Replies

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.