With the volume, breadth, and obscurity of the federal register, I don't think it's practical to "choose" not to break laws in the USA today.
> Sounds like you think your opinion of what laws are just outweighs the democratic process that established those laws.
I certainly don't think that the "democratic process" is some sort of fairy dust that you can sprinkle on laws which are contrary to nature and to the constitution and suddenly make them legitimate. If this is "my opinion," then yes, your statement is entirely accurate.
There are democratic traditions that are more akin to what you are describing, but in common law republics, the legitimacy of the law is constrained by the limited and enumerated power of the state and is not boundless unto whatever the "democratic process" may dictate.
> Other operators chose not to break those laws.
This is entirely a semantic turn - by saying "those laws" in reference to the State (capital S) laws in question in this article, you have intentionally ignored the fact that the US Government has its own (obviously illegitimate in light of the history of the 18th and 21st amendments) laws which also proscribe this conduct.
So there is no way to "choose not to break" the laws regarding cultivating of cannabis.
> That's life in society.
If you are holding high the state of drug policy in the USA in 2017 as evidence of "life in society," I want to encourage you to raise your standards somewhat.
With the volume, breadth, and obscurity of the federal register, I don't think it's practical to "choose" not to break laws in the USA today.
> Sounds like you think your opinion of what laws are just outweighs the democratic process that established those laws.
I certainly don't think that the "democratic process" is some sort of fairy dust that you can sprinkle on laws which are contrary to nature and to the constitution and suddenly make them legitimate. If this is "my opinion," then yes, your statement is entirely accurate.
There are democratic traditions that are more akin to what you are describing, but in common law republics, the legitimacy of the law is constrained by the limited and enumerated power of the state and is not boundless unto whatever the "democratic process" may dictate.
> Other operators chose not to break those laws.
This is entirely a semantic turn - by saying "those laws" in reference to the State (capital S) laws in question in this article, you have intentionally ignored the fact that the US Government has its own (obviously illegitimate in light of the history of the 18th and 21st amendments) laws which also proscribe this conduct.
So there is no way to "choose not to break" the laws regarding cultivating of cannabis.
> That's life in society.
If you are holding high the state of drug policy in the USA in 2017 as evidence of "life in society," I want to encourage you to raise your standards somewhat.