A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they’re legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor’s office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What’s your view on the matter?
The action may or may not conflict with the will of the people. In the usa for example, the majority opinion on many issues is not reflected by our laws, such as marijuana. This leaves open the possibility of defying laws based on something like a moral objection. However, this can be dangerous because the actions of one may not actually align with the masses. So, each occurrence should be based on the merits and facts. I wouldn’t assign a specific timeline to limit the actions.