Harry's antics

[bronski]

Now that Harry is doing what every other 17-year-old in the country is doing, will the media stop being hypocritical about cannabis?

[incitatus]

No. See this morning's unenlightened Metro, where the use of cannabis was on a page titled "Path to Addiction" and a drug rehabilitation centre that deserves far better was described as an "addicts' bolt hole".

[andy hughes]

I'm unsure about either of the points made here - not every 17-year-old drinks and/or smokes cannabis, and the law says that both are illegal at the Prince's age. Fact is, the royals are in the spotlight, their behaviour is under scrutiny, and this is heaven-sent for a media frenzy, I fail to see where the hypocrisy comes in. Whether or not you agree with the laws involved - a separate issue entirely - laws are what make us civilised, you don't have to like them, but you do have to live by them - including Prince Harry, and indeed the media.

[incitatus]

REASONABLE laws make us civilised. Unjust and unenforceable laws should be changed. Normally these laws are changed because they are no longer obeyed by the majority, e.g. prohibition. Total obedience to all laws in this country is impossible anyway, but even so civil disobedience is a valid method for opposing laws that make no sense. One does of course face imprisonment or fines, but what the hey.
And also Harry is not meant to be in the spotlight until he is 18. The story is not in the public interest as it features the normal behaviour of an adolescent. Which for a change has been handled rather well. Saying that Harry should be pilloried in the media for his behaviour because of which family he belongs to is similar to declaring the poor guy Harijan. He can't help his genetics.

[andy hughes]

I was careful to make the point that the law is to be obeyed, regardless of wether or not it appears just or enforceable, both of which, as I pointed out, are separate issues. Whether Prince Harry should be in the spotlight or not is again, not the issue - the issue is the law, and laws are not the subject of arbitrary public opinion, or a rule by majority, and they are not repealed on the basis tyhat they are unenforcable. If that were the case, drinking and driving and 30mph speed limits, non-payment of income tax, and a whole host of others, would beat the queue for the hip and trendy arguments about canabis and drinking. Again, I don't wish to cloud the issue - I do have opinions on the canabis and drinking laws, but the difference is, I hold my opinion, the state holds the laws - only one is a matter of legal redress applied to everyone, regardless of age, or society status.

[incitatus]

Sorry, I truly believe you to be wrong. Laws can be divided into two areas: Those that regulate behaviour that can damage others, or lead to detraction from societal good (drink driving and income tax fit here) and those that regulate personal behaviour according to an arbitrary set of moral rules (drug laws, the test act for catholic supression, the vow acts etc.). Disobedience of the first set has a clear harmful effect upon others, and so contravenes the millsian utility doctrine. Disobedience of the latter harms only yourself and is no business of government. Applying your argument, how is a law ever changed? There has never, to my knowledge, been a case of legislative change without civil disobedience. Politicians do not lead, they follow. Applying your arguments, the American civil rights movement would not exist (it was illegal for a black woman to ride that bus). Apartheid would still be in force, homosexuals throughout the world would still be in prison, no Sunday opening of shops, no newspapers, no sex outside of marriage ... need I go on?
I am all for the oobedience of laws where the breach of which causes harm to others by either physical means or financial (I pay tax for this reason). I strongly recommend the breach of those laws where this is not the case, as an instrument of societal change.

[andy hughes]

I have to bow to your skillfully argued points here Incitatus -I am sure that the cannabis laws are slowly on their way out - it just needs a government with the courage to admit that cannabis is no more or less harmful than tobacco or alcohol, and the scaremongering 'cannabis / heroin' interface is based on fear, rather than fact. As I understand it, the thrust of the media argument is not so much that Harry drank, but that it caused him to behave like a nasty yob, and that is what rankles with his privileged position, whether he desires it or not. Prince Charles has made his opinion of the drink laws apparent - it appears Harry has a basement den at Highgrove to entertain his friends - complete with a bar!

[incitatus]

Re Harry's Bar...lucky swine. I had a barn and a few kegs of scrumpy. RHIP I suppose