🚀 go-pugleaf

Lugnut <ausbiz@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> Aldis Ozols <aldis@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> > Lugnut wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 01:24:16 GMT, bcl@removethis.ozemail.com.au (Bruce
> > > Lloyd) wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:34:20 GMT, nenosed@apex.met.au (Ned Latham)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > ok, define what law/s are unjust.
> > > >
> > > > Laws which create 'crimes' where there is no victim?
> > >
> > > can you elaborate a little please? some examples?
> > > thanks
> >
> > Laws against drug use, laws against pornography, laws against nudity.
>
> wow, now this is a very interesting turn of events :-)
> I would argue that drug use does have victims - the user, the users
> family and/or those who care about him,

The user is a victim only in the event of making an uninformed or misinformed
choice. Ditto the family, etc.

You can make a case against the tobacco companies on that ground, but not
other pushers, I think.

>                                         and any laws the user breaks
> while under the influence or under compulsion of cravings to get money
> for drugs.

This is a misdirected thought. People have been getting away with serious
crimes for years because the Courts accept it, but in my opinion, in so
doing they are conspiring with the criminal.

Unless a person is dosed without their knowledge or consent, they are
responsible for their condition, and therefore must be held responsible
for their actions.

The drug didn't do it, the person did.

----snip----

Ned

-- 
To reply, cut out my nose and make the met a net.