, as in planning, and I think that's the reasoning behind the anti-drug legislation.

invinciblePRSTV

Einhard wrote: »

So you understood that I wasn't equating the laws I cited, yet still accused me of doing so, and impugned mental retardation on that purely invented basis? Why would anyone do such a thing?


Seriously, either you're completely dishonest, or you're making things up as you go along. Either way, I'm not having an argument with someone who imposes scenarios on other people, and then abuses them on the basis of his own delusional misconceptions.

I'm just asking a question, and it's a simple one, do you support or agree with laws on cannabis cultivation as they currently stand? i scanned your posts on this thread and i haven't seen you offer your opinion on it, so what is it?

Tahuti

Yes. So what was your point about again?

Seriously?

Best of luck to you.

Einhard

thebigbiffo wrote: »

LAWS WHICH HAVE A VICTIM ARE NOT IN DISPUTE!

old johnny can complain all he likes, but the anti drink driving laws are there because it's a proven fact that drink driving has the POTENTIAL to maim or kill. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH CULTIVATING CANNABIS FOR PERSONAL USE!!

But it has the potential to damage society. Look at opium in 19th century China. Entirely legal, and the right of the individual to choose whether to partake or not. But it caused massive problems in Chinese society. China wanted to prohibit its use, but the callous Brits wouldn't let them. It would seem that the Brits and yourself would have had common cause.

strobe

prinz wrote: »

What was your point so, because as far as I can see your question has been long dealt with.

Try re-reading the first post I made maybe. I'm not going to keep repeating myself for your benefit. The point was very clearly made.

RichieC

Einhard wrote: »

But it has the potential to damage society. Look at opium in 19th century China. Entirely legal, and the right of the individual to choose whether to partake or not. But it caused massive problems in Chinese society. China wanted to prohibit its use, but the callous Brits wouldn't let them. It would seem that the Brits and yourself would have had common cause.

wait.. isn't opium heroin(e)?

Einhard

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I'm just asking a question, and it's a simple one, do you support or agree with laws on cannabis cultivation as they currently stand? i scanned your posts on this thread and i haven't seen you offer your opinion on it, so what is it?

Seriously, you delibrately misrepresented my point (or you claimed you did), in order to resort to personal abuse, and you expect me to respond constructively now? LOL nice try...

thebigbiffo

Einhard wrote: »

What about the planning laws? There are many laws in place which don't have an identifiable victim. Should these be ignored also?

of course there's a victim!! he may want to build too close to his neighbour enfringing on their privacy...the local water scheme may not be able to hold the burden of another home thus lessening the quality of service to other homes in the area, it could be on a particularly scenic part of the locality or could enfringe on wildlife...should i go on???

please give me another example of a pointless law like the one against personal cannabis possesion?

Tahuti

Einhard wrote: »

But it has the potential to damage society. Look at opium in 19th century China. Entirely legal, and the right of the individual to choose whether to partake or not. But it caused massive problems in Chinese society. China wanted to prohibit its use, but the callous Brits wouldn't let them. It would seem that the Brits and yourself would have had common cause.

Do you think the laws regarding to cannabis benefit or damage society?

prinz

Tahuti wrote: »

Seriously? Best of luck to you.

You are the one who said you agreed with common law principles. Ireland is a common law jurisdiction. Which is it? Confusing yourself now.

strobe wrote: »

Try re-reading the first post I made maybe. I'm not going to keep repeating myself for your benefit. The point was very clearly made.

Fine, stage left.

thebigbiffo

Einhard wrote: »

But it has the potential to damage society. Look at opium in 19th century China. Entirely legal, and the right of the individual to choose whether to partake or not. But it caused massive problems in Chinese society. China wanted to prohibit its use, but the callous Brits wouldn't let them. It would seem that the Brits and yourself would have had common cause.

that is just laughable - goes to show you haven't a bulls notion what you are arguing about tbh.

prinz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

of course there's a victim!! he may want to build too close to his neighbour enfringing on their privacy...the local water scheme may not be able to hold the burden of another home thus lessening the quality of service to other homes in the area, it could be on a particularly scenic part of the locality or could enfringe on wildlife...should i go on???

What if it doesn't do any of those things?