Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[iloilo]

I keep seeing the qualifier "small amount" used in this. What difference does the amount have to do with our sovereignty? Either we have the absolute human right to own our lives and bodies or we don't. The "amount" used or in our possession is irrelevant to that.

Do you mean that you see the qualifier used by me, or by others?  I am not sure against whom you are arguing here on the FIJA thread.  If it is me, please point out where I have qualified this with "small amount" and I will fix it.
Thank you.
ff

[MamaLiberty]

Do you mean that you see the qualifier used by me, or by others?  I am not sure against whom you are arguing here on the FIJA web site.  If it is me, please point out where I have qualified this with "small amount" and I will fix it.
Thank you.
ff

Should have been clearer, sorry. Not trying to argue.

From Basil's post:
Allen St. Pierre, director of NORML, says potential jurors nearly nullifiying a case because many of them refused to convict someone for possessing a small amount of marijuana suggests Montanans have rediscovered their right to buck an unjust law.

Just brought to mind how many times I see this as some sort of qualifier in many, many places where cannabis use is discussed, especially in relation to the "law" as it stands now. Far too many people, in my opinion, seem to have the idea that some minimal amount should be ok... sorta, kinda, but that all or most other aspects of the supply and sale should remain "illegal." That, of course, is completely illogical, especially if individual sovereignty is part of the thought process.

I didn't at all mean to indicate that you were thinking that way.

So, it seems to me that Montanans (and everyone else) should refuse to convict anyone accused of any act that does not aggress against others, regardless of the "amount." And I realize that NORML probably hasn't quite gotten that far yet.

[iloilo]

 
Yes, I am happy to see the concept gaining wide recognition. Camel's nose in the and all you know.   
I am far more militant than most others.  That is why I was wondering where you saw that. 
Basil is more of a gradualist, I think.  More peaceful, too, no doubt.   
Doing lots of interviews now.
Off to the desk and phone...
ff

[Bill St. Clair]

I tend to be very militant about the war on some drugs, since I figured out in 2001 that arresting someone for something that isn't really a crime, i.e. has no victim, is KIDNAPPING, a capital offense. So all the legislators who pass drug prohibition statues are guilty of conspiracy to commit mass kidnapping, and all the federal, state, and local cops and prosecutors who enforce those statutes are guilty of kidnapping. To echo L. Neil Smith's prescription for the creators and enforcers of the treasonous gun statutes, I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

[Basil Fishbone]

That was just the reporter speaking, quoting NORML, etc.  I am not a gradualist in this.  In all the comments I saw on line, I was about the only one speaking of the drug war in general.  And if I were on a jury in a heroin, or meth, or PCP distribution case, whatever, I would vote not guilty.  I don't care if they had 100 kilos of meth and a ton of heroin.  I don't care if they had a shootout with the SWAT team.  Not guilty!

Basil

[iloilo]

That was just the reporter speaking, quoting NORML, etc.  I am not a gradualist in this.  In all the comments I saw on line, I was about the only one speaking of the drug war in general.  And if I were on a jury in a heroin, or meth, or PCP distribution case, whatever, I would vote not guilty.  I don't care if they had 100 kilos of meth and a ton of heroin.  I don't care if they had a shootout with the SWAT team.  Not guilty!

Basil

All right!
Go Basil!
ff

[slidemansailor]

That was just the reporter speaking, quoting NORML, etc.  I am not a gradualist in this.  In all the comments I saw on line, I was about the only one speaking of the drug war in general.  And if I were on a jury in a heroin, or meth, or PCP distribution case, whatever, I would vote not guilty.  I don't care if they had 100 kilos of meth and a ton of heroin.  I don't care if they had a shootout with the SWAT team.  Not guilty!

Basil

Give me 12 Basil Fishbones and I finally have a jury of my peers. 

Of course we always get tossed for showing signs of thinking.

[Basil Fishbone]

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/marijuana/Content?oid=1358945
 
Marijuana
The power of jurors

by Matthew Frank
Comments (3)

When a handful of potential jurors in Missoula County District Court recently expressed their unwillingness to convict Touray Cornell for possessing a small amount of marijuana, County Attorney Andrew Paul called it a "mutiny."

But Iloilo Marguerite Jones wouldn't use that word.

Jones serves as director of the Helena-based Fully Informed Jury Association, whose mission is to educate Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. She believes the term "mutiny" suggests unlawfulness, when in fact the Missoula jurors were expressing, as Jones puts it, their "inherent birthright" to "refuse to enforce bad laws."

"Since the Magna Carta, the primary purpose of juries has been to restrain the government from predatory, venal and vindictive actions against private individuals," Jones says. "That authority of the jury has waxed and waned since the Magna Carta because there is always a conflict between human rights and governments' attempts to gather more power to itself."

Generally, that authority has waned of late, which is why Jones was so delighted to hear that District Judge Dusty Deschamps called a recess on Dec. 16 after excusing at least five potential jurors who said they wouldn't convict Cornell for possessing a couple grams of pot. The development left Deschamps doubting whether he could seat a truly representative jury. ...<snip>...

[Basil Fishbone]

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_d219f9ee-1638-11e0-b017-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=comments

Missoula District Court: Pot case ‘mutiny’ leaves ripples for other drug cases

By GWEN FLORIO of the Missoulian

Posted: Sunday, January 2, 2011 6:30 am | (16) Comments

Oh, wait. Somebody already did that.

The Examiner online news site - one of many news organizations that picked up on the story of a Missoula jury pool that dug in its heels last month at the prospect of trying a case involving "a couple of buds" of marijuana - put a variation of that headline on its story.

Others likewise had fun with it. "The Great Montana Marijuana Mutiny," the Wall Street Journal's legal blog termed it. ...<snip>...

[iloilo]

And here is the link to the actual article, rather than the comments:
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_d219f9ee-1638-11e0-b017-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story

ff