Originally posted by: hanoverphist
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: hanoverphist
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: hanoverphist
im also paying for people that shot someone else in self defense but got railroaded into manslaughter charges. how about we change those laws as well? what about tax evasion? im paying for those idiots too, lets legalize that too.
You're right, there's no difference whatsoever between growing a plant and shooting someone.
for thisi argument there isnt. and way to leave out the "in self defense" part, since that suits your argument better. as it is, they are both crimes. they are both against the law. if you choose to do either of them and get caught, you will face consequences. this is fact. change the damn law instead of justifying breaking a law because you decide its crap.
the relevant point in all of this is that for an "unjust" law to be changed, that unjust law must be broken, several times over.
People complaining about the ridiculousness of it, protesting those being arrested, is all part of the process.
regardless of how you define the self defense issue as being unjust or not, the fact remains that in crime A, someone is dead. in crime B, no one is dead. That is indeed a significant difference.
I don't disagree with the possibility of trumped-up charges and what-not, but the burden of proof will always lie on the accused, as it well should, when they claim self defense. You can't automatically assume that someone murdered in self defense simply because they say so.
i know i went off on a tangent about the severity of the crime in regards to the self defense thing, probably should have picked a different bs law out there as an example.
but breaking the unjust law doesnt strike me as the way to prove its unjust. an unjust law can be proven unjust with literal definition and legal means just as well, breaking the law to me just muddies up the system and resources that could be used elsewhere. it looks to me like a bunch of children refusing to stand in the lunch line because billy didnt get to eat. no amount of "im gonna do it, i dont care what you say" will make people think "hey, that law is crap, we should change it", more likely it will make them think "hey, those spoiled brats want to do drugs regardless of the law, let them stew in their own legal shit". personally, the lobbying, awareness and benefits effort should be ramped up and promoted as a positive thing a LOT more than breaking the law to change it. and im not against legalizing pot, i think it could easily be a money maker as well as decrease a bit of cartel-like crime for a while. but i still see the whiny pissheads breaking the law as little kids that dont want to listen, as well as more hurt than help in their cause.
Show an example of when that has happened, and I'll totally believe you and shut the hell up.
A shitload of people had to go to jail for the Civil Rights Act to exist.
Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for teenagers and any other fool who gets busted for toking on the curb in public, in the middle of the day, and then screams "unjust law!" Whatever, they knew the rules and should expect it. The real problem is when you see extremely ridiculous sentences being handed out for certain possession charges.
The fact is, though, that the only thing that has forced these laws to change is when people are arrested, jailed, sent to court, or even imprisoned over various possession or use charges. Many states and cities have now made minor possession a simple ticketable offense--far too many have been sent through court at great expense only to be tossed out. it's an economic issue, and an economic decision to relax these laws.
One can only reach that economic decision after money has been wasted. Of course, that will only when after the law in question has been broken; over, and over, and over again.
It comes to a point when you just have to accept that the law, as it is, does nothing beneficial for society in general. It will not change people's behavior. It would be a complete waste to try to argue against such a law if there was no history of the law failing over and over again. Really, what kind of judge or legislature would be willing to toss a law that has no history of economic and social failure?
and yes, this is exactly what you mean when you mention that breaking the law just muddies up the court. It's funny, you completely understand the central issue, you just aren't looking at it from the logical perspective.
Is it not obvious that the law fails to keep people from using drugs? All it does at this point, (where it is still enforced) is cost everyone a good deal of money.
