3 ms·
The difference is was the law immoral and now we are fixing that error, or did the law have good intent but now the politicians think that there is a better way
by firic 8y ago
The difference is was the law immoral and now we are fixing that error, or did the law have good intent but now the politicians think that there is a better way to reach the solution. For example, if alcohol was taxed at 30% but someone only paid 20% tax, they would be jailed. If the tax got changed to 20% the person shouldn't be released because they broke a moral law. In your example of gay men being jailed, that law is immoral and therefore those people should be release after removing the law.
I don't think that jailing people who were consuming illegal drugs is an immoral law. Sure, the law may not be so good and should be changed. But, people who break moral laws are not good for our society.
- DINKDINK 8y ago>Would you support the imprisonment of someone who was proven to have smoked cannabis back when the state viewed it as illegal? So you're arguing that: yes, the state should expend resources today to imprison past-crime even though it's legal today. I wish I could have people like you foot the tax bill for imprisoning people, who decided for themselves what they could and could not put into their body, and not me.
- firic 8y agoThere are many things that I wish that I wouldn't have to pay for. I would not pay for many of the bureaucratic waste that happens in Washington. But, unfortunately taxes do not work like that. All one can do is vote for different laws and convince others to agree with them. In the end the majority elects the politicians that make the rules.