I'd go so far as to say that laws that everyone knows aren't going to be enforced are immoral.
WASHINGTON -- Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn't likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say.In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
While the justices expressed sympathy for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.
The ruling could be an early test of the compassion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the Justice Department following the tenure of John Ashcroft.
Gonzales and his aides were silent on the ruling Monday, but several Bush administration officials said individual users have little reason to worry. "We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking," Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant said.
Then exempt them from the law! The whole thing is ridiculous, but I don't fault the modern Supreme Court; they're protecting the Constitution no better or worse than the other branches of government, all of which share the responsibility. There are two real problems: first, our government has become very unresponsive to our desires; second, our government has expanded far beyond any reasonable scope. Can you imagine our Founding Fathers sitting around debating what plants people can smoke or setting policy for high school athletics programs?
One problem with politicians, as with many other jobs, is that's it's impossible to just say "no, we've pretty much got all the laws we need" because there are always people clamoring for you to do something about whatever. Plus, if there aren't any new laws needed, why do you have a job? But the fact of the matter is that a legislator who sits on his hands for his whole term is probably the best kind.
They most certainly are immoral. They misinform the public about what's being done about the issue of concern, create opportunities for selective prosecution, and generally weaken respect for all other law.
How about if the prosecutors came out and said "we're not going to enforce this law because we know it's unconstitutional, even if 6 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices are too stooopid to figure that out?"
X: Well sure, but I'd rather not rely on prosecutorial discretion for all my rights... we already rely on judicial discretion!
This is why I strongly support a mix of power in the federal government.
Nothing keeps a lid on spending and the proliferation of superfluous laws like when one party controls the White House and the other party controls Congress.
There's a place for prosecutorial discretion, eg in copyright law: it's hard to legalistically define when a musical tune has been copied, so the definition is rather broad, and would include lots of false positives; prosecutorial discretion is exercised, although some people are going to be over-litigious about everything.
Completely agree about lame-duck laws. If you want to "give society a message" about what behaviour is sensible, do that. Don't play with laws when you don't mean it.
Another analogous sitution are certain states' sodomy laws. Most of these states have no intention of enforcing them... they're just there to make a statement or "give society a message".
I really wish there were a way to impress upon our politicians that we really don't need all the laws we have. If I had been Kerry's campaign manager, I would have sent out the message that "Hey... Kerry doesn't believe in encumbering the American people with more and more ridiculous laws! That's why he drafted so few of them!" It might have just worked (not that I particularly wanted it to).
The irony of sodomy laws is that they were the brainchild of people who don't want the government forcing people to pay for various programs funded by tax dollars... but they have no issues at all with using government power to intrude into the private lives of certain citizens.... whether the laws (the representation of government power in this case) are enforced or not.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows that, as government grows, liberty decreases." --Thomas Jefferson