[dataker]

This matter is beyond using or selling drugs. The definition of crime is based on a law which isn't necessarily morally right.

For example, in my country, discussing LGBT or even marijuana would get you into serious trouble. Hence, as internet users, we should look beyond our time and space, ensuring freedom of speech.

[ianstallings]

I do agree that people should fight for what they think is right and change societies rules if they feel they are unfair. But we have systems in place to do this. They're not perfect but they are there. It's wiser to use them and try and change things than to just ignore the law because you don't agree.

Edit: This applies for the USA. Other countries I can't really speak about. Some are truly oppressive and I doubt just using the system would accomplish much. I understand that. I don't know how to solve that problem unfortunately.

[sliverstorm]

The definition of crime is based on a law which isn't necessarily morally right.

So what is the correct action for the Fed? To ignore the law and not enforce it?

[crazypyro]

Seems to be exactly what the president has ordered w.r.t. Colorado/Washington legalization of marijuana, which is a schedule 1 drug...

[sliverstorm]

Ok, similar, yes. But isn't that still a bit of a different issue? To my knowledge that had nothing to do with moral judgements and everything to do with conflicting laws at the federal & state levels, and the open debate over states' rights.

[dataker]

I don't know a lot about US law, but I'll try my best as an internet user.

As far as I know, the Fed is part of the government and, obviously, enforce its laws. If there's a war on drugs, the Fed will try to control these networks in the internet.

Similarly, in other countries, their 'Fed' will try to control LGBT, feminist and religious online communities. Although a different case, the Internet is still the same.

If one is American and doesn't have issues, he/she should at least recognize it is not the same in other places and times.

[trhway]

my understanding of the US legal system is that Feds really get to choose which laws they are going or not going to enforce. At the top level it is what is called executive action and power of pardon. For example, Obama has followed moral instead of laws in his immigration actions.

[TillE]

In two hours, the marijuana situation in Berlin is going to change significantly because two senators decided to amend the enforcement policy. Basically, German law allows for declining to prosecute the possession of small quantities. But the exact policy is set by each state, and is not actually a law.

So as of March 31st, there will be a zero tolerance policy in one specific park. It's one of the weirder and more short-sighted drug policies I've ever encountered, and a good example of this kind of move: from officially enshrined non-enforcement of a law to strict enforcement.

[anigbrowl]

A good even handed analysis of this situation: http://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/gorlitzer-park-cannabis-cultur...

[Lawtonfogle]

Until someone has complained of being harmed, why not?

[saganus]

Discussing?

Wow. That's truly sad. I mean, if only talking about the subject already gets you into trouble, I don't want to know how LGBT people in your country actually live.

We always hear about these things in the newspapers and such and it always outrages me,, but to hear it from an actual citizen brings a different perspective, at least for me.

I truly hope this ends sooner rather than later OP.

[sroerick]

This is a good reason why decentralized alternatives to sites like Reddit are needed.

It's one thing in a country like the USA where there is a (sometimes dubious) code of ethics and rule of law.

It's a completely different matter in an authoritarian society.

[javajosh]

>Hence, as internet users, we should look beyond our time and space, ensuring freedom of speech.

What do you think drives the impulse to suppress free speech? And do you really think this is a free speech issue?