35 Year Sentence for 4oz of Pot: Reasonable?

Alcohol doesn't kill brain cells. But it is a terrible and destructive drug if not used in moderation and sensibly. I would like to know if those against drugs are against alcohol aswell? I can imagine a a large portion would not be yet it is by far the biggest killer and causes many ills in society...when abused. To illustrate the point that any drug can be detrimental to you if not used properly. When i was at school quite a few years ago i had a couple of friends. One smoked marijuana day in day out, since he woke up until he went to bed. He was ridiculously mentally addicted to the stuff that he could hardly function unless stoned and long story short, it ruined his life, i have not seen him in years now though. Where as i had another friend who on a Friday and Saturday night would take ecstasy and coc aine. That was the only time he used drugs and he is now doing quite good for himself, they were never detrimental to his life because he used in moderation. A tad off topic but threads like these always get side tracked i guess as the subject of drugs is very intricate

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by TheComte

 

I believe that the punishment for drug use should be no more harmful to the individual than the drug itself.

the annual death toll every year due to consumption and smoking of marijuana is zero.

Originally posted by indigothefish
....sure people die in crimes that are drug related...

Yes they do. And it's sad, as the deaths are only due to the illegal nature of the "business". If it was legalized, then it could be regulated, taxed and would remove the violent element from the equation. Too many ups for legalization and too many downs for criminalization.

this man does not deserve jail time for possession of a crop.

We had better watch out...corn may be next.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Aggie Man]

This is just insane imo. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles and such get less and serve even less. I hope this guy gets parole or someone helps him out because he shouldnt have to spend the rest of his life in jail for pot! Give him probation and a huge fine or something...not 35 years! It just shows the legal system is messed up and needs to be fixed. How in the world does one get 35yrs for pot possession and a rapist gets about 10? A childhood friend of mine was raped and abused and her attacker only got 5yrs! This is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
You've gotta keep this in context... When you pull a situation like this out and say "OMG, this verdict is RIDICULOUS", you don't know the local circumstances.

I mean, down in Tyler, Texas, maybe this guy is a perpetual fekk-up, a repeat offender, a hustler, a gangster, whatever. Maybe he refuses to pay alimony and his ex-wife is spreading hate about him. Maybe he's a local organized crime figure. Maybe every damned body in Tyler, Texas — including the judge & jury — knows this fekkhead deserves a life sentence. Maybe he's a really bad guy and everybody hates his ass, and they are wanting to send him away — you know how local court systems work.

Haven't you known a guy who you wished would get busted for something? For anything? He's such a pain in the ass that everything would be better if he went away to prison!
Hell, yeah, you know people like that.

Maybe that's what this guy is... A schmuck who needs to go to prison, and they finally tagged him for a meager few ounces of herb. There may be people praising God that this clown is going up the creek.

You never know.

It aint about justice, it's just about processing data.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 3/9/2010 by Doc Velocity]

I heard that down in Texas they were trying to enact the "he needed killin defense." Not a far stretch from what you are thinking.

I am with you if that is the case, and there is a big difference between personal consumption and dealing. Not in court, but in my mind at least.

reply to post by endisnighe


In some cases the jurry can decide the law's validity, but only how it applies to a case. As in, is this really a violation of that law. If two kids spray pained "down with USA" on a garage door and they were being charged with making terrorist threats, the jurry could decide that the law was not broken and come back with a not guilty verdict, they do not decide that making terrorist threats are legal.

They do not decide that X is legal. For example if a man was on trial for murder and there were 200 wittnesses and 300 high deffinition video recordings of the incident and the defendant made numerous death threat to the victim. If the jurry in that case came back with a not-guilty verdict the judge could overrule the jurry. It is called J.N.O.V.

I just don't understand this, i mean marijuana is perfectly fine but yet millions of people all over the world die from alcohol and tobacco smoke but these are "fine and legal" SMH i support the guy and hope that some lawyer or jugde will see differently.

People will look back on the “War on Drugs” like slavery or the holocaust.

It wastes billions of dollars and causes violence and imprisons millions of people.
It has not caused less drug use and the price of drugs has decreased since it started.

We regulate tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, and salt without violence…
This war is fueled by ignorance and greed.

Originally posted by GhostR1der
The most anti drug person on the planet, yet your avatar is a poppy ;')>?

Haha, nice try. I know you're not stupid so for the purpose of anyone else, reference my avatar, think forces, British Legion, Flanders, memory of those who fought for our now messed up country etc...

As for those who as always shout that nobody had ever died from pot, you are talking to someone who used to scrape people out of cars because they had driven high as a kite, have pulled a girl out of a lake due to being off her face on pot. Need i go on?

I'm not debating the fact that drugs have been used for centuries and for what purpose, or that certain drugs do not kill, but please do not preach to me that the effect of those drugs cannot cause deaths because it will fall upon deaf ears i'm afraid.

CX.

reply to post by zaiger


Yes, I have heard judges have done that.

Question, if the jury does not get to make the decision, why do we have juries?

What is their purpose than?

Anytime a judge sets aside a verdict, that judge should be thrown out. Period.

Sorry, the next time I am picked, I will do exactly as I have done before. I will make a decision on the validity of the law, it is my duty as a sovereign citizen.

Just because the gov does not want us to think, does not mean I will not.

As another on this thread pointed out, it is the DUTY of every jury to decide on the validity of the law.

It actually is NOT the duty of the judge. That is the progression that the court has taken. Their initial job was to be a referee in the case of a trial. The lawyers thought though that should not be the purpose of the jury. The SC can do that, not a normal judge.

You have heard of precedent right?

That is another form of propaganda that has come from the courts.

Courts are NOT allowed to write law, but of course that is EXACTLY what they do. Which is un Constitutional. You show me in the Constitution where the Court is allowed to write law.

I have seen through the veil of the moves made by our government to suppress our rights. And I will enforce every last one of my rights. Period.

[edit on 3/9/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe

Question, if the jury does not get to make the decision, why do we have juries?
What is their purpose than?
Anytime a judge sets aside a verdict, that judge should be thrown out. Period.

That is in extreme cases, they can overturn the verdict if they feel that no competent jurry could have possiby reached that conclusion. Keep in mind there are appeals and judges are well aaware of this. If the judge overturns a verdict and it is not seen as 100% right then the guy could get a new trial on an appeal or get the case thrown out enirely.

As another on this thread pointed out, it is the DUTY of every jury to decide on the validity of the law.

Kinda common sense here, there is a crime, defendant and evidence. Did this guy break that law, pretty easy it is not rocket science.

You have heard of precedent right?

That is another form of propaganda that has come from the courts.

Courts are NOT allowed to write law, but of course that is EXACTLY what they do. Which is un Constitutional. You show me in the Constitution where the Court is allowed to write law.

Setting legal precedent is not writting new laws...
precedent is

A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases

Precedent is more like how the law can be interpreted. See how it says may and not must, it is not a new law. The only propoganda i have seen in this thread is by you and your lack of understanding of the legal system.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by zaiger]

reply to post by Chadwickus


First of all, even if it was for sale, the sentence is absolutely ridiculous. Second of all, just because it was near a children's facility does not mean the pot is for "the children." Unless one lives out in the boondocks, a day care center or educational institution is almost universally in the range set forth by law. Therefore, these ranges of proximity are absurd.

It depends really, is it a first time charge? Is he known for drug distribution? These are also facts that need to be taken into consideration.

reply to post by Xilvius


Read the story in the OP and the thread, then post.

wow, nobody told me or either I didn't
get the memo about pot making the
weapons of mass destruction list.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Pot produces effects that can, in some individuals, completely center them. There is no longer the pull to left or right, so to speak. As such, it can serve to make a person aware of the general nature of spirituality. TPTB know of and exploit what they deem to be spiritual truth. Therefore, pot is a weapon of mass destruction of a system of warring ideologies. Many people I have known who have smoked tend to consider the message over the messager. The mindless appeal to authority props up the system. So, of course pot is anathema to the system. Just food for thought.

reply to post by zaiger


Wikipedia is your friend.

In some cases the jurry can decide the law's validity, but only how it applies to a case. As in, is this really a violation of that law.

That is not what former Chief Justice of the SCOTUS John Jay was saying. What you are saying right there is the jury deciding on the facts of the case, not the validity of the law. John Jay was specifically talking about jury nullification and the jury's right to decide if a law is BS and vote not guilty if they felt so.

That is why that quote I had on him in my previous post was under the Jury Nullification section of John Jay's bio.

Jury Nullification is specifically about believing a law is BS and voting not guilty regardless of the facts in the case. It was fortunately done on issues of freedom of the press in the colonies, in finding escaped slaves not guilty for violating the law in running away, in finding non-violent violators of prohibition laws not guilty, and unfortunately it was done in finding white mobs not guilty of lynching blacks. With the good comes the bad but I'd rather have jurors who can think for themselves than be mindless lemmings pressing a guilty button.

It should be done in non-violent drug cases as well but most people are not aware of jury nullification and their power to nullify the law. District Attorneys and Judges are largely responsible for this as they have tried to steal more power for themselves at the expense of the juror.

if a man was on trial for murder and there were 200 wittnesses and 300 high deffinition video recordings of the incident and the defendant made numerous death threat to the victim. If the jurry in that case came back with a not-guilty verdict the judge could overrule the jurry. It is called J.N.O.V.

Buzzzttt Wrong!!

Judgment notwithstanding verdict:

Because of the guaranteed right against double jeopardy in United States criminal cases, a judge is not allowed to enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal. However, if the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, this may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution, as the verdict was different previously.

reply to post by zaiger


I disagree with precedents, as they magnify previous judgments, whether sound or unsound. Besides, one case is often used as precedent when it should at least be multiple. It is a hidden way of effectively writing law. It doesn't pen, but it does fill the ink well.

Originally posted by Chadwickus






He was caught on possession of marijuana within 1000 feet of a day care centre, which is why his sentence is much higher due to a law that was introduced in the 80's.



So the guy has prior convictions, was caught near a school and is a dealer, not some recreational user.
.

www.tylerpaper.com...
tx.findacase.com...

I laughed out loud when I read about being in possession within 1000 ft of a "Day Care"......The guy selling to 2 yr olds?

Imagine then, the paroxysm of giggles when I read that you called the day care a school!!

Reefer Madness? It's deja vu all over again.

Are you sure he's not a terrorist?

There's a red under my bed!!

this is cruel and unusual punishment even if he was dealing a little he should only get the 2 to 5 year minimum. in ohio 4 oz is barely a felony amount i guess texas and ohio are a little different who knew