you are applying them to. Yes, it is absurd to compare the Jim Crow laws to this issue and no matter what you try to say, it is and will stay absurd. It is not even an apples to oranges comparison. No one is trying to say legality trumps all other concerns, that is a figment of your imagination. What was said is that isolated cases do not detract from the overall law no more than a case of a rogue officer abusing his badge is a referendum on all cops or a reason to fire all cops. As to fed right to be in the drug enforcement world, sorry bub, they do have the right, no the obligation, to be involved since the drug trade crosses not only state lines, but national ones as well. It is their constitutional duty to be involved. As to your point two, lost me as to what you are wanting to say there. I am not the one who wants to change drug enforcement, so I have no interest in working towards any change there. As to not wanting to follow the law........do what? As I stated above, the fed government has a constitutional duty to fight the drug trade, so lost as to what you are trying to imply here. The send them packing comment, lets not play semantics OK. There is a big difference between changing bad law or corrupt law and changing law because some enforcers of the law are