It's counter productive to break law, no matter how strongly you feel about something

[OdderMensch]

No. If a law is unjust, it is my duty to break it. It must be broken, or it will stand and fester, spreading its injustice.

Ghandi did it.
MLK did it.
Thoreau wrote about it.

I once told friend that i'd burn a flag, if and only if the Supreme Court said I couldn't. Now that doesn't carry for all laws, for instace I might write a letter or two, but you can count on me preforming no acts of civil disobedence, even if they uphold Texas's sodemy law. ;) Sorry boys, you gotta pick your battles.

[Fade]

You should have given context.

We live in a world entirely different from the one that gave rise to Gandhi and MLK Jr. MLK broke laws that were specifically racist (and he even did that rarely) in order to correct a fundamental injustice in the system. The breaking of law wasn't done specifically for the sake of the law. It was to move for dramatic social change.

Same for Gandhi.

Breaking drug laws for drugs sake (without there being some massive, simultaneous movement) in the end does nothing but get people in trouble. It doesn't effect social change. It doesn't alert anyone to your plight. To wit, it's nothing like what MLK or Gandhi did.

We aren't fighting oppression or injustice. We're fighting stupidity. The same tactics simply won't work.

[Fade]

I should also say:

My comment was directed only at the US. I am not going to debate something so broad as laws in every single country in the world. It would be impossible to form some sort of cogent opinion.

Anyway, I am all for the broad legalization of drugs and prostitution (these two things are so often thrown together, why not do it here), because I don't see these things as having any sort of victim.

I believe todays system is inherently more fair than it was 50 years ago. The racism that does exist isn't blatant. The racism there IS (there is still quite a bit) all comes about from the people enforcing the laws, including the juries. There aren't laws which hold the minorities in a different light than the majority. For most intents, the Civil Rights movement succeeded on a massive scale. So, now all we do is fight for personal freedom. It shouldn't come down to protests on the level it did in the past, because the injustice is not so clear cut.

The way to effect this sort of change now is to get people motivated. Get a single referendum passed legalizing marijuana. Hire reams of attorneys to keep Ashcroft and his religious zombies away. Repeat for each state.

I am fairly sure that most people would allow for marijuana at least to be legalized. I think at this point in time most of us understand that the war on drugs is a farce which has not "helped" anything, and has hurt more than we will ever really know.

So, get active. Get your voice and face out there. Get people angry! Get people into those voting booths and get them to vote. Our country seems to pray to the gods of apathy and indifference, because we no longer have any wars to fight. There are no great wrongs that need to be righted. There are no charismatic politicians battling for our votes. So, the majority of Americans (didn't something like 40% of the registered voters vote?) are happy to let others make their decisions for them.


Anyway, to repeat: We live in a different world. The same tactics won't work forever. Breaking laws for the sake of breaking them is foolish, does nothing to help your cause, and can quite possibly harm it (can't vote from jail!)

So, that's what I feel.

[MRC_Hans]

Basically, in a democracy, disagreeing with a law does not justify breaking it. In real life, democracies are not ideal, laws are certainly not ideal. A modern democracy leaves some leeway for civil disobedience as a method of change (realizing that the proper way through legislation is a very long way).

Otherwise, you can choose to demonstrate the need for change by defying a law, but you must be prepared to face the consequences.

Hans

[BillyTK]

I'm all for a decent bit of civil disobedience if the cause is worthy enough, but not to the extent of delibertaely causing injury or damage to property. Although on that last one, I've taken part in the odd mass trespass which involve reclaiming public rights of way from people who've decided it's their property.

Fade, in regards to your remarks about racism, I'd be interested in your comments on the following: Ten Myths About Affirmative Action (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm)

[OdderMensch]

We aren't fighting oppression or injustice. We're fighting stupidity. The same tactics simply won't work.

True, he situation is different, and we are fighting stupidity. But injustice is injustice, whether its cause be stupidity, fear, hatered or simple greed.

Breaking drug laws for drugs sake (without there being some massive, simultaneous movement) in the end does nothing but get people in trouble

Thats a tactical decision. It all depends on what laws you break, when and where. A massive movement is an advantage, but the numbers are there. Thousands upon thousands who never stop to think how or why they are oppressed. Billions wasted for stupidity, fear, hate and greed.

I believe todays system is inherently more fair than it was 50 years ago.

And i don't. However I did not live 50 years ago. I do remember learning early on in life how you were innocent until proven guilty, but i understand that is not now always assumed.

I used to think you had the right to a fair trial, till I learned the extent of some of the laws.

I'm sure we've made improvements, mandatory minimums have made certain we are not unfairly treated by race. And I imgine prision is much nicer.

The way to effect this sort of change now is to get people motivated. Get a single referendum passed legalizing marijuana.

Been done, been checked, been countered. Its up to the court now and they have been silent. I pray for '04.

Hire reams of attorneys to keep Ashcroft and his religious zombies away. Repeat for each state.

Ahhh a money bleeding state by state battle for control! Sorry but since, as a taxpayer I'd have to front both sides of it...........I'm a bit short.

So, get active. Get your voice and face out there. Get people angry!

I've gotten people angery, but as you said, it doesn't help. We all know its wrong. We can look at it from many angles and you get the same thing. But no one is willing to lift a finger to help. The main problem I see is the federalization of it. It's no longer in the hands of the state, it is therfore out of the hands of the people. And also, its just pot, its just drugs. Grow up hippie!

My comment was directed only at the US. I am not going to debate something so broad as laws in every single country in the world. It would be impossible to form some sort of cogent opinion.

You shouldn't be expected to. I rather had the vauge hope the other day thet the EU, Canada and Mexico would all suddenly end thier bans on canibus in protest to the recent geopolitical situation, but I'm an optimist.

But i did not provide context because I didn't want this to be a drug war thread. I acted hastily in titleing the thread with your words. I have spent many an hour debateing with friends on if it is ever 'right' to break the laws, and hoped some would continue the arguement.

Breaking laws for the sake of breaking them is foolish, does nothing to help your cause, and can quite possibly harm it (can't vote from jail!)

The laws aren't currently such that my breaking them will do them any harm. I'd disscus what tactics I think might work, but that'd belong in P&CE, and wouldn't get past Hal anyway. ;)

[BillyTK]

Oddermensch,

it might interest you to know that the UK has relaxed cannabis laws, changing its classification from a class b (illegal to supply or possess) to class c (legal to possess for personal use). i believe that the Netherlands have more relaxed drug laws, but of the top of my head I couldn't tell you what they are... other than there's a lot of weekend trips from the UK to Amsterdam!

Btw, agree with you re: living 50 years ago. From talking to people who did live then, it seems like swings and roundabouts; for every way contemporary society is better, there's another way in which it's worse... :(

Bad laws were made to be broken.

[whitefork]

Consider the number of laws that remain on the books so that they can be used to "get" citizens that can't be "got" in any other way.

We call those the "mopery laws" - (mopery = exposing oneself to a blind person).

Many of the sodomy statutes seem to exist for that reason only. (Well, sheriff, if we can't hang him for being a ******, we'll get him for mopery).

[roger]

For the most part I regard laws as a social contract, with the penalties for violating the contract clearly spelled out. If you accept the cost of that penalty, where's the problem? :)


Yes, I realize it is _rather_ more complicated than that, but then the only laws I would consider breaking aren't based on what I would consider morals - murder, stealing, adultry, etc.

But take a law like jaywalking. It's a useful law, as pedestrians walking into the street, causing motorists to react is clearly unsafe, both to the pedestrians and to the drivers on the road. OTOH, if it is broad daylight, I can clearly see the road is empty in both directions, etc, I'm not going to cross at a pedestrian marking or wait for the light. I grew up in a small town which had none of these, and we had to use judgement for when it was safe to cross. So I happily break the letter of that law all the time, while never breaking the spirit (causing motorists to react or increasing danger). Heck, there is one place near me where I will only cross _against_ the light, because the intersection & the walk lights are confusing and very badly timed. Crossing with the light means almost certainly means contending with a car coming at you, and many close calls. The walk light is timed so that a lane of traffic is turning into the street you are crossing. They of course are supposed to yield, but the layout means they don't see you until it is almost too late. Lot's of car swerving and pedestrian running ensues. The walk light only lasts for 10secs or so, so you can't wait for the turning traffic to end before starting to cross. But eyeballing the street, waiting for no oncoming traffic, makes the crossing safe. So I break the law everytime, and feel completely justified in doing so. I'm not risking my life to obey the letter of a relatively minor law.

[Fade]

True, he situation is different, and we are fighting stupidity. But injustice is injustice, whether its cause be stupidity, fear, hatered or simple greed.

But as I said, it's not so simple as one side being right and one side being wrong. My intuition tells me drugs are bad, that nobody should do them, and that I would probably be safer if nobody did. I over-ride these feelings by my opinion that we should not be regulated in such a way.

Thats a tactical decision. It all depends on what laws you break, when and where. A massive movement is an advantage, but the numbers are there. Thousands upon thousands who never stop to think how or why they are oppressed. Billions wasted for stupidity, fear, hate and greed.

The problem is that the drug legalization movement is.. well.. not a movement. There is nobody out there crusading for the right to do as you wish.

And i don't.

Point out to me where the Jim Crow laws are right now.

I used to think you had the right to a fair trial, till I learned the extent of some of the laws.

I'm sure we've made improvements, mandatory minimums have made certain we are not unfairly treated by race. And I imgine prision is much nicer.


Americans have made massive progress. Not as much as say, Ireland (hi!), but still respectable. Racism is insidious and taboo. Our system IS more fair, whether you agree or not.

Been done, been checked, been countered.

One state. The methods were mostly silent, and the opposition got their people to vote. We have extremely low voter turnout, and this is the problem. If you want your freedom, you have to fight for it. We live in an intrinsically unfair world, and your rights will not be handed to you.

Ahhh a money bleeding state by state battle for control! Sorry but since, as a taxpayer I'd have to front both sides of it...........I'm a bit short.


Who said freedom is cheap? Americans seem to fancy slogans such as "gave his life so you could be here" well.. if it means something to you, you will put forth the money. If you don't want to put up, then you have nothing to stand on.

I've gotten people angery, but as you said, it doesn't help

The entire civil rights movements says you're wrong.

We all know its wrong.

No, we don't all know it's wrong. This is not a clear cut issue by ANY means.
We can look at it from many angles and you get the same thing. But no one is willing to lift a finger to help. The main problem I see is the federalization of it. It's no longer in the hands of the state, it is therfore out of the hands of the people. And also, its just pot, its just drugs. Grow up hippie!


Nobody is willing to lift a finger because there is no leadership. You know what I would do if we held a massive march on Washington to liberate our personal freedoms? I would be there with bells on, loudspeaker and signs in hand. All I hear is silence.

The laws aren't currently such that my breaking them will do them any harm. I'd disscus what tactics I think might work, but that'd belong in P&CE, and wouldn't get past Hal anyway

Let's be realistic here.

There are two people who will vote "yes" to the question "Should marijuana be legal"

The first type of person is Me. I am all for extensive civil liberties. I think we should be able to live our lifes in generally any way we see fit, as long as we're not doing something which directly harms others. This type of person will not be motivated to HELP you unless you talk to them.

The second type of person is the pot smoker. This type of person doesn't care what happens because he's already convinced himself that they're easy enough to get, clean enough for his purposes, and that he can't effect change. This type of person will vote -- if you can convince him to register in the first place.

This faces many, many different obstacles, so it's unsurprising to me that states haven't already granted the right to smoke.

[Fade]

Fade, in regards to your remarks about racism, I'd be interested in your comments on the following: Ten Myths About Affirmative Action

I refuse to comment on Affirmative Action on the internet. It's way too easy to twist context and meaning, due to the different way people use language. It's doubly difficult for me, because my English isn't Americanized.

Suffice it to say, I am against racism in any form, regardless of who benefits.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Fade


I refuse to comment on Affirmative Action on the internet. It's way too easy to twist context and meaning, due to the different way people use language. It's doubly difficult for me, because my English isn't Americanized.

Mine neither ;)

Suffice it to say, I am against racism in any form, regardless of who benefits.

Okay. I was just interested in your thoughts on the points the author made, however I respect your right not to do that and appreciate your honesty to explain why.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Fade


But as I said, it's not so simple as one side being right and one side being wrong. My intuition tells me drugs are bad, that nobody should do them, and that I would probably be safer if nobody did. I over-ride these feelings by my opinion that we should not be regulated in such a way.

Your intutition. Not the multi-billion dollar propoganda machine that was created in the 30's?


The problem is that the drug legalization movement is.. well.. not a movement. There is nobody out there crusading for the right to do as you wish.


Oh it's a movement, and I think we are winning, it's just slow going when the oposition feels it doesn't need to fight you.


Point out to me where the Jim Crow laws are right now.


Point out another time in history we had the largest prison population, by percntage, of any other industrialized nation. Includeing China!


Americans have made massive progress. Not as much as say, Ireland (hi!), but still respectable. Racism is insidious and taboo. Our system IS more fair, whether you agree or not.



One state. The methods were mostly silent, and the opposition got their people to vote. We have extremely low voter turnout, and this is the problem. If you want your freedom, you have to fight for it. We live in an intrinsically unfair world, and your rights will not be handed to you.


Four states by referendum, several others by legitlative mandate. And in the last round the 'silent opposition' made a massive, government funded push in the last weeks of the election.


Who said freedom is cheap? Americans seem to fancy slogans such as "gave his life so you could be here" well.. if it means something to you, you will put forth the money. If you don't want to put up, then you have nothing to stand on.

The entire civil rights movements says you're wrong.


I thought we agreed this was differnent?


No, we don't all know it's wrong. This is not a clear cut issue by ANY means.


More places we dissagree!


Nobody is willing to lift a finger because there is no leadership. You know what I would do if we held a massive march on Washington to liberate our personal freedoms? I would be there with bells on, loudspeaker and signs in hand. All I hear is silence.

Let's be realistic here.

There are two people who will vote "yes" to the question "Should marijuana be legal"

Let's be even more realistic, you'd never get a chance to vote on the drug war in any meaningfull way.


The first type of person is Me. I am all for extensive civil liberties. I think we should be able to live our lifes in generally any way we see fit, as long as we're not doing something which directly harms others. This type of person will not be motivated to HELP you unless you talk to them.

The second type of person is the pot smoker. This type of person doesn't care what happens because he's already convinced himself that they're easy enough to get, clean enough for his purposes, and that he can't effect change. This type of person will vote -- if you can convince him to register in the first place.

This faces many, many different obstacles, so it's unsurprising to me that states haven't already granted the right to smoke.

The Federal government has usurped that right from the states!


Look, I'm off to work now, I'll expand my remarks later tonight.

[c4ts]

What about the laws of physics? It would be extremely productive to break a few of those, like the speed limit.

[Fade]

Your intutition. Not the multi-billion dollar propoganda machine that was created in the 30's?

Considering I wasn't alive then, and my family was in an entirely different country, yes. You seem to believe that all people would believe drugs aren't bad if they hadn't been exposed to propoganda. That just isn't true. We naturally try to defend ourselves, and drugs can easily be seen as a threat.

Oh it's a movement, and I think we are winning, it's just slow going when the oposition feels it doesn't need to fight you.

I don't see any evidence of a movement a grand enough scale to effect change. Perhaps when the current young (10-30) generation reaches their 40's and 50's, we'll see another massive social change. But right now, no.

Point out another time in history we had the largest prison population, by percntage, of any other industrialized nation. Includeing China!

We seem to be operating under different ideas of fair. I am talking about racial and social equality. There is no specific racism in our system. The idea that we are anything like that we were 50 years ago is just too ridiculous to comment on.

Four states by referendum, several others by legitlative mandate. And in the last round the 'silent opposition' made a massive, government funded push in the last weeks of the election.


I haven't heard this in the media (I don't pay attention to drug legislation anymore), so I'll take your word for it. If you want more rights, you have to get lawyers. That is the system.

I thought we agreed this was differnent?

You said getting people angry doesn't help. Anger was the motivation for change, it almost always is. Indifference and apathy won't help you. The freedoms being discussed now are fundamentally different than those of the civil right movements, I consider drugs a freedom luxory, not a necessity. I consider basic civil and human rights to be something that we absolutely require to be a functioning nation. Face it, we won't improve by having ready access to drugs.

Let's be even more realistic, you'd never get a chance to vote on the drug war in any meaningfull way.

This is defeatist, and simply wrong.

Want to effect change? Vote -against- the people who are barring freedoms. Get people motivated. Get people to be loud. Be loud yourself.

The problem as I see it is that the people that so much want these changes (it's academic for me, I have no desire to do drugs) aren't willing to do a damned thing to get their desires heard. There is no follow up.

The Federal government has usurped that right from the states!

I said let's be realistic. We don't live in a fanciful dream world. Government, like any organization, will naturally do it's utmost to ensure it's survival. Expect and plan for this.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Fade


Considering I wasn't alive then, and my family was in an entirely different country, yes. You seem to believe that all people would believe drugs aren't bad if they hadn't been exposed to propoganda. That just isn't true. We naturally try to defend ourselves, and drugs can easily be seen as a threat.

Did you grow up iin the US? Without the constant stream of propoganda, yes, I think most people would see drugs for what they are, tools. I'm not really trying to debate whether or not drugs are bad, but my our government, useing our tax dollars has waged a massive campaign plauged by falsehoods, myths and outright decit, its pathetic and it needs to end.


I don't see any evidence of a movement a grand enough scale to effect change. Perhaps when the current young (10-30) generation reaches their 40's and 50's, we'll see another massive social change. But right now, no.




We seem to be operating under different ideas of fair. I am talking about racial and social equality. There is no specific racism in our system. The idea that we are anything like that we were 50 years ago is just too ridiculous to comment on.


You seem to equate all jusctice with racism, I do not. Even if we are all equally oppressed, we are still oppressed. And the laws against drugs in paticular unfairly punish the poor and minorites. you are talking equality, i'm talking justice, but you can't have one without the other. There is a good thread in P$Ce i'll try to dig up on that very subject.


I haven't heard this in the media (I don't pay attention to drug legislation anymore), so I'll take your word for it. If you want more rights, you have to get lawyers. That is the system.

You said getting people angry doesn't help. Anger was the motivation for change, it almost always is. Indifference and apathy won't help you. The freedoms being discussed now are fundamentally different than those of the civil right movements, I consider drugs a freedom luxory, not a necessity. I consider basic civil and human rights to be something that we absolutely require to be a functioning nation. Face it, we won't improve by having ready access to drugs.


Ok, it's not abot haveing easy acess to drugs, I am all for regulation and control. What I am against is the systematic and stupid desacration of the social contract that is the drug war. People ask, "will the world really be a better place if you can by herion at 7-11?" and i say "no, it will be a better place when we stop wasting some number of billions a year keeping marijuana out of our medicine cabnits."


This is defeatist, and simply wrong.

Want to effect change? Vote -against- the people who are barring freedoms. Get people motivated. Get people to be loud. Be loud yourself.


No, saddly this is true. No one that bars my freedom can be voted down. Do you know what congessmen voted to make MDMA illegal, go on, guess.


The problem as I see it is that the people that so much want these changes (it's academic for me, I have no desire to do drugs) aren't willing to do a damned thing to get their desires heard. There is no follow up.


:( I have no answer for this. It is essentally true, the Drug War is a mostly acedemic exercise for me as well, I have no current, personal stake in it. But it is unjust, I see that and I seek to point out its injustice at any opportunity.


I said let's be realistic. We don't live in a fanciful dream world. Government, like any organization, will naturally do it's utmost to ensure it's survival. Expect and plan for this.

I do and I have. ;)

[Fade]

Did you grow up iin the US?

I was already past the easily impressionable age when I came here, I was 15 nearing my 16th birthday.

Without the constant stream of propoganda, yes, I think most people would see drugs for what they are, tools.

Don't forget that I am -for- full decriminalization. I don't agree with you though. I see drugs as stress relief and entertainment that can quickly (if not moderated) destroy your life.

I'm not really trying to debate whether or not drugs are bad, but my our government, useing our tax dollars has waged a massive campaign plauged by falsehoods, myths and outright decit, its pathetic and it needs to end.

Lobby, Lobby, Lobby. Do you send letters to your senators and your governer and your president? I do. Do something, anything, make your voice heard in a venue other than the internet!

You seem to equate all jusctice with racism, I do not.

Uh, I am not sure what this means.

Even if we are all equally oppressed, we are still oppressed.

I don't really see it as oppression, per se.

And the laws against drugs in paticular unfairly punish the poor and minorites

I can only think of one example where a drug law is explicitly targetted towards a poor person rather than a rich one (crack - cocaine) the other inequities come from -people- not laws. It's the people that are handing out harsher sentences to blacks and latinos. The laws themselves tend to be neutral. They are equitable, but WE are not.

you are talking equality

Yes.
i'm talking justice,

I am too.

Ok, it's not abot haveing easy acess to drugs, I am all for regulation and control. What I am against is the systematic and stupid desacration of the social contract that is the drug war. People ask, "will the world really be a better place if you can by herion at 7-11?" and i say "no, it will be a better place when we stop wasting some number of billions a year keeping marijuana out of our medicine cabnits."

Okay, stop doing this.

I -AGREE- for the thousandth time that drugs should be legal and regulated ><

No one that bars my freedom can be voted down.

Uh, everyone but supreme court justices can be voted against. The supreme court would -not- shoot down a decriminalization law, ever. The constitution has no say in this, so they have no say in this.

I have no answer for this. It is essentally true, the Drug War is a mostly acedemic exercise for me as well, I have no current, personal stake in it. But it is unjust, I see that and I seek to point out its injustice at any opportunity.

As I said, the problem is people don't want to DO anything, they want things to happen. These are two very different concepts.

[Skeptical Greg]

As I said, the problem is people don't want to DO anything, they want things to happen. These are two very different concepts

This is very true..

Something else to keep in mind.

A relatively small group of people, vocal as they may be, are not going to affect a change in the laws regarding drugs.

This is one case where the squeaky wheel does not get the grease.


The people who can change the laws (politicians), care foremost about being re/elected ...


If 51% of their constituency let it be known that they wanted white toilet paper made illegal, it would be off the shelf, and on the black market next week..

[OdderMensch]

On this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=373095#post373095) thread, the difference between lberty and equality were discused. As for my raceism comment, it seems everytime the subject of justice has come up, you have brought up the advances we have made in combating and controling raceism.

As for voteing on the drug war, as I said, it can't be done. I have writen letters, and I will continue to do so, I have gone to meetings and would gladly involve myself in mass action if I thought it prudent or helpful to do so. I am on the internet right now, but I'm not always here. Few people that I talk with IRL still support the drug war, if they ever did. But the internet (not so much this paticular forum) is a great place to hone argument, debateing and presentation skills.

As I said, I did not want this to become another 'drug war' thread. I wanted to disscus the idea that you must always follow the laws, even if you feel they are unjust. but I phrased it poorly in quoteing you so specificlly.


But, as I have said, this is something I belive in very strongly, so here is one more point.
Uh, everyone but supreme court justices can be voted against. The supreme court would -not- shoot down a decriminalization law, ever. The constitution has no say in this, so they have no say in this.

The court has simply never to take up the issue. I had real hope for Nevada's last election. It would have pitted state constution against unjust federal law. Saddly our government illegally (well its legality is being questioned) pumped lots of money into the state in the last weeks of the election, swinging the debate just so, and causeing a fairlly narrow defeat. Hopefully, this was only a temporary setback.

You do not see the drug war as opression, I do. It may only be a little opression, but are we to not fight the small evils? I want people to be able to look back 50 years from now and laugh about the drug war the way we laugh about prohibition. However, prohibition was legal, and had a single target, the 18th amendment. This war has no such target.