VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:53:20 08/17/04 Tue
Author: mnaz
Author Host/IP: 24.18.140.3
Subject: Re: Getting caught vs. Protest.
In reply to: cat 's message, "Re: Getting caught vs. Protest." on 18:25:49 08/17/04 Tue

Well, I wish I could provide more insight into the world of
marijuana, but I don't smoke. Never have. Almost all of my friends have smoked it, though. To me, the thing about pot is its natural, herbal origin, and the fact that "it doesn't do much", as many people relate after trying it. I never understood why this drug (THC) represented such a "threat to society"....enough to be lumped in with the "War on Drugs" and classed together with crack or crystal meth or whatever the next manufactured bomb cooked up inside some remote lab might be.

My guess is that talk of "civil disobedience" in regard to commonplace pot-smoking might be cheap among those who associate this with their image while knowing that they will not be challenged directly. Just a theory, mind you...



>So, you don't think smoking pot is a legitimate
>example of civil disobedience?
>
>Can you answer a question for me then? And this is
>completely sincere, because I do not smoke it (I
>drink, though) and I draw kind of a "blank" about the
>whole thing. Why do people smoke it? Is the high
>really worth the possibility of going to jail or
>getting a slap on your record if you get caught? Every
>single time I've asked this question of somebody who
>smokes it, I get a 'civil disobedience' type answer. I
>don't know if this is something they are saying this
>as rationalization, or if they really mean it (I
>assume they're sincere)or if the high from smoking pot
>is so incredibly awesome and wonderful and I just
>don't know. I smoked it in my early twenties, and it
>did nothing for me. Then, about eight or nine years
>ago I had a boyfriend who smoked it regularly and
>convinced me to give it another try. I did. And I kept
>trying, too, to please him. All it does is make me
>sleepy and "stoned". So, I am really dumb on this
>subject. Maybe you can't answer me over email, I don't
>know. :-)
>
>As for your irritation with people (like me, prior
>posts) who disapprove of civil disobedience as a
>general rule, the point is well-taken. After all, if
>someone feels a law is unjust, and they want to
>protest, there aren't too many peaceful but effective
>means open to them. Civil disobedience is peaceful and
>generally effective. I still think it's a question of
>degrees, though.
>
>
>
>
>>Well, Cat...
>>
>>Happening to "get caught" is not what I have in mind
>>here.... more like intentionally, publicly getting
>>caught, to draw attention to an issue.... like if a
>>group marched on Wash. DC, smoking pot and carrying
>>signs, and this group was then arrested on national TV
>>and thrown in jail... civil disobedience as protest.
>>
>>My main beef here is the de facto
>>establishment-skewed, default perception that the
>>cause must be invalid automatically if its proponents
>>resort to breaking rules. (one of the main points of
>>the protest to start with).
>>
>>I also found it interesting that some people consider
>>Thoreau's protest to be a fraud, since he accepted
>>his release when someone else paid his tax. It seems
>>to me that he gave up his freedom for awhile and
>>perhaps risked his reputation to make a point... the
>>point being to draw public attention to the injustice
>>of the Mexican-American War. The point wasn't about
>>how long he could stand to rot in prison, according to
>>stubborn "pure principle".
>>
>>Anyway. Those are just my thoughts on it.
>>
>>
>>>I don't think it's a question that can be answered
>>>with a simple yes or no, even generally.
>>>
>>>Nonviolent civil disobedience was used to great
>effect
>>>in India. You imply here that we may approve of civil
>>>disobedience if we approve of the cause. Conversely,
>>>if we don't approve of the cause, then we won't
>>>approve of the disobedience. Maybe it's more a matter
>>>of degrees. What's at stake? Is it a life-or-death
>>>issue? Does the oppression of a whole people or group
>>>of people hang in the balance?
>>>
>>>Maybe it isn't so much approval of the cause as
>>>whether the cause weighs heavily or lightly in
>balance
>>>with the disobedience.
>>>
>>>On the other hand -- you also have to ask who your
>>>civil disobedience affects? Does it just affect you
>>>and no one else?If you break the law, and go to jail,
>>>and that's your whole point, aren't you just bringing
>>>trouble down on your own head?
>>>
>>>What about buying and smoking pot? There you have an
>>>example of millions and millions of people in an
>>>almost constant state of civil disobedience and the
>>>law hasn't changed and it isn't likely to. Pot
>>>smoking-- as civil disobedience--therefore, isn't
>very
>>>effective. If you get caught with the right amount in
>>>hand, you go to jail but the law is still the law. No
>>>change. A lot of risk for very little payback(not
>>>counting the high, OC) ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Generally, does it do more to advance the cause, or
>>to
>>>>set it back? A couple of examples come to mind:
>the
>>>>illegal gay marriages sought and granted in San
>>>>Francisco recently, and Thoreau's stint behind bars
>>>>for non-payment of taxes in protest of the
>>>>Mexican-American war.
>>>>
>>>>But asking and answering this question is a little
>>>>tricky.
>>>>In the long-term, history judges whether these
>>actions
>>>>are effective. But as they occur, it seems their
>>>>legitimacy and potential to effect change are judged
>>>>strictly according to whether or not one believes in
>>>>either the cause or perhaps the concept of civil
>>>>disobedience to begin with.... The status quo tends
>>to
>>>>use its own rules to discredit any challenge to
>those
>>>>same rules. Any thoughts on this?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.