<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I think a free adult in a free society should have the right to consume alcohol and pot. The civil disobedience of so many people breaking marijuana laws has led to decriminalization or legalization (such as through ‘medical’ marijuana permits) in many states. If everyone blindly obeys a law, it won’t be changed, it just becomes clear that it has popular support.</p>
<p>insomniatic. You seem to think you’re arguing logically and rationally, but I have to say as someone who enjoys studying real logic and rationality (as it has been established formally, at least), that I see almost no real logic in your posts.</p>
<p>What I see time and time again from your posts is a reflection that you don’t drink, and deep down, you don’t care about anyone’s rights who does drink because it doesn’t effect you. You also continually discard very valid analogies as absurd because you say so, yet you yourself give countless absurd analogies. </p>
<p>First, I personally don’t like anything about the idea of forging government documents or identity fraud, as in fake/borrowed IDs. That said, I also believe that the drinking age should be 18, not 21, as the current laws cause far more trouble than they could ever prevent. I have also driven 80 MPH on certain 65 MPH highways for miles, which is still slower than at least thousands of other cars on that highway each day (and along side police cars, who cruise by at 90 looking for hazardous drivers). And it was quite safe (statistics of these highways will back this up).</p>
<p>But I’m not going to argue anything about those with you. What I am going to argue, is the rationally provable fallacy of you’re strict black-and-white view of laws.</p>
<p>The law is neither a universal script of the best possible way to live our life, nor is it a universal script of absolute morality (which I happen to believe in). Simply put, law is just intended to keep society relatively functional and civilized, in a way as un-intrusive as possible. You know this.</p>
<p>I don’t fully understand your reasoning though on your proclaimed black-and-white view of laws. People have posted examples of clearly ridiculous laws, and you instantly disregarded them, saying they “don’t count because they’re not reasonably prosecutable.” Yet at the same time you admit that doing something against the law, even if it’s not prosecutable, is still wrong. You’re quite clearly self conflicted here, because assuming you’re coherent, given this information we can logically prove that you are drawing a line between what laws are to be obeyed and which may be disobeyed.</p>
<p>Where is this line? If you say ALL laws should be obeyed, you will be easily made a fool of, just by being shown some silly laws. If you say MOST laws should be obeyed, you are by definition agreeing that there exist laws that can be 100% morally disregarded or worked around.</p>
<p>The tricky part is defining this line, because it is dangerous to do so. Rather than cross the legal line, we should ALWAYS prefer to change the legal line by modifying laws, etc. Unfortunately, there are countless absurd laws that may never be formally changed for decades. For this reason, it can be concluded rationally that situations exist where the legal line can and should be crossed if all of the following are satisfied:</p>
<p>A. We can rationally determine the law as applied to the specific circumstances is absurd - that breaking it would not be immoral, harmful to others, harmful to yourself, or potentially put someone at risk.</p>
<p>B. You are fully aware and willing to accept the odds of being caught and prosecuted, and deem the benefits of crossing the line worthy of these odds and possible consequences.</p>
<p>We are not above the law, but I for one, have no moral objections to making clam chowder with tomatoes in Massachusetts if I feel like it. Even though it’s illegal.</p>
<p>After you explain yourself on how you define your own line of what laws are obeyed and what need not be, I will be interested to hear your remaining logical reasoning behind your strict black-and-white view of laws.</p>
<p>NotBlue: The whole issue with this thread was not necessarily people breaking laws, it is that some parents feel there is no problem if their kids possess fake ID’s or use other people’s ID’s. Nothing more, nothing less.</p>
<p>
I seem to be getting quite a different impression with quotes from you like:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(I could quote countless more)</p>
<p>NotBlue: If you have read the whole thread, it has turned in many directions. The main issue was the one I already stated (which you clearly agree with).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read the whole thread. That quote was recent.</p>
<p>To deny this conflict you would have to admit to a gross misuse of the phrase “whole thread”. All I’m saying is you’re really giving a conflicted argument, which doesn’t benefit your cause much from a rational observer’s standpoint.</p>
<p>I said I personally didn’t like anything about falsified IDs. I didn’t say that there’s always something wrong with a parent who doesn’t have a problem with their child using a false ID for morally good reasons – adult children, I might add, who fully accept the legal responsibility in the event they are caught.</p>
<p>You need to explain your view on legal/moral boundaries, because you’re attacking a lot of things here, and most of your argument is based on very questionable assumptions.</p>
<p>Ok. You got me. I guess this thread isn’t really about the law.</p>
<p>Again, it is about parents seeing nothing wrong with their children having fake or using other people’s ID’s to obtain alcohol illegally.</p>
<p>In that case I agree with you that, in practically all cases, a parent who sees nothing wrong with their children using false IDs, is likely wrong. False IDs are an serious thing, and have serious consequences. I however rationally object to your implying it is wrong in every case.</p>
<p>So: I do not deny that in some areas and rare situations, you can be both a responsible, morally upstanding adult student, and use a false ID at the same time.</p>
<p>I still would strongly recommend against it, but I admit that so long as you make ABSOLUTELY sure that you could not put others in danger, and accept the risks, it’s fine.</p>
<p>That means making absolutely sure that your actions do not put those you are essentially committing fraud to (bartenders, etc.) in risk.</p>
<p>insomniatic: I think underneath it all you are bothered by the fact that people break the law and get away with it. </p>
<p>There are some people in our society who go to great lengths to be law-abiding citizens and then there’s everyone else - who generally pick and choose which laws they will obey based upon the potential consequences and how likely those consequences will be enforced. It’s really that simple but it’s a major irritant to those who work hard to obey all laws regardless of the likelihood of getting caught.</p>
<p>Trust me, if people knew they were not likely to be caught, there would be a heck of a lot more murders by ‘regular’ people. Unfortunately, people don’t always do the right thing, which is the reason we need laws. But some laws are more important than others and because law enforcement officials have limited resources, they have to pick and choose which laws they will enforce. A simple lesson easily learned in an Econ 101 class.</p>
<p>Life is never fair but it is what it is. The moral of this story is if there is something you really want to do that is against the law but there is little chance you will get caught or prosecuted - go for it. For most people, it really all boils down to the risk/rewards. Many, many people see the reward of drinking and smoking pot as being much higher than the risk of being caught. Same goes for many other activities in our society. The older you get, the more you understand this.</p>
<p>There is a philosophical disagreement that underlies this discussion, I think, and that is whether strict obedience to all laws is a moral requirement. Most people in real life behave as though it isn’t at least at the margins. That’s why almost everybody speeds, for example (I don’t believe that even insomniatic has denied going over the speed limit). Most people would see a significant distinction between going 5 mph over the limit and shoplifting even a pack of gum. And this discussion shows that a lot of people who would make this kind of distinction see underage (but over 18) drinking as more like speeding than shoplifting. Maybe even less morally questionable than speeding, because many of us don’t agree with the law, which isn’t true with the speed limit. With the speed limit, we don’t (generally) disagree with it, but we exceed it anyway.</p>
<p>To spin this out even more, I think a lot of people would say that they wouldn’t shoplift a pack of gum, because it’s wrong to do that. It wouldn’t matter whether one was likely to get caught. But for things on the margin, the risks of getting caught and the potential punishment are more relevant. That’s why many of us will go 5 mph over the limit, but not 10. We don’t go 30 mph over the limit because that’s dangerous, and thus clearly wrong. Underage drinking is the same. For some people, fake IDs are the same–they don’t see that it’s a particular moral wrong, and thus they don’t consider it a big deal as long as the risks aren’t too great.</p>
<p>But if you firmly believe that obedience to the law itself is a moral absolute, then you don’t care about any of this.</p>
<p>Example: we just went to England on a vacation with my 18-year-old son. The drinking age is 18 there. He drank a beer. Is that *morally *different from him drinking a beer in the U.S.?</p>
<p>^ well said Hunt</p>
<p>Another twist is that prostitution isn’t illegal in all states and in all forms. Nor is public nudity.</p>
<p>When something is made illegal a punishment (usually a range) is established. Until the trend of the 1980s to immensely enlarge the number of federal crimes, most criminal laws were of the state/local variety and reflected local views and realities. The minimum age to purchase alcohol was forced on the states by the federal government as a condition to receiving federal highway funds. That’s why 3.2% beer availability at a younger age in some states and the lower age limit in New Orleans ceased to exist.</p>
<p>Then comes the risk analysis. At a conceptual “no risk” end is never disobeying any law. Along the way to the other end of the spectrum are all the risks.</p>
<p>IMO legality and morality are not the same, nor are illigality and immorality synonymous.</p>
<p>At least as long as the person who breaks the law (and his or her parent) doesn’t whine about incurring the punishment, it all seems “fair.” That includes for the id lender, the false or borrowed id user and the establishment that does a “wink check” of the ids.</p>
<p>The people who see every issue as morally unambiguous are the ones who will be wearing jackboots and forcing our faces to the ground once we lazily cede them the power they crave.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heck, we let our 15-year old daughter have a drink when we were in Europe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Morally different? What do morals have to do with it? Its the issue of legality and the punishment, if caught, where it is illegal.</p>
<p>Heck, they would have publicly lashed him in Saudia Arabia if caught drinking in public.</p>
<p>[BBC</a> News | MIDDLE EAST | Getting a drink in Saudi Arabia](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1160846.stm]BBC”>BBC News | MIDDLE EAST | Getting a drink in Saudi Arabia)</p>
<p>For some people, including some in this thread, I think it would be immoral for my son to drink in the U.S., but not in England. That’s because they think it’s the violation of the law itself that’s immoral, not (necessarily) the underlying activity.</p>
<p>Query, is it “moral” to have paid sex in the Nevada counties where it is legal or New Zealand or any other place where it is legal and regulated because it is legal?</p>
<p>Or, illegal=immoral, but legal does not = moral?</p>
<p>I think things can be immoral, illegal, both, or neither. I do feel that there is some moral imperative to obey the law–at least where the laws are just laws – I just don’t think it’s a very strong imperative at the margins, especially when the law isn’t enforced. Again, the prime example is speeding by 5 mph. Is that morally wrong? I guess it is, but it’s not terribly wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a US citizen, does he need to abide by the US laws as well (drinking age of 21)? I guess not, but not so sure.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^No.</p>