[Crazykz]

There is one line in this quote that states, if it's the law of the land. At times, some Precepts, not the first 4 for sure, are socially acceptable.
The 5th Precept was spoken after a monk became drunk and showed heedlessness for the first 4. But The Buddha and Ananda took care of the monk until he sobered up.

The only time I know of that the first precept is accepted in Buddhism, the Mahayana school, is in places where food is not able to be grown. As in high altitude mountains or possibly the arctic areas. In these cases, meat/fish is the only source of substance for survival.

The following quote is from http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/budethics.htm

1) To undertake the training to avoid taking the life of beings. This precept applies to all living beings not just humans. All beings have a right to their lives and that right should be respected. Where is killing of humans acceptable as the law of the land? I guess if you were born into a head hunter/cannibal tribe it would be acceptable to these cultures. But really what's the chance of that.............

2) To undertake the training to avoid taking things not given. This precept goes further than mere stealing. One should avoid taking anything unless one can be sure that is intended that it is for you. Where is stealing the law of the land and considered right?

3) To undertake the training to avoid sensual misconduct. This precept is often mistranslated or misinterpreted as relating only to sexual misconduct but it covers any overindulgence in any sensual pleasure such as gluttony as well as misconduct of a sexual nature. Where is it ok to rape, molest a child or take someone else's spouse?

4) To undertake the training to refrain from false speech. As well as avoiding lying and deceiving, this precept covers slander as well as speech which is not beneficial to the welfare of others. Again, where is this considered right? Lying to harm others in every culture I can think of at this moment, has a punishment for it.

5) To undertake the training to abstain from substances which cause intoxication and heedlessness. This precept is in a special category as it does not infer any intrinsic evil in, say, alcohol itself but indulgence in such a substance could be the cause of breaking the other four precepts. I will admit in some cultures in the East, it is customary to do what your superiors are doing when you are with them. Example: you're out to eat with them and they are drinking, in this context to avoid a social custom would be unproper, so you have a drink not to insult this cultures system. Or if alcohol is used in a medicinal context.
The Buddha never said anything about not using a substance as medication. He said to not use it to excess and cause heedlessness.

Other than that I can see some of the other Precepts for monastics being "bent" such as the wearing of jewelry, dancing and perfumes if the culture they're in finds these things necessary and to not do them would cause an insult to the people and in turn cause the Buddhist monastics to be outcast and never have the chance to teach the Dharma.

I'm guessing this question is about the first Precept, which it seems many members here and on other forums, want to find a reason to say it is acceptable in "these certain cases".
In all I've read and discussed with many people the precepts are just the right way to live. They are not a commandment, "a you must do", they are a choice by each individual to follow as a Buddhist or even one who just considers themselves a follower of the Dharma.
We each tread our own path, and in doing so we learn/see with each step what the right thing to do is.
Some paths are more muddy and uphill than others, but one must keep on the path to find the truth in what they believe.

With Metta