email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
What is the purpose of a law? The whole purpose is, to create loopholes.
But wait! you cry, Surely a law is written to ban something!?
Wrong.
In The West Australian of 14 Apr 11 Kim MacDonald writes about the new drug, Kronic.
Kronic is, apparently, a synthetic cannabis. It mimics the physical and psychoactive effects of cannabis. According to ChemCentre forensic toxicologist Robert Hansson, it is "more potent than cannabis and sent users into an inattentive stupor, sometimes with hallucinations."
But Kronic is not banned... so it is selling like hot-cakes.
Better yet -- for Kronic users -- it cannot be detected by the standard industrial-site drug tests. You can turn up at work , stoned out of your mind, and happily fall into a stupor while operating heavy machinery. Oh dear. What can we do?
Well, naturally, there are suggestions that Kronic should be banned. Which brings me to my main point: Laws are passed in order to create legal loopholes.
Current laws ban marijuana. Heroin is banned. Various other -- very specific -- drugs are banned. Now Kronic may be added to the list of banned drugs.
So what are we doing?
We pass a law which says, marijuana is now illegal. What the law really says is, that everything except marijuana is now legal! By naming specific substances as being banned -- we are also stating that all other substances are not banned.
Look at other laws...
The speed limit is set to 50. Which really means, any speed up to and including 50 is legal -- no matter what the traffic situation.
So we pass another law which sets the speed limit to 40, during certain times, in defined areas near schools. Which means that we an drive at 50 right up to the boundary of the defined school zones. And as soon as the clock strikes 9 we can accelerate within the school zones. And even if we see children crossing the road -- in a school zone, within the prescribed times -- we can still travel at up to 40... Never mind the danger -- forget about common sense -- the law has, "by omission", allowed us to drive dangerously fast.
"The law" defines certain acts as being illegal. What it really does, is to say that we can do anything else -- anything at all -- as long as it is not, specifically, banned.
Why pass laws?
Back to the drug laws. Why is it that we have banned marijuana? What are we trying to do via that particular law? There are several possibilities:- Marijuana has immediately harmful effects. Our nanny state wishes to protect its hapless and hopeless citizens. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?!
- Marijuana has long-term harmful effects. The government wants to avoid the long-term cost of having psychotic druggies in the old-people's homes. But why?! Once they're in the oldie's home they can be drugged senseless, like the rest of the troublesome pensioners.
- The government is protecting the profits of drug dealers. Well, possibly. But they won't admit to this one.
- Drug users often resort to crime in order to pay for their drugs. The government is protecting the potential victims of those potential crimes. But why? Theft already has laws against it. We don't really need a specific law against "theft to support a drug habit", do we?!
- People under the influence of drugs may drive more dangerously that usual -- and crash. Possibly into non-drug users. Let's look closer at this one...
If a drug user turns to crime -- arrest them for that crime. Just remove the ridiculous defense of, not guilty because they were out of their mind at the time. If a drug user commits no other crime -- then why should they be punished?
If they hurt someone -- that's already a crime. Yes, it sounds nice to say, if we ban drugs then we will prevent crazed druggies from hurting other people. By that logic we should also ban cars. And sharp objects. And blunt objects... Well, okay, we have already banned a lot of things which could -- possibly -- hurt someone else. Which means, of course, that everything not banned is perfectly legal -- no matter how dangerous it is!
What if the druggies -- or speeders -- hurt themselves? Well, tough!
If a person drives at 60 in a 70 zone -- and crashes -- then that's fine. As long as they have taken personal responsibility and paid for health insurance. Or funeral insurance. Or, at least, are happy to be dumped in a pauper's grave. (If we still have such things!)
If a person drives at 60 in a 70 zone -- and kills someone else -- then that's manslaughter. Or perhaps murder. These are already crimes. No need for a specific "death by speeding car" law. Such a law only serves to define when and where it is legal to use your car to kill someone else.
What do we really want to prevent?
Back to Kronic.In the workplace, drugs such as alcohol and marijuana reduce your ability to work effectively. Probably. You were hired to work. Why should you be paid if you are unable -- through your own actions and choices -- to work?
In an industrial workplace there is added risk: the drunks and druggies may run their heavy machinery into co-workers. It's in the co-workers' interests to keep drunks and druggies out of the workplace -- while they are affected by their drugs. So workers under the influence of alcohol or marijuana are banned from the workplace...
Which means...
It is perfectly legal to work while under the influence of Kronic. Which is neither alcohol nor marijuana.
Remember the old movies, where the traffic cop asks a driver to walk along a straight line? What was that all about?
The cop was testing the driver's ability to drive safely.
Who cares whether a driver is drunk, or stoned, or simply very, very tired? What matters is, they are unable to safely control a car. Forget the reason; get them out of the driver's seat.
You get a licence to drive by demonstrating that you are, in fact, able to drive. Safely. If you are no longer able to drive safely -- get out of the car!
If we need laws to get dangerous drivers out of cars -- they should reflect the laws which allow them to drive. Perhaps we just need one law? The licence-to-drive law...
The licence-to-drive law says, can you start the car, steer the car, follow road rules, etc. If -- at any time -- you are unable to do all of the required things -- you lose your licence to drive. Until you are able to drive again.
Why can't you drive safely? Drugs? Drink? Exhaustion? Temporary stupidity? Who cares! You are unable to drive -- at the driving licence level -- so you are not allowed to drive.
The same with workers in an industrial site. If you are unable to find your bum with both hands -- go home. You are not fit to do the work for which you were employed.
Our current set of laws are written to define what we can -- legally -- get away with. What we need is laws which define what we are expected to do.
Forget the efforts to define large loopholes. Write laws to match the purpose behind the law.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment