It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do marijuana prisoners deserve amnesty?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:15 PM
Well of course you free them. The only things that are crimes are committed against another person or property that's not your own. There is no such thing as a crime against yourself…I mean come on really!?!?! How can you commit a crime against yourself? I feel the same way about any crime we prosecute against one's own self. As pointed out early in the thread the whole damn system is about money and control. It's used by government to control the population…to the degree they mean to control them to, which here is quite high. As long as your not harming anyone other than yourself or any property other than your own no crime has been committed and it's gross how some here on this planet use it to rape the freedom of others…especially since most of those controlling the system partake in them as much as the rest of us. Remember everyone here is a human from the world and as such are no different than those they rule over really.

posted on May, 1 2015 @ 12:15 AM
Yes, and good thread! The crime is in imprisoning people for refusing to stand under others regarding things that are their own jurisdiction to decide. So, its absolute evil and crimes against humanity that anyone is in jail for drug usage.

posted on May, 1 2015 @ 12:50 AM
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The "war on drugs" is the biggest fail in history, having the exact opposite result (by design) than what the propaganda machine spews.

With the way that marijuana has gone mainstream now, the only people who still believe that marijuana is bad for you are idiots.

edit on 1-5-2015 by Sublimecraft because: So simple to transfer one comment from one thread to another - that's the beautiful thing about MJ - and I have not touched it in about 5 years, but I am a PROUD legalization advocate

posted on May, 1 2015 @ 06:55 PM
Absolutely. When the death penalty was put on hold for 4 years in 1972 after Furman v. Georgia all death row inmates had their sentences commuted to life in prison. As a result even people like Charles Manson are eligible for parole. On a similar note, as a result of cannabis legalization for personal use by adults, those who are in prison as a result of violating those laws shod likewise have the associated sentences out aside. If the marijuana charge is secondary or a result of a separate investigation then the marijuana charges should be vacated and any beating they had on other charges should also be reduced to what they would have been without the association with the plant in question. If the marijuana charge is the primary charge and other associated charges are a result of the investigation into the marijuana then the subsequent charges should be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and thus vacated prompting immediate release.

As much as I disagree with the war on drugs and the disparity with which it is carried out, people still took risks, unless it is a minor possession issue but were that the case we wouldn't be talking about prison sentences, but the law was in fact broken knowing the potential risks involved so I can't see any sort of restitution being implemented. I realize that won't be a popular opinion but it's just my personal opinion.

Personally, what we really need to do is take a long hard look at Portugal's recent policy innovations regarding their own "war on drugs". They've drastically reduced prison recidivism rates, cut down considerably on new HIV, hepatitis etc. infections and transmissions, reduced overdoses and kept junkies off the streets in record numbers by offering supervised areas for people to use, needle exchange programs broadened availability of treatment for those who decide to seek it... It just seems like a no brainer except for the fact police and CO unions and their lobbyists are far more concerned with maintaining status quo and thus jobs than they are exploring what us right for society as a whole. Hell, if the CO's were smart, they would support it and look into switching over to working security at grow warehouses and dispensaries where the money would probably end up being better than working as a CO at county jail or the local state prison.

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 01:45 PM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Heroin, Meth & Crack dealers destroy peoples and families lives, they do not deserve any amnesty, let them serve their sentences.

However I do believe that Marijuana offenders should be granted amnesty.

I think it's absolutely stupid to fill up those overcrowded prison hell holes with people who are mostly not violent criminals. ~$heopleNation

edit on 2-5-2015 by SheopleNation because: TypO

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 02:01 PM

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I'd agree that they knew the consequences at the time, but have no issue with leniency on a case by case basis. Lumping them all together is a bad idea.

Gang members, hard drug dealers and the like deserve whatever they get, but someone who just uses a little MJ should have never been in jail.

I've reached the point I'd not be bothered if being in a gang added many years. Just being a member should add ten years to give the message they are not welcome in civilized society.

Pot heads, let them go.

Mmj friendly Michigan here.I completely agree.We have far worse threats to society right now than some mj smokers I'd say.

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 02:26 PM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'll go a step further. All non violent drug offenders with no further criminal record should be given amnesty!!

posted on May, 3 2015 @ 04:30 AM
The whole pot issue is a fiasco that many don't get how much harm they're doing by "protecting" us from it. Personally I'd prefer pot be illegal but only because stoners are so annoying and I hate how people giggle while on it : ) Since that's a pretty selfish and way unfair reason to have pot illegal however, I do hope it is legalized asap. But for reasons most people don't think of normally. With marijuana being the most often used street drug by far, it therefore funds and supports things that are so atrocious that people who fight to keep such a trivial drug illegal should hang their heads in shame and reflect:
What's worse, smoking a joint or
1. Child labor
2. Child slavery
3. Slavery
4. Gangs and cartels
5. Human trafficking
6. Indentured sexual servitude
7. Kidknapping (to work fields)
8. Much more

Because the fact it's all done black market means pots illegal status funnels millions a year to these things that are inevitable in places it's grown and routes it's trafficked through. Other drugs I have very varied opinions on but when alcohol kills tens of thousands more re: driving and cigarettes kill more re: health than for marijuana, I'm ready to just let it go. And I have been a while now. So amnesty? Hell yes when the same billionaires in industries that kept hemp away will (guaranteed) have their hands in the new marijuana industry and make millions selling in the metric tonnes a month while Joe Schmoe has 5 years of a life already short enough taken away for selling or smoking a few grams...nay, it's just too steep and unwarranted as it is but shouldn't be at all.

PS. Krazysh0t, you don't annoy me don't worry. In fact, any ATS stoners or habitual marijuana supporters get a free pass with my "pot people annoy me" thing.
edit on 5/3/2015 by AlexandrosTheGreat because:

posted on May, 3 2015 @ 04:37 AM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not including those prisoners convicted on Cannabis charges, but who have also committed violence against others in the enactment of the Cannabis 'crime', yes they should be freed and their records expunged (nice word that..expunged).

Violent Cannabis release, they serve the time given for the violent aspects of the crime.

Non-Violent Cannabis prisoners..immediate release.

But, this will probably happen only in a nation that has true justice...and that nation isn't America.

posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:07 AM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where I live people smoke pot freely and outside of cities it grows by the side of the road

No one enforces anything

posted on May, 3 2015 @ 05:08 AM
a reply to: Krazysh0t



No violent component to the 'crime' you were convicted for?

Out of jail with you Sir.


posted on May, 4 2015 @ 07:42 AM
a reply to: MysterX

Well said. That certainly wouldn't play out like it should.

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 03:29 PM

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: largo

Spare me your faux pas outrage. I was fighting these rights probably before you were born. I TOTALLY agree that this is BS BUT it's the law. Or was. Got caught breaking the law, do the time.

I will certainly agree that the crabby name-calling was completely uncalled for...yikes

So taking a gentler approach I have to say I disagree and here is why.

So in 2012, let's say a person had 10g on MJ and paraphernalia. The crime at the time was possession/intent/delivery or whatever host of charges they enter.

So if this person is convicted they will serve time (hypothetical of course)

Now...let's say tomorrow a guy is found with the exact same amount and paraphernalia. However, a day prior the new law went into effect saying this was no longer a crime. In this case the person walks free.

The problem I have here is two-fold

1. Person A was committing a crime that at that point harmed nobody. This point I do not argue one bit as your post clearly pointed out that you have been fighting for these rights. So I will move on

2. Person B did precisely the same thing and was not charged for a crime. I feel confident that you'd agree to the same. He was not breaking a law...hence no crime. The problem is that you've now set a precedent saying that having 10g is not illegal. This being the case, how do you not argue that Person A should be freed? The country HAD a law they thought should be a crime then realized that they were mistaken and realized it should not be a crime.

I know this is a bit of a stretch analogy but criminals who were mistakenly imprisoned and found out later were released so I guess I wonder why can the same precedent be applied here?

The country realized this isn't actually a crime. I feel it would be rather hypocritical for that same country to say to Person B, "here it's no big deal" but to Person A, "well it WAS a big just isn't now."

That's my whole point...thanks for reading and keep up that fight

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in