[SlowRobotAhead]

When I was in Msia I talked with our younger guide about it. He was well aware the risk was not worth it. I was a little surprised at how strictly treated drugs.

There is no reason to lay your life on the line for pot. It’s ridiculous to hang someone for that. Too bad people can’t claim it’s even mildly addictive after years and years of saying it isn’t.

Punishment and crime obviously don’t fit. But... He chose to have illegal drugs in his country, he wasn’t framed. He knew how illegal it was.

[lolc]

> He knew how illegal it was.

Oh yes the police had to arrest him. The judges just apply the law anyway. And the executioners hanging him will be following orders. Looks like the only guy left to be be blamed here is the guy, because he had the choice, didn't he?

Let's turn this around!

Everyone of those involved knows what that law does. All of them could have walked away and said: "Fuck that law, I'm not enforcing it." But they chose to enforce it.

Unjustifiable violence must never be blamed on the victim. Especially if perpetrated by a government.

[ams6110]

> Everyone of those involved knows what that law does. All of them could have walked away and said: "Fuck that law, I'm not enforcing it."

You'd like to think. But then those people would hang too. Sure if life in Malaysia were completely horrible there might eventually be a revolution all the way up the chain of command, but it's not. They live by laws that were enacted in a purportedly representative system of government.

When travelling, you need to know and take seriously the local laws and customs. Your naively idealistic view of "fuck that" won't save you.

[lolc]

> But then those people would hang too.

I don't believe it.

Are you saying people in Malaysia are hanged over quitting their jobs? That would truly be horrible.

Edit: At no point did I advise going against the law of a country. I'm just putting the blame where it belongs.

[SlowRobotAhead]

>Oh yes the police had to arrest him.

Yea, I mean, a tenant of a just society is equal enforcement of the law.

>All of them could have walked away and said: "Fuck that law, I'm not enforcing it."

That's not a goal. That's a serious problem. Even if you think the law is unjust. You need to change the law, you can't just not enforce it.

You're arguing for something you would be horrified to have.

[lolc]

I'd be surprised if that law in Malaysia was applied in a way approaching equal treatment. But sure, let's talk in the abstract: Even if a thousand people have been hanged: If we can spare one, we must do so! One injustice must not beget another in the name of equality.

And yes selective enforcement is a problem. But I want the people in charge to not enforce that law at all: They must refuse to arrest, judge, or kill based on that law. Which is not selective enforcement. They don't choose whom to apply it to, they just don't apply it at all. Which means everybody is treated equally with regard to that law.

Our history is full of instances where a law was not enforced by those in charge. In some instances we say that not enforcing it was wrong (say, corruption) in others we say that they did right (say, race discrimination). This often set a precedent to changing the law.

Ideally it sure would have been nice if a bad law had never been enacted or if it had been abolished when it soured. But what if it didn't? I'm talking about that. Real societies where bad laws do real damage.