Question about the misuse of drugs act.

Sp00n · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:01

Burnsy2023 said:
Haven't they just made it illegal to sell to tourists?

Hasn't that been the rumour for years?

Burnsy2023 · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:02

citizen0100 said:
Good point, I think its healthy to question laws (maybe not break them depending on the law).

I'd always advocate challenging laws that you don't find sensible. But I think this should be done through the right channels and I don't condone breaking any laws even if you don't agree with it.

Burnsy2023 · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:03

Sp00n said:
Hasn't that been the rumour for years?

Looks like it's in progress: http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/2010-12-16-netherlands-marijuana-tourism_N.htm

Will Gill · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:05

deuse said:
Unless they find out!
So you have dual citizenship?

nope I had an L-1 visa, but I had the same 'criminal' screening process

Will Gill · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:07

Burnsy2023 said:
I'd always advocate challenging laws that you don't find sensible. But I think this should be done through the right channels and I don't condone breaking any laws even if you don't agree with it.

which was my point entirely

illegal = against the law = bad

fact

regardless of our personal opinions which have no bearing on the subsequent legality no matter how much we wish differently

Sp00n · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:08

Burnsy2023 said:
Looks like it's in progress: http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/2010-12-16-netherlands-marijuana-tourism_N.htm

Looks like a pretty good way to destroy tourism, I understand the fact that Amsterdam has a lot more to offer but you can't get away from the huge amount of students that flock there every year to get high. I sure hope they've done their research!

rypt · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:10

Von Smallhausen said:
Searching you is a right that the cops in Amsterdam don't have.

Because the Dutch support your rights unlike our police and politicians

Al Vallario · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:11

The Halk said:
But when a law exists that we disagree with, we need to voice our objection, and ask for it to be changed. That's the problem with the insane copyright laws we have (not just in the UK). The public aren't telling politicians to find a solution. Instead we have this disconnect where the laws don't match what people feel the laws should be, but the state continues to try to enforce them and does a bad job.

So an arguably illegitimate authority is able to impose laws that we perceive to be illegitimate on us, without our consent, and is able to restrict our liberty and employ force to ensure such laws are followed, but that's no problem at all because if we all grouped together we could persuade that authority to stop being so naughty and behave?

rypt · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:12

Will Gill said:
illegal = against the law = bad

fact

UK used to have a law that made sodomy, even in a heterosexual way, illegal

Did that make it bad?

The Halk · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:13

Al Vallario said:
So an arguably illegitimate authority is able to impose laws that we perceive to be illegitimate on us, without our consent, and is able to restrict our liberty and employ force to ensure such laws are followed, but that's no problem at all because if we all grouped together we could persuade that authority to stop being so naughty and behave?

That's Democracy in a nutshell yes.

Will Gill · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:14

rypt said:
UK used to have a law that made sodomy, even in a heterosexual way, illegal

Did that make it bad?

oh dear god

how hard is it to understand the point I have been harping on about

IF ITS ILLEGAL CURRENTLY ITS BAD

I don't give a rats arse about previous laws I'm discussing the laws which we currently abide by (or not as the case may be)

Burnsy2023 · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:16

Will Gill said:
oh dear god

how hard is it to understand the point I have been harping on about

IF ITS ILLEGAL CURRENTLY ITS BAD

I don't give a rats arse about previous laws I'm discussing the laws which we currently abide by (or not as the case may be)

The point is that when it was still law was it bad then?

rypt · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:16

Will Gill said:
oh dear god

how hard is it to understand the point I have been harping on about

IF ITS ILLEGAL CURRENTLY ITS BAD

I don't give a rats arse about previous laws I'm discussing the laws which we currently abide by (or not as the case may be)

So if you lived in 1800 then anal sex was bad
Yet suddenly if you lived in 1900 it was perfectly fine?

Spare me your flawed logic, something is either OK or not OK ... it does not suddenly change for most things

And I vote Al Vallario for joint-PM with Dolph

Will Gill · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:18

Burnsy2023 said:
The point is that when it was still law was it bad then?

Jesus christ you are hard work

yes by definition it was illegal

illegal made it bad because doing it was AGAINST THE LAW

I couldn't care less if everyone disagreed with it and everyone turned a blind eye and ignored it, it was still illegal

The Halk · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:18

rypt said:
So if you lived in 1800 then anal sex was bad
Yet suddenly if you lived in 1900 it was perfectly fine?

Anal sex in the Victorian era was not really accepted as "perfectly fine".

In fact it's not even accepted as perfectly fine now.

Opinions change. And something can be wrong simply because it's illegal. What's the problem with that?

Deadbeat · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:19

Will Gill said:
which was my point entirely

illegal = against the law = bad

fact

regardless of our personal opinions which have no bearing on the subsequent legality no matter how much we wish differently

Surely if that's the case, the reverse is true? 58 year old cab driver has sex with a 16 year old girl - legal = in line with the law = good? The fallacy you're falling foul of is that you think the law is a moralistic code, comprised solely of points that benefit our moral and social wellbeing, when that's simply not the case.

Will Gill · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:20

rypt said:
So if you lived in 1800 then anal sex was bad
Yet suddenly if you lived in 1900 it was perfectly fine?

Spare me your flawed logic, something is either OK or not OK ... it does not suddenly change for most things

And I vote Al Vallario for joint-PM with Dolph

you do amuse me rypt, your ability to miss the point I am making by a country mile is hysterical

1800 anal sex = illegal = bad
1900 anal sex = illegal = good (if you like that sort of thing)

how can that logic be flawed when its quite obviously 100% correct :confused:

Will Gill · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:22

Deadbeat said:
Surely if that's the case, the reverse is true? 58 year old cab driver has sex with a 16 year old girl - legal = in line with the law = good? The fallacy you're falling foul of is that you think the law is a moralistic code, comprised solely of points that benefit our moral and social wellbeing, when that's simply not the case.

morally wrong, legally right

I find myself arguing a point that is being pulled dramatically off topic and out of shape

illegal = bad

build a bridge

sanaxe1 · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:23

Will Gill said:
you do amuse me rypt, your ability to miss the point I am making by a country mile is hysterical

1800 anal sex = illegal = bad
1900 anal sex = illegal = good (if you like that sort of thing)

how can that logic be flawed when its quite obviously 100% correct

The Law is not a code of Morals it is a code of laws. Having sex then would have been illegal but not bad.

something being illegal does not automatically mean it is bad the same way that being bad does not mean to be illegal.

Xandos · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:23

My god, I think this Will Gill guy is crazy!

You're arguing a moronic point, that's what you're doing...