Should I be jailed for breaking the law?

[Cyclone]

I bet you aced Twister at parties

 

Just admit that something is not moral just because it's the law.

[Conrod]

The real answer is yes. People on prescription heroin can indeed function normally and are quite capable of holding down a job.

Would you knowingly employ a heroin addict, however normal he may be able to act for a short while? I certainly wouldn't.

[Murphy Jnr]

With regards to opiates, the two things aren't exclusive. Rehabilitation is complex, but the methadone program isn't a working solution. It leaves people taking one opiate while still addicted to a 2nd, street heroin. Addicts should have access to diamorphine, clean medical heroin, and then they can go through rehab.

 

So much for methadone being a substitute then or is it's function dulled with the use of street heroine? I know, so many questions

[Murphy Jnr]

Just admit that something is not moral just because it's the law.

 

I might if i understood how the two are entertwined. Morals or ethics to me is the consideration of right and wrong, good and bad, it isn't a definite one way or the other. Laws are not subject to a right or a wrong although quite often we use the terms to describe an action that goes against the law as right, or good, or bad. The law itself is a guide of what we can and cannot do within it.

[Chris_Sleeps]

So much for methadone being a substitute then

It is only a substitute if the user wishes to come off heroin, in which case it isn't perfect but it serves a purpose. The use of methadone doesn't deal with the addiction to heroin, so if a user is tempted back then it often occurs that they'd end up using both drugs.

 

Drug addiction and rehabilitation is a massively subjective area, because you can't replace drugs and you can't force a person to be clean. The addict has to do the hard part themselves, when they want to be clean more than they want to use. Until that point no replacement therapy can work.

[Cyclone]

I might if i understood how the two are entertwined. Morals or ethics to me is the consideration of right and wrong, good and bad, it isn't a definite one way or the other. Laws are not subject to a right or a wrong although quite often we use the terms to describe an action that goes against the law as right, or good, or bad. The law itself is a guide of what we can and cannot do within it.

 

You joined the discussion about the morality of law at this point;

 

Mr Bojangles

You need to grasp the concept that if people break the law, they HAVE done wrong.

 

Cyclone

Laws aren't handed down by some higher authority

 

Murphy Jnr

I don't know that Laws can be wrong

 

It appeared that you were arguing that laws are always morally correct.

Maybe I misunderstood though?

 

A law can be written in such a way that following it involves doing something that is morally incorrect and that the moral way to behave is to ignore the law. That was the point I was trying to make to MrBojangles as he seemed to think that not following a law was always morally incorrect.

[Murphy Jnr]

 

The addict has to do the hard part themselves, when they want to be clean more than they want to use. Until that point no replacement therapy can work.

 

I'm guessing that the periods of pain from needing the drug will erase any thoughts of going clean more often than not then purely because of the relief they get from using again.

[Murphy Jnr]

 

Murphy Jnr

I don't know that Laws can be wrong

 

It appeared that you were arguing that laws are always morally correct.

Maybe I misunderstood though?

 

I think you did. My 'argument' then as now is that I don't credit the Law with a right or wrong, it's how we behave within the law, the action that can be described right/wrong/good/bad.

[Cyclone]

So no law, no matter what behaviour it says you must do is ever morally wrong?

Slavery used to be legal, at the time it was also morally acceptable, but now a country that passed such a law would be passing an unjust law wouldn't it? How about apartheid laws, as a more recent example, were those laws themselves not immoral?

[Murphy Jnr]

So no law, no matter what behaviour it says you must do is ever morally wrong?

Slavery used to be legal, at the time it was also morally acceptable, but now a country that passed such a law would be passing an unjust law wouldn't it? How about apartheid laws, as a more recent example, were those laws themselves not immoral?

 

Were those Laws not Policies on segregation and discrimination?