Official Legal Definition of Contradiction

¶ … official legal definition of contradiction is that there exists between two ideas an incompatibility and evident opposition of two idea which share the subject of one and the same proposition. In simpler words, this means that when a party who is accused of a crime contradicts himself, it is presumes that he is guilty, since by definition truth will not contradict itself, being always consistent. On the other hand, falsehood is generally inconsistent and therefore the truth of some facts, which are known to be true, will in turn contradict the falsehood of those, which are not true. Contradiction in any form will essentially weaken the cause, the case or the situation, and as it is seen, can even weaken the truth. If two issues are directly opposed to each other, the contradictions must ultimately be reconciled. If this cannot be done, then the more improbable of the two statements is rejected summarily. Unfortunately, if both are entitled to the same credit, then the matter will be as if no proof had been given in either case.

The burden to the law is therefore a powerful one. Why then are we so often in today's laws met with so much legal contradiction. In this paper I will review three elements of society in which much legislation and moralization has been passed, and will attempt to define the reality of each situation from hype. The three subjects I will undertake are 1) the use of alcohol, drugs and tobacco 2) the effect of violent movies and media on children and 3) pornography. I will attempt to present the facts of these issues outside of emotion and moralization.

We are now two years into the holding of enemy noncombatants in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. This prison was built to hold those individuals captured during the United States; preemptive strike against terrorism by the war in Afghanistan. This prison holds about 600 people, and yet these people hold no legal status within the United States. Because of this, the current administration has been able to legally support the denial of any kind of legal protection under the law to these individuals. These individuals are imprisoned by the same law which gives them no status and prevents them from contact with legal counsel, with family members, and even with human rights groups, it is this kind of perverse contradiction which has made a mockery of the American legal system. Instead of using facts and thoughtful contemplation to make our laws, instead of using hard science and study, we use gut reactions and easily wave away our civil rights in the hope for safety to shop at Home Depot without worry of a terrorist bomb.

To date, any legal action taken on the part of the Guantanamo bay prisoners have been essentially unsuccessful. It appears that the only hope some of these people have is having their case tried in the media, which may be worse for them. To date, only the International Committee of the Red Cross has been the only group from outside to be in to observe prison conditions. Rather than winning hearts and minds, the ICRC was vocal in its' condemnation of the management of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and joined in support with human rights groups such as Amnesty International to denounce the management of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay Prison.

Some people feel that is impossible for the legal system to be impartial. I deny this is so. I feel that there just needs to be more careful considerations of laws which would seem to fly in the face of fact and common sense. Do we make laws to please the public or to provide for the common good? Another good example of this is the issue of drugs and alcohol. Let us first set out minds to the legal drinking age, which in the United States is now 21 in every state. This law was meant to reduce incidents of underage drinking and the problems that come with underage drinking. It was a hipshot reaction, based in part on a moral code. But into this law came no thought of common sense, basically the idea that drinking, as such, will probably always take place in the youth of America, whether the age is 21 or not. Prohibition did not work in the 1920s and it will likely not work for us now.

Human nature is human nature. What is forbidden to us is always likely to be that which is the most tantalizing. The element, which makes alcohol forbidden, is perhaps part of what makes it so interesting to adolescents in the first place. It represents adulthood, a right of passage and a stab at parental independence. Yet we will allow a child to buy a pack of cigarettes at age 18. He or she may even buy pornography or go to see a movie rated NC-17, meaning the content is so excessively sexual or violent that it is not considered appropriate for those who we still consider children. But not a pack of cigarettes, since that may spoil his or her health.

In truth, studies show that those who begin to smoke in adolescence are more likely to continue smoking for a lifetime and have a harder time trying to quite when they do quit. Every day, it is estimated that almost 5,000 adolescents (aged 11 to 17) smoke their first cigarette. It is also estimated that as of January 2005, almost 4.5 million adolescents in the United States smoke cigarettes on a regular basis. While ninety percent of smokers begin to smoke before age 21, over 350,000 Americans die prematurely each year from the effects of smoking. Studies have also shown that the prevalence of smoking is higher in those who have from 9 to 11 years of education compared to those with 16 years of educations. Each day, it is estimated, that more than 6,000 children under age 18 try a cigarette and half of these will become daily smokers. If this level of smoking trend continues, then about 5 million people currently under the age of 18 will eventually die from smoking related illness. The statistics are not the same for those who drink under age 18. And what element of smoking makes it okay to do after age 18? There is no scientific evidence, which holds for the reduction in morbidity or mortality secondary to the use of tobacco products in those who are more than age 18. So why are cigarettes then legal after 18, when they are no better for you than when you were 17?

The argument is then made that at age 18 an individual has the right to make decisions on his or her own. He is essentially and in the eyes of the law considered to be "an adult." He or she may vote, sign up for military service and marry without parental consent, watch the aforementioned pornographic movie or buy pornographic material.

Yet, the same individual may not drink alcohol. We essentially say that these adults are old enough to kill and at least think about sex and violence, but not to drink. To date, I have been unable to find any kind of scientific evidence which may demonstrate some kind of biochemical change in brains of the adolescent which makes them more susceptible to alcohol at age 18 and yet not at age 21? What is the rational basis for this kind of law? This is the kind of issue that I plan to research in depth during my Masters' studies.

Everyone had heard that tobacco and big tobacco companies are vilified for their involvement in the distribution of products which have been scientifically proven to be hazardous to the health. Is it not for these reasons that each cigarette package holds the warning that the use of this product has been shown to cause cancer, low birth rate, etc. The Surgeon General's first report on smoking and health was released in 1964. Since that time, about 10 million people have died from disease related to smoking. It is also estimated that should the current rate of smoking continue, about 25 million more will die from smoking related causes. The original package warning stated that smoking "might" be hazardous to health - perhaps a failure to commit at that point, or perhaps an effort to avoid law suit.

Nevertheless, based on continued scientific study, some on the part of the tobacco companies themselves, the warning was modified in 1967 at the request of the Federal Trade Commission to "dangerous to health and may cause death from Cancer and other diseases." The advertisement of smoking and cigarettes via television and radio ads was prohibited in 1969. Yet in 1981, the FTC was to issue a report to Congress which stated that the health warning labels had little to no effect on public knowledge and/or attitudes about smoking. Congress again attempted to legislate surrounding smoking by enacting the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984. This act enlarged the labels on the cigarettes, and required that the labels on cigarettes and cigarette ads say things like,."..Cause lung cancer...may complicate pregnancy...quitting smoking now greatly reduces hazards to your health... may result in low birth weight and fetal injury." Yet despite all these attempts to educate, all the package warnings and all the public service ads, we still see that despite the millions of dollars spent on smoking prevention each year, every year sees more and more people taking up the habit, until today death from cardiovascular disease remains the number one killer in the United States, contributed in a great part by smoking. And yet we keep legislating, when then proof shows that what we are doing is not working.

Our discussion of vice-based legislation now brings us to the subject of fattening foods. In 2002, a lawyer in New York filed suit against the four biggest fast food corporations in the United States. In this suit, the lawyer alleged that the foods that these companies sold had contributed to his client's obesity and related medical problems. The plaintiff evidently felt that the nutritional information provided by the companies was "irresponsible and deceptive" and that these corporations had, in effect, caused addictions in this client in very much the same ways that big tobacco companies had been found liable for the cancers which had been diagnosed in lifetime smokers. The United States House of Representatives moved quickly to ban lawsuits in this ilk, in part because of the action of restaurant corporation lobbyists, and in part in a move by the Republicans to ban what they termed "frivolous" law suits. The legislators cited the need for personal responsibility, for common sense and the need for our culture to move away from what has been termed a victim mentality. Some in legal circles felt that the bill went too far, was basically unnecessary legislation which easily and more appropriately should have been handled at the level of the courts, where it is at the discretion of the judge to throw frivolous law suits out of court. But some played the devil's advocate and asked why the victims of cancer emphysema were not cautioned to practice self-control and personal responsibility regarding their use of cigarettes, especially in those who had continued to smoke or started smoking in the years following the Surgeon General's warning regarding the effect of cigarettes on health. Some sectors felt that this kind of legislation would hold a large sector of the American industry exempt from law suits, but others noted that there simply was not the science to support the claims of the obese that the food they had eaten was in essence "addictive" and that they were physically and mentally unable to stop, despite adverse physical effects like obesity, diabetes and other co-morbidities. A large part of the lawsuit against the fast food companies stated that the foods were presented in a misleading manner, which nutritional information was not provided for customers. But would our experience with the warning labels on cigarettes teach us anything about this claim? We know that it clearly states on cigarette packages that they are harmful to health, yet people use them regularly. What would be any different for a person who was forced to look at a sign that indicated the caloric content and fat grams of an offending hamburger? Why was one dismissed summarily and the other held up? Was it a matter of science? While studies have proven that nicotine has been addictive, have similar studies shown that food is not? We know that there are people who have eating disorders - is the science sound? There are some who opine that the fact that the plaintiff was obese, and that obesity is less socially acceptable than cancer, even when that cancer is directly associated with cigarette smoking, both apparently matters of personal choice and responsibility. This again is another subject for further research.

The makers of alcoholic beverages have not, to this point, been held to the same standard as tobacco and fast food corporations. Why should this be? Alcohol can be hazardous to the heath, has a definite association with addiction, can shorten life, contribute to other health conditions, and injure the unborn. Is it not true that alcohol can be considered a factor in any number of accidents and incidents, such as motor vehicle accidents, domestic violence, and unwanted pregnancies? On the whole, world wide intake of alcohol is on the increase. Yet according to the World Health Organization, about one hundred and forty million people suffer from alcohol dependence. In fact, in a world where children are carded for cigarettes and fast food companies are taking super sized portions off their menus in response to legal challenges, we are seeing a reduction in the number of "dry counties" in the Southern United States, we are seeing an increase in the number of states that allow liquor sales on Sundays, and even states which have allowed the in-store sampling of sprits. How has alcohol managed to avoid the same kind of scrutiny and legal challenge of it's vice like brothers?

One reason may be that, on the whole, the intake of alcohol is decreasing among the more affluent nations. Even in the United States there has been a decrease in the amount of alcohol intake per capita over the last two decades. According to statistics, the average American consumed 6.7 liters of alcohol in 2001, which is a reduction from 8.3 liters in 1980.

It also may be that the dangerous of over-imbibing are too well-known. It would be hard for any drinker to plead ignorance of the effects of alcohol on judgment in court. This is not to say that lawsuits do not happen. For example, a chain restaurant in Ohio paid out a 21 million dollar settlement in 2002 on a lawsuit brought by the parents of two teenagers killed in a drunken driving accident. The burden was placed upon the restaurant to confirm that the boys were of age to drink before serving them. But one must thing, if the boys were over age 21 and if they had been drinking to excess, and been killed in the same accident, would the restaurant chain still have been found liable? What about the element of personal judgment and responsibility which was used as an excuse in the legislation against frivolous law suits in the fast food case? It is not cited in the article how old the boys are, but were they twenty, still under the age of legal intake, one would assume that the restaurant would have been found liable as well, since the boys were underage, and the company was found negligent because they served underage customers. So is the burden of personal responsibility and judgment somehow less in a 20-year-old than in a 21-year-old? If this is true, then why would a 20-year-old be allowed to marry, to adopt, to enlist in the armed services, to carry a gun, to vote for president? Is there one standard of personal responsibility that applies to everything else EXCEPT alcohol?

Perhaps the cause of alcoholism has lost favor in light of more interesting and popular causes, and that is why big alcohol corporations are not targets for legal action as some of the other "vice based" industries are. It has been noted that at this point, many health foundations and organizations have turned their money and efforts away from alcohol and towards what they deem more important causes, like the work of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation surrounding childhood obesity, and the World Health Organization's campaign against the use of tobacco.

Interestingly enough, in the management of issues surrounding alcohol use, most of the public health organizations are staying away from a legalistic approach and instead attempting to partner up with alcohol companies to provide a program which fosters the idea of "responsible drinking."

The World Health Organizations and others like it appear to have a more pragmatic attitude towards drinking than that which is seen with the use of tobacco. While it is true that alcohol is not as "lethal" as tobacco, it has its own shares of public health risks. There is a school of thought that believes that a reduction in the amount and prevalence of advertising surrounding alcoholic beverages, especially in areas around schools and in the times when children are more likely to be watching television, is the newest plan, the ultimate thought being that be making alcohol less visual and available then the less people will drink. Again, the vague science that does exist around issues such as this would lead you back to the report of the FTC, which indicated that the removal of cigarette ads from television and radio did not appear to have a significant effect on the direct consumption of tobacco products. Is there something inherently different about alcohol? Or are the lobbyists just better? Are the pockets not as deep?

Alcohol companies seem to be allowed to self-regulate in a way that is more similar to what is seen in the fast food enterprises. As McDonald's removed its' "super size" items from the menu, so do many of the larger alcohol companies now practice internal restraints and attempts to place messages regarding responsible drinking into their advertising. It also may be a factor that most of the alcohol made in the world is produced by smaller operators who do not have the large coffers of money that the other big vice corporations have, making then less likely target for big litigation.

So we have discussed the legal drugs and vices, what about those that are outside the realm of the FDA. There appears to be no limit on the number of ways that human beings will seek some sort of altered reality, and most of them are not legal. If one thing can be said toward the general attitude of the public and the legal establishment toward the use of alcohol and drugs, it is that it is grossly inconsistent. Even when completely avoiding any kind of moral overlay in the discussion of illicit drugs, as a country we appear to have a problem with the idea of victimization, and especially that of substance dependence. Perhaps it is our desire for clear cut answers to what is right and what is wrong which lead us to seek for legal solutions to what may be personal problems. There has been much in the news over the last few years over the decriminalization of marijuana. The effort came initially from those who desire medical marijuana to improve the appetite of those patients who have chemotherapy or AIDS, to reduce problems with glaucoma, and as an adjunct to pain control in patients at the end of life. We have seen some miserable failures in the government's efforts to control the distribution of medical marijuana, specifically in Canada and in the United States. The problem with marijuana, especially, is that the overwhelming scientific evidence which shows that marijuana is an effective pain reliever and anti-emetic comes in direct opposition to what are considered official positions on the legalization of the drug. At the time of this writing, only the National Institute on drug abuse has access to marijuana which can be used in research. It only provides significantly low potency material and only to research projects the Institute personally approves. Some cannabis researchers have complained that the application process to obtain marijuana for medical research projects is a lengthy and somewhat arbitrary process. There also appears to be no rhyme or reason in this matter, since the NIDA actually refused two marijuana research projects which the FDA had actually approved. In fact, the only current issue which stands in the way of the development of marijuana into an FDA approved prescription medication would be the abolishment of the monopoly which NIDA has on the supply of cannabis (something it does not have on some other experimental medications such as LSD or MDMA). Whether or not medical researchers will be allowed to obtain marijuana in the future will be another case for the courts, although the recent legalization of small amounts of marijuana for personal use in the city of Denver, Colorado, is sure to set some precedents and will likely end up working its way through the courts as well. The ongoing debate over decriminalization of marijuana has been surprisingly mild, and the open minded status that most state legislatures have to decriminalization is interesting, even though the Attorney General of the United States appeared to have made it his personal goal to nullify all decriminalization legislature at the state level. The problem is that even when decriminalization for medical marijuana has been approved, there has been no significant federal support for its use. The provision of illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin is a multi-billion dollar global industry. The industries which produce drugs present many contradictions. The vast consumption of legal caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol, and billions of doses of prescription drugs such as valium, Librium, etc., are the basis of multi-million dollar conglomerates. Simultaneously, the illegal drug trade in marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogens, and heroin provides economic activity for several million people otherwise classified as "unemployed" or "unemployable." Are the laws based upon those which do the greatest harm, those which make the greatest profit, or those which we find to be morally acceptable?