Look, these people have been growing for a long time, illegally. I don't have a problem with the growing itself, but they've been making a mess of Mendocino County for years, and they're not exactly all nice people (violent crime rate up there is pretty high). Now we have a legal framework for growing, for actually doing it in a legal way. Sure, some of the new requirements will hurt. But overall we'll end up with a safer growing situation, and things will be done in a way that doesn't damage the land.
No, they don't. Following that framework is admitting you are breaking a federal law. It bars you from being successful in businesses, make a lot of money and the feds have more reason to target you.
A mature society is one whose people can distinguish between behavior which is actually anti-social from behavior which is merely proscribed by the state.
The act of breaking bad laws - and supporting those who break bad laws - is central to a functioning and mature society.
We all can choose to break laws. Most of us break laws every day. But, when you break laws, you do so at risk of being punished.
Illegal growers chose to break laws in exchange for profit. Now, some are busted.
Other operators chose not to break those laws. Perhaps, instead, they worked to legalize growing, and are now complying and profiting.
That's life in society.
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.
People living in those countries routinely broke the law without consequences, but those countries still managed to function pretty well as a society.
So, yes, I do think Rosa Parks should have been arrested (as she was). In fact, it would've been worse if she was left alone -- her defiance would've been a non-event.
I do not think you're too familiar with Rosa Parks story. here's a link to help you out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
Lastly, I think it's rude to equate Rosa Parks to these rogue pot browsers. That said, I think we should bust these law breakers -- and if that upsets enough people, then we'll enact legal changes.