I’m saying that violating the law is in itself immoral, unless the law itself mandates that you do an immoral act, or refrain from doing a moral one. But, in general, a person has an obligation to be a “good citizen”, and obey the laws of the community in which he or she lives.
There’s nothing wrong with being in a euphoric peaceful state, or gays having sex in the privacy of their homes. Sodomy laws have already been repealed, and I think pot should be legalized.
Generally, yes, except, again, when the individual law is so terrible…
Okay. I disagree. Arbitrary adherence to the law is not what makes one a good citizen. Respect for your fellow citizens well-being and property is what makes you a good citizen. Breaking anti-pot laws does not show disrespect for either, and therefore maybe disregarded to the extent that one does not fall afoul of the agencies tasked to enforce said laws. Which, of course, is simply a matter of self-preservation and not morality.
Or, to look at it another way, I never agreed to follow any of the laws of this country. However, since my life and my property are protected by many of those laws, it would be hypocritical of me to violate them while still under their protection. Anti-drug laws do offer me any protection from anything. Therefore, I have no moral qualms about violating them.
Before those laws were repealed, do you think that gays living in states that had sodomy laws should have refrained from having sex?
If you’re willing to accept the possible legal consequences of your actions, I don’t see a clear moral reason not to disobey an unjust law. These are laws rooted in lies and responsible for sending far too many harmless people to prison.
If someone doesn’t want to use marijuana for health-related reasons, or simply doesn’t like the taste, smell, effects, or whatever, that’s great. If getting arrested is not a risk they’re willing to take, that’s okay, too. But to avoid it simply because It’s The Law is wrong, IMHO. It lends tacit support to a system that wastes billions depriving people of their freedom for a victimless crime, while hypocritically allowing equally-or-more dangerous drugs (alcohol, tobacco) to be sold at any convenience store.
These are laws that are clearly not aligned with any kind of sane moral code, so I have trouble understanding how anyone would feel any kind of moral obligation not to violate them.
Well there ya go. 
Adherence to the law, and respect for your fellow citizens’ well being and property all go into making you a good citizen. Breaking the law shows disrespect for the state, which you have obligations to, merely by being a citizen.
Probably.
I don’t have respect for the state. I reserve my respect for people, not institutions. Similarly, I have no obligations to the state. I have obligations to my fellow citizens, many of which require the apparatus of the state for me to properly observe, but the state itself is just a tool towards that end. It does not deserve respect, nor demand any obligation to itself independent of the citizenry it comprises.
Wow. Just… wow.
I guess by the same logic those uppity negroes should have just followed the law and sat in the back of the bus until our government graciously changed the laws on its own.
Some laws are not just. They should be fought against. I agree with the OP that by making dope (heh) illegal they are driving the market toward large scale producers with a lot at stake who are willing to break further laws to protect their assets. For a plant we could all grow in our backyards.
I didn’t say that. I’ve said that I support fighting to repeal bad laws, and I support non-violent resistance to oppose unjust ones. But the default should be obedience of the laws.
You’re right, some laws aren’t just, and they should be fought against. I don’t think laws criminalizing pot are inherantly unjust. I think they’re bad, and I think they’re stupid. But a law can be stupid without being unjust.
You can make a really good argument that segregation laws are unjust, in my mind. You can make a good argument that sodomy laws are unjust. (which is why I only said probably to the earlier question, and not definately). I don’t think you can make a good argument that criminalizing pot is unjust.
Having just filed this years taxes, and having, last night, talked to my grandmother about her brother in law who died in WWII after being drafted, I could question the factual validity of that statement.
But if you’d prefer me to rephrase it, those laws were adopted by the elected representatives of the citizens as a whole, whose job it is to do the popular will. So, by obeying the laws, you’re fufilling your obligation to the citizenry.
If a “bad” or “stupid” law can be used to put someone in prison, then it’s inherently unjust and should be fought.
(for the record, I have no desire to smoke pot, but I believe very strongly that it should not be illegal)
For me, it is the fact the government actually should have no right to even make this kind of law. It seems utterly ridiculous to me that the government should control the growth of a plant. Not to mention that even if you think pot is bad because it is bad for you (or because it holds no benefits for society), that the people who use it are punished with fines and jail time. But by far it concerns me more that the government can interfere in our private lives to such an extent.
Which is what I meant when I said some obligations can only be met through the apparatus of the state. I don’t pay taxes out of obligation to the state, I pay them out of obligation to my fellow citizens. The state is merely the means through which that obligation is met. The same with military service, to an extent. If I don’t meet those obligations, people are going to be harmed. I do not have an obligation to refrain from smoking a doobie, or, for that matter, having butt-sex in Texas, because no one is harmed by either of those actions.
Immaterial. I have an obligation not to harm my fellow citizens. I do not have an obligation to obey them. The fact that a majority of American voters think that I should not smoke pot does not obligate me to agree or acquiesce with their views, until such time as they can present material evidence that me smoking pot is causing them tangible harm.
I would also argue that stupid laws are, by definition, unjust.
Tell me then, why is it fair that one man’s vice is sold openly and legally in stores, while another man’s vice, which is not more dangerous by any objective standard, is a valid reason to steal away years of freedom from his life? Go ahead and tell me how that’s fucking fair. Please. I’d really love to hear it.
If people don’t break unjust laws, incorrect public perception of them remains unchanged. In other words, if a person doesn’t know anyone who illegally smokes marijuana, he has little reason to disbelieve even the most absurd government propaganda.