Doug Darrell Acquitted Of Marijuana Charges Through Jury Nullification In New Hampshire

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Try buying a gun to defend yourself or your family in Mexico... But hey you have full access to any drug you want and several competitors, if they don't kill each other or kill innocent people who find themselves somehow involved...

Yeah, because if we legalized it in the US, it wouldn't make the cartles completely irrelevant...I mean, who do you think their number 1 consumer is (hint: the US).

I guess we would have to worry about all the drive-by's that Marlboro would commit against Winston. Because, you know, that totally happens in a regulated market.

a reply to: MysterX

Why is it the uptight people that could benefit the most from Cannabis,

Are the very same people that want to keep it illegal ?

Mr. Rasta's example indeed...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: intrepid

Wow. A cogent thought.

Access and legality are 2 different things. EVERYONE has access. Ask round the precinct, they'll tell you. So, what's your point?

My point is that you can't see the trees in the forest in front of you. I know legalization will happen, it is exactly what tptb want. What better way to keep people like yourself content and obedient than by allowing you to get stoned.

They've already done that with pain killers. Marijuana would reverse that, and there is some evidence to support what I'm saying in one sate that legalized. The stats say that prescription drug abuse is down in that state, big time. Teens will get what they want no matter if legal or not. But that has nothing to do with anything except parenting. But adults should have the right to have marijuana. As sad as it is to say, I'd much rather see people smoke weed than drink. If I was going down a dark alley, and had a choice of who I wanted to encounter, between a liquor drunk and a pot smoker? I'll take the pot smoker every time.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: MysterX

Why is it the uptight people that could benefit the most from Cannabis,

Are the very same people that want to keep it illegal ?

Mr. Rasta's example indeed...

I suppose bad people just like to feel...bad.

Maybe it's a subconscious thing...they know they're wrong, won't admit it, and are subconsciously punishing themselves.

originally posted by: Senators
a reply to: onequestion



So let me understand this.



You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

Some laws should be disregarded. This is one of them.

originally posted by: Senators

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Senators

No, they're very relevant, especially when you're saying a majority of Americans want their representatives to makes marijuana illegal. You couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, you're just making it up.

Your "what if" scenario is irrelevant. Fact is, America has more people in prison than anyone else in the world, including North Korea. That's amazing! Another fact, the majority incarcerated are there because of failed drug laws, namely marijuana and to continue, they're mostly black and Hispanic. To support marijuana being illegal is basically supporting racism.

Tell me, why are you so against this? Are you anti marijuana or just a lawyer who fully supports any and all laws, no matter how unjust?

I am against individuals deciding which laws they want to follow and which they do not.

If you can not see the inherent flaws within that system I do not know what to tell you. Legalize it if you like, I have no problem with that in fact pass a law that is retroactive and set everyone loose...I have no problem with that either but when you have a system that convict some and let other's go for the same crime, that is wrong.

Would you want to be charged with a crime you know you didn't commit and have your fate rest on whether or not the jury likes the way you look or would you rather have them be forced to consider the evidence and make their decision based on that? What if the prosecutor dredges up some old stuff from your past that is not relevant and uses that to persuade the jury that you should be convicted anyways because "you deserve it", regardless of the lack of evidence?

That is exactly what you are advocating for with nullification.

In order to not flame you for stating a fabrication concerning the populaces' sentiment on Hemp, I ask the mods to rescind your comments. They are markedly lacking in merit.

Even your conceptions are plagued with preposterous scenarios of the 'strawman' variety.

Nullifying the governments efforts to convict without cause, to press a prosecution due to passage of now wholly baseless laws is inherent in the jury system. It is why we have juries. They are to see that the government does not exceed the parameters of justice.

Ok I have kinda lost the original taste of the thread but going to throw in my opinion.

If it is against the law it is against the law....religious reasons or not.

Jaywalking is against the law, (seriously was stopped and frisked for it in Vegas)...there is a reason for it.

Religious reasons..... My ass... if any religion says sex with a youngster is ok thats not ok

Its a plant.... so is a poppy, so that argument says heroine is ok...

advocates for marijuana say its all natural, must be healthy... So is Asbestos, Cyanide and Lava lol

Don't get me wrong, not a big fan of putting people in jail for pot, but it is against the law.

originally posted by: tinner07


Don't get me wrong, not a big fan of putting people in jail for pot, but it is against the law.

Alcohol used to be against the law. Things change! and as Dylan said "The Times are a Changin"

www.youtube.com...

Have you forgotten prohibition?

www.noalcohol.us...

originally posted by: tinner07

Its a plant.... so is a poppy, so that argument says heroine is ok...

advocates for marijuana say its all natural, must be healthy... So is Asbestos, Cyanide and Lava lol

Don't get me wrong, not a big fan of putting people in jail for pot, but it is against the law.

You're comparing a dried flower with a powerful opiate that's been chemically processed multiple times to get to the level of purity that makes it so dangerous. Not even in the same ballpark, seriously. If you had just stuck with the 'its against the law and they make laws for a reason so you should follow the law' routine it would have been a little more cognizant. No less ignorant but I could at least understand the rationalizing it takes to get to that thought process. The bottom line is that people like Thomas Jefferson and George Mason advocated so heavily for jury trials being part of the constitution for a very specific reason, because our peers are literally the last line of defense against legislators who don't have our best interests or wants in mind when its time to refill the campaign fund come reelection season. Jury nullification is not just a right of the people, its a mandate and our best protection from unjust laws. Just because something is legal or not, is more often than not irrelevant. Especially when we live in the era of the US Patriot Act which entirely defies the constitution. Jury nullification is our last chance of avoiding unjust prosecution in many instances.

So let me understand this.

You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

a reply to: Senators

Ummm... YEAH!!!!! lol - We are happy, as you stated, that POPULAR OPINION is determining what should be law in this country.... Instead of the capitalist agenda controlled by a few people that normally controls what you can and cannot do... Are you for real?

Popular opinion, is another way of saying Majority Rules - which I believe is what this country once claimed it's foundation to be build upon. Voice of the people makes a difference.

originally posted by: tinner07
Ok I have kinda lost the original taste of the thread but going to throw in my opinion.

If it is against the law it is against the law....religious reasons or not.

Jaywalking is against the law, (seriously was stopped and frisked for it in Vegas)...there is a reason for it.

Religious reasons..... My ass... if any religion says sex with a youngster is ok thats not ok

Its a plant.... so is a poppy, so that argument says heroine is ok...

advocates for marijuana say its all natural, must be healthy... So is Asbestos, Cyanide and Lava lol

Don't get me wrong, not a big fan of putting people in jail for pot, but it is against the law.

So what you are saying is that humans are infallible.

What about all the bad laws that then get fixed? What about all the women burned at the stake? it was the law? so your saying it was right because its the law?

So in your mind, anyone who is strong enough to take over, then make a law, makes the law right and correct?

I dont think you have thought your argument through very well.

originally posted by: Senators
a reply to: onequestion

So let me understand this.

You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

You call it "popular opinion" I call it common sense.

Charges like this are exactly what is wrong with our legal system. When people talk about stupid cases filling up our Courts, this is what they are talking about.

It is rather easy to prove my point by asking one simple question. Who is the victim?

I smoke a pound of marijuana in the privacy of my own home, who is the victim? Who have I harmed? Who's property did I damage? Who's rights have I infringed on?

Answer: No one. Maybe myself, but that is still up for debate.

If I decide to grow some marijuana in my closet, or on my property some place, who have I harmed? What did I damage? Who's rights have I infringed on?

Answer: No one.

These victimless "crimes" need to be done away with now.

a reply to: tinner07

It was against the law for Rosa Parks to sit where she wanted to on a city bus? Since the law is the law, was she wrong for what she did?


It is almost comical at the straws the prohibitionists are grasping at, though it is not funny because people still get arrested and imprisoned over a simple plant.

I've been on the wrong side of the law several times and have learned A LOT about how the legal system works. In my home state of Florida, cannabis arrests are a huge money making scheme for the court system/legal industry.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Some FEDs went to Colorado in an attempt to get the legal pot shops to sell to minors and break other laws. None of them took the bait.

This more or less debunks the claim that legalization will result in more minors having access to the recreational version of the plant.

originally posted by: tinner07
Ok I have kinda lost the original taste of the thread but going to throw in my opinion.

If it is against the law it is against the law....religious reasons or not.

Jaywalking is against the law, (seriously was stopped and frisked for it in Vegas)...there is a reason for it.

Religious reasons..... My ass... if any religion says sex with a youngster is ok thats not ok

Its a plant.... so is a poppy, so that argument says heroine is ok...

advocates for marijuana say its all natural, must be healthy... So is Asbestos, Cyanide and Lava lol

Don't get me wrong, not a big fan of putting people in jail for pot, but it is against the law.

In the State of South Carolina it is perfectly legal to beat your wife on the steps of the Court House on Sundays. Since it is not illegal does that make it right?

Obviously the answer to that is "no". Just because it is legal does not make it right. So doesn't the reverse hold true as well?

Now let us say I did choose to beat my wife on the Court House steps on a nice sunny Sunday afternoon. Let us say I did it, and I was even arrested for it. I go to Court, a jury then finds me guilty. How much of an idiot would I sound like if I were to say, "but it is not illegal. It is legal for me to beat my wife, I should not have any consequence at all." I think it is fair to say, most would call me an idiot.

That's how I feel when someone says, "but it is illegal."

Here is another law in South Carolina. This one says, when approaching a four way or blind intersection in a non-horse driven vehicle you must stop 100 ft from the intersection and discharge a firearm into the air to warn horse traffic.

People break this law every day in South Carolina. Should they all be prosecuted? After all, as you said, "If it is against the law it is against the law"

How about I choose some laws that are a little more closer to home? Did you know that in 17 States in the USA there are still "sodomy laws" on the books? In 17 States in the USA it is still illegal to perform or receive oral sex.

Think about that for a second before you make the argument that "the law is the law" because rest assured, you are a career criminal yourself. You just didn't know it.

a reply to: tinner07

Like some of these laws?

Follow them. You have no right to judge them otherwise. It's "against the law."

originally posted by: Senators
a reply to: onequestion

So let me understand this.

You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

Disregard what law? He's Rastafarian and his RELIGION dictates the use of Marijuana as a sacrament. The jury upheld his right to Freedom of Religion.
You're missing the point, Senators.

a reply to: MrWendal

How about I choose some laws that are a little more closer to home? Did you know that in 17 States in the USA there are still "sodomy laws" on the books? In 17 States in the USA it is still illegal to perform or receive oral sex.

That is precisely why you need a good Lawyer in every State.

I knew this guy that got arrested for Sodomy.

His Lawyer was so good he got it reduced to "Following too Closely".

originally posted by: tinner07
Ok I have kinda lost the original taste of the thread but going to throw in my opinion.

If it is against the law it is against the law....religious reasons or not.

Jaywalking is against the law, (seriously was stopped and frisked for it in Vegas)...there is a reason for it.

Religious reasons..... My ass... if any religion says sex with a youngster is ok thats not ok

Its a plant.... so is a poppy, so that argument says heroine is ok...

advocates for marijuana say its all natural, must be healthy... So is Asbestos, Cyanide and Lava lol

Don't get me wrong, not a big fan of putting people in jail for pot, but it is against the law.

The argument of comparing poppy to Marijuana is grossly incorrect and ignorant. One, marijuana is not processed. Poppies are processed to create Heroin. It's the same with Coca into Cocaine. Marijuana isn't processed, isn't physically addictive and along with the second active compound CBD, helps to curb pain by changing how our brains handle pain.

Religion is a basic human right and constitutionally guaranteed in our country, whether you agree with it or not! Comparing marijuana to pedophiles is a ludicrous. Why would you even draw a parallel between the two? Don't be ridiculous. It's quite unbecoming.

The fact is, this gentleman was afforded a right and a jury of his peers upheld that right. That's the way it's supposed to be. Marijuana is medically viable but faces numerous obstacles thanks to special interests and small minded folks who suffer from a closed mind and an open mouth, if you follow. I've smoked pot for 22 years, have a high IQ and it helps me to slow down and relax. When speaking of health risks, marijuana has been medically proven to combat lung, brain and breast cancer and recent cases suggest that it helps children with seizures.

a reply to: Senators

So you will abide by all laws, no matter how stupid?

So, for example, if you are in New Jersey you will honk when before passing another car, bicyclist, skater or skateboarder?

Most places have lots of stupid and outmoded laws. In most cases common sense is allowed to prevail and infractions are ignored by law enforcement. And in the OPs case, the law was seen as stupid and outmoded by the jury and they voted as such.