Teen facing 2 years for photo with statue

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 19:28:47 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 16, 2014 19:13:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Just laws (not "only laws", but, laws that are "by their nature, defenders of Justice") don't legislate morality. They legislate the interactions of people and protect people. I posted a diagram on another thread somewhere, and it fits here too... so I'll re-post it:

You might not agree with the morality that guides certain laws, but that doesn't mean there isn't a morality at work. Actually the fact that you don't agree with it shows what I mean by morality being legislated.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 19:28:47 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 16, 2014 19:13:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Just laws (not "only laws", but, laws that are "by their nature, defenders of Justice") don't legislate morality. They legislate the interactions of people and protect people. I posted a diagram on another thread somewhere, and it fits here too... so I'll re-post it:

You might not agree with the morality that guides certain laws, but that doesn't mean there is a morality at work. Actually the fact that you don't agree with it shows what I mean by morality being legislated.

It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a simple fact that many laws have nothing to do with morality.

[Deleted]

Name one.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 19:33:48 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Name one.

Speeding. Laws related to speed.

(not the most important... just the first one that came to mind.)

[Deleted]

Just because you assign morality to something doesn't mean that is the reason the law exists. Murder isn't illegal because it is bad, but because it deprives someone to their right yo life.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 19:46:35 GMT -5 oped said:

Just because you assign morality to something doesn't mean that is the reason the law exists. Murder isn't illegal because it is bad, but because it deprives someone to their right yo life.

...and "we" have decided that depriving someone of their right to life is bad. Mostly. Or sometimes. There are actually laws that say it's okay sometimes under certain conditions. How can you not see that as a very clear moral judgement?

@richardintn we have made it illegal to speed because it endangers life, and that is bad. You can tell that is why because people trying to change that law pull out statistics to prove it isn't dangerous.

I really feel like that Captain Obvious guy from the hotel commercials. You guys are messing with me aren't you?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2014 20:03:40 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 16, 2014 19:46:35 GMT -5 oped said:

Just because you assign morality to something doesn't mean that is the reason the law exists. Murder isn't illegal because it is bad, but because it deprives someone to their right yo life.

...and "we" have decided that depriving someone of their right to life is bad. Mostly. Or sometimes. There are actually laws that say it's okay sometimes under certain conditions. How can you not see that as a very clear moral judgement?

@richardintn we have made it illegal to speed because it endangers life, and that is bad.

so does driving.  it kills more kids than all illegal drugs combined.  so obviously, endangerment is not the standard.  what is?

You can tell that is why because people trying to change that law pull out statistics to prove it isn't dangerous.

I really feel like that Captain Obvious guy from the hotel commercials. You guys are messing with me aren't you?

no, i don't think so.  i think what we are saying is that no matter what we say, YOU will see it as based in morals.  it is a pointless argument, which is why i am not going to bother with it.  just realize that, as absurd and inconceivable it seems to you that there is law NOT based on morality, others are convinced that it is a fact.  perspective is a wonderful thing.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 20:03:40 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 16, 2014 19:46:35 GMT -5 oped said:

Just because you assign morality to something doesn't mean that is the reason the law exists. Murder isn't illegal because it is bad, but because it deprives someone to their right yo life.

...and "we" have decided that depriving someone of their right to life is bad. Mostly. Or sometimes. There are actually laws that say it's okay sometimes under certain conditions. How can you not see that as a very clear moral judgement?

@richardintn we have made it illegal to speed because it endangers life, and that is bad. You can tell that is why because people trying to change that law pull out statistics to prove it isn't dangerous.

I really feel like that Captain Obvious guy from the hotel commercials. You guys are messing with me aren't you?

Going 60 in a 55 zone doesn't endanger lives... driving recklessly does (that's why I didn't mention laws against that). And those statistics prove the law is NOT about morality.

[djAdvocate]

i have heard that morals are impossible without religion.  that is a separate, but similar prima face argument.  the fact that atheists have morals is proof positive that this is false.  if you say that to a religious person, he will still claim that morals come from God because God is responsible for everything good.  there is just no arguing with people who are unwilling to question the basic epistemology of their positions.

[Deleted]

djAdvocate I'm not talking about morality like it is one absolute. Everyone lives by a morality of some sort, it guides their decisions.

@richardintn then why did they make a law about speeding? There had to be some reason behind it and whatever that reason is, is deemed to be the good and desirable thing. A lot of times I don't agree that it is the good and desirable thing. But I have to live by it or suffer consequences. Hence my morality has been legislated.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 20:27:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is just no arguing with people who are unwilling to question the basic epistemology of their positions.

Very true.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 20:35:33 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

djAdvocate I'm not talking about morality like it is one absolute. Everyone lives by a morality of some sort, it guides their decisions.

@richardintn then why did they make a law about speeding? There had to be some reason behind it and whatever that reason is, is deemed to be the good and desirable thing. A lot of times I don't agree that it is the good and desirable thing. But I have to live by it or suffer consequences. Hence my morality has been legislated.

To be honest, I don't know WHY they made a speed law. I never said I did know. I only know it has absolutely ZIP to do with morality.

BUT... if you don't like that one... How about laws against the use (by adults) of marijuana. That's go zip to do with morality. There's nothing immoral about getting stoned.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2014 21:00:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 16, 2014 20:35:33 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

djAdvocate I'm not talking about morality like it is one absolute. Everyone lives by a morality of some sort, it guides their decisions.

@richardintn then why did they make a law about speeding? There had to be some reason behind it and whatever that reason is, is deemed to be the good and desirable thing. A lot of times I don't agree that it is the good and desirable thing. But I have to live by it or suffer consequences. Hence my morality has been legislated.

To be honest, I don't know WHY they made a speed law. I never said I did know. I only know it has absolutely ZIP to do with morality.

i have a pretty good idea.  it is to make safety more enforceable (the nice goal) and to generate revenue for the police department (the not so nice goal).  my opinion.  if you are going over the speed limit, the cop can try to get you for half a dozen things.  if he can't do it, he can either give you a warning, and be a "nice guy", or he can write you up for speeding, and get $300 for the department.

does my bitterness show?

[Angel!]

Sept 16, 2014 20:35:33 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

@richardintn then why did they make a law about speeding? There had to be some reason behind it and whatever that reason is, is deemed to be the good and desirable thing. A lot of times I don't agree that it is the good and desirable thing. But I have to live by it or suffer consequences. Hence my morality has been legislated.

I don't know where speed limits started.  I do know a lot of times they are set at some limit because there is an angry public screaming about how fast people drive through some area & it becomes political.  And it is often political

As a traffic engineer I can tell you a lot of speed limits are set very poorly (because of the politics ).  Also it isn't speed that is dangerous.  There are two dangerous factors that involve speed: 1) High speed differential - One car driving far faster or far slower than traffic is far more dangerous than all cars driving fast. 2) Driving significantly faster than the design speed - Roads curves & intersections are designed for certain speeds & speed limits are generally set 5 mph lower, but you can easily drive 10 mph (or more) or more higher unless you are in something with poor traction or top heavy. 

So I don't see any morality in giving a ticket for 5 mph over unless there was other dangerous activity going on.  Especially if it is in a area where the speed limit was set artificially low due to political reasons vs the actual need for a lower speed limit. 

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 21:00:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 16, 2014 20:35:33 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

djAdvocate I'm not talking about morality like it is one absolute. Everyone lives by a morality of some sort, it guides their decisions.

@richardintn then why did they make a law about speeding? There had to be some reason behind it and whatever that reason is, is deemed to be the good and desirable thing. A lot of times I don't agree that it is the good and desirable thing. But I have to live by it or suffer consequences. Hence my morality has been legislated.

To be honest, I don't know WHY they made a speed law. I never said I did know. I only know it has absolutely ZIP to do with morality.

BUT... if you don't like that one... How about laws against the use (by adults) of marijuana. That's go zip to do with morality. There's nothing immoral about getting stoned.

Ahhh, you've made up your mind so don't ask for facts to back it up. Okay.

I didn't say I think the laws are moral. I said they are legislated morality. You don't think it is immoral to smoke marijuana. Unfortunately for you some puritan lady from the early 20th century convinced legislators that it is immoral so it became law. Hence the morality has been legislated.

[steff]

Sept 17, 2014 14:15:49 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 16, 2014 21:00:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

To be honest, I don't know WHY they made a speed law. I never said I did know. I only know it has absolutely ZIP to do with morality.

BUT... if you don't like that one... How about laws against the use (by adults) of marijuana. That's go zip to do with morality. There's nothing immoral about getting stoned.

Ahhh, you've made up your mind so don't ask for facts to back it up. Okay.

I didn't say I think the laws are moral. I said they are legislated morality. You don't think it is immoral to smoke marijuana. Unfortunately for you some puritan lady from the early 20th century convinced legislators that it is immoral so it became law. Hence the morality has been legislated.

maybe some facts to back it up?


America’s first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law “ordering” all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other “must grow” laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp — try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements – rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp “plantations” (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.

However, one of the first state laws outlawing marijuana may have been influenced, not just by Mexicans using the drug, but, oddly enough, because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church’s reaction to this may have contributed to the state’s marijuana law. (Note: the source for this speculation is from articles by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law at USC Law School in a paper for the Virginia Law Review, and a speech to the California Judges Association (sourced below). Mormon blogger Ardis Parshall disputes this.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

n the eastern states, the “problem” was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong’s “Muggles”, Cab Calloway’s “That Funny Reefer Man”, Fats Waller’s “Viper’s Drag”).

Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: “Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

The federal approach is important. It was considered at the time that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.

At that time in our country’s history, the judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional regulation of “local” affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then, both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).

Since drugs could not be outlawed at the federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the restriction. In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates and cocaine were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government, which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn’t follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.

In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established — the Federal Bureau of Narcotics — and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This, if anything, marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana.


www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/


there is MUCH more info, including the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and the things that Harry J Anslinger did to use racism and yellow journalism to create/influence the laws against marijuana. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2014 15:31:56 GMT -5 steff said:

Sept 17, 2014 14:15:49 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Ahhh, you've made up your mind so don't ask for facts to back it up. Okay.

I didn't say I think the laws are moral. I said they are legislated morality. You don't think it is immoral to smoke marijuana. Unfortunately for you some puritan lady from the early 20th century convinced legislators that it is immoral so it became law. Hence the morality has been legislated.

maybe some facts to back it up?


America’s first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law “ordering” all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other “must grow” laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp — try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements – rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp “plantations” (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.

However, one of the first state laws outlawing marijuana may have been influenced, not just by Mexicans using the drug, but, oddly enough, because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church’s reaction to this may have contributed to the state’s marijuana law. (Note: the source for this speculation is from articles by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law at USC Law School in a paper for the Virginia Law Review, and a speech to the California Judges Association (sourced below). Mormon blogger Ardis Parshall disputes this.)ding the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and the things that Harry J Anslinger did to use racism and yellow journalism to create/influence the laws against marijuana. 

here is what i think of laws against psychotropics. 

since psychotropics are "contemplative drugs", they tend to make people think about things.  things like injustice.  things like poverty.  things like issues of race and class.  they also lead to QUESTIONING.  my opinion is that these drugs are illegal because they make people UNRULY- not in the LEGAL sense (as it, more likely to cause mayhem and damage), but in the GOVERNING sense.  in other words, i think these laws are about control.  control of minds.

does that make me a conspiracist?  maybe.  but if i am right, these laws have NOTHING to do with morality.  they have to do with control- specifically a type that Jefferson and most of the founders would be dead set against.

[djAdvocate]

edit: i think the crux of steff's article, that drug laws were created on the basis of racism, is very interesting indeed.

[steff]

those were only small pieces of the main article I pulled out.   Read the entire link dj.  It's very interesting to see the path marijuana has gone on. 


It gives "what a long strange trip it's been" (all hail Jerry Garcia) a whole new meaning/understanding. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2014 18:02:55 GMT -5 steff said:

those were only small pieces of the main article I pulled out.   Read the entire link dj.  It's very interesting to see the path marijuana has gone on. 


It gives "what a long strange trip it's been" (all hail Jerry Garcia) a whole new meaning/understanding. 

i plan on it. 

[Deleted]

Sept 17, 2014 14:15:49 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 16, 2014 21:00:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

To be honest, I don't know WHY they made a speed law. I never said I did know. I only know it has absolutely ZIP to do with morality.

BUT... if you don't like that one... How about laws against the use (by adults) of marijuana. That's go zip to do with morality. There's nothing immoral about getting stoned.

Ahhh, you've made up your mind so don't ask for facts to back it up. Okay.

I didn't say I think the laws are moral. I said they are legislated morality. You don't think it is immoral to smoke marijuana. Unfortunately for you some puritan lady from the early 20th century convinced legislators that it is immoral so it became law. Hence the morality has been legislated.

LOL... it has nothing to do with "Ahhh, you've made up your mind so don't ask for facts to back it up". It has to do with I could find ZIP about morality when it comes to speed laws. I found numerous OTHER reasons... but some of them conflicted with each other... so I just chose to say "I don't know". I do know that Morality has nothing to do with speed laws. I can say that for an absolute certainty.

As far as my marijuana belief... It's not a question of "what I think". It's a fact. There's nothing immoral about a personal choice that doesn't affect others. I'm not a "pot head". I actually don't personally use marijuana. But that's a personal choice that I personally made for my personal self. I have no issue with someone else that makes a different choice... and neither should anyone else (at least in a "morality" sense).

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2014 20:41:48 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Forget speed, we have a law that requires us to drive on the right side of a road instead of the left. No morality involved, it was an administrative decision that had to be made, so they picked one and went with it. Plenty of laws are administrative in nature and have nothing to do with morality. Why are taxes due on April 15th, instead of in June? Who knows, but it's as good a day as any.

i have come to the conclusion that laws are passed on the basis of "isms".  moralism is only one of them.  paternalism is another one.  sexism.  racism.  classicism.  you name it.

[Deleted]

Sept 17, 2014 20:41:48 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Forget speed, we have a law that requires us to drive on the right side of a road instead of the left. No morality involved, it was an administrative decision that had to be made, so they picked one and went with it. Plenty of laws are administrative in nature and have nothing to do with morality. Why are taxes due on April 15th, instead of in June? Who knows, but it's as good a day as any.

Okay, that I will give you. There are administrative laws that are just about keeping things organized. I will exclude them from the legislated morality generalization.

I love steff's link, but doesn't that just prove my point more and more. They thought it was bad for black people to be bold towards white people so they outlawed the drug they thought induced the behaviour. You might not agree that it was moral, but it was to them.

[Deleted]

Sept 17, 2014 20:03:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 17, 2014 14:15:49 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Ahhh, you've made up your mind so don't ask for facts to back it up. Okay.

I didn't say I think the laws are moral. I said they are legislated morality. You don't think it is immoral to smoke marijuana. Unfortunately for you some puritan lady from the early 20th century convinced legislators that it is immoral so it became law. Hence the morality has been legislated.

LOL... it has nothing to do with "Ahhh, you've made up your mind so don't ask for facts to back it up". It has to do with I could find ZIP about morality when it comes to speed laws. I found numerous OTHER reasons... but some of them conflicted with each other... so I just chose to say "I don't know". I do know that Morality has nothing to do with speed laws. I can say that for an absolute certainty.

As far as my marijuana belief... It's not a question of "what I think". It's a fact. There's nothing immoral about a personal choice that doesn't affect others. I'm not a "pot head". I actually don't personally use marijuana. But that's a personal choice that I personally made for my personal self. I have no issue with someone else that makes a different choice... and neither should anyone else (at least in a "morality" sense).

I feel like a broken record. YOU think there is nothing immoral about it and that it doesn't affect anyone else. There are others that disagree with you and they got laws passed about it. They will argue that it is highly immoral. They got their morality legislated and imposed on you.

[steff]

I love steff's link, but doesn't that just prove my point more and more. They thought it was bad for black people to be bold towards white people so they outlawed the drug they thought induced the behaviour. You might not agree that it was moral, but it was to them.

Racism isn't morality. 

[djAdvocate]

from steff's article, these are quotes from the first chief of the narcotics bureau.  i would describe these views as "somewhat persistent":

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I feel like a broken record. YOU think there is nothing immoral about it and that it doesn't affect anyone else. There are others that disagree with you and they got laws passed about it. They will argue that it is highly immoral. They got their morality legislated and imposed on you

.


Weed is not "immoral" - and probably FAR less dangerous than alcohol - which IS legal.

How many fatal vehicular accidents have occurred by someone who smoked a joint vs someone who tipped back a few and then got behind the wheel?

Or how many people who have a few tokes get liver disease and other health or psychological issues?

In the high majority of domestic violence cases, alcohol or other "hard" substances are involved - not marijuana.

[Deleted]

Sept 17, 2014 21:11:26 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 17, 2014 20:03:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

LOL... it has nothing to do with "Ahhh, you've made up your mind so don't ask for facts to back it up". It has to do with I could find ZIP about morality when it comes to speed laws. I found numerous OTHER reasons... but some of them conflicted with each other... so I just chose to say "I don't know". I do know that Morality has nothing to do with speed laws. I can say that for an absolute certainty.

As far as my marijuana belief... It's not a question of "what I think". It's a fact. There's nothing immoral about a personal choice that doesn't affect others. I'm not a "pot head". I actually don't personally use marijuana. But that's a personal choice that I personally made for my personal self. I have no issue with someone else that makes a different choice... and neither should anyone else (at least in a "morality" sense).

I feel like a broken record. YOU think there is nothing immoral about it and that it doesn't affect anyone else. There are others that disagree with you and they got laws passed about it. They will argue that it is highly immoral. They got their morality legislated and imposed on you.

You aren't the only one that feels that (bolded) way.

It's not about morality because YOU say it is. Others can think it's about morality all they want. They can also think the sun "rises" in the west... them thinking it doesn't make either of them true.

Morality is about the positive or negative impact on others and/or society in general.

[steff]

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

More than once it was the only thing to keep me from killing one very annoying little brother. 

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

Someone's been watching "Reefer Madness"

What an utterly ridiculous misconception this movie was back in the day.




.