Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
I don't understand how celebrities can talk freely about their criminal drug use and abuse without fear of being charged.

While I understand that drug consumption offences are mainly minor offences that the penalties usually involve rehab vs. jail time, they are still criminal. Eventually drug consumption will be legitimized as it becomes more main stream. It does seem heavy handed to ban someone from entering another country.

However people should remember that admitting to criminal acts is admitting to criminal acts.

People also expect for the law to be applied uniformly. Therefore, pretty much most college students shouldn't be allowed in the US because of drug experimentation. Very few pop or rock or hip-hop musicians should be allowed in the states who have admitted to drug use.

I wish we wouldn't let George Bush into our country because of his former alcoholism and cocaine use. Not to mention war crimes and illegal spying on his own citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
I did read the article. Obviously its not illegal to have TB or aids, but they ban people from entering the country because of those things too apparently.

It was not obvious to me from the article that his research was totally legal or totally illegal. I cannot recall the article saying he only researched/experimented with in during the time period when it was legal. The way it was talked about his unique personal experiences with LSD, it sounded more like personal experimentation than research.

My response was aimed more at how celebrities often publicly admit to criminal behavior without any sort of law enforcement getting involved or legal repercussions otherwise.

While it may be unfair or heavy handed, any country can seemingly deny a person entry for whatever reason. They might not even give a reason.

Even though the Universal Declaration of Human rights states that we should have free movement and right of return throughout the world, the reality is that this isn't the case. Our movement to other countries is subject to the regulations and laws of that country.

The best recourse for people who have been denied entry by the heavy hand of the law might be to make their aguement for entry not based on law or rights but on loss of economic benefit to the United States. Get tourism and commerce groups from the US on your side and watch the regulations become more lax. It's those economic interests that are holding back the need for passports at land-crossings.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top