Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal

Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal

In article <4uoql5F18ssfkU2@mid.individual . net > Sharky <bill@microsoft . com > writes:
>Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
>> In article hj <words@beeb . net > writes:
>>> I would have a bash at changing the law, if someone could persuade me
>>> that there was a group of supporters prepared to not smoke dope so long
>>> as it was illegal. That's what I have to do. I want to smoke dope every
>>> day, but I don't smoke it at all, because I don't want the risk. I've
>>> got a family, and I don't want the knock on the door. It's not fair on them.
>>
>> Note that alcohol prohibition was reversed largely because so many people
>> ignored the law.
>>
>> And there probably are supporters prepared to not use cannabis while it is
>> illegal. They just don't get much press.
>>
>> However, one question is: should bad laws be obeyed?
>
>Better question, how do you define a bad law?
>2% disagree
>10%?
>20%
>30%
>40%
>49%?
>
>What percentage of the electoral roll agree with its use?

Bad laws are bad whether or not a majority agree with them.

For example, laws that required people to turn in Jews were bad laws.

Laws that ban certain substances simply because they are unpopular are also
bad laws.

One aspect of bad laws is that they tend to cause more harm than what they
are attempting to regulate.

-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)

"The best defense against logic is ignorance."