When is it justifiable for protestors and activists to break the law for the sake of

[edr730]

I can't help but agreeing with both sides of this argument. I think the truth falls somewhere in between. I know that history shows us that violence is the most effective means for change, but I don't like it much. I support "civil disobedience" and feel it has a place in our history and future. I don't know if Gandhi was a wife beater or if President Johnson killed President Kennedy or if Benjamin Franklin was a British spy. It's all just scuttlebutt. I do know that Gandhi marched to the sea to get salt against the established law of the British. He fought for his people in a peaceful way. Not unlike those who swim the Rio Grande or pay "coyotes" for passage because their livelihoods have been stolen by the Free Trade Agreement and they must support their families. When survival is for your people ...your families then protest or breaking the law, has a different kind of meaning. Those who break the law for the protection of their people and their families and those they love are the Gods of survivalists

[sgtdraino]

Heres a different spin on those illegal people from another guy close to the border, have you ever thought about how those illegal people are more patriotic than many Americans, they know that we have it good and so they run, ump, and swim so they can take manual labor jobs.

If some punk on the street knows you have it good inside your house, is he patriotic to break into your house and take stuff? Even if it's stuff maybe you don't use very much, or care very strongly about?

As far as breaking the law in a protest, I believe that breaking the law as Pal344 is best "Any group or individual that wants credibility needs to stay within the law. I have no respect for individuals or groups that break the law for the benefit of their cause.

At least in terms of the United States in its current state, I would agree. In the US, you can effectively protest anything you want to in this day and age, without violating the law. And you certainly should not be intruding upon the rights of other people in the cause of your protest. All that does, is make you a hypocrite.

i hate to encourage the hijacking of a thread but i take exception to people complaining about illegal immigration and demanding things like walls being built. i hear a lot about demand for items "made in the USA" but i never hear people talking about buying "made by legal employess". the illegal work force is only made possible because
1. people continue to consume goods and services produced by illegals
2. illegals will work for a wage much lower than what a legal american is willing to accept.

The under-the-table illegal alien trade is a terrible business, and should be stopped, even if it takes a wall. The idea that it's okay because it lets us buy cheaper items is totally unacceptible. What it does, is encourage the maintainence of a population of "non-people," for which no standards of decency need apply. Illegals are at the mercy of their employers, because they are here illegally. The employers and pretty much anyone else can screw them over in any manner they like, because they are at the mercy of the legal system. Officials sometimes find trucks belonging to smugglers, packed full of dead aliens, that have simply been abandoned. Yes, they come anyway, because in spite of how bad it can be for them here, it's even worse where they came from. But again, that is no excuse to condone or allow such business to continue within the borders of the United States. Whatever our immigration policy is to be, it must be above board.

And don't even get me started on the national security risks involved with having such a sloppy border, in the age of Islamic terror, and criminal gang activity.

sure we could build and maintain a wall at astronomical cost(can you imagine how expensive it would be??). a much cheaper option would be to stop buying product produced by illegal labour.

Meh. Pay for the raw materials, and then force captured illegals to build it, before you kick them back over to the other side.

OK one more time with the best CURRENT US LAW BREAKING PROTEST I can find.
Federal law says that Marijuana is Illegal. Several states have thought"Well Uncle Sam is a stupid stick in the mud that just wants people to die. We will make it legal in our state so people can use it as Medicine."

Personally, Poco, I don't see the conflict. The states have the right to pass any law they want whether it is in direct conflict with federal law or not. In this case, California has said, and subsequent state court rulings have upheld, that state law enforcement officials will not enforce the federal law on medical use marijuana. In others words, if a state or county police officer finds medical marijuana in your home they can not arrest you for possession (assuming it is packaged, etc. in accordance with state law). And they can not arrest a doctor prescribing the medical use of marijuana.

The DEA has said that marijuana is a Class I drug and they have the right to enforce federal law as it applies. Since doctors prescribed medications based on federal law the DEA has jurisdiction over doctors writing prescriptions. The Constitution establishes federal law as the supreme law. That's why DEA still has jurisdiction within the states.

I'm a little torn on this one. I am a firm believer that Federal law, short of direct Constitutional law, is the highest law there is. That federal law applies everywhere, and states should be required to obey all federal laws.

However, I'm also a fairly strict constitutional libertarian, who believes that the vast majority of law-making power resides (and should reside) with each individual state. I don't think the federal government should be involved in much specific lawmaking, I think it was intended to restrict itself to more basic tasks, like national defense, maintaining the highway system, and perhaps distributing federal tax money where it is needed. Specific things, like what drugs should be legal, and what drugs should be illegal... I really don't see where that should be the business of the federal government to decide. Specific stuff like that should be left to the states, and each individual state should have the power to decide what it wants to allow, and disallow, within its borders.

So, with that in mind, I suppose I oppose the government establishing and enforcing drug policy for the entire nation, but I definitely support the goverment enforcing immigration policy. People entering our borders from foreign lands is definitely a federal issue, and no state should have the power to oppose federal law on that one.

[Beo]

I agree with Sgt.Draino, but would add that illegal's are just that "Illegal" and should be caught and deported, if you wanna come here and live I got no problem (although I think the Great American Melting Pot is running over) just do it legally, and then learn the language. I don't live in or go to South America or any other country and expect them to change the language for me.
No illegals should not get ANY breaks here to include medical, legal, public assistance, or anything else. They are here illegally which is a crime so suffer the consaquences (i know it spelled wrong) if you break the law.
Build a wall across the border... hmmm, why not. I say about 30 feet deep, 40 feet high, and 20 feet thick made of rebar reinforced concrete with gard shacks every half mile manned by the National Guard all along the Mexican border. Wanna come here come legal.

As far as civil disobedience goes... a protest nonviolent is fine, that is your right. But one that gets out of hand, turns into a riot, people get hurt, or people block the sidewalk (i got a right to walk down the sidewalk without being harrassed by some goof), damage private property, damage any property is wrong and you cannot condone that. Lock them up for a good week to 30 days and teach them a lesson. Drugs are drugs and should be illegal and for good reason.
Just my thoughts
Beo,

Oh, and no if you are illegal you should not have the right to vote, you are not a citizen so your vote is ridiculous. And illegal goods will always happen and I don't know when I buy something if it was made illegally or not and its not my job to find out who makes it if its what I want to buy. Do you research who makes all the crap you buy? I don't think so, no one does and if you do you have to much time on your hands.

[SARKY]

So it is not okay to use violence to protest but it is okay to use violence to protest protesters....... as in the SEIU thugs caught on tape beating up a TeaParty member at one of their rallies. Caught dead to rights on tape ........ no arrests, no charges filed, not even an investigation. Can you say "Brown Shirts"!!!

[sgtdraino]

So it is not okay to use violence to protest but it is okay to use violence to protest protesters....... as in the SEIU thugs caught on tape beating up a TeaParty member at one of their rallies. Caught dead to rights on tape ........ no arrests, no charges filed, not even an investigation. Can you say "Brown Shirts"!!!

What is "SEIU?" Violence is not okay, but officers are empowered to use a "force continuum" to enforce the law, using one level of force above the level they encounter from someone resisting them, the minimum level of force needed to gain compliance.

As for the Tea Party member and "no charges filed," that Tea Party member needs to go to the Magistrates Office and file charges, then.

[SARKY]

Sgtdraino, you really need to tape and watch Glenn Beck (on Fox news channel)
SEIU is a union organization that obama worked with and who claim that they got him elected. Of course they are backed by the Dailey machine so strong arm tactics are nothing new to them. These people will be the core of obama's civillian defense force. like i said before "brown shirts' for those of you who may not know the historical reference to that term just ask.

[SARKY]

So why do illeagals get a pass when they protest in the streets and on the public school campuses of the USA for more benefits??

[rebel]

So it is not okay to use violence to protest but it is okay to use violence to protest protesters....... as in the SEIU thugs caught on tape beating up a TeaParty member at one of their rallies. Caught dead to rights on tape ........ no arrests, no charges filed, not even an investigation. Can you say "Brown Shirts"!!!

Funny how the SEIU calmed down when folks started to open carry at the tea parties. I can't remember which big three media (cbs, abc, nbc) portrayed the open carry folks as a white man. They even tried to doctor the photo. Thank goodness it was a man of color! It says a lot about our tainted media.

[trax]

I liked your reference Sarky. If I may quote a man who I thought was a great man "It wasn't that long ago they were paying me 50 cents a day to shoot the likes of you"--My Dad talking to a cop who was bullying a guy around in a bar in central Saskatchewan in the late '40's.

[sgtdraino]

Sgtdraino, you really need to tape and watch Glenn Beck (on Fox news channel)

Hey, I've already got a Beck season pass on my tivo! But lately I haven't been watching as many political shows as I used to.

[pocomoonskyeyes]

Drugs are drugs and should be illegal and for good reason.
Just my thoughts
Beo,

OK so let's get rid of penicillin,rogaine,pepto bismol, aspirin,nicotine,caffeine,etc.After all they are "Drugs".
Sorry Beo, I just think that is a little too broad of a statement. Saying all drugs is saying that you know better than doctors. Do you go to the doctor and tell him what he can and can't prescribe for you? Sorry but they went to a lot of school to know their job,and we have to trust that they know what they are doing. I know you are a LEO and it goes against the grain for you. But Morphine is used medically everyday, yet if you found it "on the street" it would be illegal.Same thing with oxycontine,barbituates,amphetamines,etc. Maybe the same should be true with other "Drugs". If they have a VALID medical use then they should be used accordingly, but not recreationally. Maybe it should be the way it is used that is illegal, not the drug itself. I can promise you that inhalants are more dangerous than Marijuana. So where is the big bust on aerosol paint?Lighter fluid?
Why isn't Nutmeg being taken off the shelves of the supermarket? After all it is halucinogenic. I could go on and on with other "Legal" recreational drugs.Not one of those has a medical use either. Yet they are Legal. Until they are misused. That is the key,the way they are used or misused is what determines whether they are legal or illegal. I know if you pulled me over and I had a prescription drug like one of those listed above and I didn't have a prescription I would be going to jail,but if I did have a prescription I would be going on my way.

I do not mean this as an attack on you personally, but on the system that has provided us with this lunacy. It makes no sense to me.Shouldn't Law be based on Common sense? Since none of us are MD's why should we know better than them on what medicines/drugs are good to use medicinally.If you DO know better than them, why aren't you allowed to prescribe whatever you want for yourself?

[SARKY]

I don't want to get off topic but do you know the reason why Pot isn't leagal? Now they do have a pill form called Marin. It's about money, The drug companies know that canaboids have medicinal uses. But anyone can grow pot from Alaska to Texas and from California to Maine. So if they invest in the plant , produce a legal drug and the people find out that they can get the same benefit by lighting up a legal plant , no profits for the drug company.

[Rick]

Sarky, you never cease to amaze me. Do you honestly think for one minute that if any of the drug companies saw money to be made in any of the chemical components of marijuana that they wouldn't synthesize, package and distribute it? A 20 million dollar advertising campaign would convince us to eat poop with a toothpick if it was packaged correctly.

[pocomoonskyeyes]

I'm a little torn on this one. I am a firm believer that Federal law, short of direct Constitutional law, is the highest law there is. That federal law applies everywhere, and states should be required to obey all federal laws.

However, I'm also a fairly strict constitutional libertarian, who believes that the vast majority of law-making power resides (and should reside) with each individual state. I don't think the federal government should be involved in much specific lawmaking, I think it was intended to restrict itself to more basic tasks, like national defense, maintaining the highway system, and perhaps distributing federal tax money where it is needed. Specific things, like what drugs should be legal, and what drugs should be illegal... I really don't see where that should be the business of the federal government to decide. Specific stuff like that should be left to the states, and each individual state should have the power to decide what it wants to allow, and disallow, within its borders.

So, with that in mind, I suppose I oppose the government establishing and enforcing drug policy for the entire nation, but I definitely support the goverment enforcing immigration policy. People entering our borders from foreign lands is definitely a federal issue, and no state should have the power to oppose federal law on that one.

I couldn't agree with you more! That was my whole point that THE STATES are Protesting this law while breaking it. I think it "funny" (not in a humorous way either) that there is "selective" enforcement of laws. I know there are a LOT of laws that enforcement IGNORES as they are no longer pertinent to todays society. It Is like the whole joke/saying about marriage/divorce - "It's cheaper to keep her". Let's face it, it costs money to REMOVE laws, the same as it costs to MAKE laws. So sometimes laws are just no longer enforced,while remaining on the books as laws. Kind of like the stupid laws I linked to earlier in this thread. They're stupid, everyone knows it so everyone(including LEO's) just "look the other way". Honestly I think this is exactly what is happening now, That this is the reason DEA is not going in and busting all these places that sell "Medical Marijuana". It has a proven viable use,that in a way negates the necessity of further enforcement of this Law.

I don't want to get off topic but do you know the reason why Pot isn't leagal? Now they do have a pill form called Marin. It's about money, The drug companies know that canaboids have medicinal uses. But anyone can grow pot from Alaska to Texas and from California to Maine. So if they invest in the plant , produce a legal drug and the people find out that they can get the same benefit by lighting up a legal plant , no profits for the drug company.

Isn't it synthetic? There are other uses for the plant parts, if they could process the necessary medication from the plant. Textiles - Cloth and rope are some of the best available from this plant. Oil from it also has uses. Think of the jobs it would create if it were processed, instead of sold "Raw".
I think you are right though it IS all about money... Like where does the government get their cut? since strength or proof or whatever varies from different plant parts they can't tax it that way. But if it were processed a standard could be formed, that could be taxed. Just a thought.

I know a Lot of people think that just because a law is broken, someone gets hurt. That is not necessarily the case. If I jay walk at 2 AM when the road is deserted, to get away from a burning building,Will I get hurt? If someone lost in the Wilderness traps an animal to provide necessary sustenance when it is illegal does anyone get hurt? No, a life could be saved,and no harm caused at all. If you speed to take a dieing person to the Hospital and there is no accident is anyone hurt?. I am trying to find incidents where a Law Can be broken and something beneficial comes of it. It's hard believe me, to come up with good examples. But I think you can see, that there are instances when each and everyone will break a law, and something beneficial comes of it. I think this is the beauty of the judicial system when it works like it is supposed to. You CAN break a law and be found NOT GUILTY because of extenuating and mitigating circumstances.

If a crazed madman breaks in and threatens your family and you shoot and kill them - Sorry, but you are "Guilty" of involuntary homicide/manslaughter at the very least. But I bet you shoot and kill anyway. I think I've made my point, that there are laws, That at the time, Are stupid - and IN THAT INSTANCE, are worthy of being ignored. You can tell me you are "Joe perfect Citizen" all you like, but there are circumstances that each and everyone will either knowingly or unwittingly break a Law.

[BENESSE]

A 20 million dollar advertising campaign would convince us to eat poop with a toothpick if it was packaged correctly.

I'd be very happy to have that account. Something new and different.

[Ken]

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

[pocomoonskyeyes]

I don't want to get off topic but do you know the reason why Pot isn't leagal? Now they do have a pill form called Marin. It's about money, The drug companies know that canaboids have medicinal uses. But anyone can grow pot from Alaska to Texas and from California to Maine. So if they invest in the plant , produce a legal drug and the people find out that they can get the same benefit by lighting up a legal plant , no profits for the drug company.

Sarky, you never cease to amaze me. Do you honestly think for one minute that if any of the drug companies saw money to be made in any of the chemical components of marijuana that they wouldn't synthesize, package and distribute it? A 20 million dollar advertising campaign would convince us to eat poop with a toothpick if it was packaged correctly.

Sorry Rick I don't think Pills grow on marijuana plants. The Drug Companies ARE manufacturing it already. But you won't see any advertising campaigns,since Marijuana is ILLEGAL and they don't want the stigma attached to them. No amount of money could fly an AD campaign that could spin that in a favorable light! You may as well have said 2 Billion. That is why they don't advertise. But since it is useful They make it.

[BENESSE]

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

Tastes Great, Less Filling!

[Rick]

Drug companies don't advertise? When's the last time you turned on the TV, listened to the radio or read any type of periodical that there WASN'T a drug advertisement included? Bayer, Tylenol, Lavitra.....

side effects might include dizziness, dry mouth, loss of appetite, libido, fibido, your left foot, your right ear, last night's pasta or your wallet.

Ken - that looks pretty good. Maybe the ads were subliminal.

[pocomoonskyeyes]

Sorry Rick I don't think Pills grow on marijuana plants. The Drug Companies ARE manufacturing it already. But you won't see any advertising campaigns,since Marijuana is ILLEGAL and they don't want the stigma attached to them. No amount of money could fly an AD campaign that could spin that in a favorable light! You may as well have said 2 Billion. That is why they don't advertise. But since it is useful They make it.

Drug companies don't advertise? When's the last time you turned on the TV, listened to the radio or read any type of periodical that there WASN'T a drug advertisement included? Bayer, Tylenol, Lavitra.....

side effects might include dizziness, dry mouth, loss of appetite, libido, fibido, your left foot, your right ear, last night's pasta or your wallet.

OK, I guess I deserve that one. I just thought you would understand what I meant. Perhaps I should Clarify what I meant. I meant that they don't advertise the fact that they make a Marijuana synthetic Pill available, to the public. They couldn't take the bashing they would get if they Advertised that. It would probably affect their profit margins or some such. Better to just let the Doctors know, let them prescribe it, and rake in the profit on the hush hush. We know it is being made, just not who makes it. I'm sure we could find out, But it's not like they are going to the roof tops to shout it out.