Hacker News Reader

Comment by DINKDINK | Hacker News Reader

Would you support the imprisonment of someone who was proven to have smoked cannabis back when the state viewed it as illegal? Shouldn't we imprison all those people too because 'they broke a law when it was illegal'?

What an astoundingly dim/daft position.

Would you support the imprisonment of a doctor or woman who performed an abortion prior to Roe v Wade? How about two gay men performing sodomy?

What more important, some pedantic reverence to the law or focusing on what's ethical and not?

View on HN

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.

>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.

There 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.

firic: "[I'm ok with other people subsidizing my believe that ethical, two party consent should be imprisoned]"

Yes, just like I am okay outlawing duelling to the death, gambling to the death and selling yourself to slavery. Even if both parties consent.

Is your position that we should adjust all past judgements to match current laws?

You’re arguing by straw man analogies. Weak technique.

If Roe v Wade is overturned, I assume you would support the imprisonment of all past violators?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com