Announcement

**Spiffor** · January 20, 2003, 00:51

AS/Asher : I actually think it would be stupid to enforce all laws regardless of the circumstances, simply because there are way too many of them, and not enough personnel to enforce them all (thankfully).
Plus, like many state-ran systems, laws tend to forget an essential part of evolution : plenty get added, but a few get removed in comparison (in France, the Napoleonic law forbidding women to wear trousers has been voided about 10 years ago ; but probably the cops should have enforced it

)

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 20, 2003, 00:51

That's not beside the point at all. You, by having illegal music on the computer, are engaging in criminal activity that both parties have not consented to, while the Rolling Stones engaged in "criminal" activity that no one present objected to. Which do you imagine is worse?

Neither. The police not enforcing one while enforcing the other is the problem here. As Asher said, he'd understand if he got raided, since he broke the law. But because they are celebrities, it doesn't matter if they break the law. Why don't they just murder someone. Lord knows no one will care

.

**Asher** · January 20, 2003, 00:53

Originally posted by Spiffor
AS/Asher : I actually think it would be stupid to enforce all laws regardless of the circumstances

Well I think it's stupid not to enforce all laws, on the basis that the perpetrator be a celebrity or something...

If the law was intended to have circumstances, they'd be written into the law...

**David Floyd** · January 20, 2003, 00:53

Imran, murder is a different case. It's a violent crime that actually hurts someone, and by definition is non-consensual. Smoking on stage during a concert is not violent, does not really hurt anyone, and in any case, if someone objects to it, they can leave. No one will, of course, because the health nazis aren't at the concert to begin with - concerts are horrible for the ears, after all.

**David Floyd** · January 20, 2003, 00:54

Well I think it's stupid not to enforce all laws, on the basis that the perpetrator be a celebrity or something...

My position has nothing to do with celebrity status.

**Asher** · January 20, 2003, 00:55

Originally posted by David Floyd
Imran, murder is a different case. It's a violent crime that actually hurts someone, and by definition is non-consensual. Smoking on stage during a concert is not violent, does not really hurt anyone, and in any case, if someone objects to it, they can leave. No one will, of course, because the health nazis aren't at the concert to begin with - concerts are horrible for the ears, after all.

That's not the point at all, Floyd.

The point isn't whether you agree with the law, you disagree with the enforcement of the law because you disagree with it.

It's incredibly stupid.

You disagree with the law, you don't fault the people who want to enforce the laws, you fault the people who pass the laws and try to get it changed. You don't "laugh" at people for enforcing laws...

**Asher** · January 20, 2003, 00:56

Originally posted by David Floyd
My position has nothing to do with celebrity status.

I wasn't talking to you.

He said there could be circumstances. Celeb status is a very common "circumstance" that stops enforcement of laws, which is something he seemed to be implying -- and if he didn't imply it, he should know that his stance DOES imply it and infact allows it to happen...

**David Floyd** · January 20, 2003, 00:57

You don't "laugh" at people for enforcing laws...

You do if the enforcement is silly and pointless, and ignores the strong likelihood of other crimes taking place, AND takes the police off the streets where they could be preventing crimes that actually hurt people.

And I'll just refer you back to the marijuana for cancer suffering patients example - do you enforce that law?

**Spiffor** · January 20, 2003, 00:58

Originally posted by David Floyd
My position has nothing to do with celebrity status.

Same here. My position is that it was completely stupid to waste policemen and some Bloomberg's time for such a minor thing. Actually, I'm quite sure Bloomberg would never have been so nerved if the people on stage had been completely unknown.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 20, 2003, 00:58

Right on Asher!

This was right in the view of officers. By refusing enforcement of the laws, that reduces the enforcement of laws that you think really matter. Hell, if it is no big deal if they don't enforce the public smoking laws, then why would it be a big deal not to enforce the murder of a leader of organized crime?

Not enforcing the law is not enforcing the law.

**Asher** · January 20, 2003, 00:58

Originally posted by David Floyd
You do if the enforcement is silly and pointless

The point is to enforce the law.
The law was passed for a reason, whether or not you agree with it, and to fault someone by laughing at them for enforcing the law is ridiculous.

And I'll just refer you back to the marijuana for cancer suffering patients example - do you enforce that law?

It's legal for medicinal use where I live.

**David Floyd** · January 20, 2003, 00:59

He said there could be circumstances. Celeb status is a very common "circumstance" that stops enforcement of laws, which is something he seemed to be implying -- and if he didn't imply it, he should know that his stance DOES imply it and infact allows it to happen...

Well, on the other hand, we give the government a "special status" when it comes to following laws. Bush, for example, can order someone's death anytime he wants to, and have his approval ratings rise. If I did it, I'd be in for a lengthy stay at a federal pound me in the ass facility. Something to think about

**Asher** · January 20, 2003, 01:00

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, on the other hand, we give the government a "special status" when it comes to following laws. Bush, for example, can order someone's death anytime he wants to, and have his approval ratings rise. If I did it, I'd be in for a lengthy stay at a federal pound me in the ass facility. Something to think about

I disagree with Presidential Pardons too...I don't see why you're trying to use this to make a point.

**Spiffor** · January 20, 2003, 01:01

Originally posted by Asher

I wasn't talking to you.

He said there could be circumstances. Celeb status is a very common "circumstance" that stops enforcement of laws, which is something he seemed to be implying -- and if he didn't imply it, he should know that his stance DOES imply it and infact allows it to happen...

No, I was referring to circumstances in a general meaning : whether Mardi Gras in New Orleans, taking pot to relieve pain from cancer, or a drastic societal evolution which outdates a law still present in the code (such as the law forbidding women to wear trousers). More kinds of circumstances can be found as we move on.
And in fact, I really don't care if it applies to celebrities or not : I couldn't care less of the Stones, I don't listen to them

**David Floyd** · January 20, 2003, 01:01

Hell, if it is no big deal if they don't enforce the public smoking laws, then why would it be a big deal not to enforce the murder of a leader of organized crime?

If a cop has a choice between arresting someone for smoking weed, or chasing someone who just robbed a convenience store, surely you'd tell him to chase down the robber and ignore the pot smoker, right?

Asher,

The law was passed for a reason, whether or not you agree with it, and to fault someone by laughing at them for enforcing the law is ridiculous.

And some laws are passed for silly reasons. Other laws shouldn't be passed at all.

If Congress passed a law mandating, say, forced euthanasia for anyone over 60, should the President and the Justice Department enforce that law?

It's legal for medicinal use where I live.

Not where I live

Announcement

Attn Michael Bloomberg - Lighten Up!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment