Jury refuses to convict for marijuana possession

[7StringedBeast]

You all have to realize this was a jury panel saying they wouldn't be able to convict the guy.  NOT THE SELECTED JURY.  There is a difference.  You are allowed state your philosophies and then they choose whether or not you would be good on the panel.  So they were indeed doing their jobs as citizens being considered to be on a jury.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

The juries job is to interpret whether the law is just.  They are a part of the judicial system.  If they don't believe someone deserves to go to jail then that person shouldn't go to jail.  Otherwise we wouldn't need a jury.

Also, the laws on murder aren't as defined as you say.  If a person kills in defense, they still committed homicide, but the jury can decide whether they should go to jail. 

On gateway drugs:  That's BS.  It's flipping the statistics to make them say what they want them to. 
True, MOST people who are on hard drugs started with marijuana, however MOST people who tried marijuana did not go to heavier drugs.

Either way, is anyone hurting you for smoking pot?  No, so let them do to themselves what they fucking want.  Stop damning everyone who isn't as perfect as you.  Why tell your brother of the speck of sawdust in his eye when you have a plank in your own?

Bold #1: as Bosk already explained: that's not their job.

Bold #2: I'll repeat this even though I just posted it: It's not causal, but it's correlated, and you could, potentially, prove causation.

Bold #3: That's uncalled for. One more comment like that and you're out of this section

[7StringedBeast]

There is definitely no proof the Marijuana leads to doing harder drugs just by the fact that someone smoked Marijuana.  That doesn't make any sense. 

It has everything to do with the personality and circumstance of the person.  One person might smoke weed once and never do it again, another might smoke it all the time, another might move on to harder drugs.  But that has nothing to do with pot itself and everything to do with willpower and personality and circumstance.

[icysk8r]

The juries job is to interpret whether the law is just.  They are a part of the judicial system.  If they don't believe someone deserves to go to jail then that person shouldn't go to jail.  Otherwise we wouldn't need a jury.

Also, the laws on murder aren't as defined as you say.  If a person kills in defense, they still committed homicide, but the jury can decide whether they should go to jail. 

On gateway drugs:  That's BS.  It's flipping the statistics to make them say what they want them to. 
True, MOST people who are on hard drugs started with marijuana, however MOST people who tried marijuana did not go to heavier drugs.

Either way, is anyone hurting you for smoking pot?  No, so let them do to themselves what they fucking want.  Stop damning everyone who isn't as perfect as you.  Why tell your brother of the speck of sawdust in his eye when you have a plank in your own?

Bold #1: as Bosk already explained: that's not their job.

Bold #2: I'll repeat this even though I just posted it: It's not causal, but it's correlated, and you could, potentially, prove causation.

Bold #3: That's uncalled for. One more comment like that and you're out of this section

@1: Well I believe it is, or should be.

@2: I do not believe it is correlated in any way or else most people who have smoked marijuana would have went to heavier drugs.  This is not the case.  While I believe you can find correlation as with the misleading statistics, I don't believe they are directly in correlation.

@3: I'm sorry if that came off as a personal attack.  It wasn't intended to be.  That's me stating a general rule for how I think all people should be, and was in no way directed at you.  In fact, I had only seen Orbert's post against gateway drugs and I was agreeing.  I didn't see yours.
The bottom line is people are way too damning.  They put everyone else down to make themselves seem holier. 
If the warning wasn't because my post was perceived as a personal attack, then please explain why it is offensive.

[El Barto]

And I didn't suggest using drugs to treat depression (although an enormous chunk of the population thinks otherwise).  I suggest using whatever means helps one to relax and de-stress.  Be it drugs, alcohol, peaceful contemplation, blowjobs, or whatever else might help one to unwind.

Truth be told, I suspect that if more people were able/willing to incorporate such into their lives, there would probably be a helluva lot less people popping SSRI's and feeding their kids amphetamines. 

[7StringedBeast]

drugs are....good?  mmmkay?

lol no but the thread title is seriously misleading because a jury was never formed.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

And I didn't suggest using drugs to treat depression (although an enormous chunk of the population thinks otherwise).  I suggest using whatever means helps one to relax and de-stress.  Be it drugs, alcohol, peaceful contemplation, blowjobs, or whatever else might help one to unwind.

I know you didn't. I was responding to Chino's quote.

@1: Well I believe it is, or should be.

Do you really trust the average citizen to decide whether or not a law is constitutional? Most of them couldn't even tell you when judicial review was established! To put it bluntly, the average person isn't smart enough to decide whether a law is fair, constitutional, etc, or not

[Adami]

Icy, PLM is right. If every jury decided whether a law was just or not, then the south would be a terrible terrible place.


Well.....a more terrible terrible place.

[Orbert]

Humans today have way more shit on their plates than any generation before us. We have the highest stress, anxiety, and depression levels ever. Sometimes, it can be more than overwhelming for people, it could be harmful. Too much negativity will wreak havoc on the brain, and physically damage the rest of the body as well. If a little pot could prevent those symptoms, even for a few hours a day, why wouldn't it be encouraged? I would trust it more than the half dozen or so medications I have had to take over the last few years.

Sooo, we should turn to drugs when we're depressed? That seems like a good idea.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, since you seem to think that drugs are evil and bad and wrong just because they're illegal.  Explain why it's any worse than alcohol, without falling back on the lame "because drugs are illegal."  Legal does not equal good or right, and illegal does not equal bad or wrong.

They don't do hard drugs because they smoked pot; they just smoked pot first.  I know dozens of people who smoke pot, who have tried coke, pills, even acid, and have just stuck with pot.

Maybe it's not exactly causal, but there's certainly a correlation. But, as you said, they at least TRIED it. That's bad enough.

Oh, and the government tells us what's right and wrong all the time. It's not limited to drugs.

Why is trying something bad?  Part of having a life is actually living, which requires you to try things from time to time.

The government never tells us what's right and wrong; they can only tell us what's legal and what's illegal.  Those are most definitely not the same thing.

I noticed that you completely ignored my comparison to prohibition.  Why?  Because it didn't fit with your limited view?

[icysk8r]

And I didn't suggest using drugs to treat depression (although an enormous chunk of the population thinks otherwise).  I suggest using whatever means helps one to relax and de-stress.  Be it drugs, alcohol, peaceful contemplation, blowjobs, or whatever else might help one to unwind.

I know you didn't. I was responding to Chino's quote.

@1: Well I believe it is, or should be.

Do you really trust the average citizen to decide whether or not a law is constitutional? Most of them couldn't even tell you when judicial review was established! To put it bluntly, the average person isn't smart enough to decide whether a law is fair, constitutional, etc, or not

No, but when an entire panel of jurors decides a law is no good then it's obvious there should be some review here.

[Chino]

I never said it was really harmful; I said I didn't like it.

And regardless of what a lot of you might think, it does act as a 'gateway' drug for a lot of people.

and I've seen one of my friends high before; he acts and talks like a fucking idiot. And he's smart otherwise. It dumbs him down. So why would I think it's a good thing? I'm all for feeling good, but damn there are other ways to do it

To quote a noteworthy Vulcan, "the more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play."  We all find ways to dumb ourselves down from time to time.  Personally, I find it quite beneficial whatever the method.  

And I find the gateway effect to be completely specious.  

Exactly. Humans today have way more shit on their plates than any generation before us. We have the highest stress, anxiety, and depression levels ever. Sometimes, it can be more than overwhelming for people, it could be harmful. Too much negativity will wreak havoc on the brain, and physically damage the rest of the body as well. If a little pot could prevent those symptoms, even for a few hours a day, why wouldn't it be encouraged? I would trust it more than the half dozen or so medications I have had to take over the last few years.

Sooo, we should turn to drugs when we're depressed? That seems like a good idea.

Should we turn to "drugs"... no, not at all. Have a joint here and there instead of being on a daily prescription of zoloft... Yes.

[Adami]

Or just be a man and repress all of your feelings until they randomly explode in violent rages, usually at family affairs such as weddings and christenings.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

@Orbert:

I'll be one of the first people to say that alcohol is just as dangerous if not moreso than most drugs. I'd be perfectly fine with prohibition being reinstated. Alcohol's harmful effects on people's judgement I've seen firsthand, and believe me I don't think even being drunk at all should be legal.

But that's my point of view.

I really resent people calling my views 'limited'. There's a lot of personal feelings (and experiences I don't wish to go into...) behind my views and just because I happen to be the one conservative where drugs are concerned I'm being villified.

@Chino:

I fail to see how dope is a better option than a prescription medication. Pot's effects on the brain don't really make it a feasible alternative, no matter how relaxing it may be. Besides, I've been clinically depressed before. There are other ways of dealing with depression than just turning to drugs; that's the 'easy' way out, as my parent's would tell me...

[orcus116]

Are you trying to bring back Puritanism?

[Orbert]

I really resent people calling my views 'limited'. There's a lot of personal feelings (and experiences I don't wish to go into...) behind my views and just because I happen to be the one conservative where drugs are concerned I'm being villified.

You're being villified because you are presenting a very, very limited view.  If you resent that, bummer, but you know damned well that it's true, so I'm not sure what the problem is here.  

You've said that our lawmakers in Washington decide what is right and wrong.  This is just plain incorrect.  They decide what is legal and illegal.  If you blindly equate that with what is right and wrong, then that is a limited point of view.  You are intentionally choosing not to entertain other viewpoints, refusing to even discuss them; that is pretty much the definition of a limited view.

You've stated that drugs, all drugs, are bad, and made vague references to some experiences you've had and/or seen that have brought you to that conclusion.  Fine.  But if something brings happiness to people, harms no one, and occurs in such a way that you are not affected at all by it, yet you still pronounce it bad because of something that happened which is completely irrelevant and unconnected, and refuse to budge from that position, then that is a limited point of view.

Explain to me how something which brings people joy to people and harms no one is bad.  Not because it turned out bad for someone else you knew, not because it's bad in your opinion, but bad in all circumstances and in every single case, which seems to be your position.  If you cannot do that, it is because your view is limited.  You cannot accept that things aren't always black and white.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Fine.

My best friend in high school was someone who was well liked, did well in school, and otherwise had a good life. He was smart, and was someone who always had something good to say in our philosophy class. He was a really deep thinker. Some time in our senior year he started smoking pot. Not ever having done it, but only hearing about from our school, I was already wary about it. It alters your mind state. That is FACT. One day, he invited me over to his house to jam, which we did frequently, and so I went over there. He was already high, having smoked before I got there. And I swear to god, the shit he was saying... He turned into the biggest conspiracist when he was high. And the funny thing is, he thought he sounded SO smart. He was saying shit that was really fucking dumb. I can't remember what was said specifically... it was a few years ago, but I remember thinking he was fucking retarded.

ANYWAY

One day we were talking about his pot use, and he mentioned that he had driven high before. I was like, well, doesn't that make you a worse driver? Much like when you're drunk? He said no, that it actually made him more safe because he was 'more aware' of his surroundings. I don't really get it... But regardless, one day he was driving, coming home from some sort of party, and he must have smoked something good, because he blacked out on the road and ran headfirst into a fucking tree. He nearly died. But did that stop him? Fuck no. He was convinced that the drug was safe. And, moreover, he started doing LSD, Cocaine, etc. He finally got clean last year... Or so I hear. I haven't talked to him since high school.

So, please, do NOT tell me it's perfectly safe. Just because YOU have never had a bad experience doesn't mean that it' perfectly fucking safe. It's not. I've seen it firsthand. Harms no one... tell that to him

[orcus116]

I'll drink to that.

[El Barto]

In 28 years, I've never blacked out from smoking dope.  Nor have I ever heard of one of my friends blacking out from smoking dope.  It just doesn't happen.  My guess is that your friend blacked out (or fell asleep) for some other reason.  However, if you want to suggest that smoking dope and driving is dangerous (though statistics on that are actually quite interesting--different topic, though), then so be it.  But then so are plenty of other substances.  TheraFlu will put me out before I can even finish a cup of it.  I don't hear anybody clamoring to outlaw benadryl. 

I understand that you've had negative experiences with your friends and dope, and I'm not calling you out for your opinions.  I do think you're misguided in extrapolating that pot is automatically a bad thing, though.  Like all things, it can be good or bad, and it's up to the individual to sort that out.  Certainly not Uncle Sammy. 

[Quadrochosis]

I understand that you've had negative experiences with your friends and dope, and I'm not calling you out for your opinions.  I do think you're misguided in extrapolating that pot is automatically a bad thing, though.  Like all things, it can be good or bad, and it's up to the individual to sort that out.  Certainly not Uncle Sammy. 

The wisdom of this man is insurmountable.

[William Wallace]

@Orbert:

I'll be one of the first people to say that alcohol is just as dangerous if not moreso than most drugs. I'd be perfectly fine with prohibition being reinstated. Alcohol's harmful effects on people's judgement I've seen firsthand, and believe me I don't think even being drunk at all should be legal.

The amount of crime that went along with prohibition was staggering; the same is true for drug prohibition today. So in the name of keeping everyone healthy and safe, let's do things to make violent crime more likely. Ridiculous.

[ack44]

It alters your mind state.

Yup, that's the best part.

And I think that's pretty much the definition of a psychoactive drug (which includes caffeine, something I make use of on weekday mornings).

[Orbert]

So, please, do NOT tell me it's perfectly safe. Just because YOU have never had a bad experience doesn't mean that it' perfectly fucking safe. It's not. I've seen it firsthand. Harms no one... tell that to him

I never said it was perfectly safe or that it harms no one.  I said that there's nothing wrong with someone doing something in the privacy of their own home which they enjoy and which harms no one.  This whole thing started with a guy who had enough pot on him to get high once, but they would send him to prison for it before he had actually done anything to harm anyone.

You are saying it's always bad just because you know of one case where someone obviously took it way too far.  For that matter, there are people who are literally addicted to the Internet; they spend so much time online that they let their kids die of starvation.  Therefore the Internet is always bad and should be shut down.  There are people who sit on their fat asses all day watching TV instead of looking for a job.  Getting fat is bad, therefore TV is always bad and should be illegal.

Anyone can come up with an example of someone taking it too far, with bad results.  That doesn't make it always bad.  But that is your position, and that's why people are disagreeing with you.

[7StringedBeast]

I agree, just because something isn't perfectly unsafe doesn't mean it should be illegal.  Otherwise we should get rid of driving altogether.  Boating, Bunjee jumping, sky diving, roller coasters, trains, etc should all be illegal as well if that is the reasoning behind making something illegal. 

People will always make stupid decisions no matter if they are sober or on drugs.  This is the nature of the world.  There should be nothing wrong with smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home and listening to some tunes.  How in the world is that a bad thing?

It only becomes bad with abuse.  Just like EVERYTHING.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

So, please, do NOT tell me it's perfectly safe. Just because YOU have never had a bad experience doesn't mean that it' perfectly fucking safe. It's not. I've seen it firsthand. Harms no one... tell that to him

I never said it was perfectly safe or that it harms no one.  I said that there's nothing wrong with someone doing something in the privacy of their own home which they enjoy and which harms no one.  This whole thing started with a guy who had enough pot on him to get high once, but they would send him to prison for it before he had actually done anything to harm anyone.

But see, it was in his own home, or someone elses home, at least... But he brought it outside.

Maybe I'm inflexible about this sort of thing. But I just can't justify it with what I've experienced.

[bosk1]

For the record, I agree with PLM that mind-altering drugs of any kind should not be used, unless for medicinal purposes (and, yes, although this may seem inconsistent with what people may perceive a "conservative" should believe, I think pot is probably valid for medical reasons).  And, yes, I would include alcohol in that, and I think prohibition failed because the government had absolutely no will in truly enforcing it.  I don't care to debate the point, but just wanted to post some support for PLM who seems like he is completely out on a limb by himself on the subject.

[7StringedBeast]

So, please, do NOT tell me it's perfectly safe. Just because YOU have never had a bad experience doesn't mean that it' perfectly fucking safe. It's not. I've seen it firsthand. Harms no one... tell that to him

I never said it was perfectly safe or that it harms no one.  I said that there's nothing wrong with someone doing something in the privacy of their own home which they enjoy and which harms no one.  This whole thing started with a guy who had enough pot on him to get high once, but they would send him to prison for it before he had actually done anything to harm anyone.

But see, it was in his own home, or someone elses home, at least... But he brought it outside.

Maybe I'm inflexible about this sort of thing. But I just can't justify it with what I've experienced.

See bolded.  HE brought it outside.  This was a decision HE made.  Not pot.  We have to start putting the responsibility on the people who make decisions and not pot.  It's just making excuses at that point.  Oh he beat his wife because of alcohol.  No he beat his wife because he chose to get drunk and out of control and hit someone.  It's not alcohol's fault.  It's the person's decision to consume copious amounts.

[El Barto]

For the record, I agree with PLM that mind-altering drugs of any kind should not be used, unless for medicinal purposes (and, yes, although this may seem inconsistent with what people may perceive a "conservative" should believe, I think pot is probably valid for medical reasons).  And, yes, I would include alcohol in that, and I think prohibition failed because the government had absolutely no will in truly enforcing it.  I don't care to debate the point, but just wanted to post some support for PLM who seems like he is completely out on a limb by himself on the subject.

Prohibition failed because market forces make it impossible to succeed.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

For the record, I agree with PLM that mind-altering drugs of any kind should not be used, unless for medicinal purposes (and, yes, although this may seem inconsistent with what people may perceive a "conservative" should believe, I think pot is probably valid for medical reasons).  And, yes, I would include alcohol in that, and I think prohibition failed because the government had absolutely no will in truly enforcing it.  I don't care to debate the point, but just wanted to post some support for PLM who seems like he is completely out on a limb by himself on the subject.

Prohibition failed because market forces make it impossible to succeed.

I think it failed more though because of a lack of enforcement. Had enforcement been stepped up I don't think it would have been AS bad. Though it probably would still have been a problem

[7StringedBeast]

For the record, I agree with PLM that mind-altering drugs of any kind should not be used, unless for medicinal purposes (and, yes, although this may seem inconsistent with what people may perceive a "conservative" should believe, I think pot is probably valid for medical reasons).  And, yes, I would include alcohol in that, and I think prohibition failed because the government had absolutely no will in truly enforcing it.  I don't care to debate the point, but just wanted to post some support for PLM who seems like he is completely out on a limb by himself on the subject.

Prohibition failed because market forces make it impossible to succeed.

I think it failed more though because of a lack of enforcement. Had enforcement been stepped up I don't think it would have been AS bad. Though it probably would still have been a problem

It couldn't be enforced because the mafia had the cops in their pockets, and the ones they didn't were getting into shootouts with them.  Anyways, its like pot now.  No one can end the use of pot, just like no one can end the use of alcohol.

[Chino]

Prohibition fails when there is no need for it....

[El Barto]

The mob owning the cops was just one aspect of the market preventing prohibition from being possible.  PLM says that it was a lack of adequate enforcement.  No matter how much they increased their prohibition efforts, the cost of alcohol would have gone up enough to further the mob's efforts to provide firewater to the people who wanted it.  It's a simple equation.  As long as the vice is more popular than it's prohibition, you'll never be able to outspend the providers.  The only way it could have worked would have been to tax the people so much they had no money left to blow on illicit booze, and that would have lasted at most 4 years.  

You really don't need look further than Mexico to see this in action.  The cartels are outspending the government.  If they manage to make a bag of coke more expensive, then that'll just be more money for Cali guns and paid off cops.  Prohibition can only be accomplished from the demand side.  Not the supply side.  

[Chino]

Do cops still get paid off today?

[El Barto]

Do cops still get paid off today?

More like corruption than plane and simple bribery.  Though some of these guys were on Suge Knight's payroll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources_Against_Street_Hoodlums
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal