45
What is your perspective on a government permitting activities that are technically illegal? (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they're legal.

This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor's office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.

What's your view on the matter?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This kind of thing can be considered a form of “checks and balances”. If one branch of the government passes a law and another branch enforces it, both branches have to agree for the law to function.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hmm. I don't see the balance here: the conjugate would be the executive enforcing non-existant laws, and the legislative to be able to stop them. That isn't the case.

    So clearly, the power balance is asymetric, and lies completely in favour of executive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •