Moral dilemma regarding unjust law and its implications?

[orlondo100]

Hi all,

I had a really long debate over the mail with an activist who calls to legalize marijuana,
i don't know what is the scenario in other countries, but in my country the situation is that since marijuana is outlawed, most of the "goods" come from crime families or terror orgs.

my question to him was about a dilemma i had regarding the whole law and current actions of the marijuana legalization group he is part of.

it is a common knowledge that those who want to legalize it, or at least the majority of them, smoke marijuana while they fight for the cause of legalization,

the dilemma here is as follows (and i come from an opinion that the law is unjust, for the sake of making an argument):

1. when a law is unjust, is it OK for you to break it (smoke marijuana) at the privacy of your own home?

2. is it ok to do as stated in #1 when there are no implications to you breaking the law?

3. is it ok to do as stated in #1 when there are the implication of you funding terror orgs \ crime families who in turn can cause harm to innocent civilians?

the points of argument from his side was:
that if a law is unjust, the fact they break it causing funding of terror orgs \ crime families is something the gov is responsible for, as they were the ones to make an unjust law.
and that moral judgment is looking for someone to blame and not solve the problem.

my point of argument was:
that just because a gov made a bad choice about a law, it doesn't mean that as human beings with moral judgment, knowing that smoking marijuana will indirectly harm others through funding of terror and crime, we should ignore this and blame the gov,
i purposed that the act of smoking marijuana can be "suspend" by them until after the fight for the cause is won by them, and then smoking marijuana will have no implications...
furthermore, that the act of smoking marijuana during their struggle to the cause has no benefit or any relevant factor whatsoever to the success or failure of the struggle.

note, i never said their struggle should stop, or they should not smoke,
i only said they should stop smoking UNTIL AFTER the struggle is won, so as human being to another, they will not harm anyone else indirectly.

after a very very long debate we remained each with his viewpoint,
mine being that they should show a level of responsibility and wait till after the struggle,

and his being that the blame for these findings of crime and terror orgs is a situation cause because marijuana is outlawed, and the implications should fall on the gov, without them having to feel and moral obligations to stop the indirect harm it cause.

what is your take on this?
please try to remain as objective as you can, whether you smoke marijuana or not,
and consider the fact that the situation of crime families and terror orgs by smoking marijuana while it is outlawed, may not be the same reality where you are from, so make your notes with consideration to this fact too.

P.S
note that i am not trying to take a stand for or against the struggle to legalize marijuana, and the dilemma in question has nothing to do with the struggle itself, i am merely pondering on this specific point of moral judgment

thanks!