Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | ... | 45
17957 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5171

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1597079 22-Jul-2016 23:12
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

So you are saying it is okay to break some laws, as long as they are about IMPORTANT stuff, but not others that prohibit what you regard as frivolous activities? That certainly clarifies things.

 

 

 

 

I am literally lost for words. I really can't fathom your responses sometimes. 




Glurp
7987 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3714

Subscriber

  Reply # 1597124 23-Jul-2016 08:22
3 people support this post
Send private message

That may well be, but it is hardly an answer. I am arguing a principle, which is that bad laws get passed and thoughtful people should make their own decisions about respecting them. You appear to be arguing that the law is the law and it must always be obeyed regardless. I dispute that.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


17957 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5171

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1597126 23-Jul-2016 08:29
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

That may well be, but it is hardly an answer. I am arguing a principle, which is that bad laws get passed and thoughtful people should make their own decisions about respecting them. You appear to be arguing that the law is the law and it must always be obeyed regardless. I dispute that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*you* are not entitled to choose which laws you obey and which you don't. You can protest, you can make your voice heard within the confines of the law, you can let the people you choose not to vote for, that you aren't voting for them because they don't support your view, or you can move to a country that

 

has laws you can live with. If you break the law, then it's likely you will be punished. That is fact. Everything else is background noise. 

 

Bottom line is, that elections are so the peoples voices can be heard. We have elections every 3 years in NZ. Vote with your feet. I am sure the country is going to be far better off, ruled by the Greens. LOL.

 

I disagree that 105kmph is "speeding" but that won't stop me getting a ticket. I can keep driving at 105kmph, but I will keep being punished. It's my choice. 




Glurp
7987 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3714

Subscriber

  Reply # 1597154 23-Jul-2016 09:36
Send private message

I don't see a real disagreement here. If I break a law and get caught and punished, that is a risk I accepted when I broke the law. It is like deciding to cross a stream on a log. You know there is a risk of falling in and you accept that. If there is any difference between our positions, maybe you feel a sense of satisfaction when someone gets caught, and maybe I don't. It depends on a whole lot of different variables.

 

I believe the laws regarding drugs are bad. Some drugs, like marijuana, do little damage to society as a whole and banning them is ridiculous. Other drugs, like crystal meth/p, are extremely harmful but the punitive approach of the law just drives them underground and makes things worse. These truly dangerous substances require different and better laws. Sensible laws tend to be respected more than stupid ones, and most people except hard-core baddies will respect them. Even me.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


2417 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1181

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1597155 23-Jul-2016 09:37
Send private message

networkn:

 

*you* are not entitled to choose which laws you obey and which you don't.

 

 

I disagree totally. There is a distinction between legality and morality. You have an absolute choice about everything you do.The law says that if you do act, and the Crown can prove it, then you will be punished in some way.

 

 

You can protest, you can make your voice heard within the confines of the law, you can let the people you choose not to vote for, that you aren't voting for them because they don't support your view, or you can move to a country that

 

has laws you can live with.

 

 

In reality, none of these options are available to some people.

 

 

If you break the law, then it's likely you will be punished. That is fact. Everything else is background noise. 

 

 

But, given that the law is only an approximation of what's right, this means that you can be punished for doing nothing wrong.

 

 

I disagree that 105kmph is "speeding" but that won't stop me getting a ticket. I can keep driving at 105kmph, but I will keep being punished. It's my choice. 

 

 

Great example! The law says that the speed limit is 100kph. But if you drive at 105kph, you *won't* get a ticket, because, quite sensibly, the Police allow a 10kph tolerance for human and mechanical error. Except for the period 21 days before and 37 days after  the solstice, or thereabouts, depending on the mood of the Commissioner of Police.

 

 


2536 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1197


  Reply # 1598156 25-Jul-2016 12:49
4 people support this post
Send private message

networkn:

 

 

 

Don't be daft. If it's law, it's law. YOU don't get to decide if you will follow the laws, you either do, leave or end up in prison. If you don't LIKE the laws, lobby to have them changed, but whilst they are law, you will comply, or face the consequences.

 

 

Sure I do.You seem to conflate the law with what's right or wrong.

 

Every time I'm faced with a law I have to weigh up whether it's a silly or pointless law, whether it's a downright offensive law, how likely I am to get caught breaking it, and the penalties for breaking it.

 

Most laws are good. Some are not (eg, before copyright changes I wasn't supposed to copy a CD I owned to my iPod in NZ), and some are downright stupid - in Rhode Island it's apparently illegal to sell sell toothpaste and a toothbrush to the same customer on a Sunday, and in North Carolina it's apparently illegal to sing off key. Unless they are really policing these hard, with heavy penalties, I would have no issue flouting any of them.

 

Then there are the laws that are downright offensive. Apartheid in South Africa. The (now mercifully repealed) Fugitive Slaves Act in North America. Or closer to home, the law in the 1950s that made it illegal for me to give food to the starving child of a watersider, and some of our silly literary and media censorship laws (eg, mainstream movies on Netflix that supposedly can't be watched here, media prohibitions on discussing suicides, prohibition on telling a someone how to bypass DRM). These laws I would argue are not just OK to flout, it's pretty much a civic duty to do so.

 

Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Emmeline Pankhurst are all admirable examples of people who chose not to obey bad laws.

 

 


161 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 64
Inactive user


  Reply # 1598393 25-Jul-2016 17:34
Send private message

For the past 30 years I have deliberately driven through red right turn arrows. I check to make sure its safe and then proceed around the corner and keep on driving. If it is not safe I wait for it to turn green.

 

Sometimes I get a long annoyed toot from someone who was behind me, an angry look on their face. I smile and wave and continue driving, they always continue to sit at the lights waiting for it to tell them it's safe to drive there automobile.

 

I am aware this behaviour is illegal, still don't care.


7191 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3748


  Reply # 1611680 15-Aug-2016 08:32
Send private message

 FWIW, some recent NZ opinion polling:

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11693667

 

 

 




Glurp
7987 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3714

Subscriber

  Reply # 1611690 15-Aug-2016 08:55
Send private message

Interesting, especially if you add the decriminalise and legalise columns together. 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


4952 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2010


  Reply # 1611705 15-Aug-2016 09:34
One person supports this post
Send private message

Decriminalising seems like an odd halfway measure where it's illegal to grow for supply or sell but legal to possess small amounts.  

 

I would rather see legalisation of commercial production, distribution and sale (with regulation and taxation).  

 

I would like to see regulation and taxation similar to alcohol (in products designed for eating/drinking) and tobacco (in products designed for smoking).

 

 





Mike



Glurp
7987 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3714

Subscriber

  Reply # 1611763 15-Aug-2016 10:47
Send private message

So would I. So would a lot of people. I think the relevant information from the poll is that a significant majority feel that the current policy is not the correct one. I am struck by the absence of political leadership in this country. Leaders are supposed to lead. They are supposed to show the way and move the rest of us in that direction. Yet what we seem to have is 'leaders' trying to tuck themselves into the crowd as far at the back as possible, like birds on a wire struggling to make their way to the safe centre. Hearing Andrew Little's remarks the other day on legalisation was painful. That man is so desperate to avoid taking a stand on anything that might actually demonstrate any guts that he almost makes John Key appear adventurous by comparison. New Zealand politics is a sad repository of timid mediocrity.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


7191 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3748


  Reply # 1611909 15-Aug-2016 13:31
Send private message

John Key is "not a massive fan" for decriminalisation.

 

I'm not a massive fan of having a system where the police "turn a blind eye" to prosecution as John Keys suggests <could or should> be the case.

 

When there's widespread civil disobedience with an expectation by some or many that a "blind eye" may be turned, then that's not reasonable IMO - it would or could lead some police to use powers to search and detain under existing drug laws in one case - but just wave you through if they like the car you're driving or the colour of your skin etc. in another.  Yes of course they shouldn't do that - but I have no doubt some would.

 

I'm also not in favour of deciding these laws through referendums.  There's still far too much ignorance and fear out there - as a result of 1/2 century of anti-cannabis propaganda.  


7191 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3748


  Reply # 1611910 15-Aug-2016 13:34
Send private message
2417 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1181

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1612053 15-Aug-2016 16:26
2 people support this post
Send private message

Fred99:

 

I'm also not in favour of deciding these laws through referendums.  There's still far too much ignorance and fear out there - as a result of 1/2 century of anti-cannabis propaganda.  

 

 

I'm in favour of *binding* referenda, as per Switzerland. There is then an incentive for people to actually find out the facts and become politically aware.

 

It would cost very little (certainly not $26M) to add questions to the 3-yearly ballot.

 

 


7191 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3748


  Reply # 1612312 16-Aug-2016 08:42
Send private message

frankv:

 

Fred99:

 

I'm also not in favour of deciding these laws through referendums.  There's still far too much ignorance and fear out there - as a result of 1/2 century of anti-cannabis propaganda.  

 

 

I'm in favour of *binding* referenda, as per Switzerland. There is then an incentive for people to actually find out the facts and become politically aware.

 

It would cost very little (certainly not $26M) to add questions to the 3-yearly ballot.

 

 

 

 

Too much risk of "mob rule" IMO.

 

Then there's also an assumed finality, but circumstances change.  Ie the NZ flag referendum, "we've had it" so don't need to revisit the discussion for a long time, but circumstances out of our (NZ) control could easily change, the Queen could die and republicanism grow rapidly under king Charles, Scotland could leave the UK, Australia could become a republic.  So we should stick to our flag - because we already had a referendum.

 

With cannabis (and narcotic law reform in general) opposition is founded on FUD.  When that FUD is based on the concept that it's (law reform) going to put children at risk, then logic flies out the window.


1 | ... | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | ... | 45
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.