i may be wrong, but in the context of drug use, doesn't breaking a law effectively represent a protest against the legitimacy of that law itself? if you bow down and let them fist you with oppressive laws, then in a few years australia will also have 20 year sentences for possession.
progressive drug policy is certainly no thanks to those of you with the "do the crime, do the time" attitude, especially when it comes to small-scale drug infringements.
decades ago, governments deemed it fit to ban indigenous australians from voting in their own land, they deemed it fit to punish homosexuals criminally for their sexual practices, deemed it fit to restrict injecting drug users access to needles etc etc - you see the trend. where would those social groups now be if it weren't for those who protested against that which the government deemed fit.
same goes for drug use. if any of you have a core belief that your choice to have and use drugs is a matter of personal freedom (not a matter of criminality), then i suggest you don't get too caught up in that attitude of apathy and acceptance when you get busted - stand up for yourselves. this is a democracy, the law is intended to reflect the feelings, attitudes and beliefs of the community, of which we are all constituents.
that 'matter-of-fact realist talkback radio show host tough titties eye for an eye' attitude in the context of the illicit drug phenomenon is so simplistic and impotent that it makes me want to go hang a big dirty shit.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
