Family Being Prosecuted For Pots of Marijuana

[Bunty]

Should have said "acquit the man who tried to get on board the international flight with a gun....."

It's still not comparabe to someone selling marijuana to someone or a clerk in a liquor store selling a body of alcohol to someone.

I would add, though, if the prosecutor could provide evidence that there was a conspiracy or intent to do harm I wouldn't have trouble voting guilty, rather than not guility.

[USG '60]

Civil Disobedience is a tool to demonstrate how ridiculous the penalties for a given infraction can be when good people are willing to pay the price on principal. Civil disobedience takes courage and conviction. Trying to equate possession of pot to civil disobedience is an insult to the men and women who have laid their freedom on the line to change bad laws. This wasn't about changing the law. This was about a family smoking pot and hoping they didn't get caught. Nothing noble about it and it WASN'T civil disobedience.

My goodness, Eco, I missed the part about them smoking the pot. I guess I better go back and read it. I never said they were doing it as civil disobedience. I was using that to question his view that laws are all good and should be obeyed BECAUSE they are laws. That is a tad absurd.

If someone calls for a smoke-in at the Capitol, I'll be there and putting my freedom on the line.

[mugofbeer]

Acquitting simply because you feel prostitution is a victimless crime IS. So is acquitting someone for possession of heroin IS. Acquitting someone for possession of a handgun in an airport IS comperable because all 3 are against the law. However, on 1 or 2 of the 3 examples above, you may feel the law is wrong and take it upon yourself to acquit simply because you feel like it. In all 3 cases, the law is the law. Though this jury nullification situation may be legal (which I believe is true, though maybe not everywhere or in all circumstances - I dont know) and allowed, but is it moral and is it right? Again, if everyone starts to interpret the laws themselves, we have chaos. Interpretation of the laws is what the courts and the judges are for. Juries are there to decided facts. Yes, there are times that the facts may not support the charges and in those cases, I believe the jury should have some leeway to discuss the charges with the judge and the prosecution. However, to acquit someone who is guilty of a crime simply because you don't agree with the law is wrong-minded.

[PennyQuilts]

If someone calls for a smoke-in at the Capitol, I'll be there and putting my freedom on the line.

Good for you. When did this become about you, though?

[mugofbeer]

For a more free and safer society, consensual crimes like prostitution should be legal. After all, not all of us have the charm and sex appeal to get sex for free. You can't really regulate prostitution unless its legalized.

Same with drugs. If heroin was legal I wouldn't be any more concerned about someone in possession of it any more than someone in possession of strong whiskey?

I agree with you on the prostitution issue, Bunty, but I dont have such strong feelings on it that I am going to go out and try to change the law. I will leave that to someone else. The point is, that if I were on a jury that was hearing a prostitution case (lets say its the Elliot Spitzer case, just for fun) and the facts bore out that the woman was guilty of prostitution, I would have to find her guilty because the law is the law.

As for heroin, you have to be kidding.....you are no more worried about someone on heroin that Whiskey? OK. I hope someone doesn't try to GIVE a young relative of yours a sample of black tar heroin - the kind that killed 14 Dallas area teenagers and Dallas Cowboy Mark Tuinei in the 1990's, all of whom probably only took the drug the one time. It was so potent it hooked many other teens on the FIRST try. The ******* who were dealing it gave the drug out for free to hook teens of wealthy families at parties knowing they had the money to buy it.

[USG '60]

I agree with you on the prostitution issue, Bunty, but I dont have such strong feelings on it that I am going to go out and try to change the law. I will leave that to someone else. The point is, that if I were on a jury that was hearing a prostitution case (lets say its the Elliot Spitzer case, just for fun) and the facts bore out that the woman was guilty of prostitution, I would have to find her guilty because the law is the law.

As for heroin, you have to be kidding.....you are no more worried about someone on heroin that Whiskey? OK. I hope someone doesn't try to GIVE a young relative of yours a sample of black tar heroin - the kind that killed 14 Dallas area teenagers and Dallas Cowboy Mark Tuinei in the 1990's, all of whom probably only took the drug the one time. It was so potent it hooked many other teens on the FIRST try. The ******* who were dealing it gave the drug out for free to hook teens of wealthy families at parties knowing they had the money to buy it.

That would not have hapened if it were legal. Also, because it is cheap to make, people would not have to be crimanals to get it. People on heroin are much less dangerous than drunks.

[mugofbeer]

That would not have hapened if it were legal. Also, because it is cheap to make, people would not have to be crimanals to get it. People on heroin are much less dangerous than drunks.

I don't even have a reply for that other than to wish you luck in your life - you're going to need a lot of it if you really believe what you just typed.

[USG '60]

Good for you. When did this become about you, though?

Sorry. I thought that you thought that I didn't fully understand civil disobediance and it's function in a democratic republic.

[Bunty]

I don't even have a reply for that other than to wish you luck in your life - you're going to need a lot of it if you really believe what you just typed.

USG '60 is right and wrote some good sense. But thanks to you for pointing out horrors that can happen upon society as a result of making drugs like heroin illegal.

Listen, illegal drugs mean they are utterly out of control in society from no regulation the way alcohol is. That means when kids buy banned drugs they're not asked to show an ID. Who knows how many kids think illegal drugs might be OK for them, after all, after they find out that narcs estimate they only confiscate 10% of the underground drug market? Aren't you afraid kids might come to think they have been lied to all along about how harmful drugs can be, or otherwise, the government would be trying to do a lot better job of trying to protect them from drugs?

[mugofbeer]

Let me get this straight. Through the logic of you, Bunty and USG60, you are saying the likes of those selling the black tar heroin wouldn't happen if heroin were legal? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? How do you come to the conclusion that drugs are not harmful? What about all the grunge rockers of the 90's that died - I think, exclusively from heroin? Did they die of OD's simply because heroin is illegal? NO! They died because heroin is deadly. Do I think marijuana is deadly? No. It's still illegal. So if I am sitting on a jury on a pot possession charge and the facts point to guilt, I will find guilty because that is the law - not because I think the law is wrong or right.

[positano]

And if I was on the jury I would require the prosecution to put a witness on the stand to tell how someone was harmed from this pot growing. If it wasn't done, I would vote not guilty because the law against marijuana as used against this case is totally wrong and unjust.

Prior to being seated on a jury, every juror will be asked by the judge if he or she is willing to follow the law. That is, if the state / government has proven each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, you will return a verdict of guilty. If they fail to do so, you will find the defendant not guilty. Harm to any individual is NOT an element of marijuana cultivation (I'm not going anywhere near the argument of harm to the community at large - Ford v. Chevy). And every juror takes an oath to follow the law as instructed by the Court.

If you choose to add your own personal element ("harm"), then you will have certainly violated your oath, but I suppose that's a personal decision.

[USG '60]

Let me get this straight. Through the logic of you, Bunty and USG60, you are saying the likes of those selling the black tar heroin wouldn't happen if heroin were legal? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? How do you come to the conclusion that drugs are not harmful? What about all the grunge rockers of the 90's that died - I think, exclusively from heroin? Did they die of OD's simply because heroin is illegal? NO! They died because heroin is deadly. Do I think marijuana is deadly? No. It's still illegal. So if I am sitting on a jury on a pot possession charge and the facts point to guilt, I will find guilty because that is the law - not because I think the law is wrong or right.

Mugsy....doggone it...... you're kinda new and haven't had the opportunity to be in on one of THESE threads. We have beat this dead horse half to death in many other threads. It simply isn't in me to say it all again, so please use the search function and read the other threads, then if you STILL have questions, I won't mind addressing them. Perhaps others might be in the mood for "startin' all over" on someone. I hope they will as I think you deserve to be given some understanding, but I'm too old, too tired and too impatient.

[mugofbeer]

I see, so those of us who may be new to the thread don't get to give our 2 cents worth? It really makes me feel that you don't have a good answer to points in the debate. If you don't feel like having a discussion, then why did you post on the thread in the first place? Maybe you need to go to the thread zone for "old, tired and impatient posters who have said it all and don't give a **** about what anyone else has to say because they are 'new' - even though we are totally and completely wrong." This is an important issue that hits close to home with me. There are too many people out there that have totally illogical and ignorant feelings on the subject that need to be set straight. I know I may be new, but if you are going to be on a posting site but you don't want to participate in the discussion, then don't post.

[mugofbeer]

Sorry about the last post. I was angered at something totally unrelated and off this site and took it out on USG. Please accept my apology for my crabbiness.

[USG '60]

I see, so those of us who may be new to the thread don't get to give our 2 cents worth? It really makes me feel that you don't have a good answer to points in the debate. If you don't feel like having a discussion, then why did you post on the thread in the first place? Maybe you need to go to the thread zone for "old, tired and impatient posters who have said it all and don't give a **** about what anyone else has to say because they are 'new' - even though we are totally and completely wrong." This is an important issue that hits close to home with me. There are too many people out there that have totally illogical and ignorant feelings on the subject that need to be set straight. I know I may be new, but if you are going to be on a posting site but you don't want to participate in the discussion, then don't post.

I didn't say you shouldn't have your say and you had it. I think you were wanting an answer from one or more of the three of us. I was letting you know why I was not going to and why. I know that answering your immediate questions will lead predictibly to another and another. They have all been answered ad nauseum. Once I know that you have at least been exposed to our side of the arguement, I will be happy to get to details. Perhaps by the time I punch submit one of the others will have jumped in to help you understand. Hope so.

[USG '60]

Sorry about the last post. I was angered at something totally unrelated and off this site and took it out on USG. Please accept my apology for my crabbiness.

Opps, then you're going to have to forgive my haughty attitude.

[hagrid]

And just imagine being a 21 year old white male in a state prison...ever heard of prison rape? Look it up and prepare to be shocked.

Ever hear of the aryan brotherhood? Being a 21 year old white male is not uncommon in our prison system. Whites are still the majority in Oklahoma state prisons.

Second, before we cry a river, let us remember one thing, every single one of us okies KNOWS growing marijuana is illegal in our state. Those marijuana plants did not just jump into the pots and grow themselves.

Those folks made a choice, knowingly and willingly, to disobey the law.

Lastly, what is worse than the marijuana laws are the use of prior felonies to enhance a prison sentence. Meaning, if a person has prior felonies, a minute amount of marijuana can bring 20 years and the zig zags can be a felony Drug Paraphernalia charge with 10 years. That is not a typo and I have seen it many a time.

[possumfritter]

East Coast Okie,

Are you by chance a child of the 1960's? And no ma'am, I am not suggesting you are old.

[Midtowner]

And if I was on the jury I would require the prosecution to put a witness on the stand to tell how someone was harmed from this pot growing. If it wasn't done, I would vote not guilty because the law against marijuana as used against this case is totally wrong and unjust.

Well, assuming this went to trial, which it probably won't, the prosecutor is going to screen people like you out, so assuming you don't lie in court, your views won't be able to affect the outcome.

[USG '60]

Well, assuming this went to trial, which it probably won't, the prosecutor is going to screen people like you out, so assuming you don't lie in court, your views won't be able to affect the outcome.

That's sad........ but true.

[Midtowner]

Jury nullification is a dangerous concept. "We the jury choose to acquit one defendant for the same actions for which we would convict another...."

I think it's apt to point out again that all of these "gross miscarriage of justice" cases brought up here on this board have been about white, middle class, employed people.

Not a single tale of woe about a black or Hispanic unemployed individual sent to the pokey for cultivating marijuana for sale. I hate to accuse anyone of racism, but maybe the shoe fits here?

[Bunty]

Let me get this straight. Through the logic of you, Bunty and USG60, you are saying the likes of those selling the black tar heroin wouldn't happen if heroin were legal? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? How do you come to the conclusion that drugs are not harmful? What about all the grunge rockers of the 90's that died - I think, exclusively from heroin? Did they die of OD's simply because heroin is illegal? NO! They died because heroin is deadly. Do I think marijuana is deadly? No. It's still illegal. So if I am sitting on a jury on a pot possession charge and the facts point to guilt, I will find guilty because that is the law - not because I think the law is wrong or right.

Well, some of us just don't want to defend another government program that has failed, such as the war on drugs. Like I mean, if I absolutely despised drugs and visioned a drug free environment, I would feel mighty strange in defending a program that only seized 10% of the underground market, with that figure coming from a past article about drugs in the Oklahoman on its front page.

Neither do some of us want to be in the same company who don't want to see drugs legalized--the drug pushers. They sure don't want to see their underground market destroyed like what happened with alcohol.

Whether legal or not, death can be a result of using drugs.

Just because a law is a law doesn't also mean it's also so important that it must be enforced and citations issued even where a cop is present. For instance, I was stopped one time in OKC for speeding. But I didn't get a ticket because the cop had to stop what he was trying to do because he got a call about a shooting. I think possession of marijuana should be a lower priority than speeding.

[Midtowner]

Those marijuana plants did not just jump into the pots and grow themselves.

Actually, I do know an attorney who saw his client acquitted because these pretty plants with pretty yellow flowers just started growing in pots on her front porch and she decided that since they were aesthetically pleasing, she'd keep them.

So it is conceivable that those plants did just "jump" into those pots and grow themselves. The plant is apparently indigenous to this area.

[USG '60]

26 years ago, the first spring I lived in my present house, as I was mowing my lawn the first time I saw a little 4" plant that looked familiar and I stopped the mower just in time to save it's life. I mowed around that little booger and continued to do so for weeks. It was sorta out in the middle of the yard and the bigger it got the more paranoid I got. I knew I could put something to prevent the electric meter reader from seeing it, but the ONG guy would have to walk right by it. Plus it was PUN-gent. Whew. By the time it reached 2' I chickened out. All I can say is that it was a mild smoke.

[possumfritter]

Speaking of marijuana, did anyone else happen to catch Joe Cocker preaching and singing on Daystar Television tonight? I was channel surfing and when I went past that channel I had to do a u-turn and check it out just to be sure.

When did Joe Cocker get religion?