1) "It's illegal" is not by itself a good enough reason not to do anything. This country has had some very bad laws in the past, and it's thanks to civil disobedience that some of those laws are no longer on the books. Food for thought.
2) The ends do not justify the means. Forcing me, by threat of imprisonment, to act as a government informant at all times is a violation of my rights.

...The freely stupid.

>.>

Not all drugs should be illegal. Especially one's that don't cause any harm. Not turning this into a drug discussion topic, but seriously, you can't honestly think that all drugs are the devil and need to be outlawed and that anyone doing them should be imprisoned.

Many would say such a system is absurd.

No, but I can honestly think that anyone not reporting the abuse of those drugs should be imprisoned. But you'd have to be crazy to think that because if that were the case, half of America would be in jail. Can you say prison overload?

I honestly think it should be, but that's beside the point. I'm not talking about why things are illegal, i'm talking about how they are. Like I said, regardless of wether or not the law is right, regardless of wether or not you agree with it, it's still the law, and you are still required to follow it. If the law is a bad one, do something about it to make it change, or move to a country with different laws. I completely, 100% agree that our drug laws are absurd, but they're still the law. Just because they're stupid doesn't mean we can break them.

I understand a lot of people are trying to change America's drug laws, but if pro-drug citizens spent more time on that, and less time breaking the current laws, we wouldn't have to worry about the whole 'snitch' issue. The citizens are bringing it upon themselves.



I agree with you here, and I'm not trying to turn this into a "drugs are bad" vs "drugs are good" argument. I didn't really label the different parts of my first post, but I meant to start with, first, why this potential law was in the works to begin with, and then following up with why the law should be followed. Like I said above, I completely agree that our drug laws are absurd, and I also agree that this 'snitch' law would be equally absurd. But what else can they do? The law is being broken, and so far they have been unable to prevent it with much success. While many citizens may feel violated by this new law, you really can't blame the government when the reason this law exists is to enforce the current drug laws, which are being broken by countless individuals every day. Personally, I'd prefer they use a different system that the one they're proposing, but I, as a law-abiding citizen, have little to worry about.



It's a perfectly good reason. The government is the authority. They own this country that we live in, so we are required to follow their rules. That's a gross simplification of the way it works, but you get my point.

So, let's say the law is corrupt. That still doesn't give you the right to break it. It gives you the right to try to change it, but not break it. Being rebellious solves nothing (which I would think most people would have learned during their teen years, but I digress). If the law is corrupt, fine, do something to fix it. But breaking it doesn't fix it. All it does is make you a criminal. Anyone who's been under any sort of authority should know that saying "I don't like your rules, so I'm going to do things my way" just gets you into deeper ****. However, if you bring up your complaints in a civilized manner, and offer suggestions on a more reasonable alternative, it's very likely that the authority in question will actually consider your proposition.

Trying to "fight the power" will just result in the power fighting back. Trying to compromise with the power, however, might actually solve something. You catch more flies with honey than with vinnegar, as the saying goes.



Okay, with this I agree. As I said above, I think it would be better to work out a different way to approach the same situation. I think the 'snitch' proposition is way too extreme. Why don't you figure out a better way to make it work, and send it to someone who can do something about it?



Again, I agree. As I mentioned, I'm sure there's people out there with the ability to use drugs responsibly. Personally, I think they should be, as well as alcohol, but my opinion is quite obviously biased (for reasons I stated before, concerning my father and, to a lesser extent, my older brother). I don't expect my opinion to be made law, because quite frankly, my opinion is hardly fair. But as I've mentioned previously, regardless of wether something should be legal or not, if you break the law, you're still a criminal.

The whole reason this idea was introduced is because a good portion of american citizens are breaking the law, and law enforcement has been able to do very little about it. I agree that the laws should be changed, but until they are, you're still required to follow them.

Rosa Parks sends her regards.

Seriously, though, I think we just have a fundamental differerence of opinion on this point. I don't believe a citizen has any responsibility to obey an unjust law. It may be less risky or "smarter" to obey it, but I don't have an ethical problem with anyone who chooses not to.



Because I don't think we need better enforcement of drug laws, especially relating to cannabis. If anything, we could do with fewer arrests for marijuana-related offenses. Those people are filling up prisons while violent criminals get out on parole because there's not enough room for them. It's a horrible waste of available resources, and a mandatory informing policy would just exacerbate the problem.

Define "unjust law."

"Unjust" means one of two things; Either something that goes against the law, or something that goes against morals. This law wouldn't contradict any other laws, so it can't be "unjust" in that sense, and since it is a law itself, I don't think it applies as legally unjust. And if you mean "unjust" as in morally incorrect... "moral justice" is completely relative to the beholder. As proven inside massassi alone, everyone has a different moral standpoint. Going by that logic, then, what if committing murder was justified by my morals? Again, that's an extreme example, but the logic still applies. If it was okay to break a law that you didn't agree with, it would completely defeat the purpose of having laws in the first place. So, please, elaborate on what you mean by "unjust law."




Then do something about it. As I've said atleast three times so far, breaking the law just because you disagree with it will not cause the law to change, it will simply turn you into a criminal. We live in a democracy here. If you, as a representative of the people, want the drug laws to change, do something to change them. Our current laws are here because we, the people, put them there. And we have the power to take them away. But breaking them before that happens solves absolutely nothing, and usually carries consequences that you'll have to deal with.

You (and I mean "you" in general; not even limited to the people on this forum) act like you're being unrightfully prosecuted for doing drugs, when really, you all are bringing it upon yourselves. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, as the saying goes, and this bill is an extension of that; Because there's so many people doing the crime, the government needs a way to make those people face the consequences, and disagreeing with the law is not an excuse to break it.

Think of Prohibiton. It was a law with good moral reasoning behind it, but it was also incredibly stupid. Crime skyrocketed because of it. Most laws are designed with good intent in mind, but their results are often anathema to their purpose. This law would cause more headaches then it would solve.

Why does "law" exist? Did African-Americans in the South have a duty to follow segregation laws? Did Americans in the north have a duty to follow the Fugitive Slave Act? Did Japanese Americans during World War 2 have a duty to turn themselves into internment?

Is it so bad to be a "criminal" if the law itself is the villian?

But these drugs are already illegal, and have been for quite some time. The nation's crime rate isn't going to change significantly simply because the law enforcement might start enforcing the law.

And also, the government can't be held responsible for citizens unwilling to follow the rules, as it were. They can't just change the laws because no one follows them. There's obviously exceptions (as you pointed out), but I highly doubt this law, if passed, would elevate to that level of extremity.




Who decides wether or not the law is the villain? Where do you draw the line? How can anyone create a moral standard that everyone agrees on?

Society is still trying to find the answers to those questions. Until then, we have our democracy. Of course it isn't perfect, and of course we've had our blunders in the past. That's to be expected. But outright rebelling against such a minor issue, something that could be fixed relatively easily, and legally, is absurd. Like I said, go ahead and fight the power all you want. It won't change anything.

If you guys really have such a problem with drugs being illegal, stop moaning about how "unjust" the law is, stop acting like selfish children, throwing a hissyfit when you don't get your way. Address the situation like adults, and start trying to actually make a difference. Send a letter to your mayor or governor or senator or even the president. Start petitions. Go crazy with it. If you want to actually, legally, make a difference to this country, in a civilized manner, you have my full support. But sitting around, whining about how unfair, unjust, and immoral the law is, going against the rules and doing things your own way because you supposedly know better, and then complaining some more when you have to face the consequences that you brought upon yourself, will solve absolutely nothing.

If you want this country to change, then change it. It's not going to magically happen overnight just because you want it to.

Here's an idea: Why don't you quit pretending to know whether any of us are doing any of the things you've mentioned?

I never said you weren't. Are you?

Except (in this case, at least) we already know that no president or congressman for the next thousand years will have the balls to declare certain drugs legal, because society has already been indoctrinated into thinking that drugs = bad.

Actually, I did talk to the Lt. Governor (second in command to the governor) about the whole drug situation. I pretty much explained to her for about 3 minutes straight on why drugs should be legalized. All she could say in retort was "But what about the health causes". That's it. I just thanked her for the time and walked away. (If she would only realize that if stupid people take drugs fully understanding the risks, then they deserve it.)

So there, I did do something, didn't do a damn difference. I guess it boosted my pride, but that's it. I knew that she would take nothing into account. I guess it was just fun the prove the Lt. Governor wrong.

No. If a law is patently wrong, then it is immoral to follow it. Lawfulness is not an end in itself, anymore than "I was just following orders" is an excuse for genocide.

I'm against drugs on moral principle, but I don't think I should make that decision for everyone. It's not like were drugs legal, society would fall apart; most of them *were* legal before the 20th century, and society seemed to do OK...



No. America is (theoretically) a democracy. No one is in "authority" over any one else; that's what equality means. The government is assigned the power to govern BY the people according to their wishes.

If the government is corrupt, no amount of voting or protesting is going to fix things. Civil disobedience is as valid now as it was in 1855 helping slaves escape the South or in 1938 helping jews escape Germany.



Do what? Convince 51% of the population to vote Green?



I don't do drugs. I don't smoke. I don't even drink alcohol. But this bill STILL affects me, even though I'm doing nothing illegal. Suddenly I've become an indentured servant to the government snitching program?

[edit: Err, obviously it *doesn't* affect me, since I live in Australia, but it still sets a dangerous precedent... America has been leading the way in demolishing rights in recent years, and countries like Australia and the UK have been quick to follow.]

I do what I can. I make a point of voting for pro-legalization candidates where possible, and I talk to people about the issue because I recognize that when marijuana gets legalized, it won't be because a politician realized it would be good for America. I think that most of them, if they're really honest with themselves, know that. It will happen when a popular consensus exists in favor or it, and politicians have to either heed that consensus or lose votes.

If anything, that's more than could be reasonably expected from someone who's only smoked weed once, and probably never will again.