Illegal. Immoral or Both?

Apparently generous Commonwealth bank ATMs were dispensing more money than requested by customers earlier this week. The bank said people were deliberately overdrawing their accounts, and that this was possible because the ATM's were offline, and therefore not connected to the bank's database.For those collecting the bonus cash, it must have seemed like a miracle but banks don't give money away. It's not like Monopoly where a bank error in your favour can net you a cool $200. The beneficiaries of the surprise cash have been told to return the money. Fraud squad is involved, and advising people that keeping money which does not belong to them is a crime which may result in prosecution and a 10 year jail term. That seems a bit over the top, doesn't it? These people aren't criminals...or are they?

You can be fined for littering, but is it immoral? It's against the law to use a handheld mobile phone while you're driving, but it's okay to eat, drink, smoke, have a conversation, or listen to the radio - or even do all five things at once. Is talking on the phone while driving immoral? Is it even criminal?

The possession and/or use of heroin is a crime even though it is less harmful to the body than tobacco which is a legal product. Slander is illegal but it's not a crime to assassinate someone's character in a secret whisper. You can be fined for staying ten minutes too long in a parking space. It's illegal to exceed the speed limit but you can't be fined for overstepping the boundaries of truth in order to manipulate somebody, or their opinion of you. Telling lies is, in many instances, perfectly legal. It's not against the law to be greedy or selfish or to fornicate or to commit adultery, but it is illegal to cut down a tree on your own property without permission.

Consider these many examples and ask yourself the question: Is every illegal act also an immoral act? Or try this one: Should all immoral acts be illegal?

What do Experts Know?

Some people are very emotionally disturbed about the Federal Government's $43 billion national broadband plan. The Coalition Opposition has an alternative, cheaper plan which they put up against the government's plan during this year's (2010) election campaign. Independent MP, Tony Windsor was said to have been swayed to supporting the formation of a minority Labour government by , at least partially, advice from an telecommunications expert about the respective broadband plans.

Rabid opponents of the Government and all things Labour, have tried to discredit the expert who advised Tony Windsor by saying he wasn't qualified to give an expert opinion. Chris Smith, on his 2GB radio program, produced his own independent telecommunications expert, and invited the so called expert who advised Tony Windsor, to take part in a debate about broadband technology. Fearing an ambush from Chris Smith, the pro Government plan expert brought some reinforcements: you guessed it, another independent telecommunications expert. The two experts presented their credentials and in my view were equals. Two men with access to the same information, analysed the broadband options within the framework of equivalent education and comparable professional experience, and came to different conclusions.

Leaving aside the fact that the debate was a farcical attempt by Chris Smith and his independent expert to grind personal axes against the Labour party, and smear the credibility of the other expert by attacking his integrity, what other conclusions could I, as a listener, draw? I am not an expert. Who do I believe?

When two experts interpret information differently and therefore have divergent views on what practical application of those facts should follow, how does a layman like me decide who is right and who is wrong? Who has the authority? Who should I believe?

We have experts declaring that the war against illegal drugs has been lost, but nobody in government is listening. We have other experts wailing about the end of the world being hastened along by climate change and nearly everyone is government is listening. We have telecommunications experts saying fiber optic is the only way to go because it is future proof while other experts assert the technology will date, and the Government's plan will be a $43 billion white elephant. There are many voices claiming to speak the truth and demanding that we believe them. Who should we believe? Who can we trust? As Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, 'What is truth?'

There is no answer in this final sentence.

The Failed War on Drugs

Should illegal drugs be legalized, or at least decriminalized?

In New South Wales, Australia, the Pharmacy Guild funds a needle syringe exchange program for injecting drug users. It provides a free exchange service for users of heroin. The rationale for this program is two fold. Firstly, it is designed to ensure that as many used syringes as possible are disposed of safely, and secondly, it aims to help stop the spread of infectious diseases among users. This program is largely unknown outside the ranks of chemists and drug users. Heroin itself has a fairly low profile these days. It is not fashionable: either for drug users or for media reporters. It is however still an illegal substance and there are heavy penalties for possession, use, and especially for trafficking. The question is why. Why have illicit drugs been demonised?

Is it because they cause people to act in an anti social manner? Is it because they damage people's health? Is it because, people commit crimes under the influence of drugs? Is it because of the violence that is associated with them? The answer to all those questions is yes, but how does that differ from the negative effects of alcohol abuse?

I'll tell you how it differs. Alcohol is much much worse. Although a legal and socially acceptable drug, it is a violent, and indiscriminate killer. Alcohol abuse is a rampant disease in our society. It is an evil curse.

Why don't we just allow people to use whatever substances they want? Almost everyone has something they use to dull the pain of past hurts, the weight of current expectations or the darkness of hopeless futures. If nobody else gets hurt, what's wrong with that? Could all the time, money and effort expended on the war against illegal drugs be better spent?

I heard about his guy named Norm Stamper who was a cop for 34 years and served as Seattle's Chief of Police from 1994-2000. He has written a book called Breaking Rank. He believes the war on drugs in the United States has done exactly the opposite for the people. He says, "tens of thousands of otherwise innocent Americans incarcerated, many for 20 years, some for life; families ripped apart; drug traffickers and blameless bystanders shot dead on city streets; narcotics officers assassinated here and abroad, with prosecutors, judges, and elected officials in Latin America gunned down for their courageous stands against the cartels; and all those dollars spent on federal, state, and local cops, courts, prosecutors, prisons, probation, parole, and pee-in-the-bottle programs. Even federal aid to bribe distant nations to stop feeding our habit."

This is typical of a society which has lost the ability to wisely choose which battles to fight, and which ones to walk way from. The situation in Australia is not as bad as that in the U.S. but surely we don't want to follow their lead.