Randøm_

Yes ... but it also gives way to the exploitation of due process. You see, as "ignorance of the law is no excuse" the prosecutor will adamantly tell the jury of the crime in question, but the defense cannot tll the jury of their options. It is a one-way railroad job. I agree that we should know the laws and know our rights, but if one cannot be mentioned, then should the other be so ferverently explained? The one to suffer from this is the criminal, who is a part of "we, the people" and the prosecution of "they, the governmnent" should enforce the people's wills and rights, not the manipulation of them. I agree with you, again, except for the element of fairness.

KWhite

Hmmmm, good question.
Juries....you must realize juries are selrected, with prosecutors and defense counsel both tossing out as many people as possible with opinions which might bring forth an adverse decision, what I do not know is
1. Who picks first, Prosecution or Defense
2. is the Prosecution allowed more dismissals than the defense counsel.
At the moment, this battle is being waged on all levels, certainly the Federal level is the largest of these fronts, but by no means the most important.
Marijuana use is inextricably entwined within the states rights question. The federal government did not make marjuana legal at first, they taxed it, and then lobbied in all of the states for local criminalization, It first became federally illegal with the signing of an International Treaty, which according to Law and Precedent must be held as the law of the land.
As a matter of fact, Anslinger is quoted "Now they will never get marijuana legalized" once the treaty was ratified.
However, treaties allow for changes of the laws and circumstances, a 6 month notice is all that is needed to drop out of one.
And some political will.
I personally find it heartening that the battle is on so many fronts, the Drug warriors must be feeling....surrounded.
An adverse Court decision will not stop this, nor will it slow the movement, it was a long shot in any case, and is definitely not the first time the supreme court has ruled on marijuana.
The movement did not stop then, it will not now.
We must consider the fact, the public is being made more and more aware of this travesty on a daily basis, everything from Letters to the Editor, editors opinions, and nightly talk shows are touching base on this question.
A broader view, Switzerlands legalisation, Belgiums joining of Spain, Germany, Holland, and other Nations in decriminalizing the herb, and Mr. Bush' actively angering the Europeans..*And they are hopping mad over another issue or two* also succeed in widening the gaps, The drug war is an American invention, and when, if it so comes, America stands alone, facing a defection from the war by other nations and incessant calls from Her own people, she too will have to change.
It is brighter now than 5 years ago.
And getting better.
Be well
Kelly

Greenman

Amen

Peace.

__________________
Some will never open their eyes. Some will have them opened for them. Some will see light, some won't be able to stand the brightness and will turn away. -Robin Prosser's Diary Day 23 -- Please read our Posting Guidelines for questions on our policies.

shadefoot

KWhite, your optimism is always refreshing!

Randøm, I hear you on the fairness issue. Innocent until proven guilty? I don't know, it sure looks like the deck is stacked against the accused. Particularly in property seizure cases. What are they about? Not to start another tangent or anything...

Randøm_

It's about the systematic manipulation of convincing the people that they are in control, when the truth is that they are merely following the illusion of being empowered. So much atrocities have befallen this country since our founders drafted the Constitution!

From the moment of arrest, a civilian loses rights whether guilty or not.

willy

I meant to say the decision would be narrow, not broad.

I've been trying to post for a couple of days but I keep getting the message that the server is too busy!!!

That's a good thing. It means that a lot of people are logging on.

Thanks

Randøm_

Willy, don't worry, since I automatically changed that in my inference to go along with your point ... I and most people have likely noticed the context and skipped over the typo.

willy

I assumed most people would know what I meant but I wanted to avoid any confusion

Thanks

Aragorn

Great Thread! As the above responses show the Criminal Justice/Prison Warehousing /Substanse Abuse industries on the Federal/State/Local levels are doing great. They have convinced the tax paying public to support their lifestyle. To the tune of between 30 - 40 BILLION $$$'s per year. Each and every year. And that money goes for the most part for salaries and their toys. And most of them live by working for US, their public employees! But as public employees they have forgotten that they are supposed to follow public opinion and not make it. In a living sociaty public thought changes constantly. These people are trying to give themselves life time jobs with better retirement benefits then the public at large. Just because the "Partnership for a Drug Free America" is a non-profit dosn't mean they don't give themselves great salaries. Those resources aren't wasted to them. It's what they want to do. And here we have the absurdity of a "Marijuana Question" before the Highest Court in the Land. A Land where 7 out of 10 judges, prosecutors, public defenders, cops, prison guards, etc. depend on the status quo for their livelyhood.
So remember, that when you stand in front of that judge for enjoying your "Drug of Choice", you will find no mercy, as his very being depends on it.
What is a free people to do when the court really is........contemptible?

shadefoot

Well dude, I intend to do the only thing I can think of: spark it up. Not the system, the weed.

Your post conveys your point well. We have created a monster. Randøm's signature is perhaps another good answer to the question. If we get more jurors to refuse to convict gardeners and people who mind their own business and just want to be left alone, that could help. The odds are against us, so we should beat them "like Ike beat his first wife." I think we all agree the fight is worth fighting. And if the battle was easy, it would be over by now.

Isn't it weird how a bunch of us keep posting these general responses to the WoD problem? Basically I think most postings can be boiled down to an either optimistic or pessimistic attitude to the WoD. I know sometimes I'm feeling down about it, and it gets reflected in my posts. Other times the opposite is true. But do we come up with innovations? Not really. But maybe that's not the point of these boards. Maybe we all just like to babble to each other and bounce optimism against pessimism ad infinitum.

And maybe that's just my opinion at the moment Off topic? Me?

To rememdy that, has anyone heard anything more about the Supreme Court's decision? Have the lawyers stopped yelling at each other and the justices retired to deliberate yet?