4 ms·

I will agree with you that it is a totally different situation.

• soulofmischief 4y ago
  Can you also agree that there are fundamental similarities? No one is being punished for following a law, people are being rewarded for rebelling against an unconstitutional law while everyone else just ignored it or got lucky and were never caught.
  • sharikous 4y ago
    The law forbidding selling or consuming pot was not uncostitutional nor was it a violation of human rights. It was just a controversial law that was changed. If you approve of a "rebellion" against this law, as opposed to just some democratic change of legislation, I wonder how would you handle other regulative norms... If the US decides to allow selling Kinder eggs should we reward the previous smugglers? Of course this assumes that you don't expand your definition of "human rights" to include the absolute right of consuming cannabis. But, you see, it's difficult enough to agree that the right not to be killed for your religion is a fundamental human right. We got there thankfully but not without hiccups. When you expand "human rights" to include everything you want you are making that expression controversial end devoid of value - because less and less people will agree with you.
    • soulofmischief 4y ago
      You could euphemize just about any basic human right this way. I don't buy it. Your rhetoric is thin and transparent. Don't forget a large part of the American Revolution exactly dealt with these kinds of material "regulations", to which the American people and British government disagreed were an issue of human rights.