Replies

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?