(June 11, 2015 at 6:28 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:To be fair, this is only true if (1) You accept human rights exist and find a way to prove there is an objective sect of values (2) If you follow a liberal/libertarian principle of self-determination because there are people like me who see some behaviours as so self-destructive that society should put an end to it - I don't think this is the case for weed though(June 11, 2015 at 6:16 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Generally speaking, I think people should not be forgiven for activities that were illegal at the time they were committed even if they become legal later. This is because it is important that people obey the law.
But I can think of a number of exceptions mostly having to do with laws that were abolished because they violated human rights, the Constitution, or both. So for example, a couple jailed for entering into an interracial sexual relationship at a time when that was illegal should not only be freed but also to have the record expunged. Similarly, anyone convicted of a pre Roe v. Wade abortion in the first trimester should also be freed and the record should be expunged.
I don't think that prohibiting the use of marijuana is a human rights violation. And I don't think that states that have made it legal have done so for that reason. So I don't think those convicted of sale or possession should automatically be released from prison. However, considering large number of people who are incarcerated for this reason who are not otherwise criminals, and the disproportionately large sentences given for possession, I would applaud a law releasing people whose only crime was possession of marijuana and/or selling small amounts of it.
I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the part I bolded. How is limiting what people can do with their own bodies anything but a human rights violation?
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you