(June 11, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Dystopia Wrote:Jenny Wrote:And changing the law may not be because we find an activity now acceptable, but rather an acknowledgment that prohibiting the activity actually causes the practice of the activity to rise, or creates so many other negative consequences that we'd rather put up with the activity than suffer the side affects of making illegal.I don't see any circumstance when this would apply - If something is wrong/harmful/immoral to the extent it is illegal then I don't see reasons to legalise the behaviour - The fact we can drop crime rates with weed legalisation is a nice bonus, but the main argument is that drugs are a health concern/individual choice and not a criminal activity (consumption at least)
Not necessarily. I know a whole number of people who disapprove of smoking marijuana, but voted to have it made legal in Oregon because legal smoking is safer and less crime ridden than illegal smoking. But if asked they will still tell you using it is immoral. --- I disagree, but that's not the point.
(June 11, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Dystopia Wrote:Because if doing something is a human right, than facilitating that is to encouraged. For example, if abortion is a human right (and I think it is) then the right is of no value unless someone is willing to perform an abortion. So I think those who performed them before they were legal should not be held accountable after abortion is acknowledged to be a human right.Jenny Wrote:I'm not sure the results of that line of reasoning would always be for the best. After all, you can't comply with regulations until they are passed.Why?
Similarly, white people who violated Jim Crow laws to serve blacks should not be held accountable.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
