Can government attack non law breaking businesses just like that?

Hammered hippie · 14-06-2010 7:22pm #1

Apart from the discussion whether head shops are bad or good I am utterly surprised by the remarks of the Taoiseach, Dermot Ahern and Pat Carey.
They openly stated they hoped head shops would close down, comparing them to moving targets that were in their sight.
They have been doing this from the moment Joe D. started his campaign of slander some months ago.
Head Shops were not breaking any law and sought cooperation with the government to regulate them selves.
Instead the government started openly attacking them and made it known they wanted them to close down.
Can democratic elected government officials do this? Make legislation that will destroy a business that is not breaking any law. Especially as it is quite clear it was done in hope to gain some votes over the whole process and as a media excercise in order to appear though.
Isn't that power abuse in order to further their own career.
Isn't destroying someones lifelihood as a government official power abuse non-stop!

Does anyone know any rules that government officials have to life by to stop them scapegoating and destroying anything they see fit to destroy for their own political gain?

ardmacha · 14-06-2010 7:39pm

Of course they can, all illegal activities were legal until they passed a law prohibiting them. And as for hoping to win votes, that is how democracies work.

jimmycrackcorm · 14-06-2010 8:04pm

with reports in the news how people are being affected by new and improved headshop drugs, it can hardly be expected that the government should turn round and say: "too bad - they're legal".

Liam Byrne · 14-06-2010 8:13pm

They say the same about their ridiculous expenses, so I doubt public opinion has much to do with it.

Basically they saw that they like as suits their mood and agenda at that moment.

goose2005 · 14-06-2010 8:15pm

They also say the same about their 5-year term of office.

Hammered hippie · 15-06-2010 5:39pm

@Ardmacha

In most democracies there has to be a reason other than: 'I as politician think I can further my career by destroying this sector of society' or ' my neighbour and friend is annoyed by this and that so I feel I can pass a law against it'

If politicians are allowed to make everything they don't like illegal by passing a law against it without a good scientifically/statistically backed up reason then there is no difference with a dictator ship because:

In a dictator ship people are outlawed and criminalized just like that and with no furter reason issued.
In this 'democracy' people are outlawed and criminalized by decree with no further reason issued.
The only technical difference is that in the second version a law has to be made. But as the mechanisms in place to stop and verify a law are not respected there is no difference in reality.

So what is the difference..can anyone tell me. What sets Ireland apart from an ordinary dictatorship if laws are passed to polish away that what is not sightly, without any form of input or way to stop it or have it verified.
Mind you...the national ombudsman has called Ireland a non-constitutional country for this very same reason.

The_Minister · 15-06-2010 5:44pm

We elect people to make laws - they are making laws.
Who do you think should get to judge whether or not they are 'allowed' pass a law? Who decides if the evidence is strong enough?

smokin ace · 15-06-2010 5:58pm

they have to do something about them my sister went totally bonkers from the siht out of the head shops just imagine going into you mothers house seeing you younger sister in her room totally paranoid out of her head thinking there was people coming to get her she was talking to herself and hearing voices in her head did not sleep for nearly a week and did not eat either along with a raft of other things believe me its scary siht no one held her down and forced her to take the stuff and i was no saint when i was younger and have experience with street drugs but the stuff out the headshops is very bad siht i know many lads and ladies in my area that have lost the plot over headshop drugs so the sooner they close the better because if they stay open they will destroy all the young people brains that take the stuff out of it

Permabear · 15-06-2010 6:03pm

This post has been deleted.

Nijmegen · 15-06-2010 6:53pm

We empower our politicians to make decisions in the hopes that they will be wise... But they often are not.

In the US there's a parallel at the moment with BP: The administration of President Obama is easing up the rethoric against them as they are driving the share price down to a point where a takeover or a breakup of BP could happen. That would ultimately damage their efforts to stop the leaking oil.

A politician or an influential leader can make or break things by their expressed opinions, and they can make laws about it.

We trust that they won't go making lots of trouble for lots of people because they want to get re-elected. But the Greens, for example, are waging big debates with another niche set of niche industries which, agree with them or not, can be wiped out by the stroke of a pen.

That's the system we have.

Banned Account · 16-06-2010 11:20am

There is a safeguard in the Irish Constitution. A law can be challeneged on the grounds that it is un-constitutional so it would be inaccurate to say that the government can pass any law they feel like. All laws passed have to fit with the Constitution.

If you and others of the same mindset are sufficiently outraged at the clampdown on headshops then why not find a legal basis to maount a constitutional challenge to the legislation. That is the beauty of living in a democracy - this option is open to you. If on the other hand, you are not so inclined, then I suggest that you accept the fact and move on.

On an unrelated note, I am quite taken by the idea of a dictator ship - I could be the true ruler of the seven seas and say things like "yarrrrrrrrrrr squiddy" whenever I wanted.

Laminations · 16-06-2010 11:51am

And would such a system have no regulation on the wearing of seatbelts? Because back when it was voluntary, nobody did it and more people died. Why did nobody do it? 1. because people aren't rational and they dont think 'it'll happen to them' and 2. because we learn through instrumental trial and error and the type of error that'd make you appreciate your seatbelt is the type of error you dont walk away from.

Should governments not intervene in cases of self harm, depression, addiction? There is a line, a line that governments should maintain for the well-being of society, they shouldn't act as a conduit for a slippery slope argument. There is a line, it is currently debatable where that line should be. Libertarians (and hammered hippies I assume) want the line completely removed. For shame

I read about a new laser gadget today with the following disclaimer

Warning: Extremely dangerous is an understatement to the power of 1W of laser power. It will blind permanently and instantly and set fire quickly to skin and other body parts, use with extreme caution and only when using the included eye protection. Customers will be required to completely read and agree to our Class IV Laser Hazard Acknowledgment Form.

This is available to buy over the internet.

I then read a few comments on it

Some idiots said the following

"Real lasers that resemble Star Wars lightsabres, that can burn skin, cut through plastic and ignite matches - yes please."
"The fact that it looks like a lightsabre is even cooler."
I must have this. Birthday present anyone? I will KILL things, with FIRE."

Someone suggested

"It's guaranteed someone somewhere will get blinded by it.. you should need a license to buy these things, like you do for firearms.."

Some libertarians weighed in with the typical

"Last thing we need is more governmental regulations. One of these days you are going to need a permit too buy toenail clippers."
"License? No. More bull**** bureacracy and wasted tax money."

To which there was a retort

"Say that to a friend of mine who was almost blinded by a laser prank. Yes there are some dumbass sick people out there."

After which there was the usual libertarian inability to differenciate and hence came the slippery slope argument, an argument for the removal of the line by giving ridiculous examples from far beyond the line.

"Tell that to my friend who was almost blinded by a fork prank. You should need a license to by those things!"

Finally someone made some sense in the face of libertarian non-sensical line moving.

"Come on...Are you telling me you think you're retarded neighbor down the street who thinks wrestling is real and that kicking his unsuspecting friends in the nuts is funny as hell, should be able to buy one of these without at least some checks? Comparing an eating utensil to a weapon that could be deadly at range (e.g. shining one at a plane or cars on a freeway) is pretty stupid.

We license gun owners.
We license motorists.

If some jackass can spend $200 and blind people a mile away, disrupt air traffic, and burn flesh then it should probably be at least monitored.

No one is saying you need to license forks. Or bread. We are saying that dangerous objects like these should be monitored or maybe even require a license. It's not a slippery slope. We didn't license bread after we required licenses for cars or guns. We won't "slip" to licensing your underwear once these require licenses."

Quite frankly I couldnt care less if someone with the self administered moniker of 'hammered hippie' is worried about where they'll get their nose candy from.

Permabear · 16-06-2010 12:09pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 16-06-2010 12:13pm

What part of 'there is a line' did you not get?? Governments should not always intervene. I'm saying they should intervene on certain issues, you are saying they should never intervene. Now I know from debating you that you find it easier to strawman an opponent so you can argue with the fictional posisiton of 'governments should be superman and always intervene' but quite clearly thats not what I'm saying.

And quite clearly you (as a libertarian) are saying governments should never intervene

Very quickly (a yes or no) so as not to drag the thread off-topic, should we be required by law to wear seatbelts?

gandalf · 16-06-2010 12:14pm

Anything that puts more strain on our Health Service needs to be dealt with.

Of course there is populist politics at work here but for once it for the benefit of society.

Eliot Rosewater · 16-06-2010 12:42pm

No, it's not. The drug consumption that fueled the head shops hasn't gone away; it's merely been transferred to illegal drug dealers.

The real winners here are rocket launcher wielding gangsters. They are unaccountable and cannot be regulated, unlike head shops. The problem goes on...

Permabear · 16-06-2010 12:53pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 16-06-2010 12:57pm

Private sexual acts between consenting adults

Now, should seatbelt wearing be required by law?
If you say yes then you accept there is a line. I'd presume you'll say no and reveal the flipside of libertarianism. Everyone loves the idea of live and let live, you like to hide the idea of die and let die

Permabear · 16-06-2010 12:58pm

This post has been deleted.

bryanw · 16-06-2010 12:59pm

Well this shows us the problem with this country.

There are those who think that everything should be regulated. This is the view proffered by those who think they know better than everyone else, and therefore want to tell everyone else what to do, i.e. "The Nanny State".

The problem is allowing the Government to regulate some of the more dangerous things will inevitably lead to wishing to regulate everything, as was mentioned previously: "which sector of society can I destroy to further my career"?

The problem in Ireland is that there is a lack of any concept of personal responsibility. People are not prepared to take responsibility for their own actions. Such as the seat belt argument. It should be the responsibility of the person to wear their own seat belt. If there is a car crash and the driver is wearing his seat belt and the passenger is not, tough, the passenger is responsible for his own safety. The current situation as I gather, is where the driver is not open to prosecution if the passenger is not wearing the seat belt, but the driver can get a penalty if either he or children in the car are not wearing. I've no problem with children wearing a seat belt by regulation, but for the driver it is again a matter of personal responsibility.

I'm completely fine with allowing people to use headshops. Their actions do not affect me, and no harm will come to my body by others using drugs. Where I draw the line is when the actions of one person infringes upon mine. For this reason I support the smoking ban. For instance if A shoots B, the Nanny Stater believes that it is the guns fault and therefore we should ban guns. In reality, it is A's fault and A should now be punished because A has encroached upon B's right not to be shot.

And it is correct to say that allowing Governments to regulate one thing will lead to regulation of a lot more things. Books, films, songs, sunbeds, alcohol, food. These are examples of things government wishes to regulate when you have someone sitting in an office who thinks he knows what's good for everyone else.

Lockstep · 16-06-2010 1:01pm

The Irish Constitution (which is more defined and much less open-ended than Constitutions like the United States)
European Union Treaties/ECJ
International treaties and conventions.

Our government is far from having a blank cheque to legislate on whatever it wants.

Laminations · 16-06-2010 1:04pm

Private consenting incest is not my cup of tea but its nobodies business, hence PRIVATE

Permabear · 16-06-2010 1:07pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 16-06-2010 1:10pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 16-06-2010 1:11pm

The regulations dont remove personal responsibility, they heighten it. You are still personally responsible for wearing a seatbelt and if others are travelling with you you are responsible for them too. People didnt wear seatbelts when it was voluntary because the likelihood of crashing was not tangible to them, they never saw it as salient. The likelihood of getting a fine and penalty points is nore salient. You still have freedom to not wear a seatbelt, its just the the consequence has changed. Your argument seems to be if people are too careless/stupid/forgetful that they kill themselves, so be it. Libertarians like to expand that to people who are vulnerable/poor/disabled etc and say tough luck if they also fail. Proper regulation heightens the consequence of misbehaviour which is not on its own tangible enough to moderate the behaviour.

Fuhrer · 16-06-2010 1:13pm

And who defines what an adult is?

Laminations · 16-06-2010 1:14pm

I'm sure the incest would have to become public for any criminal proceedings to take place and I dont condone public incest so I wont call for any such repeal. You on the other hand condone incest and sexual harrassment and domestic abuse and horrific car crashes and private education and health and the deregulation of all spheres that would allow the mass exploitation of most of the population by the wealthy few

Lockstep · 16-06-2010 1:16pm

You're honestly saying that the Irish Constitution has few checks on government power? The High Court has jurisdiction to strike down unconstitutional legislation, either you can do bring this forward yourself (provided that you have sufficient personal interest in the legislation) or the President can inititate it.

Ditto for the ECJ, they have been more than willing to strike down statutes which go against EU law (although national courts have been adept at avoiding a clash between the EU and national Constitutions)

What in particular do you deem to be unconstitutional/against European legislation then?

Laminations · 16-06-2010 1:16pm

The state, with a mandate from its citizens. Are you saying the state now shouldnt intervene with child abuse because an individual has decided he disagrees with what constitutes adulthood?

Banned Account · 16-06-2010 1:17pm

I would have to disagree with this to be honest. If you are to take the blasphemy bill for example, this was enacted in order to ensure that the law was constitutional, there was an anomally without it.

If you are to browse through our body of constitutional law, you will see many cases where laws have been either dropped after an Article 26 reference or struck down at a later stage for being contrary to the constitution.

If you are to look similarly at some of the ECJ case law, you will find similar examples from all over Europe. I think the crux of the matter is making sure that we have an adequate and enforcible system of checks an balances.

The seperation of powers exists to prevent the state from holding a monopoly of power, however, the fact that we live in a system where the structure exists does not necessarily ensure that the system will function correctly without constant monitoring.

A proper Judicial appointment system, a second house with the power tp stike down proposed amendments and a more accountable legislative body would be optimal, but in the meantime, the present system is workable if sufficient attention is paid to it.

Fuhrer · 16-06-2010 1:17pm

No, I say the state should intervene

And It should also intervene in cases of incest and such

Can government attack non law breaking businesses just like that?

Comments