'...I don't know about you, but in my singular opinion, the law is not perfect, but I still think it should be respected. It's all we have..........
..For me, the fact that something is illegal is a pretty important reason not to do it. .........
... Without law there can be no civilization. In fact it was law that brought civilization, .........., and it was the evolution of that law that drove the development of civilisation itself. ' - Muso

That is pretty close to my actual point,  Muso -- .... the evolution of ...
You phrase it as ... 'it was' the evolution of (sic) Law that....'

THIS law needs to evolve. Law is never static, even if the wheels grind slowly, but it must grind on...  That is what is so important - the Law is vital, its impact society-wide, and... in my personal opinion,  a little evolution would be a very good thing.  
Careless acceptance of unjust laws has led to many evils. I'm sure you can think of some examples all by your self.


'Prohibition is a fundamentally flawed way to approach social issues of consumption.
Two reasons.
1: It does NOT work.
2: It creates far more problems than it is presuming to solve. ' - Mozzaok


Not so commonsense once again M.

Emma wrote on Aug 10^th, 2011 at 10:52pm:


Yes I agree that 'the law' should evolve with society, not the other way 'round.

If nobody ever breaks a law (or rule), then how does a society ever get a gauge on democratic opinion and human nature?
Will the polls at election time tell the entire story?

Is it society dictating to the government, or is it the government dictating to society?
Some people seem to be very comfortable with (if not a little too supportive of) the latter.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, so they say, but is everybody entitled to make their opinion count?
The rule of government seems to be, "Yes you have a right to protest (because we are constitutionally bound), within the confines that we dictate upon your land, as long as we have the right not to listen".

The TRICK of (western in particular) governments is to ask questions which are not actually poignant to society as a whole, thereby creating a facade of a democracy.

This subject is a nice juicy one which has touched on a lot of subjects which are the crux of society itself in many ways IMO  

So far, we have seen no proof of widespread problems caused by marijuana, even though it has generally been accepted (on this thread) that marijuana use is in fact, widespread.

Those who have used it (and who have learned from it), generally have no problem with it being used by young adults.
In no way would I condone Mary Jane as  a "must do" for all young adults, but if their leaning leads them that way, then it can be a very nice thing for them and for our society as a whole IMO.

As has been said before, most people choose away from it, but some don't.
"The Beatles" chose to use it and wrote some of the best music in history.
Kennett thought that his IR reforms were a message from God over a bottle of scotch.

Mary Jane will ask you the harder questions. If you want to get high with her, then you'd better answer correctly.

'Yes I agree that 'the law' should evolve with society, not the other way 'round.

Is it society dictating to the government, or is it the government dictating to society?
Some people seem to be very comfortable with (if not a little too supportive of) the latter.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, so they say, but is everybody entitled to make their opinion count?
The rule of government seems to be, "Yes you have a right to protest (because we are constitutionally bound), within the confines that we dictate upon your land, as long as we have the right not to listen".' - Amadd

no answer for you on that Amadd....  i was talking about Law as in the Courts of Australia, and the place they ought to hold in our society.
That is basically,  ... to be separated from and not influenced by the Government in political power. Although the Justices of the High Court are appointed by the Govt, - these individuals are supposed to be selected on merit. Their tenure as High Court Judge is not limited by anything except  the inability to maintain that merit.  
Briefly - That is deep experience and knowledge on-going of the Law of the Land, and the integrity to act impartially.

So - one of the reasons why the High Court is so necessary is because the Justices are not subject to the pressures that go along with being a pollie, or a Police officer, or a contractor, for example.

At least, that is the aim, I believe, of the relevant passages in the Constitution of Australia, around the separation of powers.

I realise that women are pretty sensitive.  

I would not like it at all that this subject would detract from mantra's POV, because I suppose the ultimate right thing to do is to not take any drug at all.

Amadd wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 1:48pm:


I missed what you originally wrote Amadd. I hope it wasn't too critical.

We all like to think we're fantastic parents, although most of us aren't. We don't realise our shortcomings until our children become adults and you see them re-enacting your life and mistakes. Even if you don't realise it - they'll tell you, but we can only try and set some values for them and hope that one day when they're fully mature they'll remember them.

There are many things I could have done better in hindsight.

What I do know is that we can't tell them something is not good for them if we're not setting an example - hard as that might be at times.

Quote:
-Ammad

Tell THAT to a diabetic.
We are all brainwashed into believing drugs fall neatly into two categories, therapeutic, and illegal, but I am afraid the lines blend and merge so much that it loses any clear distinction, except for more extreme cases.

We have an abundance of therapeutic mood altering drugs, subsidised by government, and at the same time have people jailed for choosing a different mood altering drug, and some see no disparity in that inequality, but I do.

Drug use needs to be made legal, drug abuse needs to be treated as a medical issue, drug trafficking needs to end, prohibition needs to end.

The sad fact is that prohibition, and drug trafficking go hand in hand, and drug trafficking profits fund war and terrorism, and more young people are negatively effected every day.
The links need to be broken.
If anyone thinks the covert agencies have not been up to their necks in the drug trade for the last 45 years, I can tell them they are naive.
Does anyone think it coincidence that when vietnam was kicking along, the world heroin epidemic started?
Does anyone think it odd that now we see 90% of the heroin coming from afghanistan, instead of the golden triangle?
Follow the drugs back to the source, and you will find they are paying for a shipload of guns for people you would rather did not have guns.

THAT is what Prohibition enables.

no one should be surprised -  if they've paid respectful attention to many posts on this forum.

mantra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2011 at 10:22pm:


Unfortunately true.....
It's also something I've never understood...If you want to earn a (dishonest)  living by making and selling drugs, why on earth would you cut the drugs with dangerous and/or poisonous substance????

If you kill off the customers, there's no repeat business..