cannabisnews.com: 10 Million Americans Busted for Pot










  10 Million Americans Busted for Pot

Posted by CN Staff on October 01, 2007 at 08:54:51 PT
By Paul Armentano, AlterNet 
Source: AlterNet 

USA -- What would cops do without weed? For one thing, they'd sure spend a lot less time arresting and processing petty pot violators. How much time? For starters, however long it took to bust the estimated 739,000 Americans arrested for minor pot possession in 2006.That's according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, which reported last week that a record 829,625 Americans were arrested for violating marijuana laws last year. Of those arrested, 89 percent of those were charged with simple pot possession -- the highest annual total ever recorded and nearly three times the number of citizens busted 15 years ago.
Yet to hear local law enforcement spin it, busting small-time potheads isn't their priority. The record number of busts, they claim, is simply a reflection that record numbers of Americans are now smoking pot.But don't tell Drug Czar John Walters that. After all, the czar just claimed earlier this month -- at a press conference announcing the release of the federal Office of Applied Studies (OAS) 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health -- that pot use has been declining for the better part of the past five years.Predictably, both the cops and the drug czar are playing fast and loose with the facts. Yes, in fact more Americans are now admittedly consuming pot today than in 1991 (so much for the past 15 years of the so-called "war on drugs"), but this increase is hardly proportional to the dramatic spike in overall pot arrests.As for Walter's comments, while the survey did indeed report a minor decline in adolescents' self-reported use of pot, it further reported a minor uptick in the total number of Americans who report using marijuana regularly, from 14.6 million in 2005 to 14.8 million in 2006.Of course, a less than 2 percent increase in pot users from '05 to '06 doesn't explain why pot arrests jumped more than five percent from a then-record 786,545 to today's total. Or why the overall number of annual pot arrests has gone up every consecutive year but two for the past 16 years.Perhaps the explanation is two-fold. It's plausible that the federal government is -- and always has -- greatly underestimated the number of Americans who use pot. (Does anyone really believe that cops are busting -- on average -- five percent of all pot smokers each year?) It's also plausible that an outgrowth of the ever-growing number of cops on the street (and citizens' increasing number of interactions with them) is inevitably leading to more and more pot arrests. However, regardless of the explanation, it seems remiss for police and politicians not to acknowledge this growing trend and its burdensome fiscal and perhaps even cultural implications.The bottom line: Since 1990 over 10.4 million Americans -- predominantly young people under age 30 -- have been busted for pot. Thousands have been disenfranchised, tens of thousands have been unnecessarily sent to "drug treatment," hundreds of thousands have lost their eligibility for student aid, and perhaps an entire generation (or two) has been alienated to believe that the police are an instrument of their oppression rather than their protection. These are the tangible results of the government's stepped up war on pot -- results that go beyond the FBI's record numbers, and it's high time that politicians and the general public began taking notice.Note: Since 1990, over 10.4 million Americans have been busted for pot. When will we recognize it's time to stand up to the war on harmless pot smoking? Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, D.C.Source: AlterNet (US)Author:  Paul Armentano, AlterNetPublished: October 1, 2007Copyright: 2007 Independent Media InstituteContact: letters alternet.org Website: http://www.alternet.org/DL: http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/63988/NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #144 posted by FoM on October 06, 2007 at 11:27:14 PT
Hope
I hope you are right. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #143 posted by Hope on October 06, 2007 at 10:22:19 PT
The Bald Eagle
Seeing it in all it's majesty and glory imbued me with a new sense of hope for our country.Our rights and freedoms have been made nearly extinct, like that great bird was made once. But it's recovered and maybe that great spirit of truth and freedom that once made our government seem to be the very best in the world will recover from it's deline, too, like that great bird recovered from it's near extinction.Maybe. Hopefully.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #142 posted by Hope on October 06, 2007 at 10:17:14 PT
Wildlife
I've been visiting in Missouri. The other day I had been watching a squirrel playing in a tree. Later in the day I was looking at the same area to see if I might see the squirrel playing. To my amazement, a fully mature Bald Eagle flew out of the tree, probably about fifty feet from me. I was stunned at what I was seeing. It came out of the tree facing me, then wheeled right in front of me and lifted the most mighty and intimidating great wings...the great shoulder effect was amazing and seemed to hover...it wasn't a really speedy manuever or take off and flapped and soared away behind some trees. I got a fantastic view of it. I was about fifty feet from it ande at an elevation that had me almost level with it when it came out of the tree.The white of it's great head and tail feathers was was amazing and glistening and brilliant white. The sun was highlighting it. With it's wings spread, and when it turned away from me and the house, the white of it's tail ran much further up it's back than I'd ever seen in any photographs. It's wingspan was much greater than I can reach. It was so astounding. I felt so blessed and awed. After that I kept my binoculars at hand and watched for it. A day or two later, I saw an immature one, not yet with the bright white tail and head feathers developed, soaring high in the sky. I thought at first that it was a golden eagle, and thought surely, there wouldn't be golden eagles and bald eagles in the same area. Finally I decided it must have been the hugest hawk I'd ever seen. I came back in and searched the internet only to discover that immature Bald Eagles are often mistaken for golden eagles...because they are mottled lighter brown...and haven't developed the brilliant white feathers yet.Needless to say, the squirrel that I was watching and didn't see again must have been the eagle's lunch that day.They have lots of wildlife, including herds of deer.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #141 posted by FoM on October 06, 2007 at 08:36:39 PT
Hope
I hope so too. It was a man's scream and men don't usually scream like that though. Maybe a man came upon and bear or something that was threatening and let out a blood curling scream to get it to go away. We haven't ever seen a bear but they are in the area. The State Park is a wildlife refuge. They allow hunting in a certain section of the park during hunting season since our county has the largest population of deer in the state I was told. The deer are smart and stay on the line where no one can shoot them. They graze on the golf course all the time in the summer too. Coming back from the first Fair we had a number of deer jump out in front of us. We have a roo bumper on our tractor but soon we might need one on the car. LOL!PS: I would rather deal with critters then live in an urban jungle though.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #140 posted by Hope on October 06, 2007 at 07:58:04 PT
Scream
Oh my gosh!That's very frightening. Hopefully, it was just a hiker that got frightened by a snake or something.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #139 posted by FoM on October 06, 2007 at 06:31:36 PT
Hope
We can't find the source of the person's scream and it was a man not a woman. We called our closest neighbor and it wasn't them but they will look. Over the ridge a retired school teacher had a tree fall on him and he was seriously hurt. I wish people would learn not go into the woods alone.A long time friend who stood up for us when we got married from eastern Pa. is coming to our house this afternoon. He is involved in a racing association and had an event in Columbus. We haven't seen him for almost ten years and it will be fun. If I ever find out what the scream was about I'll post it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #138 posted by FoM on October 06, 2007 at 05:37:00 PT
Hope
This is way off topic. I was opening the windows this morning and I heard the most ungodly scream I have ever heard coming from the woods and it was a person's scream. Stick heard it to and we don't know what to do. I never heard anything like that around here ever. Just say a little prayer that everyone is ok. Stick is taking off in the car to try to find a neighbor that might need help.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #137 posted by Hope on October 05, 2007 at 22:29:49 PT
Whig
There's no doubt in my mind that pot smokers have been treated unjustly for many, many years now. I want so much to change that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #136 posted by Hope on October 05, 2007 at 22:26:03 PT
comment 133 FoM
Oh mercy! That scares me again just reading it. I don't know about that kind of jumping and have never done it myself, but I know it requires great skill and can be very dangerous... even deadly. I love to watch jumping. I can see it would be a wonderful experience if a person knew what they were doing, but there is no way I've ever experienced asking a horse to jump anything as high as a fence with me on his back. I've had my horses jump fences...but never with anyone on them.I have "raced" stationary oil drum barrels, though. :0)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #135 posted by whig on October 05, 2007 at 22:24:17 PT
Hope
I wouldn't flaunt it, no, because you're daring them. If it's in a large enough crowd, it can be different, though, when you outnumber them. And we really do. In the end, we really are the majority, and we've just been so beaten down that we're mostly afraid to admit it publicly, much less smoke in public.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #134 posted by Hope on October 05, 2007 at 21:44:34 PT
Whig, FoM
It sounds like you know your limits and that's smart, FoM.Whig, it used to be a lot rougher for people than it is now. But it's not something you want to flaunt and egg cops on about. Why would you want to get busted? Who needs their pot swiped? A ticket? A trip to the clink? Not no... but hell no! I wouldn't say I'm terrorized by the cops at all. I'm not even scared of them. But I don't want to be busted... and I don't want my friends busted...ever.I'm not terrorized by copperheads, but I damned sure don't want to have to tangle with one if it can be avoided. I'm much, much fonder of cops than copperheads. Their are plenty of cops among my family, neighbors, friends, and acquaintances. Plenty! I'm not terrorized. I don't love any copperheads but I have and do love some cops. I'm a regular cop lover in some cases. I'm just not going to let them catch the midnight rider... not gonna let them catch me ... no...not gonna let them catch the midnight rider. :0)Sorry...I just couldn't resist it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #133 posted by FoM on October 05, 2007 at 20:37:33 PT
Hope
Since a rider approaches a fence at a good speed timing is everything and that's what I didn't have. I asked him to leave the ground too early and he came down on the fence. Horses leave the ground when the rider tells them to leave the ground. I only drove one time after smoking and I had trouble with judging how far the traffic light actually was from me. It wasn't worth it. I know it isn't like that for everyone but it was for me. Drinking and driving was something I never did. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #132 posted by whig on October 05, 2007 at 19:59:57 PT
Hope
I'm not encouraging people to smoke pot in their cars, by the way. I don't drive, so it isn't really an issue, but I refuse to be terrorized by the fear of police any more. It was bad in Pittsburgh. It's much better out here.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #131 posted by whig on October 05, 2007 at 19:56:50 PT
Hope
It's not so bad in the Bay Area. Texas must be a scary place for pot smokers.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #130 posted by Hope on October 05, 2007 at 18:52:40 PT
FoM
I'm so thankful both you and the horse survived that "hard way" lesson. I've never experienceed altered depth perception...but I've heard of it...and I expect that I can pocket that one as something easily learned for me. Thank you. That's one I'll sure take your word for.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #129 posted by Hope on October 05, 2007 at 18:47:51 PT
lessons learned
I've learned from advice and I've learned the hard way. I don't like the hard way. I can tell you this... to slip up on someone they suspect is smoking pot... on even apparently deserted stretches of highway and even at higher speeds, some law enforcement officers have no qualms about driving without their lights on at night, very close behind you and watching you, and when they're pretty sure...wham...there are the lights. Please take my word for it. 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #128 posted by FoM on October 05, 2007 at 14:51:00 PT

Hope
Back in the 70s I tried to go over a big fence while riding and my depth perception was way off. I never did that again. I misjudged the distance and my horse hit the fence really hard. He was ok but I learned my lesson.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #127 posted by FoM on October 05, 2007 at 14:46:54 PT

Hope
I agree with you. I don't want to scare people either. That won't help us.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #126 posted by Hope on October 05, 2007 at 14:42:38 PT

There was a time
when I didn't realize what a hideous idea smoking in a vehicle is. That was about thirty five or so years ago. I know better now.Also, it's not about the impairment...it's about the getting busted...and on this board...discussing anything but the studies that show there is not negative impairment is a very bad idea. Like Commonsense said, it scares people that don't know. We want to bring people to our side, not push them further the other way.Impaired driving scares people worse than probably anything. I have had people say to me, "You mean you want people to be out there on the highway, in big trucks and vehicles driving drugged?" Of course, my answer to that has always been, "And you think they aren't now?" To which of course, they have to admit that they know it's been part of life and the highway for a very, very long time. Ever heard of Bennies?You have to be careful out there. You have to drive like the other guy is out to kill you. It's dangerous, under any circumstances, but it doesn't do us any good to alarm people any more than they already are. It's imperative that we not flaunt irresponsibility. Extraordinarily so when in public, which the internet is, and especially so, when we are trying to convince others of the value of personal responsibility, which we are, in my opinion.It's one thing to drive after you've smoked. I don't do it and won't do it and I discourage it. But smoking in a vehicle, outside a garage, is just asking to get busted. And in a vehicle inside your garage that you intend to ever drive somewhere...you never know when they are going to run a dog on you...just for the hell of it...and there you go...probable cause for what you did last month.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #125 posted by Hope on October 05, 2007 at 14:22:44 PT

And furthermore,
don't leave your papers, a pipe, seeds, stems, leaves, a bag, a roach, or a clip on the console, the seat, the dash, or the ashtray...or anywhere in plain sight.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #124 posted by Hope on October 05, 2007 at 14:19:11 PT

Whig
It's illegal. It's against the law. If you have to be an outlaw...you'd better be a smart one.A vehicle is not private. Ever notice those people who pick their noses in their cars...like they are invisible or something? They're not.Your chances of seeing red and blue lights flashing behind you when you are in a vehicle, going down the highway, the freeway, a street, even parked in front of your or your friend's house, even at night, even in an alley or parking lot, are signifigantly increased over say, the back porch, the kitchen, the deck, a balcony, the shop, the storage room, the pantry, the dining room, the bathroom, your bedroom, the garage, the living room, the basement, or even the closet or in a tree, for heaven's sake.It's against the law.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #123 posted by whig on October 05, 2007 at 13:38:51 PT

Hope
It seems like common sense, I agree. But many people smoke in their cars, and it doesn't impair driving. Should tobacco smoking be prohibited in cars?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #122 posted by Hope on October 05, 2007 at 12:05:57 PT

Commonsense comment 22
I so agree. In particular, I agree that a vehicle, at least in my opinion, is very probably, the very worst place in the world to smoke. I've given the same or very similar, very heart felt advice, many, many times, myselfUnless it's up on blocks in a back field somewhere and never ever going anywhere again... and in that case, depending on how long it's been there, it might be prudent to check for snakes and spiders first.Don't smoke in your vehicles.It's just Commonsense.:0)

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #121 posted by Dankhank on October 05, 2007 at 10:59:45 PT

Had Enough ...
Thanks for the lyrics. Sspouse and I have always loved this song and usually sing along.I really like it when my 13-year-old GDaughter has to listen, as we only play rock-related radio in our cars, as she gets an idea of what we believe, and have always believed.http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/window/media/page/0,,164521-1271841-WMLO,00.htmla short clip, audio ...
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #120 posted by Had Enough on October 04, 2007 at 21:12:44 PT

Everyday People Lyrics…
for those with no bandwidth.Sometimes I'm right then I can be wrongMy own beliefs are in my songsA butcher, a banker, a drummer and thenMakes no difference what group I'm inI am everyday people.There is a blue one who can't acceptThe green one for living witha black ones tryin' to be a skinny oneDifferent strokes for different folksAnd so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby.Ooh sha shaWe gotta live together.I am no better and neither are youWe're all the same whatever we doYou love me you hate meYou know me and thenStill can't figure out the bag I'm inI am everyday people.There is a new manThat doesn't like the short manFor being such a rich oneThat will not help the poor oneDifferent strokes for different folksAnd so on and so on scooby dooby dooby.Ooh sha shaWe got to live together.There is a yellow one that won't Accept the black oneThat won't accept the red oneThat won't accept the white one.Different strokes for different folksAnd so on and so on andScooby dooby doobyOoh sha shaI am everyday people
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #119 posted by Had Enough on October 04, 2007 at 21:02:37 PT

Time Spirit/Ghost
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/This has been posted here before.Not sure how many people watched it.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #118 posted by Had Enough on October 04, 2007 at 20:56:06 PT

We’ve got to live together
EVERYDAY PEOPLE/SLY & FAM STONEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-336qHRGv1M&mode=related&search=Sly and Family Stone - Everyday People,Dance to the musichttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlweEsw6guA&mode=related&search=

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #117 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 20:20:47 PT

whig
I am tired. I am asking you to listen to what Dankhank said. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #116 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 20:19:24 PT

museman
It sounds like it won't be fun tomorrow but I hope it is.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #115 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 20:11:45 PT

FoM
I don't understand, are you saying that people are allowed to talk about religion in e-mail but not here? I've always seen religious discussion here, since before I started participating.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #114 posted by museman on October 04, 2007 at 20:10:57 PT

FoM
Not the person, but the premise. I cannot see solution in compromises such as represented in the status quo, or the ways and means of the established order. I have illustrated my 'perspective' and opinion consistently. I admit to being highly prejudiced to prejudicial attiude, and all these promotions of establishment-exlusive standards of appearance, career choices, and politically meek ('good citizens') lemmings as role models for correct cannabis useage frankly make me a little nauseous.But, I must retire for the night, and go on a journey through the burgeoning army of cops on the morrow.Goodnight.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #113 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 19:53:22 PT

museman
In this thread. You seem to be angry with Commonsense? It took nerve to talk as freely as he did and I respect that.PS: My Father wore a suit and tie everyday and if you could have met him you would have liked him and he would have liked you.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #112 posted by museman on October 04, 2007 at 19:49:49 PT

Why I am an angry man
Here's the plan to help you understand why I am an angry man. Some make the dark seem light, Say that wrong is right,Casting shadows over all the land. They “educate” the children in a war zoneTeaching them to make lies of their very own. Everywhere are seeds, and deeds of warPoor people starve but the war must have more.And you ask me why I’m angry? You hear the money talk,See how they flock; like flies upon their meal.Though they may change their face and claim the human race,Some things they cannot conceal. They packaged all our dreams in a factory,And take us farther from our lives, as you can see.Thet tell you lies on your TV set,Democracy hasn’t happened yet.And you ask me why I’m angry? You hear their mouths speak peace, it’s just a Roman fleece,They’re all members of the ‘Klan.’If you let truth be your guide, find a good place to hideTruth is ‘contra’ to their plan. Don’t stand up for your rights, you don’t have them any more.You left ‘em to the rich, and their perpetual war. They poked a hole right through our skyNow they got to go back just to find out why.Doesn’t that make you just a little bit angry? Well they sell you drugs, put there by evil thugsIn a game played by evil men.They oppress the poor, and victimize them with war,One they hope will never end. They “educate” the children, in a war zoneTeaching them to make lies of their very own.Their nuclear pride makes the whole earth shake.To the face of God they would not admit their mistake.Still you ask me why I’m angry. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #111 posted by museman on October 04, 2007 at 19:44:10 PT

FoM #109
In the context of this thread, or in general?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #110 posted by museman on October 04, 2007 at 19:41:42 PT

the first hippy
"Jesus was a capricorn, he ate organic food.He believed in love and peace, and never wore no shoes.Long hair, beard and sandals, and a funky bunch of friends,reckon they'd just nail Him up if He come down again(sing along)'Cos everybody's got to have somebody to look down on.
people they can feel better than at anytime they please.Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on.
If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me.Get back, John!Egg Head's cousin Red Neck's cussin' hippies for their hair.
Others laugh at straights who laugh at freaks who laugh at squares.Some folks hate the whites who hate the blacks who hate the clan.
Most of us hate anything that we don't understand.'Cos everybody's got to have somebody to look down on.
Who they can feel better than at anytime they please.Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on.
If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me.Help yourself, brother. 
Help yourself, Gentlemen. 
Help yourself Reverend.The kicker;
"Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on."* "Damn dirty Hippys, sit around all day and just smoke pot and laugh, man do they laugh.""What ya think they laughin' at?""Don't rightly know." -as the sun sets over the polluted sky above a multitude of rusting oil wells.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #109 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 19:29:34 PT

museman
Why are you angry?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #108 posted by museman on October 04, 2007 at 19:19:13 PT

it takes all kinds
of people to make up planet earth.Many shades of skin color, hair color, cultural style and preference. There are many versions of science, and medicine -that diverge distinctly along cultural and religious doctrinal lines.There are apparently many different ways to look at anything, including the Mystery too often referred to as "God."Every single one of us is a child of that Great Mystery granted with at least one great common gift; 'free will.'Owing to the entropic forces of current physics in place (laws) life is a struggle. Because of that sruggle, the opportunity to cheat, or take advantage of another's good will and intent is one of the choices available on the menu of free will.The natural, preferred choice of good intent and harmless action towards one another requires adherence to standards of behavior and collective cooperation -but which has no place for destructive forms of competition or any kind of social economic profiling.Without the cheaters, the liars and thieves, who are often not the simple rogues brought up publicly before the bar, but the holders of the bar themselves, the society of man's choice would be freer, more progressive, probably much more responsible, and looking into a future of possiblity instead of the grim.It is ironic that the accusers of the people actually sit in places supposedly in service to the people, and that the more immaculate the appearance the higher the esteem. That they could casually cast about nuances and inuendos about the 'laziness' of the 'unkempt' hippie, or refer to success in achieving sanity in this abhorent prohibition by pointing out how the 'clean-cuts' are such 'productive citizens' and they smoke pot too.Theres some smoke here, maybe a mirror or two as well.It takes all kinds, but though I'd prefer not to have some of these kinds in my world, I'm not out to kill, 'em, imprison 'em, or mess with their life in any way at all, but I don't live in that world -as someone recently rubbed in my face- so I have to watch what I swallow, examine what I believe, read between the lines, and call a spade a spade, even when the establishment in the guise of 'commonsense' is trying to convince me it's a club.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #107 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 19:13:50 PT

Dankhank
I agree.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #106 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 19:01:32 PT

museman
It is a 2 hour documentary. Peter Coyote is the narrator.The Hippie movement was the most controversial and influential of modern times. Free love, the peace movement, drugs, Eastern religions and communes are explored. Meet the figures whose words and actions inspired it and destroyed it. See how the vibrations from that era are still resonating today in almost every aspect of American life, from the clothes we wear, to the Personal Computer and the Internet. Finally, historic footage, stills and period graphics are interwoven with expert commentary and eyewitness testimony.Rating: TVPG Running Time: 120 minutes Genre:http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=221518
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #105 posted by Dankhank on October 04, 2007 at 18:51:30 PT

Hippies ...
a good show about good people shafted by the typical parasites that gather, the religious, and any who were afraid of the idea of "peace and love."Jesus believed in peace and love and was killed, John Lennon sang about peace and love and was killed by a Christian, Ghandi spoke of peace and love and was murdered by a religious fanatic  This list is way to long to finish, feel free to add what you will.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #104 posted by museman on October 04, 2007 at 18:46:59 PT

FoM
Can't get cable and internet both, it's one or the other. I limit my TV watching to commercial-free stuff.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #103 posted by museman on October 04, 2007 at 18:44:52 PT

FoM
There's a hippies episode on history channel? 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #102 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 18:31:23 PT

museman
I'm watching Hippies on the History Channel. I saw it before but it is good to see again.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #101 posted by museman on October 04, 2007 at 18:25:12 PT

for the hippies
"The law is a whore."Babylonian.Ever notice how nice the cops and lawyers are to you when they got you handcuffed to a chair?The best schools can turn out quite gentlemanly semblances, comfortable in their offices that we the people must exert extra energy to accomodate -besides the customary fees.Root causes, not symptomatic, platonic renderings of politically correct plattitudes, will be the place to efffectively apply solutions that are human in nature, and not economic or aristo-social corruptions of the truth.Compromises with the devil usually end you up in hell a little earlier than planned, even if it is a long stay.The books of law bind those who give them power, but the actual reality created before those abominations of man's collective fear and lack of faith in themselves, their planet, and their creator, has no need of them. They are an imposition upon all creatures who desire to live a natural life as DNA, good will, and the Creator will allow, and I for one feel a certain obligatory right to anger at those who pretend to have any authority such as is falsely rendered, and given to 'the law.'I am no anarchist, but there is a distinction between the natural way, the 'God'-given guidelines of loving human behavior, and the forced, imposed, constricting, and restricting orders and agencies of man's 'laws.'Some of us stepped out of that Babylonian crap-shoot that TV propaganda is always trying to convince us is the 'only game in town' and we sacrificed property and possession for a chance to experience the REAL. Funny thing, but the catch 22 is that once you do see the REAL, the only other people who can understand you, are the ones who also see the REAL. Kind of like trying to make the blind to see, when they have all been brought up to keep their eyes tightly shut, believing that to open them would be some kind of hellish sin or something.Something is in the air all right. The Gestapo is moving into position. Maybe even in my favorite online hangout.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #100 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 17:46:24 PT

whig
I consider Hope a very close friend. We talk in e-mail and we have covered faith and about everything else under the sun. It has worked well for us.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #99 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 17:44:25 PT

whig
Maybe e-mail would be a better format for deep discussions of faith rather then a forum where some people don't want to hear anything about religion. I respect those who don't want to hear about religion.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #98 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 17:40:06 PT

FoM
I don't care if people keep their faith private, in fact I like to hear about what people believe because I learn a lot from everyone who has a context and a story and a very important lesson, which all religions do.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #97 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 17:05:48 PT

whig
I hope for that too. The best way is to privately live our faith and follow the direction we as individuals feel we should go. Then we can learn to accept what we don't understand or want to understand. Then we live in peace. It's called tolerance.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #96 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 17:01:25 PT

FoM
I hope all faiths can learn to coexist peacefully. We are all one, in my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #95 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 17:00:22 PT

whig
Thanks for understanding. People are different and faith is important to many and not to many so believe what is important to you and others can believe what is important to them and then we don't have a religious conflict which we know causes wars. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #94 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 16:56:15 PT

FoM
I'm not sure what it is you seem to be offended by, but if so I'm sorry. I just expressed one way that cannabis prohibition is unconstitutional. Is that wrong?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #93 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 16:37:16 PT

whig
I would never consider doing that since my faith is very private. I am offended by preachy people and always have been. I believe many people don't like it. This isn't a platform but a forum.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #92 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 16:35:13 PT

Doctor's note
I just received a letter from my endocrinologist informing me that my counts are all normal and I do not have osteoporosis.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #91 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 16:30:43 PT

FoM
I do respect others' views, but it's important to know what the first amendment says,Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.A good faith religious belief in the sacramental use of cannabis is necessary to raise a first amendment defense. If you don't share that belief, you can't raise that defense, but that doesn't mean there aren't other defenses. Just as medical necessity is a defense for some people, it does not preclude other defenses.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #90 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 15:35:14 PT

whig
I don't know what the first amendment says but I do know that we should respect others views too. This is a secular world and a world where people have different belief systems. It is deeply personal for each person.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #89 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 15:26:48 PT

Dankhank
I don't want to make anyone believe what I believe, but I think it's important to say what I believe, because the first amendment protects us too.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #88 posted by Dankhank on October 04, 2007 at 14:16:58 PT

Ron paul
on CNN, soon ...Whig, as you now know, I can get prickly, too ...I do believe you have good input here, and likely wherever you speak. I an sick of all the religious preaching in this world, as none of it is designed to succor the downtrodden, merely to continue control. As such, I have little patience for ANY "god-talk."There is no need for humans to be caged for ANY substance use, and I use this fact to judge any I talk to. It is easy to know, then, that the speaker is not a true "Christian ...et al). NO "man-of-the-cloth" I have spoken to has ever said that the drug war must be ended, so I suspect them all, until I hear different.sometimes it's good to vent, mayhap we all can be better for this thread ...Peace ...
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #87 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 10:55:57 PT

Had Enough 
I believe most of us here have at some time in our lives thought differently then we do now. Life changes. Values change. Perspectives change and we grow. I saw the world very narrowly for years and now I see it as this massive group of people from all around the world looking for something new that can fix how things are now. Our arrogance is what will bring us down. Humility is a good thing since we don't have control over most of what happens to us in life. I liked your post. Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #86 posted by Had Enough on October 04, 2007 at 10:47:21 PT

Commonsense - Jury nullification
Jury nullification.Can, and how does this work? I would be interested in hearing your view on that.*****Thanks for your input you have posted here. Please continue to do so.To end this drug war reefer madness it is going to take everyone. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Independents. Doctors, Lawyers, Prosecutors, Secretaries, Waitresses, Busboys, Dishwashers, Business Operators, Gas Station Attendants, Truck Drivers, you get the picture, everyone.We need to back good candidates that really want to lead, not just some rich ass yuppies that are aged spoiled brats who never had to work a day in their life, and could care less about his fellow man.We the People need to put proper people in office. We the People need to get off our asses and get these people in. It is up to us, the voters, which need to send the message of no more bullshit.People have always been too busy to vote, and look where it got us.When say 25 percent of people vote, which means all of us are represented with what 25 percent of the total voters think, and ALL of us “We the Peoples’” have to live with consequences of their agendas.We need to support proper candidates and get “We the Peoples’” out to vote in order to change those percentages.I personally think that as we enter this new Age of Aquarius the bottom will fall out from underneath us, as far as society goes. Peace and Understanding will come, but it will come at big expense.Will it be the economy collapsing into Great Depression era proportions?Will it be from some whacko with his hand on a Nuke Button?Will it be from the raping the Earth and spilling and spewing poison all over it?Will it be more than one the above combined, maybe all of them?I don’t know the answer for sure, but I see things, and mankind will get back to the garden one way or another. The forces are in motion.Returning back to Hemp farming again could cure a lot of ills that our world has today.And until then I will still do the best I can to carry on. We need to get our country back from the few big wigs that are in control. The only way we can do that is at the ballot box. And even that will be hard.*****5th dimension-Aquariushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uONF0zJz2Oo&mode=related&search=

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #85 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 10:42:07 PT

Pleading
Even a minor plea is part of your permanent record. If you plead guilty once, and you are caught in possession of cannabis again, your penalty can be increased. If you are caught three times....
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #84 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 10:36:42 PT

Defense counsel
Give me someone with the guts to say that this is unconstitutional, absurd, and wrong.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #83 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 10:33:14 PT

BGreen
But you know what prosecutors say, "I don't make the law, I just enforce them." Defense counsel that is pro-enforcement leads defendants to plead, though seeks to limit the penalty.Just plead guilty son, they'll go lightly on you if you just plead guilty.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #82 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 10:28:49 PT

BGreen
I appreciate your criticism, and I will try to control my enthusiasm a bit, though I can do little about my age and perspective (but wait a while, right?)The thing that gets in my craw about this is that if it is okay for the federal government to make political prosecutions of medical cannabis patients, and to press for the harshest treatment in these cases, then this is implicitly a threat against me, personally. Moreover, I cannot question the facts that I use cannabis, every single day, so to reduce my penalty he would say I should plead guilty, perhaps.And so he would shepherd me into the prison, because I would not stop using cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #81 posted by FoM on October 04, 2007 at 08:38:32 PT

Commonsense
Being a lawyer can't be easy so I want to tell you a true story. One of the dearest friends we have ever had in our life was our family lawyer. I taught his wife and two daughters about horses and how to ride. They bought a horse from me and my husband built them a beautiful stable with our lawyer friend helping my husband. The interaction was amazing to me. He would come out to our barn to watch the family ride and would tell us all these lawyer jokes. He said, I tell lawyer jokes so nobody else beats me to it and he smiled. He never charged us much money at all and often the things he did to help us there was no charge. One day he was riding a bicycle with his 10 year old son and he had a heart attack. The son ran to get his mother and they got him in the car and he died on the way to the hospital as she was yelling at him not to give up! He was only 50 and we lost more then a family lawyer that day we lost a friend. If we look hard we can find good lawyers who really do care and I think you are one of them. Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #80 posted by BGreen on October 04, 2007 at 04:43:20 PT

I do understand, Commonsense
It's easy to have communication problems due to the nature of this forum. We can't go back and edit any mistakes or misstatements, and it's easy for others to misunderstand what we're saying and take offense. I've been posting here for over five years (OMG, time really flies) and I've seen it happen many times.I do think your comments to whig went a little too far because he really isn't a moron or a dumbass, however, he also went too far and pushed you too hard. There's a limit to how much any of us can take but whig is still a good guy.I'd like for this to end and let's all get back to the task at hand. I'd also like to be able to think of you as the courageous young public defender who works within the system to help change the system, so that there truly is justice within the criminal justice system. Without justice, we only have a criminal system.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #79 posted by Commonsense on October 04, 2007 at 01:29:52 PT

BGreen
I understand what you are saying and maybe I blew up a little too much on whig, but I hope you guys can understand where I'm coming from. I don't do what I do for the money. I'm a public defender. I make $43,000 a year, after all that schooling and more than a decade of practicing law. I support a family on that, kids, car payments, a house payment, the works. When my blessed wife married me I was a stockbroker with Merrill Lynch making good money on track to make great money. She stuck with me when I got the wild hair to go to law school. She stuck with me when I decided I wanted to be a public defender and save the world. Now I get a 2.1% "cost of living increase" every year and it doesn't begin to keep up with the cost of living. My health insurance went up to $420 a month this year. What a number, 420, and that doesn't even include dental insurance. All of my suits are threadbare. I haven't bought a new one in years. I think I've got three ties left that aren't stained, and all of my work shoes have holes in the soles. I don't spend a dime on myself that I don't have to spend. I give it all to my family because I want my kids to have piano lessons, violin lessons, get to play soccer and go to camp and do gymnastics and all the good things they want to do. I work in an office with almost no budget. We run out of money every year for postage stamps. Investigators? Expert witnesses? Wouldn't it be great if we had resources like that. The government doesn't want to give us money. We're the bastard stepchildren of the criminal justice system. We "help criminals." Why would they want to give us any money? The only things I didn't pay for out of my own pocket in my office are my phone, a filing cabinet, and a lamp. That's probably the only reason they picked me over everybody else, because they didn't really have the money to set up an office for a new attorney. I'm pretty thick skinned, but I don't have unlimited patience for people who want to give me a hard time about what I do. The general public doesn't really understand what criminal defene attorneys do and why we do it. I can live with that, for the most part. We public defenders are going to get a good 75 or 80% of the criminal cases and not everyone is going to be happy with the job we do. I can handle the "public pretender" comments and the "should I hire a 'real lawyer'" comments. On occasion I'll tell people to "f" off, but I bite my tongue as much as possible. I actually have a lot of patience with my clients because I understand the stress they are under. I expect them to be mad, scared, desperate. They're going to vent. They're going cuss and they're going to complain. Too often they're going to blame everyone else for their problems even if they are the ones who who brought these problems on themsleves. This is all to be expected and this I can live with, usually. Where I have real difficulty is with complete strangers who give me grief about what I do who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. I can't help myself, not always anyway. Sometimes I'm going to get to the point where I tell these people to "f" off. Maybe I should exercise more self control, but I don't always have that in me. I try to put myself in their shoes. I try to understand where they are coming from, but I'm a human being and there is a limit to my tolerance for abuse.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #78 posted by BGreen on October 03, 2007 at 22:45:01 PT

Commonsense
First off, let me say that I'm not attacking you personally, but please don't assume that I'm ignorant, either.I have a friend who is a defense attorney so I know more than you think about the inner workings of your business. It very much is a game. Granted, it's a very strategic game such as chess, but it's nothing more than a battle of wits, trying to get the better of your opponent.Unfortunately, the only people that reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of your win or loss (besides the obvious financial and career rewards) are the victims, the defendants and their families.I know that's just the way things are set up, but I was really making sure that you hadn't lost your empathy for the hell the defendants go through simply because of your daily exposure to the status quo.Some of the comments that you take offense by are based on our own experience with the system that you're a part of, so it only makes sense that some of the hurt and anger we all face might be unfairly misdirected towards attorneys like yourself, even if you have only the best intentions in the job you do.It's not right, but it's understandable.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #77 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 22:16:22 PT

Dankhank
I don't want to argue. If you think I need schooling, school me. Nobody's perfect.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #76 posted by BGreen on October 03, 2007 at 22:15:11 PT

whig
I say this with a lot of love because I was (and am) so much like you, but you need to use some restraint in choosing your words.Most of the people that are getting a little irritated believe so much like you do, but you have to understand that we're 20 to 30 years older than you. We are pretty much what you will be in 20 years and you are what we were 20 years ago.I'm not at all questioning your beliefs, your intelligence, your maturity or anything about you. I'm just saying that when you've been fighting this battle for as long as you've been alive like a lot of us have (going on 32 years for me,) you're going to look at things differently just because of all of the personal experience and scars from battle that you'll accumulate.Don't be so quick to jump on things that we say because there really is a lot to be said about the wisdom that comes with age. In fact, that's about the only freakin' good thing that I can think of to say about getting older. LOLYou're a valuable asset to CNews.com because of your knowledge, enthusiasm and spirit. You keep us on our toes and with a fire in our hearts.We're on your side. We're your friends. We want you to be an active and regular part of this family. We just want you to be a little less confrontational against us older folk and a little more open to understanding how decades of this unbelievable war against us over this single plant has shaped our viewpoints.Thanks for listening.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #75 posted by Dankhank on October 03, 2007 at 21:27:50 PT

Whig
a vast majority of your comments are about correcting someone to your point of view.witness your recent comments on Ephedra, your harangue of Commensense when his job is to Keep folks OUT of jail, your constant religious rhetoric that seems to be a mishmash of Jewish/Christian cant, Your conversion to west coast sensibilities that allow you to mock those who can't get the fine herb you can ... shit, the list would go on so long ...That's why I say I have not enough time to address all of the crap you spew.Keep writing anything you want, it will only continue to prove I'm right.I will, however, take time to comment on some of the more egregious comments you make, and it started with your treatment of Commensense.some of these comments arise due to the use of absolutes, mine about shooting all ministers, (apologies to you Rev Green), yours on standing with the victims of projectiles, as some of them deserve to be shot, terrorists come readily to mind, the local DA here could conceivably make that list, but the bulk of the problem, in my mind, is YOUR sense of superiority evidenced by the bulk of your posts.We all have a point of view and would like to feel appreciated. Your comments frequently suggest someone needs schooling.don't stop, just cool your jets a bit, we CAN all get along, if we value all who post here.I'm signing off, now, I'll check for comments in the morn.Peace ...
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #74 posted by FoM on October 03, 2007 at 19:11:42 PT

whig
I believe we need to understand that what we think and what we type is open to the interpretation of each person so meanings can get tangled. We might say something in jest and it can be taken as a serious comment. I have learned we all make mistakes and we all do the right thing too. We aren't perfect we just try.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #73 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 18:56:51 PT

FoM
I'm sorry, but I don't want to be told to leave the country in order to stand up against war. I know Dankhank is a good man, I don't have anything against him.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #72 posted by FoM on October 03, 2007 at 18:53:32 PT

Whig
Dankhank is a good man and he has been here and thru alot with us and he has never been a person to act superior to anymone. He is older and we do get wiser as we get older but that isn't acting superior to anyone.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #71 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 18:43:54 PT

Dankhank
If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to end the war, but you go on feeling superior. I don't have all the answers, I just ask a lot of questions, and I have no intention of shutting up.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #70 posted by Dankhank on October 03, 2007 at 18:05:28 PT

shooting
It was a ironic kinda comment from the sixties with a nugget of truth.Look at our politicians, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that many of the worst of them have a law degree.Whig, I have stopped commenting on most of your stuff because you are so self-assured that you have the answers that it's not worth my time.I'm uncomfortable with talk about shooting anyone. If anyone is getting shot at, I want to be on their side, writes Whig.You shoulda been gone a long time ago ... we're shooting a lot of folks in Iraq, and fixin' to start shooting Iranians ... when you leaving?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #69 posted by FoM on October 03, 2007 at 17:48:51 PT

Whig
I'm from the generation that said we wouldn't trust people over 30. We trust people over 30. We're all over 30 now and some like me way over! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #68 posted by FoM on October 03, 2007 at 17:46:48 PT

whig
That expression wasn't what people really would do it was a funny comment not a were gonna go get em type thing. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #67 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 17:29:43 PT

Dankhank
I know I'm prickly. I try to be as straightforward as I can be and if you think I'm wrong, tell me so.I don't want to be part of a shooting war. That's all I'm saying.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #66 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 17:25:50 PT

Dankhank
I'm uncomfortable with talk about shooting anyone. If anyone is getting shot at, I want to be on their side.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #65 posted by FoM on October 03, 2007 at 17:14:00 PT

Dankhank
I remember that about lawyers. There was a time that lawyers had a hard time finding a job because change was in the air. I can't say all prosecutors are bad because when our business was robbed we needed a good prosecutor to put them behind bars for awhile. I believe that victimless crimes shouldn't be against the law but when a victim is created by a persons action we need to do something for the victims sake.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #64 posted by Dankhank on October 03, 2007 at 16:57:11 PT

Commonsense ...
I've noticed that Whig tends to set the bar pretty high on who is helping and who is hindering ...I have seen the absolute horror of prosecutors gone wild and know that there is little that can be done to assuage the hate and fear they engender with their misplaced sense of "justice."TANJ ... there ain't no justice ...It's a duel between the respective partners in this dance we call justice.Got the right ammo?  Then you can win or stave off the jailer. Don't have good ammo? sorry fellow, I did my best.That's all I really expect from lawyers.I sense that you are one of the good guys, as I have met some of the bad.I appreciate your comments here as they have validated what I mostly knew.Plain talk regarding the way justice is dispensed is rare and I appreciate you sharing.In the sixties we said: "comes the revolution we're gonna shoot all the lawyers." I have revised it for me: "comes the revolution we're gonna shoot ALL the ministers, and the prosecutors."Be well, and keep trying to save those silly potheads that can't seem to save themselves.Peace to all who would heal, however that happens ...
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #63 posted by rchandar on October 03, 2007 at 16:39:09 PT:

commonsense
i will grant that ephedrine isn't good for you, it even made it on to last night's CSI. still, it all makes me wonder. I honestly don't think that any narcotic substance deserves to be criminalized in any form. where in history did we get the idea that we could punish people with prison for substances that weren't poisons per se? I mean, like anthrax, or rat poison, do have legal uses. But where did we get this idea that humans did not have the right to ingest whatever they wanted into their bodies? there's enough information out there, but punish? with jail, a place where one gets beaten up and maybe starves to death? bedfellows with rapists and murderers? i think history will judge us negatively for having enacted these laws. to say that a drug can be harmful and should be avoided is not a problem. to punish a person for selling or using it just makes no sense, unless they're associated with other crimes that are actually dangerous. no one should not be educated about the harm effects of any drug, including alcohol or tobacco. but after that, punishment, or even calling it a "crime", is slightly strange. how is my smoking MJ or snorting coke a "crime"? It may harm me, how does it harm society? as I get older, I'm loathe to admit anything other than that "i don't get it."
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #62 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 15:42:20 PT

Commonsense
I will say nothing further to you, on account of your insults.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #61 posted by FoM on October 03, 2007 at 15:40:01 PT

Commonsense 
I won't kick you off. It really takes a lot to get me to the point of no return and I am enjoying reading this debate. I just feel I should try to stay out of it and just observe and learn. This is how I learn best. 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #60 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2007 at 15:24:46 PT

whig
"Please do not be offended because it is not personally directed, but you are not part of the solution to cannabis prohibition. You are part of the problem."That is personally directed, and I am offended."The reason I say it is not personally directed is that I believe you are motivated by a desire to do good, and help out. When I say you aren't helping, I am not criticizing your intentions, but the system in which you operate and effectuate to cause persecution."I didn't make the system, whig. I didn't write the laws either. I do the best I can with what I have to work with."The means you employ determine the ends you achieve, and if your means and ends are misaligned, you will never achieve the ends you desire."Tha's real pretty sounding, whig. My means and ends are well aligned. "Cannabis prohibition will end when you stop convicting people of cannabis possession."I don't convict people of anything, you moron. "You, personally, are not helping to end cannabis prohibition by what you do. You, personally, are helping to uphold it."You personally, are a damned idiot. Maybe I should just quit my job and sit on my ass and smoke pot all day and complain like you. That would help a lot. Dumbass. ***FoM, sorry for the language. Kick me off the site if you must. I'm not going to take this moronic crap from anyone.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #59 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 14:55:37 PT

Commonsense
Personally directed.You, personally, are not helping to end cannabis prohibition by what you do. You, personally, are helping to uphold it.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #58 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 14:51:38 PT

Ends do not justify persecution
The means you employ determine the ends you achieve, and if your means and ends are misaligned, you will never achieve the ends you desire.Cannabis prohibition will end when you stop convicting people of cannabis possession.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #57 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 14:49:19 PT

Commonsense
The reason I say it is not personally directed is that I believe you are motivated by a desire to do good, and help out. When I say you aren't helping, I am not criticizing your intentions, but the system in which you operate and effectuate to cause persecution.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #56 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 14:47:40 PT

Commonsense
Please do not be offended because it is not personally directed, but you are not part of the solution to cannabis prohibition. You are part of the problem.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #55 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2007 at 13:16:20 PT

BGreen Re: It apparently is all just a game
Get down off your high horse for a minute and think about this. We have to have prosecutors. It's not all about pot. Marijuana offenses only make up a very small percentage of the cases that go through our system. There is real crime out there. There are plenty of thieves, child molesters, violent dangerous people, all sorts of people doing all sorts of things we cannot just sit back and let happen. We have to have cops and we have to have prosecutors. This isn't all just a game. This is serious stuff. I've somehow offended you with this statement: "There are some pretty good people who work as prosecutors. A lot of the younger ones have smoked marijuana and aren't all that hardcore about it. They have to do their jobs, enforce the laws, but a lot of them are fairly reasonable with pot charges unless the person charged is someone they really want to get, someone with a lot of priors, someone they believe is out there committing more serious crimes that they haven't been able to catch red handed with anything else, and so on.In particular you and whig seem to have latched on to the part where I said "someone they really want to get." I suppose I didn't explain that very well. There are some people the prosecutors want to get. We're in a small town. Police and prosecutors tend to know who most of the real criminal element is. I've got a client right now who is one they want to get. Before they put the pseudoephedrine behind pharmacy counters he was always cooking dope. He was also supplying it to a lot of high school students. In fact teenagers were probably his biggest clients. That's one of the things that made it hard for them to catch him before because they don't lean on teens in my area and make them go set people up like they do with adults. They never caught him, but he really was doing it. I know because I represented an awful lot of people involved with his messes, including a lot of the teens he was doing business with. He had them out stealing for him and he was selling the stolen property. Well, now this guy finally did get popped. He sold a couple grams of meth to a confidential informant. He's facing up to life in prison for that. The prosecutors have made him an offer that is a lot worse than what they'd normally offer someone for something like this. He wants to become their little snitch boy and go set some people up for the drug task force, but the drug task force won't let him work for them. They've been wanting to nail him for a long time and they aren't about to let him walk away now. They want pen time, lots of it. That's one example of the people I'm talking about when I say "someone they really want to get." Another example is a fellow one of my coworkers represented on a meth delivery charge who had been charged with murder before, but the evidence they needed to convict him was excluded due to a "technicality." He did kill a man, they just couldn't prove it without the evidence that was excluded. They really wanted to get that guy, and they got him. He got thirty years after a jury trial for selling a half a gram of meth. When I talk about a lot of the prosecutors being pretty lenient on marijuana possession charges except in some circumstances, what I'm saying is that there are times when I can't get a deal worked out that will keep the conviction off their records and save their drivers license. I have never had a case, not once in more than ten years handling criminal cases, where a client was sentenced to jail time for nothing other than a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge. I've had cases where they gave my clients more than the standard fine or gave him some community service because they had extensive records or because the case was pled down from a felony possession with intent charge, but none of my clients has ever been sentenced to jail time on a misdemeanor marijuana charge. I'm sure you guys would like to see all prosecutors just refuse to prosecute marijuana charges. So would I. It won't happen though. If one of our prosecutors decide to drop all his marijuana cases, he'd get fired. If the head prosecutor, whether it's the City Attorney or the County Prosecutor, were to make it his office policy not to prosecute marijuana charges, he'd get fired. Voters in our area would send him packing and elect some jerk who promised to crack down on marijuana smokers. I'm in the Bible Belt in a dry county where the overwhelming majority of the population is anti-marijuana. We're lucky to have prosecutors who will take it easy on people and let most of them go without criminal records for pot charges, let them keep their driver's licences and go on with their lives without a lot of collateral damages from their convictions. The new guy wouldn't go along with that. He'd have to make good on his campaign promises and be a jerk to people caught with pot. I'd be starting from square one trying to prevail upon this new guy to be reasonable and my clients unfortunate enough to get caught with pot would be in a lot worse shape than they would have been with our current situation. I am damned good at what I do and not one tiny bit ashamed of it. The world isn't perfect. The system surely isn't perfect. I do my best with what I have to work with. I do my best to see that people aren't screwed in the system, or at the least that they are screwed as little as possible because sometimes that's the best we can hope for. I want everyone to get a fair shake. The people I represent are in a tight spot and I want to help them come out of it with as little damage as possible. With respect to marijuana, I do what I can to change people's attitudes and make things easier on those caught up in the "war on marijuana." That's the best I can do. I don't have a magic wand, and I'm not going to give up just because I don't like a lot of what I see in the system. I'm not helping anybody if I do that.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #54 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2007 at 11:46:24 PT

whig
"Were you ever a prosecutor?"Briefly. It was only a temporary part time gig. It's not for me. For one thing of course I didn't want to prosecute people for doing things I had done myself or for things I didn't think should be illegal. If you work as a prosecutor you pretty much have to do what you are told though. Unless you are the head guy you are going to have a boss and he's going dictate what types of offers are to be made in various cases, and you aren't going to keep your job long if you don't tow the line.  I did have to prosecute a few marijuana possession cases. I gave the best deals I could get away with giving, but I couldn't just drop the cases. I wouldn't have been doing my job and I wouldn't have been fulfilling my ethical responsibilities to my client, the government in that instance. Sometimes as a lawyer you have to do things that you don't really like to do. I'm a defense attorney now and I don't pick my clients. I represent who they tell me to represent. And I'm not just working marijuana cases. Even though I've handled thousands of pounds worth of pot cases those cases only amount to a small percentage of my total caseload, which is pretty darned massive. I've represented many rapists, child molesters, violent criminals who in some cases have killed folks, people who have done all sorts of horrible things. I represent a lot of career criminals who in a lot of cases are just plain bad people who will never change. And I have to admit, I've had quite a few clients over the years I would much rather have prosecuted than defended. I've done my best for each and every one of them, but on several occasions I've walked away thinking that the best thing for all of the rest of us would have been that my client to had been put away for the rest of his life so that he'd never be out here with the rest of us committing more crimes and causing more heartache and injury. Most of the people I represent though have redeeming qualities and aren't that bad, and some of them are innocent and just getting screwed. All of them deserve a fair shake in the system. 

[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #53 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2007 at 11:01:37 PT

whig
If they are going to get convicted anyway, yes. Normally I can get them a better deal if they plead. I always try to get them something that will keep it off their records or at least save their driver's license. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to go to trial when you know you are going to lose if you can get a better deal with a plea bargain. Now, every once in a while I'll get one where I don't think the prosecutor is going to be able to prove his case and if my client is willing we'll try it. Sometimes we'll try one that looks like a loser to me if my client is telling me he is innocent, he didn't know about the bag of pot in plain view on the car seat he was sitting in, whatever. I'll suggest though that in a case like that we try to resolve it through a no contest plea if I can get it worked out to where all he does is pays some money and takes the marijuana class and no conviction ever shows up on his record, because if the judge convicts him he's going to be stuck with that drug crime on his record, lose his license for six months, etc., and of course if he gets busted again it will be a felony because he would have that prior drug conviction on his record. But if my client wants to try the case anyway, we'll try it and I'll do the best job I can for him. I like trying cases. I've tried a bunch of them over the years. Misdemeanor trials, especially something like a simple possession case, tend to be easy. They generally only take a few minutes to try. Most misdemeanor bench trials only take a few minutes to try regardless of the charge. I've tried several in a day on many occasions. I try not to go to trial though if it's not in my client's best interests. If I didn't try to work out the cases that need to be worked out I'd be a pretty lousy lawyer and my clients on average wouldn't fare nearly as well as they do. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #52 posted by FoM on October 03, 2007 at 10:29:51 PT

Whig
I have watched Chris Matthews be right on but not for sometime now. I have watched him lean towards Clinton. He doesn't give Obama the time of day. He is a talking head and his drug is politics and smoking wouldn't change his mind and for all we know he might smoke.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #51 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 10:22:22 PT

FoM
I wonder how many people are like Chris Matthews just very sad. What would happen if he smoked pot?
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #50 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 10:11:06 PT

Commonsense
Do you generally counsel clients to plead guilty to cannabis possession in order to avoid trial?
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #49 posted by FoM on October 03, 2007 at 10:08:07 PT

Hippies
The right leaning folks don't like hippies even if they don't know one but they hate them just the same. For some reason they don't like what hippies or left leaning folks believe is good for our country. It's all politics. It seems many lawyers are not liberal. Such a pity for not opening their eyes and seeing like so many have. I think they are missing something that others aren't but that is only my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #48 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 10:04:32 PT

Commonsense
Were you ever a prosecutor?
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #47 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 10:02:55 PT

These words
" unless the person charged is someone they really want to get "Betray the whole game.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #46 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 10:01:31 PT

BGreen
It's all about selective prosecution. If you're a nice kid from a good family, you get a break. If you're the wrong color or you make trouble, you get jail. Yes?
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #45 posted by BGreen on October 03, 2007 at 09:19:04 PT

It apparently is all just a game
I appreciate Commonsense posting here, but there is a certain amount of nonchalance about the way he describes the living hell his clients are actually going through just being arrested, let alone spending one minute in jail for a plant.And I have to say prosecutors are not all evil. There are some pretty good people who work as prosecutors. A lot of the younger ones have smoked marijuana and aren't all that hardcore about it. They have to do their jobs, enforce the laws, but a lot of them are fairly reasonable with pot charges unless the person charged is someone they really want to get, someone with a lot of priors, someone they believe is out there committing more serious crimes that they haven't been able to catch red handed with anything else, and so on.I don't know what planet you live on, but these don't seem like "pretty good people." These "pretty good people" are destroying people's lives playing this game and I'm sick of the entire system.Like I said in a previous post, there doesn't seem to be much difference at all between prosecution and defense attorneys, and it's the non-lawyers who will always lose this game.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #44 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 08:50:52 PT

Commonsense
I understand the charges they are laying are not for speech, but the selectivity of the prosecution is for speech according to what you said yourself. They want to shut down medical marijuana, so they selectively choose patients and providers based upon their outspokenness on this issue for harsh prosecution and penalties they would not subject the person to otherwise. This is what you said, yourself.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #43 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2007 at 07:04:48 PT

whig
Whig, I don't like what the feds are doing. But, they aren't charging people for "speech crimes," they are being charged with federal marijuana crimes. People growing marijuana for dispensaries and those involved with selling it at the dispensaries may be doing things that are legal under California law, but these activities are still illegal under federal law. When people violate federal laws, the feds can prosecute them. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #42 posted by FoM on October 03, 2007 at 06:18:22 PT

BGreen
I asked a friend who she was going to vote for and she said Clinton and seemed proud of her decision.. I asked her about Clinton and Lobbyists and she didn't know anything about it and she said she just wants Bill back in charge. I asked her if she heard of Senator Obama and she said she has heard a little about him. Obama has raised more money then any politician ever and she doesn't know much about him. She doesn't have a computer. If all the fired up young people vote he will win. If they don't vote Clinton will win. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #41 posted by whig on October 03, 2007 at 00:13:50 PT

Commonsense
So political prosecution is legal in your opinion? Choosing defendants based, not on their activity, but their speech, for special prosecution? That would seem to chill their first amendment rights, don't you think?
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #40 posted by whig on October 02, 2007 at 23:30:21 PT

Succession
How it works sometimes in monarchies is that if the king is killed, the guy who killed him gets to set up the new dynasty.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #39 posted by whig on October 02, 2007 at 23:27:16 PT

Context
It was the cold war, though. Different time, different priorities. I can go with that for now.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #38 posted by whig on October 02, 2007 at 23:25:30 PT

BGreen
I agree with you, and before that George HW Bush was head of CIA, and before that perhaps Bay of Pigs.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #37 posted by BGreen on October 02, 2007 at 22:42:55 PT

We've had either a bush or a clinton for 26 years
We've had a vice president or president from those two families for 26 consecutive years.NO MORE!!!!!!!How in the heck can any sane human being want to continue the power dynasty of either of these two morally bankrupt, power hungry families?For goodness sakes people, wake up!The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #36 posted by FoM on October 02, 2007 at 19:04:23 PT

CommonSense
I don't know how many Lobbyists are in Washington. I know that we need major reform for fairness sake. I don't like Senator Clinton and I really hope that Obama can beat her but Clintons are like the Bushes and they know how to spin everything. Our political system is so messed up I don't know if it can be fixed.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #35 posted by Commonsense on October 02, 2007 at 18:52:26 PT

FoM
I'm not a huge fan of lobbyists either, but they are part of our system and I'm sure that a lot of the things the government has done that you think are good came about in large part because of efforts by lobbyists. It doesn't make much sense for us not to use lobbyists. Those who oppose our efforts sure as heck use them. I think the MPP has one lobbyist, the only full time lobbyist in Washington for marijuana legalization efforts. How many lobbyists do you think are up there trying to get the government to put more people in prisons, force more people into treatment, favor their drugs over natural drugs, promulgate laws that adhere to strict religious codes not shared by great numbers of the people, etc.? Their are hoards of lobbyists in DC who lobby against our interests. Shouldn't we have lobbyists too? As for your thoughts on Republicans, you are not alone. A lot of Republicans feel the same way about Bush and are really quite disillusioned with their party. Democrats should do well in the next election. I don't know if Hillary Clinton is electable, but it looks like that's who Democrats will pick and if she has any hope of being elected 2008 would be the year for it to happen. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #34 posted by Commonsense on October 02, 2007 at 18:38:28 PT

whig
On stacking charges, they can't do that unless they have charges to stack. And in my state at least, usually sentences will run concurrent rather than consecutively, so stacking doesn't do much good. We can agree in a plea bargain to run sentences consecutively, but normally we aren't going to do that. The jury can recommend charges run consecutively, but they generally won't do that unless the crime is particularly egregious and they don't think the person will have to do enough pen time if the sentences all run concurrent with one another. The judge can also run the sentences consecutive to one another when he sentences the defendant, but he's generally not going to go against the wishes of the jury, and it's not in his interests to give ridiculous sentences that people in the community will not agree with since he is also an elected official who periodically must run for reelection. Normally it's not going to matter whether they "stack" the charges or not, since the sentences almost always run concurrent.As for the feds and their handling of medical marijuana dispensaries, I suppose technically what they are doing is legal. Personally I don't think the feds have authority from the Constitution to regulate marijuana transactions within a state, but that issue has been litigated and the higher courts are of a different opinion. So, the feds can prosecute these cases if they want to do it. So far it hasn't worked out as they had hoped though. They turned Ed Rosenthal into a martyr and then were terribly embarrassed when he only got one day. Now it seems they are really making an effort to find people who are obviously abusing California's system so they can discredit it. Unfortunately they don't seem to have to look too hard to find abuse, human nature being what it is, but I don't think they're getting people worked up as much as they thought they would. People in California voted to have medical marijuana. For the most part I don't think those that put any thought into the issue really like the feds sticking their noses into California's business. I doubt the feds accomplish much with these prosecutions. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #33 posted by FoM on October 02, 2007 at 18:12:12 PT

CommonSense
I don't like Lobbyists. They try to pay people money to get favors. That reminds me of the movie the Godfather. We can stand on our own merit. This is a country full of people who care about many things and Lobbyists hurt causes and turn off those who might listen. I am not for sale and many people feel the same way. This is our country.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #32 posted by FoM on October 02, 2007 at 17:30:53 PT

Commonsense 
I don't know anything really about Peter Lewis except he has Progressive Insurance and that I do know. I am hoping that the Republicans get put in their place next Fall and fix their Party but if we get a good Democrat as president I believe we will see change. I don't pay any attention to anything anymore a Republican says after Bush. It's like a couple who have come to a point where there is no more trust and divorce is the only option. That's how I feel about Republicans and at this point in my life I will never think positive of them again. I am what you call totally turned off and it takes alot to totally turn me off because I try to be an understanding person.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #31 posted by Commonsense on October 02, 2007 at 17:04:21 PT

FoM
It's intersting that you think of the MPP as more of a Libertarian or Republican organization. Their principal donor, Peter Lewis, is a Democrat. I think what the MPP is doing is trying to appeal to more traditionally conservative people as well as those who are more liberal. I think it is critical to do that. This cannot be a liberal vs. conservative issue. It can't be something only Democrats would ever support but not Republicans, something Republicans will be against just because Democrats are pushing for it. And I tell you, there are plenty of pot smoking Republicans and plenty of Republicans who think marijuana should be legal. It would be a grave error to alienate these people. We're going to need help from people of either political persuasion. As for the MPP receiving more big donations than NORML, I think there is a reason for that. They are a more effective organization. NORML has done some really good things in the past, but they haven't accomplished much since the seventies. People want to put their money where they think it will go to the best use. They want tangible results.  
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #30 posted by FoM on October 02, 2007 at 16:05:01 PT

whig
The reason that I am fond of NORML is because how could I not be after getting rid of a 20 to 40 sentence to what it is today in my state. For me that seals it because I don't forget good things.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #29 posted by whig on October 02, 2007 at 15:38:43 PT

FoM
I have a lot more respect for NORML than most organizations that are purely political because NORML has an educational mission, such as what Paul Armentano does.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #28 posted by whig on October 02, 2007 at 15:35:15 PT

Commonsense
I wrote: "What I hear you say is that most people don't get harsh sentences unless the government wants to be harsh, and then they can be as harsh as they want to be in that individual case, which may be for political reasons."You said: "There is some truth to that, but it's not quite that simple. There are limits to what they can do. They can't give people more than the maximum sentence allowed under the law, and they'll never plead cases if they won't go a substantial amount lower than the max in plea deals..."Of course if they can stack charges..."When it comes to politically motivated prosecutions, the feds are probably worse about that. That's what's going on with the medical marijuana prosecutions. They're being very selective with those, trying to pop people who are very vocal about medical marijuana and trying to get the people they can paint out as big drug dealers. They want to intimidate people and discredit the medical marijuana system as much as possible. They want to stop the medical marijuana movement."Isn't this illegal? Is it acceptable in any way? How does this have anything to do with whether the laws are changed, when even in California where the laws have been changed, police continue to harass medical patients?
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #27 posted by FoM on October 02, 2007 at 15:21:04 PT

Commonsense
Thank you. My feelings about MPP are mixed. MPP seems to be a Libertarian or Republican Organization and I am more a Democrat so I don't get their strategy very well. As far as NORML goes it has been around since way back in the 70s and I respected the early work they did and my state was one of them that benefited. I don't think NORML gets much money to be able to do more but MPP gets alot of money so I can't compare the two Organizations. It's not fair to do that.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #26 posted by Commonsense on October 02, 2007 at 14:58:09 PT

FoM
They've been instrumental in getting a lot of marijuana initiatives passed. They've had luck in their lobbying efforts too. They've funded successful litigation too, like that in Alaska where the Alaska Supreme Court upheld a previous ruling that allows adults to possess up to four ounces of marijuana in their homes. That was a pretty big deal. They've done a good job with getting their message in print in newspapers around the country, getting on TV, etc. In the last couple of years I think they were instrumental in getting medical marijuana legislation through the Rhode Island legislature, and while their ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in Nevada in 2006 was defeated, they got 44% of the vote. That's a big deal. That sends a message that a significant percentage of the people want marijuana legalized. It may be a defeat, but it shows me there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We'll get there. They haven't worked any huge miracles, but they sure seem to have accomplished a lot more than NORML in the years since the MPP was founded.What are your thoughts on the MPP?
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #25 posted by Commonsense on October 02, 2007 at 14:02:53 PT

whig 
"What I hear you say is that most people don't get harsh sentences unless the government wants to be harsh, and then they can be as harsh as they want to be in that individual case, which may be for political reasons."There is some truth to that, but it's not quite that simple. There are limits to what they can do. They can't give people more than the maximum sentence allowed under the law, and they'll never plead cases if they won't go a substantial amount lower than the max in plea deals. Also, they've got to worry about what juries might do, because if they won't come off a charge that needs to be dropped or amended to a lesser charge, or if they won't give a reasonable offer, they're liable to get embarrassed at trial. If say the law says that if any one is caught with more than an ounce it is presumed to be an amount for sale, they have to worry that we could rebut that presumption and the closer the actual amount is to the statutory presumptive amount the easier it's going to be for us to rebut the presumption. If some guy has a couple of pot plants in his closet that are obviously for his personal use and the prosecutor is won't settle for anything but a lot of pen time, they've got to worry that I'm going to go in and get the jury to go along with a fine and a suspended sentence. Prosecutors hate losing. It's embarrassing for them because everyone in the system knows the deck is stacked in their favor. If they are entirely unreasonable and get spanked at trial they come out looking like real buffoons. It's happened to every one of them that has been in their job for any length of time and most of them would rather it never happen again, so usually we'll be able to get them to be at least somewhat reasonable in cases where they ought to be reasonable. And I have to say prosecutors are not all evil. There are some pretty good people who work as prosecutors. A lot of the younger ones have smoked marijuana and aren't all that hardcore about it. They have to do their jobs, enforce the laws, but a lot of them are fairly reasonable with pot charges unless the person charged is someone they really want to get, someone with a lot of priors, someone they believe is out there committing more serious crimes that they haven't been able to catch red handed with anything else, and so on. When it comes to politically motivated prosecutions, the feds are probably worse about that. That's what's going on with the medical marijuana prosecutions. They're being very selective with those, trying to pop people who are very vocal about medical marijuana and trying to get the people they can paint out as big drug dealers. They want to intimidate people and discredit the medical marijuana system as much as possible. They want to stop the medical marijuana movement. They don't want any new states to get medical marijuana and they'd love to get states with medical marijuana laws to rescind those laws. They don't care so much about these individual busts. They aren't really seizing huge amounts of pot in these things. But they are still spending a fortune on these cases trying to make them as solid as possible and trying to come up with as many charges as possible so they can really stick it to people if they feel that send the best message for them in a given case. This is more a power play and politics than anything else. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #24 posted by FoM on October 02, 2007 at 13:37:33 PT

Commonsense 
Can you tell me what MPP has done that impresses you in the last few years? 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #23 posted by FoM on October 02, 2007 at 13:31:29 PT

Commonsense 
I understand what you are saying. I personally try very hard to represent our cause thoughtfully and with the understanding that people read and we do influence them one way or the other. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #22 posted by Commonsense on October 02, 2007 at 13:19:40 PT

FoM, Nuevo Mexican 
The only way were going to fix all this is to legalize marijuana and treat it similar to the way we treat alcohol now. Things aren't going to change a whole lot until that happens. What we need to be doing is working toward that change. We need to vote every time the polls open up, both so that we can vote for initiatives that come up and for politicians more favorable to our cause and vote against those that hurt our cause, and so that politicians will recognize that marijuana users are an important group of voters whose concerns should be addressed. Those in the political machine go to great lengths to find out who is actually voting, what issues are important to them, etc. They are fully aware of the fact that pot smokers as a whole are less likely to vote than people from a lot of other groups. That hurts our cause. We need to really spread the word about voting and get everyone we can down to the polls, even those who have been busted and might have felony convictions because in many cases unbeknownst to them they are actually eligible to vote. I'm always hearing judges tell people that their felony conviction will take away their right to vote in the future but the fact is that in my state the law provides that as soon as someone has completed his sentence he may register and vote again. If you have a felony conviction learn what the laws are in your state on voting because it may very well be that you can vote even though you thought you had lost that right.A lot of people don't vote because they don't think they can, or they don't think it matters, or they'd rather sit at home and watch TV, whatever, but we need to get up and get people to the polls if we ever want to get these laws changed, even if that means dragging them out there. How many people can you help get registered to vote? How many people can you get to the polls on election day? Set some goals and follow through with them.We've also got to support groups like the MPP and NORML who are doing good work for our cause. I'm particularly impressed by the efforts made by the MPP. We need to support them financially, get involved in their activities, and listen to their message because they've done a lot of work in the area of finding out what works and what doesn't work with the general public and we should take cues from them in our efforts to convince people that marijuana should be legal. One thing in particular I think we need to work on is belaying people's fears about marijuana legalization. That's really what it all comes down to. There is so much opposition because so many are afraid of marijuana and what might happen if it does become legal. Notice how marijuana advocacy groups are really trying to clean up their image and only promote responsible use, reasonable, responsible laws, and so on. This very important. If we want society as a whole to accept people that use marijuana, or at least just leave people alone who smoke marijuana, they have to see that marijuana users aren't all bad, that there are plenty who are responsible, productive members of society, worthy people who ought to be left alone. Too many only know of slacker stoners or people who smoke pot that are always in trouble. They don't believe that the majority are good hard working people who contribute a lot to society. I think that will change more and more as we see more pot smokers becoming the "elders" of society. As people who smoke pot retire they are less likely to be so afraid that they will not speak up about their use and let people know that they've been responsible users of marijuana for years and have accomplished much in their lives. We need to promote these characteristics in ourselves and in people we know that smoke marijuana. We also need to be careful about what we say and what we promote. If people want to consider themselves marijuana activists, I would hope that they would consider that with that comes with a certain amount of responsibility. If you are a total screw up, you aren't going to be a very good spokesperson for the cause. If you promote use that is not responsible use, or that is likely to be considered highly irresponsible by the general populace, you aren't helping the cause. I don't mean to offend, although I know I will, but sometimes I read comments on this forum that just blow me away, things that I'll look at and think "oh please God don't let people on the fence about legalization read this," stuff that would scare people like that away. I read something like that in this particular thread, a comment made to me about smoking marijuana while driving, that everybody that does smoke tends to smoke in their cars, and that it's somewhat necessary with driving being so stressful. Nuevo, I'm sorry buddy but I just about fell out of my chair when I read that. It was one of those posts I didn't want to respond to because my momma taught me that if you can't say anything nice you ought not say anything at all.Think about it, you say you've been fighting to legalize marijuana for thirty years. What do you think the average Joe is going to say when he reads something like that? Is that going to make him more likely or less likely to go along with legalizing marijuana? I would agree entirely with the statement that marijuana is nowhere near as impairing as alcohol when it comes to driving, but this is one of the key things that people worry about with marijuana legalization. They worry that well have stoned drivers all over the roads killing people. We can ease that fear somewhat by educating people about the studies that have shown that low doses of marijuana might actually make people better drivers because people tend to be more careful and other studies that have shown that marijuana doesn't cause nearly as much impairment as alcohol, and that it actually inhibits risk taking behavior rather than causing it like alcohol does, but any ground we gain with that will be lost if we tell folks that everyone who gets high smokes while they drive and that we need to smoke pot because we can't handle the simple stresses involved in driving without pot. That's just a crazy thing to say. Pot surely never helped me drive better, especially if was really stoned while trying to drive, and certainly not everyone smokes pot while they are driving down the road. In my experience most don't do that, and it's certainly not something we need to encourage. It's a good way to get busted, it could contribute to accidents that harm innocent people, and saying things like that, promoting that sort of thing, is a sure fire way to turn people off that are coming around and starting to think that maybe we really ought to consider legalizing marijuana. I understand that this is a marijuana enthusiast forum mostly read by people who smoke marijuana, and probably the government who are always investigating those they consider "subversive." But other people stumble across this site too. I stumbled across it just playing around one day, and I'm sure many others do too. Type the word "cannabis" in Google and this site will be among the first few hits you get. People on this forum probably should be a little careful about what they say because you never know who might be reading it. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #21 posted by ekim on October 02, 2007 at 12:07:48 PT

Cheech on NPR right now (National publicradio)
Tuesday, October 2, 2007 This day in historyOctober 2, 1937: Samuel R. Caldwell becomes the first person in the United States to be arrested on a marijuana charge.
Link On this date 70 years ago, unemployed Colorado laborer Samuel R. Caldwell, was arrested for selling two marijuana cigarettes to Moses Baca. For his crime, he was sentenced to four years of hard labor at Leavenworth Penitentiary, plus a $1,000 fineThanks, Richard Lake
 http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #20 posted by whig on October 02, 2007 at 11:29:42 PT

Commonsense
What I hear you say is that most people don't get harsh sentences unless the government wants to be harsh, and then they can be as harsh as they want to be in that individual case, which may be for political reasons.Is that correct?
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #19 posted by FoM on October 02, 2007 at 10:07:56 PT

Commonsense
I appreciate all that you have been writing. How will we be able to fix this once and for all in your opinion? I want to see steps that can lead to change. Everyone has ideas but I just don't see a formula that can work at this point. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #18 posted by Commonsense on October 02, 2007 at 09:02:58 PT

Sinsemilla Jones 
You are opening things up a lot when you say "violent crimes." Violent crimes can be little silly cases where no one was really hurt where people aren't likely to even get any time in the county jail, or they can be crimes likely to get someone the death penalty. We were talking about murder before, and on average I don't think people caught growing get nearly as much time as people convicted of murder. Growing is one of those things where sentences tend to be all over the place. The federal laws are harsh and they usually stick it to people harder than most states, but the feds don't get involved with growing much unless the pot is grown on federal lands or unless they are really out trying to send a message like they are trying to do in the medical marijuana cases. State laws are all over the place. They might look at plant count like the feds do, or they might not. Growing a few plants is only a misdemeanor in a couple of states, a felony in most. The maximum possible sentences vary a great deal, and the way these laws are enforced will vary a great deal from county to county and even among deputy prosecutor or assistant DA's within a given office. In my state the maximum sentence someone can get for growing one plant or ten thousand plants is one likely keep them less than two years before they'll be able to make parole. That's just the underlying manufacturing charge though. The prosecutor can usually find other charges to hit someone harder, like possession of paraphernalia, possession of marijuana with intent, maybe maintaining a premises for drug sales and maybe even simultaneous possession of firearms and drugs. The firearms charge alone could carry up to life in prison. We don't get a lot of pot growing cases in my area. There is plenty of cheap pot around here. Mostly it's Mexican, but some of that is pretty darned good these days, and it's only $50 or $60 bucks an ounce if you know the right people. I'm assuming that most all compressed pot we see around here is Mexican, maybe a lot of it is grown in this country. Anyway, if you want to buy fancy "name brand" indoor grown pot it's probably going to run you a $100 a quarter or more in my area. Average incomes are low in my area and most people don't spend that kind of money on pot. They'd rather just keep an eye out for cheap Mexican that is above average which isn't hard to find at all given that we have so much of that stuff around to choose from. In late October through December there is a fair amount of more expensive outdoor bud around. Our state is one of those usually in the top ten for marijuana production, but most of it is not grown in the county where I work.  I'll get a few "marijuana manufacturing" cases though. Usually it's only going to be a few plants found in a closet or out in the woods somewhere. If it's only a couple of plants we can often get the case worked down to a misdemeanor provided the defendant doesn't have much of a criminal record. That's going to vary a lot depending on the prosecutor and what side of the bed he got up on the day we get the case worked out. Plant count doesn't matter under our statues, but it matters to our prosecutors, as does the level of sophistication evident in the grow. With little indoor grows, the more "ghetto" the grow, the better the deal I'm going to get. I know this is stupid, but hydroponics will usually get someone sent to prison. It can be some bubbler system the guy made from a Rubbermaid container and a fish tank aerator, but it's going to make police and prosecutors think "sophisticated marijuana lab" and juries tend to eat that crap up. High plant count will sink a guy too because it makes it really hard for us to convince the prosecutor that it was a personal use grow. It doesn't matter if the guy has a little sea of green setup in his closet with several plants per square foot that will only produce a few grams per plant, prosecutors are always going to imagine all of these little plants growing into great big plants. If it's only a couple of plants sometimes I can get the case worked down to a misdemeanor, with a few plants I might still be able to get a suspended sentence or drug court, and if someone does have to do some pen time usually he's going to get a sentence that will get him out in less than a year for a few plants, less than two for a bunch of plants. I think the biggest pot growing case I had the guy had somewhere around a hundred plants growing outdoors that they spotted with a helicopter. Some of the plants were around ten feet tall. It was enough to fill up the bed of a pickup truck with plants heaped up well over the top of the bed of the truck and hanging off the back. He was able to make parole in less than a year. They had him charged with charges that if run consecutively could have kept him in for a little over eight years before he was eligible for parole and he could have gotten fines approaching $200,000, so he was smart to plead. One of our juries would have hammered him after they saw pictures of that truck loaded down with pot plants.  Again though, the laws vary a lot between the feds and the states and among the states and the way the laws are enforced varies a lot from one area to the next. Are people punished too severely for growing marijuana? I think so, but of course I think it ought to be legal. Are they punished more severely than murderers? What punishment people get will depend on a lot of factors and will vary a lot throughout the country, but overall on average murderers are going to get hit a lot harder on average than people caught growing pot. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #17 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on October 02, 2007 at 05:57:08 PT

Commonsense
What about people who grow it, even in small amounts for their own personal use?Federal and most state laws for growing marijuana do seem as harsh as those against violent crime, both as written and as enforced.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #16 posted by Commonsense on October 01, 2007 at 22:45:39 PT

BGreen
In my state if someone is caught with more than one ounce there is a statutory presumption that he possessed the pot with intent to sell. But, no client of mine with thirty some odd grams of pot not split up into smaller bags to sell has ever been convicted of possession with intent to deliver for that, and I've had plenty of clients charged with possession with intent because they had over an ounce. I'll always get that dropped to simple possession if it's not much more than an ounce, unless there is some pretty good evidence that he really did intend to sell it. Prosecutors don't want to go to trial on cases like those unless it's a slam dunk. They don't like to try any case unless it's a slam dunk. It may be that things are different where you live. For instance, we have no mandatory minimums for pot cases where I live. I kind of find it hard to believe though that there are many places left in this country where they'd give people sentences that would keep them in prison for five years or more for possessing thirty some odd grams of marijuana. That couldn't happen in my area because the maximum sentence for under ten pounds of pot wouldn't keep someone in for five years, unless they were habitual offenders with four or more prior felonies. Even then they probably wouldn't get a sentence like that if they resolved their cases with a plea bargain, not for a relatively small amount of pot.I don't think people are being treated worse than murderers for pot cases as a rule. You can find cases where someone has killed a person and not gone to prison, but that isn't the norm. It isn't the norm for people caught with thirty some odd grams of pot to go to prison either. And, people caught selling pot don't tend to get just huge sentences either unless they are dealing in really large amounts. The feds can really stick it to people sometimes, but normally when you look at those cases you'll find that they've stacked all sorts of other charges in there too besides the marijuana charges, things like firearms charges, racketeering, etc. I can't recall ever having a client in state court though caught with less than a pound go to prison for that unless he had a lot of prior felonies or other more serious charges along with the pot charges. I have to say though that I don't get just a whole lot of marijuana cases. I might get a few dozen a year, but it only amounts to a very small percentage of my caseload. Like I said before we don't get many misdemeanor possession cases because most of those people won't get a public defender appointed because the prosecutor will tell the judge he isn't requesting jail time. When I do get them there are usually other more serious misdemeanor charges pending, or they are felony possession cases because it's a second or subsequent offense. Most of my drug cases are meth cases. That's what our local law enforcement are really looking for. Our local drug task force doesn't even go out and try to buy pot unless they get a line on someone who will sell them several pounds at a time, and that doesn't happen much. Most of the marijuana "possession with intent" cases I get are going to be drug mule cases where people will be caught on the highway with large loads stashed in their trunks, or hidden in legal loads carried by commercial trucks, whatever. Most of the other marijuana possession with intent cases I'll get are cases where the people will also be charged with something like possession of meth with intent and they happened to have a pound of pot laying around the house too when the police executed the warrant. The pot charge doesn't really matter in those cases because these people are looking at up to life in prison for the meth. Whatever sentence they get on pot will run concurrent with the meth sentence. Aside from the drug mule cases I really don't get just a whole lot of cases where the most serious charge the guy has is a marijuana charge. In the smaller felony marijuana cases where the marijuana charge is the most serious charge (or the only charge) if it's not one I can work down to a misdemeanor and I can't get probation, a suspended sentence, or drug court, I'm almost always going to be able to get the guy a sentence that will keep him in prison or a community correction center less than a year. Our average murder client isn't going to fair nearly so well.  Again though, I think it sucks that people ever have to go to prison for marijuana. I wish it was legal, and bet it will be someday. I just wanted to point out though that on the whole people caught with marijuana are not being treated worse than murderers. You can believe what I've said here or you can look at statistics like those you would find at the the University of Albany's Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. I don't have time to do a lot of research tonight, but the following link will show you that the mean and median sentences for murder are in the 240 month (20 year) range, compared to the 40 to 60 month median and mean range for drug traffiking in general which would include traffiking of the hard stuff: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t5482004.pdf
That's a great website for criminal justice statistics. Here's a link to their home page where with some searching you might find some more marijuana specific statistics: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #15 posted by BGreen on October 01, 2007 at 20:09:29 PT

I'm not talking simple possession
That's the major crock of crap that everybody throws out there. Where the hell does this small amount of cannabis come from that everybody wants to just look the other way about?If I have over 35 grams it's going to be treated as possession with intent to distribute. That's where the prison times longer than murderers come into play.So far this year two state troopers were mowed down and killed by “sober” drivers, and both murderers got probation for taking these lives.A mother in Springfield smothered her two-year-old to death because she “lost control” when he spilled his food, and this woman only got four years probation with no jail time!A woman beat her boyfriend to death with a baseball bat and only got three years in jail!People routinely get sentenced to mandatory prison sentences around here for "conspiracy to distribute" charges and serve five or more years without parole.You have an opportunity that most of us will never have. You are a part of this. You are them and they are you. You could very well get a job as prosecutor and the prosecutors leave to go into private practice as a defense attorney. It happens all of the time. You have the ear of the people perpetuating this barbaric travesty of justice.I can't tell you what to do, but I hope your conscience and moral fortitude will guide you to confront these purveyors of prohibition with wisdom and courage.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on October 01, 2007 at 19:52:31 PT

Commonsense 
Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #13 posted by Commonsense on October 01, 2007 at 19:34:03 PT

BGreen
"They'll say they smelled something or saw something, when in actuality they didn't."That happens. Some cops really are jerks that like to harass people. If they want to search somebody, they'll just make up a reason and do it, and some of them will sit there on the stand and lie about too. Unfortunately, judges usually believe them. These cases don't tend to go to court unless the cops actually find something, and judges tend to go out of their way to find that searches were reasonable. "What are YOU doing to stop this travesty? Do you openly question these cops and prosecutors to their faces on the logic (or lack of) of treating people who possess cannabis more harshly than even murderers?"I do what I can, but I don't write the laws. I've worked on my prosecutors in misdemeanor court and when I get simple possession charges I can usually get the cases worked out such that people don't lose their driver's licenses and such that their cases will end up being dismissed in the end without them having a criminal record, which is a really big deal in a state like mine where a second offense is a felony. Most of our prosecutors aren't that gung ho about marijuana. A lot of our cops don't care that much about it either. I make no secret of how I feel about our marijuana laws, and a lot of the cops agree with me. A lot of them rarely bust people for pot unless they are already arresting them on other more serious charges, or if the people tick them off. A lot of them will send people on their merry way. All I can really do is encourage that, and hopefully impress upon some of my clients how to avoid these types of troubles in the future.Now, as for people being treated worse than murderers for possessing pot, I haven't seen that, not for simple possession, and I'm in the Bible Belt where the laws are harsher and are actually enforced. I'm in a dry county where they bust people for public intox if they just smell a little like alcohol, where a lot of the cops don't drink and think it ought to be illegal, and where a lot of them of course think marijuana is the Devil's weed. When we have people show up for jury duty on a felony marijuana case the prosecutor will always ask how many people think marijuana ought to be legal and not one hand will go up, not one single person out of the seventy-five to a hundred people who show up will raise their hand and say marijuana ought to be legal. When they ask about medical marijuana maybe two hands will go up, and of course the prosecutors will use preemptive strikes to cull those potential jurors. Things are probably rougher on marijuana smokers in areas like where I live than in many parts of the country, but I don't see people being treated worse for marijuana possession than for murder. There are counties in my state where people will get a little jail time for possession, but none in my part of the state. The max is one year for a first offense, but in most parts of my state no one gets any jail time, unless they get their probation revoked by not doing something the court ordered or they get arrested again or do something like testing positive for drugs while on probation. On the felony cases, second offense or higher, people can end up in prison, but usually they're going to get probation and/or get stuck in drug court. I try very hard to work those down to misdemeanors, which unfortunately too often involves having my clients come up with money to "forfeit" or money that will be called "restitution" to the drug task force who probably had nothing to do with the case. Unfortunately money makes the world go 'round and of course that's tough on my clients who don't tend to have much money. The guys who get the worst treatment on marijuana crimes in my area tend to be the drug mules. They can buy better deals too, but most all of them will go to prison. I pled one recently who had nearly a thousand pounds and he got a sentence that should keep him in prison about three years, but our prisons are so full I wouldn't surprised to see him kicked out earlier to make room for new convicts. He'll also be deported since he is not an American citizen. Now, three years is a long time, but murderers tend to get sentences that will keep them in a lot longer than that, and had he have gone to trial one of our juries probably would have given him a lot longer sentence, and would have fined him probably the max of $150,000, which he would have never paid. I'm in one of the states where juries do the sentencing and our juries tend to max these drug mules out. They're just shocked by how much weed these guys are carrying. All these huge busts have kind of numbed our prosecutors though. They don't think of ten or twenty pounds as a huge amount whereas prosecutors in other counties where they don't nail a lot of drug mules would think they've gotten themselves a bonafide drug kingpin if they popped someone with twenty pounds. 
  
If I had my way, pot would be legal. They'd sell it at pot shops, and the guys that transport it down the highway would be treated no differently than the guys who drive the Budweiser trucks. I don't get my way though, not for now at least. All I can do is try to see that people aren't screwed in the system, that they get a fair shake. If I can prove someone's rights have been violated I try to get the cases dropped. If I have to plead a case I get people the best deals I can get them, and the deals have improved over time. If I have to try the cases I do the best job I can and I try to educate the juries as much as I can without pissing them off, because that's not in my clients' best interests. Things used to be worse. I work on the prosecutors, judges, cops, etc., to try to get them to be more reasonable in these cases and hopefully to get them to see how stupid all this is. That's really all I can do. Do you have any other suggestions?
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #12 posted by nuevo mexican on October 01, 2007 at 17:42:27 PT

Here's cops for ya!
Bah, humbug commonsense, drunk drivers kill, pot smokers are not a threat to other drivers, or I would get paranoid every time I see someone smoking in their car, which is often, especially on freeways where driving stress is high.Thanks for defending the pot smugglers, though we'd appreciate anything you can do to overturn the laws that get them arrested, as they are unjust, criminal, and if I wanted to take a SUV full of Vodka to California, who'd care, is it illegal, and why does quantity matter : only because of the drug cartel holding up price supports, with the help of law enforcement.Simple!I know it's 'stupid' to smoke while you are in a vehicle, but the stress of driving makes it somewhat neccesary, especially when it improves your driving skills, according to at least 4 studies! I know, change the law, blah, blah, blah......I've been actively working to change it for 30 years, though former Cop Mike Jones from LEAP is active here now, and is doing great work in that area.Cops bust people because everybody that does smoke, tends to smoke in their cars, regardless of the law, which is a whore, (no offense to male or female sex workers), thus, lazy cops ARE looking for the smell of weed, make their quota, and head for the donut shop. And we all pay the price, as we surrender our freedoms to paranoia, which is the goal, so be fearless, or suffer for your fears!Cops are the criminals, and they know it.Ever watch the TV show?This is the most revolting event I seen in the news, and I'm glad it's getting some coverage.This article is the worst situation I can imagine, yet, something that seems to happen to cannabis smokers all the time, so we should be VERY concerned when this happens, while 7 cops are in the next room, the woman screams for dear life, and is left to die.What is your take on this commonsense, your with the 'in' crowd!, you interact with cops all of the time I suppose, what do think 'really' happened?Gotbaum kin's plea before dying: I'm not a terrorist!
  
The daughter-in-law of one of New York's top officials screamed, "I'm not a terrorist!" and fought with security officials in the Phoenix airport before being wrestled to the ground and handcuffed, witnesses told the Daily News yesterday.Carol Anne Gotbaum, 45, of the upper West Side, died less than an hour later, after cops claim she apparently strangled herself while trying to escape from the handcuffs in a holding cell at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport."I'm not a terrorist! I'm a sick mom! I need help!" yelled the mother of three after she missed the 2:58 p.m. US Airways Express flight to Tucson, said airport workers who witnessed the confrontation Friday.They said one cop put his knee in her back to restrain her while others grabbed her flailing arms.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/01/2007-
10-01_gotbaum_kins_plea_before_dying_im_not_a_.html?ref=rssSame robo-cops, different uniforms, unleashed in Burma/Myanmar by china/bush thugs, the formerly Buddhist Myanmar military:It's worse than we know, and now bush has his template for 'murica! And we won't intervene, you can bet on that, since there in NOTHING we can do,according to the CNN pundits, just sit by, and let it happen and say, oh my! Glad it's not me! Burma: Thousands dead in massacre of the monks dumped in the jungleThousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand." 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php
?az=view_all&address=102x3012305OH, get ready for bush to bomb Iran, since noone can stop him, and noone will!Hersh: Bush’s Case For Hitting Iran Has ‘Shifted,’ Now Focused On ‘Surgical Strikes’ To ‘Sell’ It
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/30/hersh-iran-shifting-
targets/Have a nice day, regardless!And be at Peace with yourself, as it seems to be a temporary state of being for most, if you look at the on-going experience of the Monks, who have cultivated the highest quality Cannabis for Eons, thus, their ultimate wisdom, and of course, they pay the price as well.You are God, Cannabis is God, get over limited thoughts, as we are already prisoners of our own minds, until we free our minds with no limitations!Looking forward to the Monks prevailing, as whig says, and they will, as they know there is no 'death', only change, love, and light!
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #11 posted by BGreen on October 01, 2007 at 15:16:53 PT

Question for Commonsense
I have very personal experience with cops who couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it. They'll say they smelled something or saw something, when in actuality they didn't.You're basic hypothesis seems to be to let this subterfuge continue by laying low, and then, if we're "stupid," let the "white hat's" like yourself come to our rescue (at reduced pay, of course.)What are YOU doing to stop this travesty? Do you openly question these cops and prosecutors to their faces on the logic (or lack of) of treating people who possess cannabis more harshly than even murderers?The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #10 posted by Commonsense on October 01, 2007 at 14:10:44 PT

nuevo mexican ...on your next post to me
Regarding my figures, I don't have any. I just know that a good number of these arrests they are using in their calculations are actually multiple arrests on the same people. I don't know how we'd figure out exactly how many people have been arrested because we only have data on the number of arrests, not the number of people arrested. It's still going to be a huge number of people, millions. Maybe, 5, 6, 7, 8 million, I don't know, a lot. I didn't mean to get you all worked up here. I was just pointing out a fact, that arrest statistics don't tell us the whole picture. An awful lot of people who get arrested on marijuana charges end up getting arrested on the same charges later, often several times. I went on to give some of the same advice I'm always giving my clients who get arrested for possession. I suppose I could tell them to wear T-shirts with giant marijuana leaves on them and to always be smoking on big fat hog leg joints in public so they can stick it to the man, but I care about the people I represent and I don't want to see them get themselves into more trouble, and it's much worse when we're dealing with felony charges which is what second and subsequent marijuna possession charges are. And by the way I do not profit from marijuana being illegal. I am paid a straight salary, a low one at that. I've finished up over a thousand pounds worth of pot cases this month, mostly mule cases where people were caught with loads they were carrying across the country. I didn't get paid any extra to handle those cases. Most misdemeanor cases are handled without lawyers because typically in my area the prosecutors will not be requesting jail time on a misdemeanor pot charge so the judge will not appoint a public defender. I rarely ever get any of those unless there are other charges or if the prosecutor isn't there at the arraignment to tell the judge he isn't requesting jail time. Overall, defense lawyers don't exactly clean up on marijuana cases, especially simple possession charges. Private attorneys don't do that well on the bigger cases either because most everyone arrested will end up with the public defender. Defense attorneys will be fine when marijuana is legalized because there will still be plenty of people charged with crimes, just not so many charged with marijuana crimes. It's not that big of a deal. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #9 posted by Commonsense on October 01, 2007 at 13:18:20 PT

nuevo mexican 
What I was saying is that driving around smoking pot is a good way to get caught. Probably 85 or 90% of the marijuana possession arrests I see coming into court are cases where people were stopped and the cop smelled marijuana. It has to be the number one factor that leads to people getting caught. I didn't say anything about not protesting, not speaking out. I'm just talking about getting caught. If you want to go around showing everyone that you smoke pot, that's your business. Maybe if you live in a state like California where all you are looking at is something like a traffic ticket with up to a $100 fine it wouldn't be that big of a deal to get caught all the time. In my area you'd be looking at several hundred in fines and costs the first time you get caught, probation, having to pay for and complete a marijuana offender class, a six month driver's license suspension, and maybe even jail time if you get caught in the wrong town. In fact, everyone caught will go to jail until he bonds out because they won't just write a citation on a marijuana offense here. A second offense, even if it's been 20 or 30 years since your first offense, is a felony punishable by up to a $10,000 fine and several years in prison. I end up representing a lot of people on these, and yeah, it's frustrating to see how stupid people can be. Most people never get caught and I get these people that keep on doing dumb things bound to get them caught over and over again and I've got to try to keep them out of prison. 
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #8 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 13:16:26 PT

Buddhist monks in Burma
They will prevail. I am in no doubt about it.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #7 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 13:12:01 PT

nuevo mexican
Love does not cause an equal and opposite reaction, but a similar and reinforcing reaction. Karmic love is beautiful, don't you think?
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #6 posted by nuevo mexican on October 01, 2007 at 12:06:32 PT

Mars the Warrior just entered Cancer!
Sign of 'the people and Mercury, the Messenger has entered Scorpio, the sign of 'the Finger'!!Scorpio says, I'm done with your BS, over, finis, over and out! And I'm flushing the toilet NOW!And Mars will either attack or defend the people, depending on the level of brainwashing that television and big pharma have acheived.Thus, the next few months will see the people expressing their rage.It is time!Our minds are in harmony with our hearts!Fired up is right FOM, and you will see the people in the streets now, we are done with the BS, and the BSers, which includes everyone who does NOTHING to stop the madness!Thank YOU for ALL that you do, you are what we aspire to be FOM, leading by example!Commonsense in a public defender?How about defending the 10 million arrestees?If the figures are wrong, where are your figures, Commonsense?Wouldn't want him defending me!Why would he question these statistics, if anyone is, profitting from this situation, is it the legal profession!Not flaming, just countering his BS!Please read, Buddhist Monks may be dying by the thousands, but who would know, and would George Bush even care?
Yes, and I'm sure he's encouraging the military to 'go for it!'How do I know, just look at Iraq, 1 Million Dead Iraqis, and now Iran, where bush wants to guarantee the world is in flames by the time the Democrats decide maybe, just maybe, tomorrow, or the next day, we should, MAYBE, impeach him and hold him accountable!The Democratic Party has imploded, they do NOT exist!Maybe in name only!This is the world today, tomorrow and for the near future if people in the world don't see to it that we stop the bastards!If the images of saffron-robed mendicants braving police brutality seem oddly familiar, it is because Buddhist monks left their monasteries and led protests against political repression frequently in the 20th century. So great and prolonged was the suffering of war in Indochina that the Buddhist attempt to alleviate it may seem a distant memory. But it was the self-immolation of a monk in Saigon in June 1963 - rather, pictures of him serenely meditating as flames devoured his body - that first troubled America's conscience about what was then an obscure war.http://www.guardian.co.uk/burma/story/0,,2180723,00.html
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #5 posted by FoM on October 01, 2007 at 10:51:22 PT

nuevo mexican 
Please don't flame. Is there something in the water today that has everyone all fired up? I'm having a good day and I don't understand why people seem so upset. CS is a public defender and he is giving advice from his perspective.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #4 posted by nuevo mexican on October 01, 2007 at 10:42:04 PT

Commonsense doesn't have any......
sorry to 'flame', but this post was too much.Hide, don't protest, don't speak out, pretend every thing is okay, don't come out of the pot-smoking closet, be afraid, be in fear, hide your usage, don't let anyone know you smoke pot!You actually drive better, and safer, when your are high, as long as it's not your first time smoking and driving!These are the dumbed-down 'muricans I was talking about!Thanks for putting your less than 2 cents in!Smoking and driving doesn't appear to impair, unless you rolled a lousy joint, and have no experience.Duh....studies prove stoned drivers are safer, and yes, it is risky, though driving in 'murica is a high-risk form of behaving now, with people focused on their cell phone conversations, and spy cameras on every corner.Semis' weigh TONS, and kill many every year, (not Stick), are you saying, don't drive, you might get killed?Every action is a 'risk', and driving pissed off and irritated causes 'road rage'.Just the kind of post that gives me faith that 'muricans are 'getting it', NOT!Signed, disgusted with these people who call themselves fellow citizens!
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #3 posted by Commonsense on October 01, 2007 at 10:24:07 PT

I don't believe it.
"Since 1990 over 10.4 million Americans -- predominantly young people under age 30 -- have been busted for pot."I just don't believe that. There may have been that many arests, but not nearly that many were arrested. What has happened is that a lot of people have been busted several times. I see that all the time, people being arrested for pot who have been arrested several times before. Usually they were doing something stupid like driving around in their cars smoking weed. The vast majority of people who smoke marijuana never get caught, and never will. But the vast majority of people who smoke marijuana use good sense about it. They don't drive around in their cars smoking on three foot bongs. They don't cause a lot of problems and always have warrants out for their arrest so that police will either find it in their homes when they go and get them or on their persons or in their vehicles when they find them out on the streets. I hate to say it, but some people are just stupid and their stupidity is the reason they keep getting caught. Every once in a while someone who is careful will get popped, just an unlucky break, but most of the time the people I see in trouble for marijuana got caught because they were doing things likely to get them caught. Millions have been arrested and it shouldn't be that way. But for now anyway the law is what the law is and people who smoke pot need to use good sense if they want to avoid getting caught. Never smoke in a vehicle. Leave it at home as much as possible, and carry as little with you as possible if you do need to carry it. Don't hang around with people that get in trouble with the law. If you get a ticket or something like that pay your fines so you don't have warrants out for your arrest. Don't have wild parties that bring the cops out to your home, etc. If you'll use a little common sense and exercise a little care it is highly unlikely that you will ever get busted with pot.
[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #2 posted by nuevo mexican on October 01, 2007 at 10:14:38 PT

It's just an excercise in dumbing down 'muricans!
And 10 Million 'muricans go along, and get along, like good little doggies!I'm sooooo proud to be an 'murican!The biggest Prison population in the world, barely a headline, not a concern to most, just another story in the days long string of hopeless, brainless, racist actions on behalf of what we call the American Government!Can we call in World Leaders, and insist they stop this madness? Of course not, notice their lack of outrage, comment, or interest? They are no leaders, they are hand-puppets in the bush mafia crime family, no?These are the people who run our lives, and we expect to keep the world safe?WTF!Brave, fearless leaders, no problem with mass incarceration, lot's of people got jobs in the prison industry, so it's ALL GOOD!Yeah, that's it, black is white, wrong is right, and American Idol is what really matters, people don't matter, profits do!Coming to 'murica soon?
(you can't kill 1 million Iraqis' without some blow-back, so draw your own conclusions, and just think karmically, it is pretty basic, every action has an equal and opposite reaction)!The Monks Are Cut Off, and Burmese Clashes Ebb
BANGKOK, Sept. 28 — Myanmar’s armed forces appeared on Friday to have sealed tens of thousands of protesting monks inside their monasteries, but they continued to attack bands of demonstrators who challenged them in the main city, Yangon.Protesters continued to challenge authorities in Yangon Friday, after thousands of monks were sealed off in monasteries.Myanmar Clamps Down on InternetWitnesses and diplomats reached by telephone inside the country said troops were confronting and attacking smaller groups of civilians around Yangon, chasing them through narrow streets and sometimes firing at protesters and arresting them. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/world/asia/29myanmar.
html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=sloginWatch this movie, about a black janitor who was overlooked for murdering a 14 year old typing student, in order to convict the Jewish Northerner, a bigger prize at the time, some things haven't changed at all, just watch this movie and look at the Jena 6!Review:
A southern town is rocked by scandal when teenager Mary Clay is murdered on Confederate Decoration Day. Andrew Griffin, a small-time lawyer with political ambitions, sees the crime as his ticket to the Senate if he can find the right victim to finger for the crime. He sets out to convict Robert Hale, a transplanted northerner who was Mary's teacher at the business school where she was killed. Despite the fact that all the evidence against Hale is circumstantial, Griffin works with a ruthless reporter to create a media frenzy of prejudice and hate against the teacher. Written by Daniel Bubbeo {dbubbeo cmp.com} 'They won't Forget'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029658/The 'really big' picture!
www.zeitgeistmovie.com

[ Post Comment ]





 


Comment #1 posted by mayan on October 01, 2007 at 10:10:08 PT

War on Us
The war on cannabis is and always has been a war on people. This war is preventing ALL Americans from living in a sustainable society. THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...9/11 - Unusual volumes on Put Options just before the attack: Swiss study: 
http://infowars.net/articles/september2007/300907Unusual.htm9/11/2001: USA Today Reveals FBI Theory That World Trade Center Towers Destroyed By Explosives:
http://911blogger.com/node/11712FBI Thought Bombs Brought Down Towers On 9/11:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/011007_thought_bombs.htmWhy Did WTC 7's Rooftop Penthouse Collapse Ahead Of The Rest Of The Tower?
http://infowars.net/articles/october2007/011007WTC7.htmWTC 7 Defying the Laws of Physics:
http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=56965New 911 Footage Shows Demolition Truck Near WTC:
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/bartvanbelle/unseen_footage_9_11.aspxGary Hart warns Iranians to beware Cheney framing them as provocation for U.S. attack:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007092902615419
[ Post Comment ]








  Post Comment