Throughout the reading, I continued to question the validity of many of the laws we have. I was especially interested in the point brought up in the Hidalgo reading about democratic societies tying us to unjust laws. I am kind of stuck on what to think about this. I agree with what Hidalgo is saying. We live in a democracy and ultimately our votes lead us to have certain laws. However, the entirety of the population is not going to agree with that law. I see the importance of having laws because there are certain rules that must be enforced in order for us to have a functioning society. There are some rules that come down to more moral issues that people are going to have very different views on. I agree with Hidalgo that it is acceptable to disobey laws surrounding immigration because to obey them would be unfair to people that should have a right to come here anyway. I would, on the other hand, be very uncomfortable with people disobeying gun control laws even though they might also have moral reasons for why they disobey gun laws. It seems an impossible line to draw in terms of what laws you can disobey which ones you cannot.

The Flanigan reading made me nervous. It makes me very nervous to think about people having open access to drugs that could be really harmful. I also am someone that knows I am not a doctor and would definitely rather have a doctor make decisions like these for me. To me, it just seems a lot safer to have doctors making medical decisions for us, but I also see where she is coming from. Some of the data she presented in support of a non-prohibitive drug system surprised me. Even when she provides information about their being fewer poisonings in countries where people can self-medicate my brain still does not want to believe it.