I find it rather hilarious that you think I am naive, considering you seem to think that writing letters expressing dissatisfaction with our enslavement is the quickest way to obtain freedom. You have bought the propaganda hook line and sinker. The entire system is stacked against us. Can I teach a pro legalization class at public schools? Can I tax people and spend the money promoting drug legalization? Do I have friends making trillions of dollars, large parts of which they donate back to me, due to drug criminalization? You seem to advocate that we fight a shark in the water. You think that I live in a cartoonish world but you have an extremely cartoonish view of how the government works. My guess is that you probably watch School House Rock 'I'm just a bill' for your evenings entertainment. The laws are intentionally muddy as fuck so that they can apply to anything the government wants them to apply to. Many of the laws that are not muddy as fuck are interpreted away by secret courts anyway. Of course the system I prefer is militant libertarianism, where a large and powerful group uses whatever force necessary to enforce the ideals of libertarianism. However, I can think of a great many systems far superior to what is currently in place. I would prefer a direct democracy that requires a substantial percentage of the population to back something prior to it being made law. I think that computers and encryption systems should be used more frequently in voting processes, giving everybody an easy ability to vote. I don't think that there should be a president or a congress. I don't think there should be state laws either. Let's implement a secure voting infrastructure and then strike all laws from the books. Then we will let people propose laws by getting a significant amount of support for the law to be considered. If a law is nominated for consideration, it is put up to a vote for a period of two weeks. If 80% of the people who vote on the law vote in favor of it, then it is passed as law, otherwise it is not passed as law. There must be a period of four years prior to a law being reevaluated after it is put into place or rejected. Courts should be changed as well, the first thing the jury should decide is whether or not the alleged crime is something that they consider should be criminal. If 80% of the jury determines that it should be criminal, then the case can proceed, otherwise it is dismissed immediately. The jury should also decide the appropriate sentence for the crime, not the judge and not any federal or state mandates. 80% of people will agree that it should be illegal to murder, it should be illegal to rape, it should be illegal to steal, etc. You will be much more hard pressed to find 80% of people who think somebody should go to prison for smoking marijuana. If 20% or more of the population doesn't think something should be illegal, it probably shouldn't be. Currently 50.00000001% of people (well, roughly, considering electoral college) determine some percentage of the leaders who are put into power, and the leaders put into power can essentially do whatever the hell they want. The leaders put into power also get to select some of the other leaders put into power. Currently we vote on who gets to be a part of the aristocracy, we rarely get to directly influence anything ourselves. Your relationship with the government is apparently that of a young adolescents relationship with his or her parents..... It is exactly the same thing. Drug users know that what they are doing is illegal , they are not forced to do it, it doesn't harm anybody and is a crime against the state, and if they do it they could be sent to prison. The Jehovah Witnesses knew that what they were doing was illegal, nobody forced them to do it and they were given a chance to promise to never do it again, what they did caused no harm to anybody and was a crime against the state, and if they continued doing it they were sent to concentration camps. All the letters in the world are not worth the over a trillion dollars that the government and private industries make from the war on drugs. You are extraordinarily naive as to how the world really works, you are quite an idealist but it is rather disgusting to me because you are a statist idealist. The reality is far, far, far removed from your idealistic fantasy utopia. Yes, somebody who is willing to sacrifice their life to make a political point against an oppressive force is indeed a hero and a martyr. People die for political reasons all the time. When US soldiers do it they are called hero's , when non government actors do it they are called terrorists, but it is all propaganda. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The only difference is one of them has the approval of a powerful government. Well lucky for you that the Nazis have never kicked your door in! On the other hand, I cannot count all of the people I know serving life or essentially life sentences for drug charges with all of my fingers. The two main political parties already have ingrained and fortified the opposite of my beliefs into their political ideology.