CU’s 4/20 pot smoke-out draws crowd of 10,000: Police issue zero tickets

The police will go to elaborate lengths (concealment, working in packs, helicopters, radar, laser) to catch a speeder, but they won't bust a bunch of potheads assembled in a large convenient group, openly violating both state and federal law?

This is an act of civil disobedience. It is a national tradition we have in this country to fight evil and unjust laws. The cops were outnumbered 10000 to 17. Not much they could do.

It would be like 10000 speeders all going down the freeway speeding at once. They wait until its over and then go back to picking them off one at a time.

This is an act of civil disobedience

B.S. Civil disobediance is an act taken as a last resort. The Founders tried every possible legal avenue available before resorting to it.

How many of these "evil fighters" even vote? How many have written their representatives? Organized petitions to redress grievances? Tried to convince their fellow citizens of the rightness of their cause?

There's nothing noble about breaking the law because you don't like it or because its somehow cool.

Every right comes with responsibility. When they've exhausted the responsible means to change laws in a democratic society, then and only then, do they have the right to break those laws and even at that point, they should still be arrested and turned over to the court system.

B.S. Civil disobediance is an act taken as a last resort. The Founders tried every possible legal avenue available before resorting to it.

I have read your definition nowhere. You must have made it up.

How many of these "evil fighters" even vote? How many have written their representatives? Organized petitions to redress grievances? Tried to convince their fellow citizens of the rightness of their cause?

Given that they are up against the lies and propaganda of the state and federal governments, who actually now try to imprison people for advocating drug legalization, I think they are a little out gunned. Besides, who is to decide when they have exhausted all other means, you?

There's nothing noble about breaking the law because you don't like it or because its somehow cool.

There is, however, if a law is unjust, as the pot laws are.

Every right comes with responsibility. When they've exhausted the responsible means to change laws in a democratic society, then and only then, do they have the right to break those laws and even at that point, they should still be arrested and turned over to the court system.

Again, who decides when this has happened. Organizations in this country have been trying for thirty years to fight against the lies of government to no avail. Must they wait for another generation of youth to be destroyed by drug warriors before they act? I think not. In California and Nationwide, for example, even though the clear majority wants medical marijuana available, the Feds refuse to budge. When the Feds tell the majority of American people to screw themselves, I think it is time to act.

I don't think the speed limit is just. Do I get to violate it at will if I call it "civil disobedience"? Will you stand behind me? Its been in place for at least 50 years - isn't it time to act? After all, who decides what laws are just? Who decides which can be flaunted at will? Under whose definition of "justice" or "fairness" do we base our actions?

Which goes back to my original point: "I sure wish there was some handy guide as to which laws on the books are optional, and for who, and which are going to be enforced."

I agree that that many of the drug laws should be revised and some of the penalties are too harsh. However, nothing is going to happen as long as the pro-pot lobby stages silly law-breaking stunts like this. Had they held a large demonstration, without the pot-smoking, they might have been able to make a valid point and gather support, but to the law-abiding, their point is now lost.

They have every right to demonstrate, and they should - legally.

The GMM on May 3 march on Washington seems like it could have a lot of potential, if the potheads could show that they could keep the weed out of it and demonstrate legally, they might actually gather support from others purely on the merits of their case.

I don't think the speed limit is just. Do I get to violate it at will if I call it "civil disobedience"?

The whole point about civil disobedience is that you are intentionally breaking the law. If you are not breaking any laws, then that is a demonstration.

Civil disobedience has been used to end slavery and prohibition. Martin Luther King and Ghandi also used it with great success. I would argue civil disobedience is more effective because the people engaging in it have more to lose than a demonstrator, who is not risking anything. I doubt the lawmakers who are trying to screw us care about demonstrations, but they do fear uprisings, especially those with torches and pitchforks.

I fear we have little control over our government now. They have grown so big and distributed authority so broadly that nothing short of a crisis will ever get them to change course.

My question for you is, if the Supreme Court decides that the 2nd Amendment does not give us an individual right to own a gun and the Feds outlaw guns, will you comply?

The whole point about civil disobedience is that you are intentionally breaking the law. If you are not breaking any laws, then that is a demonstration.

So when was the attempt at a large-scale demonstration that didn't involve law-breaking? That is exactly my point - they skip over all the legitimate forms of addressing bad law within the system and go directly to "civil disobedience". Further, in the case of pot, the fact that they can't seem to get together without toking furthers the governments case that it is an addictive substance that requires regulation at minimum.

My question for you is, if the Supreme Court decides that the 2nd Amendment does not give us an individual right to own a gun and the Feds outlaw guns, will you comply?

You really think smoking weed rises to the same level as an inalienable right considered so important it was included in BOR? But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't.

So if the feds got out of the WOD and it was strictly illegal at the state level, would that be OK with you and lawbreaking would then be lawbreaking and not "civil disobedience"?

"I fear we have little control over our government now. They have grown so big and distributed authority so broadly that nothing short of a crisis will ever get them to change course"

That may be true, but good luck if you expect this popular uprising to be based a bunch of potheads smoking weed in public, especially if nobody even gets arrested. Hardly the shot heard round the world.

Thousands of people smoking the demon weed at the same time and place? My God, is the town still standing?

So many people getting high. Surely the hospitals were flooded with people experiencing psychotic episodes, and with the victims of the murders, rapes, and assaults committed by the intoxicated mob. Surely scores of homes and businesses were invaded by the stoned masses.

I mean, look what happens when college students get together in large groups and drink alcohol, which is a legal substance. The overturn cars, start riots, engage in public debauchery, some of them even die from alcohol poisoning.

I can only imagine the chaos and destruction left by a crowd of college students enjoying an illegal substance.

< /s>

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.