Should we only follow the laws we agree with?

[serrano2008]

The Michael Phelps thing has brought up some interesting discussion, most of which focuses on how stupid it is to arrest someone for smoking pot.

Regardless of your views about smoking pot, the fact is that it's against the law and people out there be breaking the law. Otherwise, why should anyone follow any laws?

Why are there laws against shoplifting or tax evasion or speeding or "No left turn between 4:00-6:00pm" and should I just not follow them and not be punished for them if I purposefully choose to break them?

It's strange that so many people on DU take the viewpoint that it's stupid to arrest Phelps or anyone else for breaking the marijuana law, when one of our overall themes lately and over the past 5-6 years or so is whether or not the Bush Administration should be held accountable for breaking laws they don't agree with.

I'm not comparing the actual laws that were broken themselves, that is irrevelant. What is relevant is that you can't have it both ways and just say it's ok for these people to break whatever laws they want and these other people can't break whatever laws they want.

If you don't like a law, fight to change it. But if there is a law, no matter how stupid, we have to follow it. Otherwise "law" itself is irrevelant.

[ShortnFiery]

1. How many of us upstanding US Citizens have "exceeded the speed limit" on occasion?

How many of us, if we "looked within" can say with 100% HONESTY that we have NOT EVER driven after imbibing a couple of drinks and would test POSITIVE for DUI if pulled over by a Police Officer?

The first step (and perhaps, it will be the last for a long while) is to DECRIMINALIZE small amounts of Marijuana.

The active substance in Marijuana (THC) has many medicinal benefits as well as MINIMAL capacity for addiction. Therefore, Marijuana should not be part of the DEA's "War on Drugs" as it ties up too many resources that could be used stopping the truly dangerous Amphetamine based drugs: Crack, Cocaine and Crystal Meth.

[pnutbutr]

5. legalize

tax, control, sell it and allow hemp to be farmed to open the way for thousands of new businesses, farmers and other related jobs.

[serrano2008]

8. Saw this one coming a mile away.

And I can say with 100% honesty that I would have never tested positive for a DUI but ANYWAY...

It's true that on occasion I'll get above the speed limit, but the couple of times I've gotten a ticket...I owned up to it and paid the ticket. I didn't whine and complain about how there shouldn't be any speed limit laws, and try to pass petitions to get all speed limit laws removed. Certainly after I get a speeding ticket I watch my speed very closely so I don't get another one to lower my drivers license points and raise my insurance.

Your response proves my point quite well...rather than saying, "Yes you should follow laws." your argument is that it's ok to break the laws we don't agree with. Then you start trying to convince me why marijuana is so great, when I'm not the one that makes the laws.

[tekisui]

14. By your reasoning, we would never advance or progress as a nation.

We would still be slave-owners. Laws change because they are challenged and because they are wrong.

[serrano2008]

17. I never said we shouldn't change laws.

In fact I said very clearly, "if you don't like the law fight to change it."

But if there is a law, we should follow it.

[tekisui]

22. How do you feel about the sit-ins during the civil rights movement?

Should the African-Americans accepted that? How about slavery?

Civil disobedience is required to fight unjust laws. Petitions and requests don't work.

[Uncle Joe]

65. But what about when slavery was legal, should those people

that broke the law by establishing an Underground Railroad have been arrested?

[ShortnFiery]

66. 'I would have never tested positive for a DUI but ANYWAY..."

But of course - and that fact (purity) fully explains the self-righteous aura of your arguments.

We disagree. :shrug:

[atreides1]

2. True

But do you spend thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to prosecute a misdemeanor offense? Most intelligent people would call it a Phyrric victory.

"Moral reason must learn how to make a coercion its ally without running the risk of a Pyrrhic victory in which the ally exploits and negates the triumph"

[Le Taz Hot]

3. Yes.

It's called Civil Disobedience. In the meantime, we've been trying like hell to change the asinine laws on marijuana for decades. The problem is, we can't even get DEMOCRATS to grow a fucking spine and and sponsor a legalization bill.

It's a stupid law enacted by wealthy industrialists that used misinformation and racism to pass it in the first place. If MILLIONS of people are disobeying the law, I would think that, at some point, we might want to revisit the efficacy of the law and reason for the law in the first place. But our "representatives" refuse to represent us on this so the only other choice is civil disobedience.

Now, comparing smoking marijuana to war crimes is so far off the charts I'm not even going to waste my time on that one.

[Marrah_G]

4. We do it all the time

Up until recently Sodomy, Adultery, etc were illegal in all states but not prosecuted (they still are in some states). In time the ridiculous anti-pot laws will fade away into history as well.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/rhode-island

This sheriff is making this a personal vendetta to get his name in the paper.

[JonLP24]

6. What can they charge Phelps with?

Possession of under an ounce and drug paraphanelia is the only two marijuana laws relevant in this case. I don't know where smoking is defined but it isn't his bong. Also in the photo he is possessing probaly half a gram. If they wanted to press charges they would've done so because the photo is the best evidence there is. I don't know if they are trying to find out information that it was his weed, if so how can you charge someone with previous known possession? Usually you gotta have the stuff in your pockets or in your car or something like that to be charged with possession. About the paraphenlia, does he currently have a resinated pipe or bong or some other smoking instrument?

[H2O Man]

7. Huge. Really huge.

Really, really huge.

What bugs me is the way the liberal news media tries to distract our attention from this really huge issue, with nonsense stories about the economy and war and bullshit like that. What is more impotant for people in their anyday life? I say Michael Phelps smoking pot is.

[jayfish]

21. Nearly 900,000 People Were Arrested In 2007...

for marijuana offenses. 89% of these arrests were for simple possession. It's a pretty big issue and it's time to take it head on.

http://www.southcarolinacriminaldefenseblog.com/2008/09/marijuana_arrests_increased_in_1.html

Jay


CONTENT EDIT

[Marrah_G]

49. It is rediculous the time and money wasted on this crap

[Bill McBlueState]

9. "I'm not comparing the actual laws ... that is irrevelant."

The nature of the laws in question couldn't be more relevant. Someone has to have the moral authority to decide which laws are just and which are unjust. Maybe it's not you, but someone does.

[polmaven]

16. That would be your state legislature,

wouldn't it? There is a proper way to go about it, and that is to follow whatever procedure your own state has to get unjust laws changed or eliminated.

[serrano2008]

20. Again this isn't about changing laws. It's about FOLLOWING laws that exist.

[NAO]

10. Plato had Socrates discuss this at length in CRITO

Socrates had been unjustly condemned to death. His friend Crito encouraged him to escape prison and live out his life rather than submit to the death penalty.

Crito argues that Socrates would be abandoning his friends and family, as well as asylum in other cites, if he fled Athens.

Socrates argues that the essential concern is whether to escape would be just. He goes on to argue that one should never do injustice; doing evil to humans/human evil leads to injustice.

****

CRITO (complete online text)
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

[Lance_Boyle]

11. Breaking an unjust law is fine, if you are prepared to deal with the

consequences. There's no get-out-of-jail-free card for civil disobedience, even when it's clearly the right thing to do.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Yep. Germans who refused to follow the 3rd Riech's laws has a duty to be caught and

punished.

Or maybe not.

Refusing to turn your Jewish neighbor over to the authorities wasn't civil disobedience, but it was against the law. And the fact that some were caught and punished still doesn't make me wish that more were caught and punished.

Every thing's legal in Jersey just as long as you don't get caught.

[tekisui]

12. Yeah, those blacks should have never sat at the whites-only counters.

Some laws are wrong, and should be challenged.

[pipi_k]

28. I agree with you that some laws are just plain stupid

but I think there is a difference here.


The laws you speak of were violations of basic Civil Rights based on the color of a person's skin.


They did need to be broken - desperately.


But other laws that are meant for everyone...not directed toward a certain ethnic group or gender or sexual orientation...some of those laws still don't make a lot of sense but we don't get to pick and choose which laws we want to follow unless we're prepared to deal with the consequences without whining about it.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Michael Phelps (or anyone) smoking pot. But if he did it with full knowledge that it was illegal where he was at the time, he's got to accept the consequences of his actions.

:shrug:

[tekisui]

31. The participants of civil disobedience actions fully

knew of and accepted the consequences as well. The point is, you cannot say "No laws shall be broken" Some laws are unjust and they must be broken.

I believe laws forbidding the use of marijuana are violations of my civil rights, not based on race or gender, but on personal preference.

[pipi_k]

51. Well, I do agree that people should generally be able to do whatever

as long as it doesn't harm someone else.

And a person's rights should prevail.

The trouble is, a personal preference doesn't automatically become a "right".


In the case of smoking pot, your "right" to do it ultimately ends up aiding and abetting and supporting people who do extremely immoral and inherently illegal things in order to grow and sell it. Unless you grow your own.

I dunno...I guess this is one of those issues that isn't entirely black and white, you know?

[JonLP24]

34. I don't see any revelant laws that Phelps can be charged with

misdemeanor possession? Ok charge him with the half gram in the bowl but nearly all possession charges is when the police find you with marijuana. In this case the police don't have the evidence. Drug paraphenalia? Ok find the bong and see if it belongs to Phelps.

[pipi_k]

52. Honestly, I don't either

I mean, do they even know what was in that bong to begin with?

Could have been catnip for all anyone knows...


That's the big problem here. All they have is a photo of him smoking something through a bong.


the whole thing is just silly, as far as I'm concerned

[JonLP24]

54. It is silly. He also isn't the only one with a video or photo of him smoking something

The Game repeatedly smokes a blunt w/ members of his entourage throughout the DVD Stop Snitchin', Jim Jones(The rapper, not the cult leader) repeatedly smokes a blunt in the DVD "A day in the fast life". Also if location is hard to determine in those there is a clip in the DVD Katt Williams: The Pimp Chronicles in which Katt Williams is smoking a blunt w/ Snoop Dogg shortly before a comedy routine. But there is no investigations of those guys.

[Romulox]

13. Your OP only makes sense if there is some legitimacy to our laws

In our gerry-mandered, lobbyist dominated, money = access government, there is no moral legitimacy to our laws beyond what may be enforced at the barrel of a gun.

[DCKit]

23. Wow. That's about as strong and argument as I've ever seen on the subject.

It's also impossible, knowing the history, to have the same reverence for the "War on Drugs" laws as I learned to have for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Fascists would rather we couldn't tell the difference - thus we have NCLB and the general destruction of public education.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Should people break laws that require discrimination against a group based on color or national

origin?

Based on your assertion, if the law says that discrimination against a certain group is required, then it is your duty to discriminate.

If the law says that Asians are to be locked up on reservations, then a good citizen helps lock Asians up on reservations.


I disagree. I would assert that it is our human duty to resist laws that are unjust and illegitimate. We must break those laws who's only reason for being put on the books is too oppress.

[midnight]

18. The war on drugs has grown into a disaster. People are working

to end this madness. Some of them are DEA themselves that see its org. as nothing more than a profit making business for the middle man ,Uncle Sam, and the prison system. Many of the prisons private. But what you don't seem to address is the fluidity to which these drug laws are enforced. Most times you can't get police assistance because they never witnessed the crime themselves. And no, we don't have to follow the law if it is stupid. "We should note that in Dr. King we honor a man who broke the law and was thrown in jail, because he was opposing a law that was unjust. It’s a good reminder, especially for those who think that no law should ever be broken."

–Fr. Frankhttp://www.priestsforlife.org/blog/?p=216

[serrano2008]

24. Oh my...are you comparing pot-heads to Dr. King?

LOL

[JonLP24]

25. He is relevant to what you are discussing

Dr. King is someone who didn't follow laws he disagreed with. You are asking is if we should do the same. If we feel the marijuana laws are unjust, then it is reasonable to break them as any other law we feel is unjust.

[tekisui]

27. No. YOU ARE!

By saying that ALL LAWS MUST BE FOLLOWED!!! You wouldn't have supported sit-ins and civil disobedience because they would have broken the sacred laws, and in your opinion would have been no different than pot smokers. Your argument is bunk!

[jayfish]

29. See #20 And Add This To It.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/nymmj_racialdisp.pdf

This study has shown that MPV (marijuana in
public view) arrest has become one of the NYPD’s
biggest law enforcement activities since the mid-1990s. In 2000, there were
more than 50,000 MPV arrests accounting for 15% of all NYC arrests,
more than any nondrug misdemeanor arrest charge and rivaling the number
of controlled substance arrests. This study further documented that the
burden of MPV arrest has been falling disproportionately on blacks and
Hispanics and that members of these minority groups, on average, have
been receiving harsher treatment within the criminal justice system. Black

Jay

[cbc5g]

32. Drug laws in this country are entirely racist

All you have to do is look at the % of blacks and hispanics in jail for drugs compared to whites. This is a civil rights issue.

[JNelson6563]

26. Some laws are stupid

OF course when I was a Catholic I obeyed the rules I agreed with (the basic right and wrong stuff) and disregarded those I disagreed with (birth control). I guess I'll just do that all my life. Tough shit to those who don't like it.

Oh and I also work to change stupid laws too so there's that.

Julie

[Xenotime]

59. Agreed. Who's to say what's right and what's wrong?

[cbc5g]

30. I'll let Martin Luther King Jr. answer you

"Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws" -- Martin Luther King Jr.

Should slaves, instead of breaking the law and running away, have stayed on the plantation toiling all day waiting for the laws to be changed? In your world, that answer is "Yes."


Marijuana prohibition is an unjust law as the law harms far more people than the usage. Saying that Phelps shouldn't be arrested isn't saying that he or other pot smokers should be above the law, it's saying that the law is unjust and needs to be changed. It's saying that there are much more pressing priorities such as stopping RAPE and MURDER, investigating COLD CASES etc then stopping a kid smoking a bong. Besides, you CANNOT arrest someone for a picture of them smoking out of a bong. That's just bizarre.

[serrano2008]

36. If it's up to the law-breaker to determine what is or isn't an unjust law...

then anyone could argue the law they were breaking was unjust, and civil disobedience for the greater good.

Like, what about someone killing an abortion doctor. First, let me preface that I am pro-choice so for those of you who don't understand questions and start attacking based on one word in a post, calm the f down.

But I'm sure someone killing an abortion doctor, believes that they are doing it out of civil disobedience, for the greater good because they believe they are saving lives, and would have the support of a percentage of the country (small, maybe 10-15%?) including many politicans, but that doesn't make it right cause you can't just go around killing people, i.e. breaking whatever law you want.

[cbc5g]

39. So Rosa Parks should have went to the back of the bus?

If you can use a strawman then so can I.

[Occam Bandage]

42. So abortion bombers are analagous to Rosa Parks?

Surely there's some difference in your mind between Rosa Parks and an abortion bomber. What is the difference, excepting that you find one cause noble and one immoral? And could you generalize that difference to a rule, keeping in mind that the abortion bomber believes that he is saving lives in his actions?

"Civil disobedience is only acceptable if nobody is directly hurt" is a good example of such a rule, though it may not be the one in your head.

[cbc5g]

43. Um what are you talking about?

Seriously I have no idea where you pulled that out from. He's using a strawman, an abortion doctor killer, a murderer...to say that we should follow all laws even if we think they are unjust. He's pretty much telling Rosa Parks that she was wrong to sit in the front and making the point that like her, abortion doctor killers think the laws are unjust. That's not really acceptable IMO.

[Occam Bandage]

45. serrano2008 brought up a valid line of argument:

that people should not be allowed to decide for themselves which laws are worth following and which laws are not based on their personal morality, because that would justify abortion bombing.

You reply that people must be allowed to decide for themselves, because people like Rosa Parks must be allowed to break laws. This, too, is a valid line of argument, but does not distinguish between Rosa Parks and an abortion bomber. Your point doesn't contest his; you had effectively conceded his remark that abortion bombers are acceptable under your argument, and you justified this by claiming that Rosa Parks is unacceptable under his.

Surely it is possible to construct an argument in which Rosa Parks is acceptable and abortion bombers are not. I provided an example.

[cbc5g]

46. You're right

But I thought it was kind of a given that comparing murderers with nonviolent people using civil disobedience is stupid in itself. Once a strawman argument enters the conversation quickly becomes stupid. And I added to it for the fuck of it. :)

[tekisui]

41. You are stretching to keep this failed argument going.

You are equating murder with civil rights demonstrations. Give it up.

[serrano2008]

57. You think you're doing better comparing a marijuana user to Rosa Parks?

:)

The difference in our arguments here is that in examples such as the Civil Rights movement, abortion doctor murderers, illegal wiretapping, etc., the criminal in these cases actually thinks they are standing up for a noble cause.

Marijuana users are only standing up for the cause that they want to smoke pot.

If you can't see the difference there...then you're right. You win!

[tekisui]

58. So, one more time. Parks, and the other civil rights activist were wrong,

in your opinion?

There is a fucking chasm of a difference between civil rights advocates and murderers. If you can't see that, you are being intentionally obtuse.

Should the sit-ins never have occurred? Were the operators of the underground railroad wrong? Abolitionists should have 'obeyed the law' because it was law?

There is no excuse for murder, it is never justified. No matter what the law says.

[Bluerthanblue]

72. killing an abortion doctor doesn't challenge any law allowing

women the right to choose. It challenges the law against murdering others. If you want to abolish the law against murder, and do so by engaging in murder, then you'll be imprisoned, and you could claim it was an act of 'civil disobedience'. That doesn't mean you get to go free.

It's a flawed analogy.

:shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. But it's the duty of law enforcement to enforce even unjust laws.

I want to live in a society where people will, on occasion, disobey extremely unjust laws (like racial segregation on buses).

But, while ideally I would like to live in a society where all the laws are just, I would rather live in a society with mildly unjust laws where the police and courts enforce all the laws, even if it means punishing people who are doing the right thing by breaking a law, than a society where each policeman or attourney has to decide for themself whether a law is just and hence whether to enforce it.

[Romulox]

55. First of all, attorneys don't enforce laws.

Secondly, there will never be a system of justice which does not require the discretion of judges, law enforcement, and prosecutors, not the least of which because so many laws/legal duties are cast in terms of words which require courts to determine if behavior was "reasonable", or "reckless", or "in good faith".

Finally, the system of justice in which this discretion is removed from the courts is very much what results from the self-same "mandatory minimums" that have given us the largest prison population in the history of humanity. So by no means does the real life evidence support the idea that removing the discretion from the courts and judicial officers results in a fairer overall administration of justice--instead, the cops, DAs, and judges continue to discriminate against minority defendants, e.g., who are then subject to mandatory minimums upon conviction.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. Ultimately, yes.

If you follow a law with which you do not agree then you tend to follow it for pragmatic reasons--avoiding jail, etc..

A person who follows laws simply because they are laws (independent of any practical downside to breaking the law) subsumes her entire ethical system to popular vote. That can't be right. (?)

[serrano2008]

35. Thank you

for understanding the topic and giving a good response!

[Greyhound]

60. Wow, one of the best answers to a legitimate question I've read here in quite some time. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

37. At least you think Bushco

needs to be prosecuted for the sake of the rule of law. Do you prefer a commission or outright prosecution by the AG? Tell us.

[Ohio Joe]

38. I don't think I agree

One way of fighting a law you do not agree with is to knowingly break that law, get arrested and take the punishment. This is done to bring attention and to perhaps sway public opinion against the law in order to get it changed. Civil disobedience.

While I won't speak for anyone but myself, I have thought it stupid that such a law exists for Mr. Phelps to have to deal with. I have never said it should not be enforced. On the other hand, I would like for the laws to be enforced that the Bush administration broke as well. I think I have been pretty consistent.

[JonLP24]

48. I don't believe he'll have to deal with anything

Drug laws primarily deal with distribution and possession. Possession usually requires that you find the stuff on his person or property such as a car. If he does get charged but I seriously doubt and he decides to fight it the case will have to rely on witness testimony and any witnesses I suspect was smoking marijuana as well. You can't charge someone with murder without a body(sometimes you can Casey Anthony before body was found) just like you can't charge possession with no weed. If they want to charge paraphanelia then find the bong and determine who it belongs to. I heard stories the guy with the bong tried to sell it on Ebay or something like that.

[Ohio Joe]

50. ahhh, but he does have to deal with it

In my view, this should never have caused him the slightest inconvenience, it should have been legal. Regardless of the legal ramifications that result, he also has to deal with media, sponsors, fans, the press. A lot of stuff has to be dealt with that never should have.

[JonLP24]

53. I understand and you're right

I was talking from a legal standpoint in which I don't feel they have much of a case. If they could charge him based on a photo they would've done so already.

[Occam Bandage]

40. We should follow the laws we agree with to the extent that

we are willing to face the legal consequences for breaking the laws we disagree with, with that decision governed not by expedience, but by the belief that a law should be either universally followed or universally disregarded.

[ThomWV]

44. Only if there is no workable mechanism to overturn them

[Greyhound]

61. You mean like a Congress that refuses to move in spite of the wishes of an

overwhelming number of citizens?

[Winterblues]

56. Well we know Republicans consider Felony Perjury Laws irrelevant

Five Felony counts of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice and Republicans feel the perpetrator shouldn't be punished. How blatant is that?

[Bluerthanblue]

62. Civil Disobedience- ask Thoreau

"Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

[Oak2004]

63. I'm a moralist (in the better sense of the word), not a legalist

Unconditional obedience to government is not a virtue. A citizen has the obligation to evaluate every law against their own healthy conscience (sociopaths need not apply), decide if it is a just law, and determine whether they will obey or disobey the law. Should they decide to violate a law, they may of course be dealing with legal consequences, and that has to be factored into their decision, but that's essentially irrellevant to the question of whether a law compels obedience.

Laws derive their validity not merely because they have been voted on by legislative bodies and signed into law by executives, but through their justice.

Many laws we have are valid because they are clearly just. Others are mostly just, though there can be occasional instances where to apply them would be unjust: in a perfect world, prosecutorial discretion and the discretion of justices ought to properly handle these exceptions. Since we're currently wrapped up in a culture of mindless vengeance, those exceptions have been punished as if they were the most outrageously aggravated offense against society.

Then we have laws that are unjust. Some attempt to compel citizens to participate in injustice (an example being the fugitive slave laws). It's not enough to merely fight to change such laws: there is a moral obligation to violate them.

Other unjust laws, like our drug laws, don't come with a moral obligation to violate them (in the case of drugs I am not a violator), but neither ought they be enforced, nor ought anyone feel a moral compulsion to obey them.

There is no respect for the mere technicalities of law. History has shown that whenever an unjust and unjustifiable law is passed, the public violates the law, and continues to do so until the unjust law is repealed. Neither humans, nor justice, is legalistic. You might want them to be -- legalism is much tidier a concept than morality -- but the fact is, people aren't legalistic, and insisting that they should be is a kind of utopianism.

[treestar]

64. Depends on the law

There are many crazy laws on the books. Societies should only have laws against what they really all agree on is wrong. Marijuana as an illegal substance just doesn't have the support of society any more. It is difficult to repeal laws, or the legislatures are too lazy, but it can be done in time. The blue laws, the prohibition laws have disappeared.

[4 t 4]

68. Oh for Christs Sake

what are you Elisabeth Hasselbeck It's almost legal in so many states it's just a matter of time before small amounts will be legal across the whole country. Try and just apply your common sense and moral compos. Stealing bad-hurts the owner Smoking Pot-your choice hurts only you.

[treestar]

74. Hmm I did not deserve that

Lay off the caffeine

[iamthebandfanman]

67. MY body, MY rules.

the laws u just stated effect others...
how did phelps hitting a bong hurt other people ?

if he wants to do that to his well oiled machine of a body, then so be it... its his body.

thats what it really comes down to when talking about drugs laws and policy...

where do we find a compromise between people being able to do whatever they want to their own body(which is why im pro-choice) and at the same time ensure that it wont directly effect those around the people.
how you do that(i think) is keeping intoxication laws in place, that way people can get arrested for doing something stupid under the influence..

but as far as coming into peoples homes and telling them what they can and can not put in themselves.. thats crossing the line.

[Still Sensible]

69. Point well taken. n/t

[Evoman]

70. I only follow laws I agree with.

[4 t 4]

71. your taking it to an extreme

get over it. It's a questionable law at best. It is legal in many states to my knowledge things like stealing are not even in question. Try and use some common sense.

[MrSlayer]

73. Yes. Fuck the prohibitionists.

I don't follow laws that are stupid just because they're laws. I fight for legalization but until that happens I'll be an outlaw and make no bones about it. Marijuana laws are completely ridiculous and putting people in jail for it is far more dangerous to them than the plant itself. You go ahead and be a good German, I'm doing what I want.

[librechik]

75. It's called "civil disobedience"--and all citizens need to practice it

if they don't want their children to wind up in a police state.

The law is wrong. I take pride in breaking it, as an American. I hope my act of civil disobedience will someday lead to a change in the law to bring it back to human scale.

[NutmegYankee]

76. Sometimes Civil Disobedience is necessary.

Imagine if MLK hadn't sent people into diners during sit-ins, or Parks hadn't disobeyed the law in the first place. There is a place for disobeying unjust laws.

Henry David Thoreau had some good ideas in his time.