http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Andy/Stoners/jury.html
While i don't totally agree with him. (for example, i think he needs to add the words 'non-violent' before 'crime'. The overall idea is not only good. It's brilliant.
It's brilliant...
-
RoamingMadness
- Uber Nerd
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:19 pm
- Contact:
It's brilliant...
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
The only thing is, Roam, juries aren't selected to determine the moral or practical implication of the issue behind the crime they are considering. Juries are not empaneled to "send messages" or, in the case which the individual implores, make law by fiat.
Juries are not only given evidence, but a full description of the law, and how it is intended to be applied. Their job is to determine if the evidence the state presents demonstrates that the perp violated the law as written, whether they believe the law makes sense or not. Your fellow aknowledges that, but refuses to believe that even more than 90% of the people would rather do as they have been sworn to do when empaneled. He seems to forget (or doesn't know) that juries are sworn to review evidence and apply the law, and I'm sorry, but I think that pulls a TON of weight with a lot of people.
Also, in deliberations "I just don't think he's guilty." is not something fellow jurymen will be willing to be satisfied with. Unless you could make a compelling case for not guilty, you are going to be taken to chambers and re-interviewed as to your convictions you were undoubtedly swore to and stated during au paire. I really doubt even the most steadfast of activists would want to face perjury.
Back to the original issue; a case in point was one brought up by the left about Chief Justice Roberts. They badgered him because he chose for the DC transit authority in upholding the conviction of a 6 YO for eating fries on the subway. He did regard the law as specious, but the law was the law, and she broke it. People who don't like the fry law, should change it, but it wasn't for the legal system, of unelected individuals at that, to change the law.
If you all want legal drug use, then YOU have to get people in the statehouses and Washington to change it. THE central problem with our judicial system now is activism from the bench that changes or makes new law. That is not how it is supposed to happen, and it subverts our Constitution and how it defines how laws are to be made and passed. What the writer advocates is counter to how the fathers intended the country to be run.
But if toking up is more important that that, have at it I guess, when you're summoned for duty...
Juries are not only given evidence, but a full description of the law, and how it is intended to be applied. Their job is to determine if the evidence the state presents demonstrates that the perp violated the law as written, whether they believe the law makes sense or not. Your fellow aknowledges that, but refuses to believe that even more than 90% of the people would rather do as they have been sworn to do when empaneled. He seems to forget (or doesn't know) that juries are sworn to review evidence and apply the law, and I'm sorry, but I think that pulls a TON of weight with a lot of people.
Also, in deliberations "I just don't think he's guilty." is not something fellow jurymen will be willing to be satisfied with. Unless you could make a compelling case for not guilty, you are going to be taken to chambers and re-interviewed as to your convictions you were undoubtedly swore to and stated during au paire. I really doubt even the most steadfast of activists would want to face perjury.
Back to the original issue; a case in point was one brought up by the left about Chief Justice Roberts. They badgered him because he chose for the DC transit authority in upholding the conviction of a 6 YO for eating fries on the subway. He did regard the law as specious, but the law was the law, and she broke it. People who don't like the fry law, should change it, but it wasn't for the legal system, of unelected individuals at that, to change the law.
If you all want legal drug use, then YOU have to get people in the statehouses and Washington to change it. THE central problem with our judicial system now is activism from the bench that changes or makes new law. That is not how it is supposed to happen, and it subverts our Constitution and how it defines how laws are to be made and passed. What the writer advocates is counter to how the fathers intended the country to be run.
But if toking up is more important that that, have at it I guess, when you're summoned for duty...
Old Man.
-
RoamingMadness
- Uber Nerd
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:19 pm
- Contact:
http://www.levellers.org/jrp/juries aren't selected to determine the moral or practical implication of the issue behind the crime they are considering
Regardless of any law, it is the right of the juror to vote not guilty if they disagree with the law. Regardless of if they broke that law or not.educating jurors about their right to acquit people who have been accused of victmless crimes and thereby veto bad laws
Juries are not only given evidence, but a full description of the law
And part of that law you're applying, is your right to vote against the law.juries are sworn to review evidence and apply the law
Drug use is banned worldwide, the problem is far deeper than just washington. And you know just as well as i do how bullshit the war on drugs against pot is.If you all want legal drug use, then YOU have to get people in the statehouses and Washington to change it.
Maybe so. But they never intended substanced to be banned either. George Washington himself grew pot. Let's not get started on what the fathers of the country intended.What the writer advocates is counter to how the fathers intended the country to be run.
And can you go one freaking post without the words left or liberal? PEOPLE make laws. I don't give a fuck what side they're on. They're all lying bastards anyway.
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
-
RoamingMadness
- Uber Nerd
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:19 pm
- Contact:
No it's not. Perjury is lying under oath.Styrofoam wrote:You're not SUPPOSED to let a guilty man walk because you do not agree with the law. Its perjury.
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
-
RoamingMadness
- Uber Nerd
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:19 pm
- Contact:
http://www.quackgrass.com/articles/06revolt.html
Another one.
Try actually looking up the law. Just because they tell you one thing, doesn't mean it's right.
Take for example your right to refuse a warrantless search. Anytime a cop asks you "Would you mind stepping out of the car?" Most people assume they have to BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THE LAW.
It is WITHOUT A DOUBT your right to vote not guilty because you don't agree with the law. Show me where it says otherwise.
Another one.
Try actually looking up the law. Just because they tell you one thing, doesn't mean it's right.
Take for example your right to refuse a warrantless search. Anytime a cop asks you "Would you mind stepping out of the car?" Most people assume they have to BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THE LAW.
It is WITHOUT A DOUBT your right to vote not guilty because you don't agree with the law. Show me where it says otherwise.
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
You missed my point, Roam, there is a thing called "Jury Selection" called au paire, I believe. In that jury selection phase, you are generally asked as to your views of the laws. If you state you have no views on the matter (under oath, BTW) and yet you try to hang the jury w/o reason, you will be questioned. If found that you lied in au paire, you are perjurous.
And your links, are a bunch of "if" this and "if" that. A few radicals who make it to juries aren't gonna change crap, because few if any will violate their personal moral code to follow the law, in and out of the courtroom.
Also, a huge majority of those people are your age, Roam. Many potheads, like my stepson, for instance, grow up by about 25-27 and leave all that crap behind. There aren't enough older people who care, or believe what they did was totally harmless. Not from a physical standpoint, but they see their place in society and compare it to others who did other things like school, jobs, etc., etc. And don't lecture me on doctor and lawyer drug users... 99.999% don't.
And your links, are a bunch of "if" this and "if" that. A few radicals who make it to juries aren't gonna change crap, because few if any will violate their personal moral code to follow the law, in and out of the courtroom.
Also, a huge majority of those people are your age, Roam. Many potheads, like my stepson, for instance, grow up by about 25-27 and leave all that crap behind. There aren't enough older people who care, or believe what they did was totally harmless. Not from a physical standpoint, but they see their place in society and compare it to others who did other things like school, jobs, etc., etc. And don't lecture me on doctor and lawyer drug users... 99.999% don't.
Old Man.
-
RoamingMadness
- Uber Nerd
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:19 pm
- Contact:
US vs Dougherty says through their decisions, jurors set community standards and pass judgment not only on criminal defendants and civil litigants, but also on the justice system itself.
Sparf vs. U.S. ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they no longer need be told about it.
Suck that. "a bunch of "if" this and "if" that"
Sparf vs. U.S. ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they no longer need be told about it.
Suck that. "a bunch of "if" this and "if" that"
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
I don't have time to read those decisions, but I imagine that they are more narrow than your activists friends would lead you to believe.
The fact is, Roam, not enough people give a damn. They really don't. The idea that if even 10% of the population decides to vote not-guilty, then noone will be guilty again, or even that if 1 or 2 cases a year were dismissed by a hung jury, its NOT GOING TO MATTER A BIT!!
You're advocating judicial activism that WILL CHANGE NOTHING.
The next 100 juries will convict. You HAVE to change the law. And to do that, you HAVE to educate the public, and get them on your side. And that won't happen until you can convince people that its harmless, that users of drugs are solid productive citizens, and there is some overall benefit to changing the law. Unfortunately, many drug users are morons. They're irresponsible, young, and dumb, present company excepted. They do dumb things eventually that harm themselves and others. What then, is ther motivation to change the law?
To me the issue is like abortion. If the abortion ("pro-choice") spent as much energy helping prevent unwanted pregenancies, and dramatically reduce abortion, then it would remain legal.
If druggies spent as much energy promoting, the benefits, funding research showing same, etc., etc., as advocating silly crap like what is in the OP, then drug use in society may cease being a criminal activity, and seen as such, and laws can be changed.
Unfortunately, places like Denmark or wherever in Europe its legal, doesn't leave a big positive impression on many people around the world.
The fact is, Roam, not enough people give a damn. They really don't. The idea that if even 10% of the population decides to vote not-guilty, then noone will be guilty again, or even that if 1 or 2 cases a year were dismissed by a hung jury, its NOT GOING TO MATTER A BIT!!
You're advocating judicial activism that WILL CHANGE NOTHING.
The next 100 juries will convict. You HAVE to change the law. And to do that, you HAVE to educate the public, and get them on your side. And that won't happen until you can convince people that its harmless, that users of drugs are solid productive citizens, and there is some overall benefit to changing the law. Unfortunately, many drug users are morons. They're irresponsible, young, and dumb, present company excepted. They do dumb things eventually that harm themselves and others. What then, is ther motivation to change the law?
To me the issue is like abortion. If the abortion ("pro-choice") spent as much energy helping prevent unwanted pregenancies, and dramatically reduce abortion, then it would remain legal.
If druggies spent as much energy promoting, the benefits, funding research showing same, etc., etc., as advocating silly crap like what is in the OP, then drug use in society may cease being a criminal activity, and seen as such, and laws can be changed.
Unfortunately, places like Denmark or wherever in Europe its legal, doesn't leave a big positive impression on many people around the world.
Old Man.
-
RoamingMadness
- Uber Nerd
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:19 pm
- Contact:
1. Those decisions don't have anything to do with pot as far as i know. They're just proving my point that it is your legal right to vote not guilty based on the law, regardless of anything else.
It's not legal anywhere mikey. In Amsterdam its tolerated. (it is a few other places as well)
And do a little research about Amsterdam. I think you'll find they're doing just fine, if not better than most major US cities.
The fact of the matter is mikey, if everyone who smoked pot did this they would have to change the laws.
You're saying it as though i personally could get into washington and change the laws. And we both know that's completely pointless. Nothing will get changed that way.
Btw mikey there are groups whos only goal is the legalization of hemp for paper. It has absolutely no drug use what so ever. And yet is also illegal. It would do NOTHING but save trees, and it's completely illegal.
Just out of curiosity mikey, have you ever smoked?
One more thing, about the number of doctors and lawyers who smoke. While i will grant you, less doctors and lawyers smoke than the average population. I don't believe that has to do with pot itself. More the laws against pot.
The fact that it's illegal and its bad rep has a lot of people sterotyping it. And the fact it's nearly impossible (or so i was told) to get into medschool with a drug charge on your record probably doesn't help either.
How many doctors or lawyers drink socially? I'll bet if pot were legal the numbers would be alot higher than you think.
It's not legal anywhere mikey. In Amsterdam its tolerated. (it is a few other places as well)
And do a little research about Amsterdam. I think you'll find they're doing just fine, if not better than most major US cities.
The fact of the matter is mikey, if everyone who smoked pot did this they would have to change the laws.
You're saying it as though i personally could get into washington and change the laws. And we both know that's completely pointless. Nothing will get changed that way.
Btw mikey there are groups whos only goal is the legalization of hemp for paper. It has absolutely no drug use what so ever. And yet is also illegal. It would do NOTHING but save trees, and it's completely illegal.
I just wanted to point this out. But many PEOPLE are morons. People from every social class, every intelligence level, every possible caste smoke pot. These numbers are obviously skewed more in some areas than others, and upbringing will have some effects. But people who smoke pot are just that. People who smoke pot. They don't fall into a 'group'. It's across the board.Unfortunately, many drug users are morons.
Just out of curiosity mikey, have you ever smoked?
One more thing, about the number of doctors and lawyers who smoke. While i will grant you, less doctors and lawyers smoke than the average population. I don't believe that has to do with pot itself. More the laws against pot.
The fact that it's illegal and its bad rep has a lot of people sterotyping it. And the fact it's nearly impossible (or so i was told) to get into medschool with a drug charge on your record probably doesn't help either.
How many doctors or lawyers drink socially? I'll bet if pot were legal the numbers would be alot higher than you think.
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
I have not, though the wife had, and I had a lot of friends who did in my presence. I never smoked tobacco either, and it was more an objection to the idea of inhaling smoke intentionally into my lungs that stopped me, not a moral stance on drugs or the legality of it.
I didn't say Amsterdam was doing poorly, I just said the drug users there haven't left a positive impression on people, if you see the parks and public spaces there. I was referring to changing public opinion on legalizing it, not the impact it has on a city or society.
Of all my friends from our early adult years, I can't lay a finger on a one who still smokes. In part, it probably has to do with random testing in the workplace more than anything. That was what made my son finally give it up. He had a shot at half dozen $40k/yr jobs (mid-20s, no college, not bad!) and he tried all the tricks for passing the screenings, to no avail. At that point, he decided it wasn't worth it one bit. You can now rail against the invasion of privacy and all that crap, if you like. But as long as companies can be sued for bad things happening with a drug user involved, that situation's not going to change either.
I didn't say Amsterdam was doing poorly, I just said the drug users there haven't left a positive impression on people, if you see the parks and public spaces there. I was referring to changing public opinion on legalizing it, not the impact it has on a city or society.
Of all my friends from our early adult years, I can't lay a finger on a one who still smokes. In part, it probably has to do with random testing in the workplace more than anything. That was what made my son finally give it up. He had a shot at half dozen $40k/yr jobs (mid-20s, no college, not bad!) and he tried all the tricks for passing the screenings, to no avail. At that point, he decided it wasn't worth it one bit. You can now rail against the invasion of privacy and all that crap, if you like. But as long as companies can be sued for bad things happening with a drug user involved, that situation's not going to change either.
Old Man.
-
RoamingMadness
- Uber Nerd
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:19 pm
- Contact:
I was just wondering, i didn't really have a point in asking. Smoking technology has come along way in the past 10 years or so. My personal favorite device of late, is for medical use (and comes with a medial price tag to boot) http://www.thevolcanovaporizer.com/I never smoked tobacco either, and it was more an objection to the idea of inhaling smoke intentionally into my lungs that stopped me, not a moral stance on drugs or the legality of it.
Here is a nice study on it as well. http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerstudy2.html
If you don't wanna read all that, short version is this. They heat it enough to vaporize the THC, so you dont have any of the harming effects of the smoke.
I didn't say Amsterdam was doing poorly, I just said the drug users there haven't left a positive impression on people, if you see the parks and public spaces there. I was referring to changing public opinion on legalizing it, not the impact it has on a city or society.
I really wish youd type this out in another way.. i'm not 100% sure what you mean. And i'd hate to reply just totally off topic. I may be wrong but i dont think pot's effect on amsterdam has been anything but positive.
As far as drug testing goes. I think the fact people can give up pot for such a simple reason only proves how harmless it really is. My only real problem with drug testing is that more than anything else, what i did at a party friday night shouldnt effect my job on tuesday afternoon. Beyond that, i don't blame a company for random drug testing. That's just how things are now.
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
-
RoamingMadness
- Uber Nerd
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:19 pm
- Contact:
Just a little example of how crazy the some of the anti-pot people really are.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4376
That's an award winning teacher being fired for speaking about industrial hemp use.
I wish things like this were the exception to the rule, rather than the standard. But this is one case where things really do tend to be excessive in general.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4376
That's an award winning teacher being fired for speaking about industrial hemp use.
I wish things like this were the exception to the rule, rather than the standard. But this is one case where things really do tend to be excessive in general.
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
First of all, I contend she wasn't fired by some sort of "anti-pot" crusaders. Instead, it appears it was the excuse they felt they needed to fire a teacher that was bordering on the radical in many ways. Note the use of the term "at least in small part" several times in reference to the hemp lecture as part of the reason for her firing.RoamingMadness wrote:Just a little example of how crazy the some of the anti-pot people really are.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4376
That's an award winning teacher being fired for speaking about industrial hemp use.
I wish things like this were the exception to the rule, rather than the standard. But this is one case where things really do tend to be excessive in general.
Like the teacher who seemed unjustly fired for posting a picture of Bush in her classroom, I reckon there is a longer and more interesting history that this article chooses to ignore for the sake of the sensational.
Old Man.
-
RoamingMadness
- Uber Nerd
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:19 pm
- Contact:
I didn't mean for it to sound like they targeted her like some sort of witch hunt. Just the fact that it was brought up at all is insanity. It doesn't get you high. It's just a useful plant.
I also read somewhere of the 245 million plants detroyed in one year, 243 million of them weren't cultivated for smoking. They were either for hemp or simply wild plants. Waste of tax dollars and resources right there.
I also read somewhere of the 245 million plants detroyed in one year, 243 million of them weren't cultivated for smoking. They were either for hemp or simply wild plants. Waste of tax dollars and resources right there.
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
There probably isn't any meaning in life. Perhaps you can find something interesting to do while you are alive. Like how you found that flower. Like how I found you.
Buttons aren't toys.