Brian, I hope you can set her free. This is totally stupid and unfair. I read that a new judge is in town, so hopefully her fate will change around for the best.

Brian, I hope you can set her free. This is totally stupid and unfair. I read that a new judge is in town, so hopefully her fate will change around for the best.

If that happens it will be all Josh Welch's doing. I'm just doing research.

Oklahoma Jury's just need to be better educated of there rights.

Fully Informed Jury Association
http://fija.org/Knowing how shockingly harsh the punishment that juries can give to drug offenders, hardly any one charged with a drug crime wants to take a chance with a jury. And any attempt to use medical need as a defense in court over a marijuana charge is likely to be denied by the judge.

I know a bunch of people are going to jump on this comment just because it is coming from me but I have to say this anyway even if people don't like me.
When I think of how many people that are repeat offenders who are just turned lose time and time again what they are doing to this woman just doesn't seem fair. I can't help but think it is because she either didn't have enough money or didn't know the right people. I have a list of people who actually committed violent crimes along with drugs more then once and they are still walking around. Another woman 3rd offense for drugs and all she had to do was 27 weekends in jail. She has and still is a drug dealer for over 30 years. She dealt drugs the whole time her kids were growing up and turned both of her kids into addicts. Another man has a rap sheet several pages long for drugs, rape, oral sodomy etc. and his sheet shows probation after probation of course he is also good friends with a judge I guess who you know really does help.

But is the mentality and morality embedded in Oklahoma culture going to be concerned about the points you raised and will want to do get together to do something about it? I tend to doubt it, since few people in Oklahoma seem outraged that a man can make hashish and get up to life in prison, but if he molests a 12 to 16 year old boy or girl, he is only subjet to ZERO to 5 years in prison.

But is the mentality and morality embedded in Oklahoma culture going to be concerned about the points you raised and will want to do get together to do something about it? I tend to doubt it, since few people in Oklahoma seem outraged that a man can make hashish and get up to life in prison, but if he molests a 12 to 16 year old boy or girl, he is only subjet to ZERO to 5 years in prison.Yes I get what your saying and no I don't believe they will help her anymore then they help abused and murdered children in this state. In fact I bet people would come closer to helping her then any of the children who suffer under DHS care every year. I have been trying to help with that for years and all I ever here is "SHUT UP DANA". It's like everybody knows but nobody wants to talk or do anything about it.

Well, it appears the judge made a ruling in advance of a scheduled hearing, reducing the sentence of 12 years assessed on Spottedcrow by four years. It also appears no one is real happy with the level of the modification except perhaps the new judge.

There's an article in today's DOK at page 10A by Ginnie Graham of the Tulsa World. Not a clue how to link to the digital version of the DOK, but the link to the Tulsa World article from is :
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20111004_11_A1_CUTLIN526292

If I'm right, this woman went to prison with no prior felony. So she still got a bad deal. I wonder if her friends and in laws support her.

I don't exatly believe in selling drugs of any sort but this woman doesn't deserve so many years for selling $31 worth of weed. If it was crack or meth or something more harmful to the human body I might be a little more understanding of it but weed? Come on now.

I don't exatly believe in selling drugs of any sort but this woman doesn't deserve so many years for selling $31 worth of weed. If it was crack or meth or something more harmful to the human body I might be a little more understanding of it but weed? Come on now.

Lets go smoke some weed.

Lets go smoke some weed.

When you get off work.

When you get off work.

I'm off now. ;-)

I'm off now. ;-)

You buy, I smoke. :irule:

Now a year later: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/12/mom_of_4_reflects_on_first_year_in_prison_for_mari .php

Its really sad and something like this makes me feel so shameful of being an Oklahoman.

For this aggressive state, how many years (percentage of her given sentence) must she serve to be eligible for parole? Good to know she was given 4 years reduction. Also, how much time reduction will she be given for certain amount of days with good behavior and amount of work done in prison? There are many factors that can quickly reduce her 8 years sentence to a mere 4 years or so...possibly less.

I hope that when she is released that she will become an advocate. Seriously, the government can not control nor tell us what we can do with our own body..what we can injest/inhale with our own body. They do not own our body. And about the selling issue? Pffft, government need to mind their own business, because its the same....duh....when people buy, they can do whatever they want to their own body.

Seriously, the government can not control nor tell us what we can do with our own body..what we can injest/inhale with our own body. They do not own our body. And about the selling issue? Pffft, government need to mind their own business, because its the same....duh....when people buy, they can do whatever they want to their own body.

Thunder, try making that argument to a relative of someone who has been killed by a drunk driver or a child whose parents stay drunk or high all of the time. There are many things that people do to their bodies that have considerable affects on others and, for that reason, should have some regulation.

Thunder, try making that argument to a relative of someone who has been killed by a drunk driver or a child whose parents stay drunk or high all of the time. There are many things that people do to their bodies that have considerable affects on others and, for that reason, should have some regulation.

Young man, I didn't say anything about anti-regulations. Is it fine to have regulations? You betcha! Is it fine to ban weed? Hell no! People should be allowed to freely smoke weed in the comfort of their own homes as long as their action does not result in bodily harm toward others. Same way as liquor/beer, there are regulations. People can drink, drink, drink, but cannot drive, because of the high risk associated with drinking. The same way must be applied for weed, young man, people should be able to freely decide as long as they are responsible in the way they are using it.

Young man, I didn't say anything about anti-regulations. Is it fine to have regulations? You betcha! Is it fine to ban weed? Hell no! People should be allowed to freely smoke weed in the comfort of their own homes as long as their action does not result in bodily harm toward others. Same way as liquor/beer, there are regulations. People can drink, drink, drink, but cannot drive, because of the high risk associated with drinking. The same way must be applied for weed, young man, people should be able to freely decide as long as they are responsible in the way they are using it.

Excuse me, Thunder, but that's exactly what you said.

Excuse me, Thunder, but that's exactly what you said.

Yes, what I said was exactly what I said, but I did not say what you said that I said. :-)

I can clarify to help you understand. Free of charge. People should be able to freely decide on their own free will as long as they are responsible. People are free to drink as long as they are responsible. No drinking and driving. No constant drinking that can interfere with caring for children. Just drink responsibly. The same should apply for weedsters. Smoke responsibly. Liquor and beer are far more destructive than weed, but wrongful ban was put in place for weed. Why? Most likely to give the authority something to do (cracking down on users, possessions, blah blah blah). There are far more people who can responsibly smoke weed than there are abusers. The same for drinkers. Lookie, oh wowser lookie, at the government allowing us to smoke cigarettes. Its harmful, right? It kills many lives, right? Why is there no ban on cigarettes? Duh! The government gets free money by taxing smokers to hell with it. Why not legalize weed and tax, too?! Do you understand now? Instead of kidnapping innocent lives (shoving them into prisons), the government would actually make free money by taxing weed instead of caring/feeding innocent prisoners every day and night.

The government robbed this woman's life. The government robbed the children of their mother. The government robbed holidays, celebrations, and get-together events from the family. The government robbed taxpayers' money to continue wasteful spending taking care of innocent prisoners. These innocent prisoners are capable of taking care of themselves and feed themselves with their own money. The government robbed the economy of hard-working employees. The government is committing immoral crimes 24/7/365/+1 putting the entire country of America to shame.

Yes, what I said was exactly what I said, but I did not say what you said that I said. :-)

I can clarify to help you understand. Free of charge. People should be able to freely decide on their own free will as long as they are responsible. People are free to drink as long as they are responsible. No drinking and driving. No constant drinking that can interfere with caring for children. Just drink responsibly. The same should apply for weedsters. Smoke responsibly. Liquor and beer are far more destructive than weed, but wrongful ban was put in place for weed. Why? Most likely to give the authority something to do (cracking down on users, possessions, blah blah blah). There are far more people who can responsibly smoke weed than there are abusers. The same for drinkers. Lookie, oh wowser lookie, at the government allowing us to smoke cigarettes. Its harmful, right? It kills many lives, right? Why is there no ban on cigarettes? Duh! The government gets free money by taxing smokers to hell with it. Why not legalize weed and tax, too?! Do you understand now? Instead of kidnapping innocent lives (shoving them into prisons), the government would actually make free money by taxing weed instead of caring/feeding innocent prisoners every day and night.

Thunder, you said at first that the government should have no say in what you do with your body.



Seriously, the government can not control nor tell us what we can do with our own body..what we can injest/inhale with our own body. They do not own our body. And about the selling issue? Pffft, government need to mind their own business, because its the same....duh....when people buy, they can do whatever they want to their own body.

That's different than what you're saying now.

I am not saying anything differently or in conflict. I know its overnight and you are most likely very tired from lack of sleep. I suggest you get some rest (sleep) and come back for further discussion. What I specifically said that the government should not ever...not now, not ever...control what we can do with our own body as long as we are responsible. Do I have to keep repeating this crystal clear multiple times to you? I just gave a very fine and crystal clear example in comparison to drinking.

It just too ironic how parents can smoke tobacco and drink in front of their children at home without fear of arrest or imprisonment.

As more and more people find out that banning pot was based on nonsense and racial prejudice, the more sooner it will become legal and regulated. Probably if marijuana was never banned, it would have never become as popular as it is today, because apparently a lot of people didn't seem to know about it back when it was legal.

I am not saying anything differently or in conflict. I know its overnight and you are most likely very tired from lack of sleep. I suggest you get some rest (sleep) and come back for further discussion. What I specifically said that the government should not ever...not now, not ever...control what we can do with our own body as long as we are responsible. Do I have to keep repeating this crystal clear multiple times to you? I just gave a very fine and crystal clear example in comparison to drinking.

OK, Thunder, I've had a nights rest and nothing changed about your original statement. The only thing that changed was that you later added "as long as we are responsible" to your argument. You never mentioned that to start with. I responded to your original statement which did not contain that phrase.

OK, Thunder, I've had a nights rest and nothing changed about your original statement. The only thing that changed was that you later added "as long as we are responsible" to your argument. You never mentioned that to start with. I responded to your original statement which did not contain that phrase.

It doesn't matter. You know what I meant. Its the same thing. I only made it crystal clear just for you.

It doesn't matter. You know what I meant. Its the same thing. I only made it crystal clear just for you.

I know what you meant after you said it. There is absolutely no way I would ever try to read your mind or try to make any assumptions about what you mean.

Just legalize weed and tax the **** outta it. As long as people smoke it in their own homes, I don't give a ****.

Just legalize weed and tax the **** outta it. As long as people smoke it in their own homes, I don't give a ****.

When / if that ever happens, the ones wanting it legalized will then be complaining about the taxes being too high.

When / if that ever happens, the ones wanting it legalized will then be complaining about the taxes being too high.

Not a good post and argument. People complain about taxes on cigarettes being too high, but continue to buy them in hope of dying one day.

When / if that ever happens, the ones wanting it legalized will then be complaining about the taxes being too high.

We currently tax cigarettes pretty high. I don't hear smokers being very loud about the price of a pack of smokes. We also tax booze. Don't hear drinkers complaining about their booze prices. Your argument is supposition and not in conformity with behavior we've seen in similar circumstances.

I would love to see the TV commercials if they ever legalized weed LOL

I would love to see the TV commercials if they ever legalized weed LOL

Haha...I never thought about it but I agree. LOL

I would love to see the TV commercials if they ever legalized weed LOL

The ones promoting responsible use o weed, or the ones w/ the empty candy shelves in 7/11's with two chubby stoners at the register, wrappers in their hair, on the counter, sticking out their ears, stuck to their clothes, mumbling 'dude, whaduh we owe ya?' as the brand name of some new high potency pot scrolls across the screen?

I would love to see the TV commercials if they ever legalized weed LOL

I bet one of the side effects the adds cite won't be that it may make you feel like killing yourself.

I bet one of the side effects the adds cite won't be that it may make you feel like killing yourself.

LOL beautiful.

Would it be advertised on TV? I don't know the legal ins and outs of the act in the 70s that banned cigarette advertisement TV, but I do know that the definition of 'cigarrete' is pretty loose.