Marijuana law reform?

[D-Sub]

wait, but it's the law, and they're never wrong. that website of yours must be a lie :rolleyes: haha

Problem is, that even with all the evidence, research, etc. etc. out there, no politician would willingly support it if he wants to be taken seriously.

as soon as a politician supports it, everyone will jump on the band wagon and accuse him/her of being a stoner that gets high all the time.

Even Obama, dismissed the notion as fast as possible without giving any sort of rational rhetoric, because he doesn't want attention taken off of the real issue at hand - the economy. It would get blown out of proportion on such a massive negative scale.

As much as I'd like to see something as little as decriminalization, i doubt there'll be any politician willing to commit career suicide in that fashion.

there are plenty of politicians who support decriminalization and even complete legalization (oh the IRONY of a GOVERNMENT telling us what we can do with our own bodies!)

Ron Paul, the best candidate for president we've ever had, is in favor of at the very least decriminalization.

[Steve Prokopiw]

As much as I think decriminalization is a good thing,a politician who runs on that platform would not be taken seriously.That person would be made fun of throughout the media; and getting twenty five million stoners to remember to vote, let alone get in the car and follow through with it on voting day would be a tall order.Hell,if we keep making convicted felons out of them the 'right' won't ever have to worry about that.

The balance of power and money in this country has much to do with the ability of one side's constituents to personally follow through and vote.Just look at the apathy that finally changed to anger on the left in the last election.Affecting Real change is like breeding new characteistics into animals or plants.It takes multiple generations of follow through toward those traits.Our breeding tool is our vote from local to national level.

[Terryw]

Not only do some politicians support the idea, but we actually have one moving forward with legislation. Democrat Tom Ammiano out of northern Ca has introduced Assembly Bill 390 to legalize and tax marijuana. This is an issue where the people are way ahead of the politicians. Currently, nearly 6 in 10 people support legalization and taxation of mj in the west. We are rapidly reaching the point where it will become more of a liability to oppose mj than it is to champion it. It will be up to Ca to lead the nation as it did with Medical marijuana.

[D-Sub]

It almost passed a few years ago here in CO. But in Denver, possesion of a small amount is legal. But, of course state and national law still call it illegal, so it wasn't too much of a victory for those who voted in favor.

Which is why we need to go back to an era when cities maintained there own jurisdiction. I'm not a fan of state law, and especially federal law.

Not really a fan of many laws at all, now that I think of it.

Don't kill, don't steal, don't injure, don't defraud.

Don't aggress!

[utahcarver]

Which is why we need to go back to an era when cities maintained there own jurisdiction. I'm not a fan of state law, and especially federal law.

Not really a fan of many laws at all, now that I think of it.

Don't kill, don't steal, don't injure, don't defraud.

Don't aggress!

A few of you, who may be versed in US Constitutional Law instead of Case Law and Executive Order, may remember a time prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment. This fetid law changed how Senators are elected from each State. Instead of representing the STATE and its' attendant Legislature and Executive, now Senators are to be elected according to a popular vote of the population. This means that Senators represent the People and not the State. Senators are supposed to represent the State they are from.

As a result of the 17th Amendment, no longer are Senators representing the States they are from, they now represent the People. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that somebody lost out with the passage of the 17th Amendment. That somebody is the State. Without this representation, States Rights go by the wayside. Which is why you have the Supreme Court and Federal Appellate courts overturning case after case from State Courts for many years. Your State has no representation in the US legal system. Period. Which only adds to the fact that there is no consensus on legalizing/decriminalizing pot, gay rights, gay marriage, or any issue which any State is facing.

Point: Whenever any State undertakes to represent itself via the legal process or by representation it has no redress or relief. Words mean things, folks. Redress. Relief. These are legitimate terms that mean something. Remember when Bill Clinton (during his impeachment trial) motioned that "..it depended on what the definition of 'is' is."? He wasn't being flippant. He was being serious. Words mean things. That is why in order for the decriminalization of marijuana to take place, there has to be proper representation to the States. It has to be restored otherwise, the Feds will simply overturn on appeal any case which any State presents to the Federal Judiciary.

Though I agree with D-Sub philosophically, hoping for an era of mankind regulating himself, history shows us that this supreme ideal is largely unattainable. Which is WHY we must restore to the States (50) all of the rights granted to them in the Constitution. Revocation of the 17th Amendment would guarantee 'Home Rule'. Look it up in Black's Law. Home Rule. Home Rule means something.

That's why Las Vegas has gambling and Salt Lake City has no prosecution of polygamists. That's why gay marriage is legal in some states and you cannot buy a cold beer on a Sunday afternoon in others. It's why Bush (both of them) could prosecute wars in Iraq without Congressional approval. It's why the Federal Reserve keeps letting the US Government borrow money it will never pay back. Except in human collateral.

Coming up: FIJA. Fully-Informed Juries.

Mark

[D-Sub]

you and me is gonna have a few together some time, bro

[KingCrimson]

Just wanted to chime in again and thank everyone once more, this is very educational!

There has only been one other time I've learned anything from the internet; there was once a thread on MTBR where someone made a post mentioning that the best solution for having bum gravy and puking was to sit on the toilet and make a half-cone out of a magazine to funnel your vomit into the bowl. Who ever said you can't learn anything hanging out in forums?!

:lol:

Theo

[utahcarver]

"The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to Trial by Jury. This means the government must bring it's case before a Jury of the People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict." - www.fija.org

Folks, the next time you're called to jury duty and some poor slob has been charged with possession and/or distribution of weed, (and it's clear the accused is not a criminal otherwise), here's a great chance to vote your conscience.

What judges and prosecutors are doing nationwide is telling juries that they only have a right to judge the facts of a case. In reality, your responsibility as a Juror is to judge both the facts of the case and the law itself. You, as an American can say to your local, state, and Federal government by way of your vote as a Juror, NO, it shouldn't be a crime to possess weed (or, the reciprocal if you feel otherwise). That's why it's on us, the people.

Stop blaming Obama, the Congress, and the cops. It's on us, people. We are ignoring our rights as Americans to vote the tyranny out of our lands. We've got 3 votes here in the US:

1. The vote at the ballot box

2. The vote at the Grand Jury

3. The vote at the Petit Jury

The Founders understood terms like remedy, redress, letters of marque and reprisal, allodial claim to title, proper summons, formal information, etc. Why is that important? Next time you written up for speeding or running a stop sign (none of which are crimes without having an injured party), look at the back of the 'citation' the cop gives you. One of the things it will say, if you can read the small gray print, is "...this is not an information". In other words, you cannot be prosecuted unless you appear before the court. That's why the cop has you sign your name as 'a promise to appear'. He's not asking you to admit guilt or innocence, the cop is simply making sure you'll appear before the court.

Funny thing, though. If you cannot be prosecuted without appearing, and you promised that you would appear, it would seem the law has you, right? Wrong. The court has to have documentation to prosecute you. It's their own rules. It's the rules the State Legislature they operate in gives them. They, the courts, must 'inform' you of your rights as an accused by disclosing what you are being charged with. They, the courts, must also 'summons' you (in effect, ask politely for you to appear before the court) to hear (and read) the charges against you. BUT ONLY IF YOU STAND UP FOR YOURSELF AND DEMAND the court does it's job. You simply ask the court clerk, in writing, for a Proper Summons and a Formal Information.

Don't worry, even if they do this they still won't get it right. You'll next ask the court for Proper Summons and a Formal Information, this time, asking them to follow the rules of Uniform Code of Judicial Procedure in your respective State. Don't worry, they'll make a mess of that, too. Trust me on this, there isn't a prosecutor or a judge out there who wants to make a mess of his/her career following your orders. They'll usually get the cop to drop the complaint (yep, your right, he's the one who is the plantiff and he's also an officer of the court, which is a violation of US law) and move on to bigger fishes to catch. If, by some insane reason the court doesn't do this, and prosecutes you and makes you pay a fine, you my friend, are in the enviable position of appealing to a higher court. Your argument is that the court did not follow it's own rules, and by so doing, violated your civil rights. In most cases, the appellate court will either drop the appeal or they will agree with you 'without prejudice'.

Which now means, you can legally go after the court (meaning judge, prosecutor, and officer) for violating your rights.

In all of this banter you may be saying, "Well, Mark, that's all fine and dandy if you've got the time to do all of that, but I don't." Fine, let them continue to run rough-shod all over you and keep complaining here about the way things are going. It's our duty as Americans to hold our governments feet to the fire and make sure they don't abuse their power. Which brings us back to the marijuana part of this thread.

If we don't start taking the courts back (remember the OJ Simpson case, where the legal commentators referred to the verdict as 'Jury Lawlessness'?) in the form of judging both the facts of the case as well as the law that is being used to prosecute the accused with, we are doomed, my friends. You can kiss your way of life good-bye in another one or two generations, when you add to this conversation all of the other crap that is happening in society.

OK, I've had my say, let the flames begin. Or, google 'fully-informed jury' and learn about how to take our country (or, at least part of it) back.

Mark

[Terryw]

Mark, love to read your posts! Jury nullification is certainly something we should speak of far and wide. It is a travesty of justice that juries are not informed of their responsibility to judge both the facts of the case before them and the justness of the law being applied. Per Thomas Jefferson:

"...it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact."

We come back to the idea that education is the key to all of this. Every time we engage in debate on this subject we raise public awareness. It is a sad fact of our society that until our own personal rights are trampled, we don't get too concerned about rights in general. However, any time any groups rights are infringed upon, all of our rights are in peril. The marijuana laws are particularly egregious due to their racist application.

I know some of you simply dismiss this as just a bunch of "potheads" who want to get high, but this is so much more. There is an organization of former judges, DEA agents, and police officers more than 10,000 strong who also see the injustice and wish to bring it to light. They are called LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0PX1bh4WBw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

[utahcarver]

Mark, love to read your posts! Jury nullification is certainly something we should speak of far and wide. It is a travesty of justice that juries are not informed of their responsibility to judge both the facts of the case before them and the justness of the law being applied. Per Thomas Jefferson:

"...it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact."

We come back to the idea that education is the key to all of this. Every time we engage in debate on this subject we raise public awareness. It is a sad fact of our society that until our own personal rights are trampled, we don't get too concerned about rights in general. However, any time any groups rights are infringed upon, all of our rights are in peril. The marijuana laws are particularly egregious due to their racist application.

I know some of you simply dismiss this as just a bunch of "potheads" who want to get high, but this is so much more. There is an organization of former judges, DEA agents, and police officers more than 10,000 strong who also see the injustice and wish to bring it to light. They are called LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0PX1bh4WBw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

TerryW: Well said, and well done my friend! One of the best posts on BOL I've ever seen. Quoting Matthew Fogg, "...we [black Americans] make up twelve percent of the population and we make up eighty-percent of the drug arrests."

D: contact me via BOL; I'm in Cal next week. Would like to share some mugs with you.

Mark