I intentionally used "scofflaw" as it is a term coined during the prohibition era. These otherwise law abiding citizens who suddenly became criminals overnight played an inarguably important role in bringing on repeal. Scofflaws were not Ghandis or MLKs. They were your neighbor, the office secretary, your cousin, the garbage man.

Of course the litigators, lawmakers, judges, etc, played a big part, but what drove them? It was the turning of popular opinion when people realized prohibition made criminals out of law abiding citizens, it lined the pockets of legitimate criminals, and the law failed to do what it set out to do in the first place.

30 years ago, the head of the DEA could claim to not know that there is a disparity in harm caused by meth use and cannabis use. Now the collective internet rolls its eyes. Politicians are being very careful around the issue or outright calling for legalization. Many municipalities have decriminalized possession. Where do you think the drive for this change comes from? Out of thin air? Philosophical debate at law schools?

I mean, your argument is that no one who partakes in illegal consumption of cannabis has helped to bring on the spread of legalization? I can't see how else to read:

The reason laws change isnt because of criminals. It's because law abiding citizens took up the cause and actually put the work in. Even now, with marijuana legalization becoming more and more popular, I'd bet you two just sit and ride the coattails.


Again, I'll refer to the scofflaws who preferred man on man butt sex to smoking cannabis-- you mean to tell me that it was only the law abiding sodomy free straight and repressed, non practicing gays who brought about change? And how does this stance square with your seeming high opinion of MLK and Ghandi?