Marc Emery gets 5 years.

[mmntech]

Lock him up and throw away the key. Spoilt brat. Baited the cops, now he gets his just deserts. Nobody is above the law.

 

[LikeLinus]

Lock him up and throw away the key. Spoilt brat. Baited the cops, now he gets his just deserts. Nobody is above the law.

That's the thing. This asshole was toying with the DEA/FBI. Regardless how you feel about pot and it's legality, you have to be one dumb mofo to be doing what he was doing. He couldn't be happy about the freedom he has in Canada to sell and smoke freely, but he tried to mess with cross-border countries and transport/distribute illegal drugs. He got exactly what he deserved for acting like the idiot he is. This isn't someone just smoking a J at their home and not bothering anyone... Enjoy your jailtime moron.

 

[Jeeebus]

Would you say the same if there was a law against selling pencils and the story was about a person going to jail for selling pencils? The point is the the law seems SO counter to personal rights and freedoms that a blind statement like "if it's illegal it's illegal" seems to offer it's own moral statement.

Yes, why not? He's looking at this solely from a legal perspective - thus, if the sale of pencils has been illegal for 100 years, one should expect to go to jail if caught selling pencils. You can argue against it from a moral perspective, but that doesn't change the fact that you knowingly broke the law - knowing full well what the consequences would be.

It's the same as the kid that got caned in Singapore for spray painting cars. We may disagree with the level of punishment, but it's their law, and you're not allowed to break it based on your disagreement.

Do I think pot laws are fairly Draconian and due for a change? Sure. Doesn't change the fact that if you're caught selling it, you should expect the consequences.

 

[Perknose]

If its illegal, its illegal. Duh

Like a woman driving a car in Saudi Arabia!

 

[preslove]

Logical fallacy not found. He's not saying pot is WRONG, he was saying it is illegal. It IS illegal, period. There is no moral/ethical implication in that statement.

To say that our laws do not require a moral or ethical basis is disgusting and unamerican. It is a wholesale embrace of authoritarianism. Jesus Christ, what a pathetic statement.

 

[Dumac]

To say that our laws do not require a moral or ethical basis is disgusting and unamerican. It is a wholesale embrace of authoritarianism. Jesus Christ, what a pathetic statement.

Really, you think all laws have to be based on moral or ethical basis? Morals are relative - I bet my morals do not match with yours.To have laws based on morals would cause too much dispute.

What is the moral basis behind making a basement a basement, and not a cellar in building codes?

What is the moral basis behind not drinking until you are 21? It is immoral to drink at 20?

What is the moral basis behind traffic laws?

Laws are in order to govern. They are based on practicality, not morality.

Do I think having pot be illegal is immoral? No.
Do I think pot should be legal? Probably.
Does it upset me when someone gets busted for pot? No. They know the political atmosphere.

Instead of participating in illegal activities that you feel should be legal and bitching about it when you get in trouble, make a push to CHANGE THE LAW. That is what democracy, and America, is about.

 

[preslove]

Really, you think all laws have to be based on moral or ethical basis? Morals are relative - I bet my morals do not match with yours.To have laws based on morals would cause too much dispute.

What is the moral basis behind making a basement a basement, and not a cellar in building codes?

What is the moral basis behind not drinking until you are 21? It is immoral to drink at 20?

What is the moral basis behind traffic laws?

Laws are in order to govern. They are based on practicality, not morality.

Do I think having pot be illegal is immoral? No.
Do I think pot should be legal? Probably.
Does it upset me when someone gets busted for pot? No. They know the political atmosphere.

Instead of participating in illegal activities that you feel should be legal and bitching about it when you get in trouble, make a push to CHANGE THE LAW. That is what democracy, and America, is about.

You didn't mention ethics. Any law that does not have an ethical basis IS A AN UNJUST LAW.

Really, the fact that people can't understand the difference between ethics and morality, and their relationship to law is disheartening and disturbing. You. Are. An. Idiot.

 

[thraashman]

Thank god another dangerous criminal is off the streets!

Hey, I see you rolling your eyes there. What, you don't think pot is dangerous? Pot is super dangerous. There's bags of Doritos all over the country breathing a sigh of relief now that he's off the streets!

 

[rudder]

So to clarify, you mean everyone should follow the law no matter what?

What if the law is unjust?

That is what the supreme court is for. Civil rights sure... make a stand. Dealing with controlled substances... wait for the supreme court.

 

[Jeeebus]

So to clarify, you mean everyone should follow the law no matter what?

What if the law is unjust?

Lets not pretend that the guy on the street corner peddling drugs is some kind of civil rights hero who refuses to give up his seat on the bus. He's not lobbying for a change in the law or trying to draw public attention to his plight - he's trying to make money, plain and simple.

If you think drug laws are unjust, immoral, unethical - the solution is not to break them/turn a profit and then whine after the fact that you should never have been arrested in the first place.

 

[Dumac]

You didn't mention ethics. Any law that does not have an ethical basis IS A AN UNJUST LAW.

Really, the fact that people can't understand the difference between ethics and morality, and their relationship to law is disheartening and disturbing. You. Are. An. Idiot.

Way to avoid saying anything substantial to an argument.

Ethics deals with morality. You have to address morality when dealing with ethics, so I focused on morality.

What, did you think the two were independent or something?

Lets see:

Dictionary.com

eth·ics   [eth-iks] Show IPA
–plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles

Wikipedia

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and bad, noble and ignoble, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.

Webster

Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: \ˈe-thik\
Function: noun
1 plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

You can't talk about ethics without discussing morality. Y

You. Are. An. Idiot.

What is the ethical basis of making a room that is less than 4 feet under the ground a basement and more than 4 feet a cellar? There are no moral implications, and therefore no ethical basis.

 

[Phoenix86]

Logical fallacy not found. He's not saying pot is WRONG, he was saying it is illegal. It IS illegal, period. There is no moral/ethical implication in that statement.

There's also no POINT to the statement. Water is wet, and fire burns. Great. Now what?

Are we going to argue over the definition of "is"?

 

[preslove]

Way to avoid saying anything substantial to an argument.

Ethics deals with morality. You have to address morality when dealing with ethics, so I focused on morality.

What, did you think the two were independent or something?

Lets see:

Dictionary.com


Wikipedia


Webster


You can't talk about ethics without discussing morality. Y

You. Are. An. Idiot.

What is the ethical basis of making a room that is less than 4 feet under the ground a basement and more than 4 feet a cellar? There are no moral implications, and therefore no ethical basis.

Ethics is the philosophy of morality. They are distinct. Morality is tradition, while ethics is philosophy. You can be ethical and break moral codes (be a nice, monogamous boyfriend, but have premarital sex). You can also be moral but unethical (it is moral in some African communities "circumcise " young girls). Anybody with a decent education should know the difference.

Bringing up building codes in a discussion about criminal law? Stupidity.

 

[TheVrolok]

Would you say the same if there was a law against selling pencils and the story was about a person going to jail for selling pencils? The point is the the law seems SO counter to personal rights and freedoms that a blind statement like "if it's illegal it's illegal" seems to offer it's own moral statement.

Yes, I would. If it is illegal.. it is illegal.. That's a fact. It's not a statement as to whether or not it SHOULD be illegal. I'm not saying that it should always/never be illegal, just that at the present time it is. I could also simply say "a law exists against <insert whatever you want>." I agree that it's counter to personal freedoms, but it is still technically illegal. The latter is not a moral statement.

To say that our laws do not require a moral or ethical basis is disgusting and unamerican. It is a wholesale embrace of authoritarianism. Jesus Christ, what a pathetic statement.

Wow, weren't YOU the one calling out logical fallacies? Well you just committed a Hell of a fallacy. At what point did I say anything about our law not being based on morality? Of course I would say that it is. All law is based on morality/ethics.. however stating that SOMETHING IS AGAINST it is simply a statement of fact, not a statement toward or against the morality of that law. If I were to say "the light is on" I'm simply stating that it's a 1 instead of a 0, not that it's a good/bad thing that's I can see.

There's also no POINT to the statement. Water is wet, and fire burns. Great. Now what?

Are we going to argue over the definition of "is"?

I think that's my point exactly. These guys were arguing that the original "illegal is illegal" statement has point beyond what it is, I was simply agreeing with you by saying that it doesn't. Saying 1=1 doesn't imply ANYTHING aside from 1=1.