• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Freedom of Speech or a Criminal act?

SparkyWolf

Member
I'm not even sure how I stumbled upon this, but I did. Ever heard of Adam Kokesh? I hadn't until today when I saw this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKB4ltAnY4Y

I don't know quite what to make of this guy and his attitude toward change. It's a good way of getting attention, but is quite on the extreme side of things. He claims what he does is "freedom of speech", protected by the first amendment. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...", Weather what Kokesh was doing in this video was "Peaceable" is certainly up for debate. As he was egging on the crowd to "Fuck the law, Smoke it anyway!" (e.g. encouraging illegal behavior in the form of smoking Marijuana), and he became obstructive and combative when the police stepped in. And CLEARLY did so on purpose as he says "...We're going to make it difficult for the police here..." and begins using his body to block prevent the officers from getting to the people smoking pot. On the other hand, the croud was not initially engaging in any direct conflict with law enforcement or anyone else, and they were stating their opinion through non-violent actions. Forceful physical contact only occurred after the police moved in to arrest the pot smokers and Kokesh. So what do you guys think? Were Kokesh and the other protesters arrested for partaking in a peaceful protest like they claim? Or were they in the wrong to begin with and their arrests justified?
 

lupinealchemist

Hamburger time.
...We're going to make it difficult for the police here..." and begins using his body to block prevent the officers from getting to the people smoking pot.
Sounds like he's aiding a crime right here.
Criminal Act.
 

Mikazuki Marazhu

I hate you all
If he's instigating against the law by telling other people to break the law... He should be put to jail
 

mcjoel

Pepmurrmint Fox
I'm going to protest prostitution then fuck a hooker while this guy blocks the police from getting into my bedroom :V
 

Ayattar

Banned
Banned
Prohibition of Cannabis is a nannying law, so I don't care that they are breaking it.

I agree that this law is stupid, just as qualifying suicide as a criminal act, but still, law is law. Untill it changes it needs to be obeyed.
 

SparkyWolf

Member
I agree that this law is stupid, just as qualifying suicide as a criminal act, but still, law is law. Untill it changes it needs to be obeyed.

Agreed. Colorado is the one state in the US that Cannabis is legal and it's crime and arrest rates are down by a large margin. But to publicly break the law in such a manner isn't right either, and won't make it change.
 

AlexInsane

I does what I says on the box.

PastryOfApathy

Well-Known Member
Freedom of speech is organizing a protest in favor of the legalization of pot.

Civil disobedience is organizing people to smoke pot in front of a police station and allow themselves to be arrested without resistance to prove a point.

Actively encouraging people to break the law in front of dozens of cops and acting shocked when you're arrested is called being a retard. I mean I'm 100% for the legalization of pot, but this shit just makes all of us look like a bunch of yuppie idiots.
 

jtrekkie

Feathered
Disobedience motivates legislative change.

Violence of any sort is a very stupid way to motivate the legislature. In any case civil disobedience is still disobedience. If you insist on breaking laws you must be prepared to accept the consequences.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Violence of any sort is a very stupid way to motivate the legislature. In any case civil disobedience is still disobedience. If you insist on breaking laws you must be prepared to accept the consequences.

I agree that violence is unacceptable and that going quietly is part of the stoicism necessary for civil disobedience.
 

Luki

Member
I'm not a fan of psychoactive drugs, but those guys do seem a bit obnoxious... That Adam fellow in particular seems to enjoy overdramatizing events as well, what with that whole "Final American Revolution!" banner.
 

Sarcastic Coffeecup

Hand. Cannot. Erase.
Well they got what they wanted, a police confrontation.
Can't say I'll cry for their cause. Cannabis is a gateway drug and I'd hate to see that legalized, even if it was far away and abroad.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Well they got what they wanted, a police confrontation.
Can't say I'll cry for their cause. Cannabis is a gateway drug and I'd hate to see that legalized, even if it was far away and abroad.

I was curious whether this was true, so I performed a google search and then followed the hyperlinks to original research via this route:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600369/

Attempts to vindicate or falsify the Gateway hypothesis are ambiguous, in part because the hypothesis cannot make specific predictions, only vague ones.

Another hypothesis, 'common liability' proposes that there is a genetic predisposition to drug addiction, and that this can predict the pattern of drug consumption we see without resorting to the Gateway hypothesis.

The common liability hypothesis's predictions are vindicated, while it is almost impossible to test the Gateway hypothesis. It's a slippery slope argument used by politcians who do not care whether it is true or not. Its poor testability is convenient for their ends, rather than raising a scientific red flag.

Legislation ought to be founded upon established science, not rhetoric. Those of us who vote should always consult original research, if we are suspicious that rhetoric is present.
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

Inglorious Bastard
Freedom of speech is organizing a protest in favor of the legalization of pot.

Civil disobedience is organizing people to smoke pot in front of a police station and allow themselves to be arrested without resistance to prove a point.

Actively encouraging people to break the law in front of dozens of cops and acting shocked when you're arrested is called being a retard. I mean I'm 100% for the legalization of pot, but this shit just makes all of us look like a bunch of yuppie idiots.

Pretty much.
I support the legalization of it, but the way they went about it is stupid and the person in the vid is an idiot for encouraging it.
 
Last edited:

Sarcastic Coffeecup

Hand. Cannot. Erase.
I was curious whether this was true, so I performed a google search and then followed the hyperlinks to original research via this route:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600369/

Attempts to vindicate or falsify the Gateway hypothesis are ambiguous, in part because the hypothesis cannot make specific predictions, only vague ones.

Another hypothesis, 'common liability' proposes that there is a genetic predisposition to drug addiction, and that this can predict the pattern of drug consumption we see without resorting to the Gateway hypothesis.

The common liability hypothesis's predictions are vindicated, while it is almost impossible to test the Gateway hypothesis. It's a slippery slope argument used by politcians who do not care whether it is true or not. Its poor testability is convenient for their ends, rather than raising a scientific red flag.

Legislation ought to be founded upon established science, not rhetoric. Those of us who vote should always consult original research, if we are suspicious that rhetoric is present.
Whether you like it or not, or if the theory itself isn't the most specific itself, go ask any hard-drug user what they started with.
I'm willing to bet my left testicle that the majority did not jump straight to intravenous drugs before starting with something milder such as cannabis or ecstacy.
It's a hard thing to prove that cannabis can lure people into harder substances or the world of drugs itself, but you shouldn't rule that possiblity out just because the study is vague today.

My eyes and mind perceive the people who smoke or defend and vouch for pot as junkie idiots who are in self denial and just want to continue their illicit actions without the (possible) shame it brings, but that's just my view, as incorrect as it may be.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Whether you like it or not, or if the theory itself isn't the most specific itself, go ask any hard-drug user what they started with.
I'm willing to bet my left testicle that the majority did not jump straight to intravenous drugs before starting with something milder such as cannabis or ecstacy.
It's a hard thing to prove that cannabis can lure people into harder substances or the world of drugs itself, but you shouldn't rule that possiblity out just because the study is vague today.

My eyes and mind perceive the people who smoke or defend and vouch for pot as junkie idiots who are in self denial and just want to continue their illicit actions without the (possible) shame it brings, but that's just my view, as incorrect as it may be.

Asking hard drug users what they started with cannot vindicate the hypothesis, only falsify it. In Japan over 80% of hard drug users did not use Cannabis before using hard drugs.

Use of cannabis prior to hard drugs is a function of cannabis availability, not a causative bridge to hard drug consumption.


You should read the original research I posted, where your questions are dispatched much more eloquently than I can muster.
 

SparkyWolf

Member
I'm not a fan of psychoactive drugs, but those guys do seem a bit obnoxious... That Adam fellow in particular seems to enjoy overdramatizing events as well, what with that whole "Final American Revolution!" banner.

I think that he either makes money by stirring up trouble and being defiant, or he gets a sense of importance from it. Because in another video, he was filming on the sidewalk with out a permit, and when he was asked to leave by the parks police, he refused because he said that the second amendment protected his right to film anywhere he wanted. After that, he followed the cops around asking if they had sworn an oath to the constitution when they were hired, and harassed the officers for several more minutes wanting an interview. He's just a glorified shit starter.

Freedom of speech is organizing a protest in favor of the legalization of pot.

Civil disobedience is organizing people to smoke pot in front of a police station and allow themselves to be arrested without resistance to prove a point.

Actively encouraging people to break the law in front of dozens of cops and acting shocked when you're arrested is called being a retard. I mean I'm 100% for the legalization of pot, but this shit just makes all of us look like a bunch of yuppie idiots.

Yep. It's crazy that he thinks that the cops are "Framing him" when he just encouraged a croud of people to smoke pot illegally, and then purposefully obstruct/resist police officials (also criminal).
 
Top