How $31 of pot gave mom a 10-year-prison sentence

[Bond 281]

It's not like there's an honor system for criminals. If a uniformed LEO walked up to a drug dealer and asked if he was selling drugs, he'd most certainly say no, so I fail to see the issue with undercover officers...unless, of course, you're dealing drugs yourself.

And, honestly, I don't give a damn if Mother Theresa was caught selling pot. It's still illegal, and she still knew it was illegal. Ten years may be a bit harsh, but probation would be too lenient in my opinion.

...also, saying that it's just a plant is like saying meth is just household chemicals.

I don't care if it were cyanide she was selling. We're imprisoning people for life for peaceably selling a product to another adult with full consent of both parties involved. Laws against drugs are completely unconstitutional. Evidence of this is how they required a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. The "war on drugs" is incredibly illegal and unjust, and we're paying for it with blood and money. Seeing as how they're violating an illegal law, they don't really qualify as criminals in my book, and it's a damn shame that people can possibly be so arrogant as to impose their will on people when they aren't affected at all.

 

[dross]

Yup that's my job, I don't make the laws, the guys in suits and ties in who are currently in Illinois do. If I didn't want to enforce these laws, I would quit and find another career and I can guarantee someone else would step into take my spot.

Exactly my point.

I still have morals so I don't think I would be torturing anyone. If someone told me I was forced to do it, I would quit.

Good for you. You have a line you won't cross. Our lines are different. As to torturing, as you said yourself, "I would quite and find another career and I can guarentee someone else would step in to take my spot."

So Cocaine should be legal too? I don't think so.

I do, but there's a much better argument for making cocaine illegal. There is not reasonable argument for making marijuana illegal, and even if it were illegal, putting someone in jail for ten years for it crosses the line into oppression and tyranny, IMO.

What are you excusing me from? Arresting someone who was possessing an illegal narcotic? Excuse me for being part of the "tyranny."

I don't want this to be personal, but yes, since you brought it up, IMO you are a part of tyranny and oppression if you're enforcing drug laws.

That's a pretty big jump comparing me to a Nazi. If you want to exercise your natural rights more, then feel free to move to another state or country where they can be exercised. No one is stopping you.

My point wasn't to compare YOU to anything. My point is that there is always someone willing to follow orders. History judges them pretty harshly after the fact. We look back now and wonder how someone could catch an escaped slave in the North and send them back to the South, but it was the law. And I'll bet at least some of the people who did that said, "I don't really agree with this, but it's the law."

She was not just possessing marijuana though, she was dealing according to the article. Little more serious then possession in the case of charging. Who knows what her history was either. There are a lot of factors that could go into this. If this was a first offense, and all she got hit on was dealing $31 dollars worth of marijuana, which would likely be a less than 30 grams amount, then she did get a pretty steep punishment. Different states, different laws.

I don't see dealing drugs as different than taking them. If I grow a plant in my yard and sell it to you, I fail to see how it's the government's business, even if they've made it so. When government uses the power of the gun (that's you) to enforce laws that violate my natural rights, that's a problem. It's not quite tyranny, IMO, if it's just a ticket (though our founding fathers would disagree, based on their reaction to the Stamp Act, and the tax on tea) but when you take away ten years of someone's life just because some idiots arbitrarily decided that one intoxicant is good and one is bad, is, as I've said, tyranny and oppression.

 

[rambone]

afterall the LTCH is a direct violation of our freedoms too right??

Yes.

Show me in the Constitution where it gives the people the right to smoke marijuana and that the right shall not be infringed.

The 9th Amendment gives us rights not mentioned in the constitution and the 10th gives the States the power to regulate themselves. The Federal War On Drugs is about as unconstitutional as it gets.

I apologize that I was raised that you shouldn't use drugs.

So were most of us. I was also raised that you shouldn't cheat on your girlfriend. Does that make it a legitimate role of government to lock up "cheaters?" Wanting to end the War on Drugs has nothing to do with how we all live our own lives. It has everything to do with wanting a free society with just laws that obey the constitution.

I've never seen marijuana contribute anything positive to our society, unless lack of caring and motivation are positives for us.

The same can be said for alcohol. And cigarettes. And Reality TV shows. And hundreds of other things that "don't contribute to society." Freedom isn't about being forced to contribute to society the way some social engineer wants us to.

First it is marijuana. After a few years then its cocaine, then LSD or meth. Any substance abuse can be a gateway drug to all the others.

Hopefully they all get legalized in that order. Let marijuana legalization be the gateway legislation to casting off the expensive, unsustainable Nanny State.

 

[dross]

Yes.



The 9th Amendment gives us rights not mentioned in the constitution and the 10th gives the States the power to regulate themselves. The Federal War On Drugs is about as unconstitutional as it gets.

.

Slight clarification.

The Constitution doesn't GIVE us anything. Anything given may also be taken away.

The Constitution recognizes the rights our Creator endowed us with. We have an entire Amendment dedicated to reminding the government that we have rights not specifically enumerated.

 

[Dr_O]

People tend to rally for the causes that they believe in and abhor the ones they don't.

There have been several replies in this thread that state that "the law is the law". How many of those posters feel the same for the student in Montana who violated a zero tolerance school policy that is in accordance with state and federal law.

A female honor student and cheerleader and all around honorable person mistakenly left a hunting rifle in the trunk of her car. A school announcement that contraband sniffing dogs would be in the parking lot was made. She remembered that she had left the rifle in the car. She then went to the school authorities about her mistake. She was suspended from school for violating federal and state gun laws.

​

Prior to this incident she was a model citizen. She thought she was doing the right thing by 'turning herself in'.

I do not argue the validity of either law, marijuana or firearm related. I just wonder if apples-to-apples still applies because they are both apples.

Bottom line: She did break the law. Does she deserve the outcome of that transgression?

 

[E5RANGER375]

Exactly my point.




Good for you. You have a line you won't cross. Our lines are different. As to torturing, as you said yourself, "I would quite and find another career and I can guarentee someone else would step in to take my spot."






I do, but there's a much better argument for making cocaine illegal. There is not reasonable argument for making marijuana illegal, and even if it were illegal, putting someone in jail for ten years for it crosses the line into oppression and tyranny, IMO.




I don't want this to be personal, but yes, since you brought it up, IMO you are a part of tyranny and oppression if you're enforcing drug laws.




My point wasn't to compare YOU to anything. My point is that there is always someone willing to follow orders. History judges them pretty harshly after the fact. We look back now and wonder how someone could catch an escaped slave in the North and send them back to the South, but it was the law. And I'll bet at least some of the people who did that said, "I don't really agree with this, but it's the law."




I don't see dealing drugs as different than taking them. If I grow a plant in my yard and sell it to you, I fail to see how it's the government's business, even if they've made it so. When government uses the power of the gun (that's you) to enforce laws that violate my natural rights, that's a problem. It's not quite tyranny, IMO, if it's just a ticket (though our founding fathers would disagree, based on their reaction to the Stamp Act, and the tax on tea) but when you take away ten years of someone's life just because some idiots arbitrarily decided that one intoxicant is good and one is bad, is, as I've said, tyranny and oppression.

thats the best response ever!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAKFlpdcfc]YouTube - Applause[/ame]

 

[PatriotPride]

We are a nation of LAWS!!!!
Not personal opinions!!

Yes and no. I can't say whether or not you understand this (no disrespect, but it has been my personal experience that many current and former LEOs do not comprehend this basic concept), but for the record, laws fall into two distinct categories: MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA. By it's very definition, a law that is MALA PROHIBITA came into being due to the "personal opinions" of society. The illegalization of marijuana falls under MALA PROHIBITA.

The War on Drugs is nothing more than a repeat of Prohibition---the outcome will be the same. Eventually it WILL fail---more and more people are realizing the TRUE reasons for the failed War on Drugs, and they are following the money directly to the corrupt in Law Enforcement and Politics.

 

[bstewrat3]

THAT is true.
There's far too much money being made to make is legal right now.
But until it is made legal.
It's illegal, and the violators are subject to the penalties set forth by Law.

Someone please tell me where there is money being made by keeping marijuana illegal. Imprisoning people for these offenses is a money loser. If it was legalized it would be taxed and the government would be getting their cut right or wrong as it may be. The bad thing is most of the people incarcirated on pot charges now would be in there for something else anyway.

 

[rambone]

It cracks me up how people want to "protect families" by arresting pot smokers. People can't seem to grasp that the law destroys as many families as addiction does. Let's destroy families so they don't have to feel the pain of a family being destroyed. Lol...

Good job "protecting" the children. Zillions of studies have shown that children without a mother are much better at succeeding in life.

The way the State "protects" something is by destroying it. Not something I could feel proud to be a part of when dealing with non-violent, non-abusive people.

Keep on "protecting" our freedoms...

 

[j706]

Anything can lead to anything else. Internet porn can be a gateway activity to Pimping out hookers.

Football can be a gateway activity to armed robbery.

Basketball is apparently a gateway activity to just about every other illegal activity, since all criminals play basketball.

People make connections so their world makes sense to them. Doesn't always mean it's true. It takes a lot of humility to step back and examine your own opinions objectively and seriously consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Ahh but I am not wrong. I see it almost every week. No dope is any good...none.

 

[PatriotPride]

thats the best response ever!
YouTube - Applause

Agreed! +1 to Dross, and I'll be damned if I see someone even HALF-way refute his points.

Cue the "Dross is an anti-LEO COP-BASHER!" comments in 3...2...1...

 

[PatriotPride]

Ahh but I am not wrong. I see it almost every week. No dope is any good...none.

Well...BOTH of us can't be right. I see it just about every day. I haven't yet cuffed-up and referred an offender for prosecution for possession of "dope". You argue that "no dope is any good"...and I can't help but point out that I've yet to REALLY see how dope is bad---other than the pesky point that possession is illegal due to an over-reaching series of laws.

If anyone feels so inclined, wander through a prison and inquire as to how many offenders are incarcerated due to crimes that were committed while they were under the influence of a controlled substance. Compare that data with the number of offenders who are incarcerated due to crimes committed under the influence of alcohol.

By the current reasoning of Law Enforcement, we should be clamoring for a 2nd Prohibition. After all, no alcohol is any good...none.

 

[rambone]

Someone please tell me where there is money being made by keeping marijuana illegal. Imprisoning people for these offenses is a money loser. If it was legalized it would be taxed and the government would be getting their cut right or wrong as it may be. The bad thing is most of the people incarcirated on pot charges now would be in there for something else anyway.

Yeah, if you are a taxpayer then the War on Drugs is a gargantuan money loser. Hundreds of Billions of dollars every year.

If you are in government, then the War on Drugs is an excuse to tax harder, spend harder, create entire agencies that shouldn't exist, give police departments grants to buy APCs and all this Tacticool gear, populate prisons to the max...

Its all about controlling us and bankrupting the USA. Anyone who supports the War on Drugs is helping to bankrupt us. The moral busybodies can feel good about their role in destroying our children's futures.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Ahh but I am not wrong. I see it almost every week. No dope is any good...none.

Does that statement apply to legally prescribed "dope"?

"Dope" utilized by doctors and medical professionals for medical treatment?

Morphine being administered to ease pain is a bad thing?

"Dope" being used to treat serious psychological disorders?

Chemicals are not inherently evil. (note the period)

 

[451_Detonics]

Hmmm........
Break Law.
Get caught.
Go to jail.
Sounds about right.
What part of OBEY THE LAW don't you understand??

I have to agree with this, even if a law is stupid you have to follow it or risk the consequences. Yes, I think the sentence was harsh but at the same time I am sure her lawyer explained to her the possible outcome of a guilty verdict.

If you want the law changed then work to get it changed. I know way too many people who complain about laws that have no idea what the inside of the 200 West Washington looks like. If you aren't willing to work for changes you have no right to ***** about them.

 

[level.eleven]

I have to agree with this, even if a law is stupid you have to follow it or risk the consequences. Yes, I think the sentence was harsh but at the same time I am sure her lawyer explained to her the possible outcome of a guilty verdict.

If you want the law changed then work to get it changed. I know way too many people who complain about laws that have no idea what the inside of the 200 West Washington looks like. If you aren't willing to work for changes you have no right to ***** about them.

The people of California did change the law. The federal government didn't care though. Let me guess....change federal law!

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I have to agree with this, even if a law is stupid you have to follow it or risk the consequences. Yes, I think the sentence was harsh but at the same time I am sure her lawyer explained to her the possible outcome of a guilty verdict.

If you want the law changed then work to get it changed. I know way too many people who complain about laws that have no idea what the inside of the 200 West Washington looks like. If you aren't willing to work for changes you have no right to ***** about them.

I agree, more people should stand up against laws they disagree with.

Just to clarify, many people are criminals and do not even realize it.

In Indiana:
It is illegal for a man to be sexually aroused in public.
Baths may not be taken between the months of October and March.
Oral sex is illegal.
A man over the age of 18 may be arrested for statutory rape if the passenger in his car is not wearing her socks and shoes, and is under the age of 17.
It is against the law to pass a horse on the street.
You can get out of paying for a dependent’s medical care by praying for him/her.
Smoking in the state legislature building is banned, except when the legislature is in session.

So, if these things are illegal - we should go to the same lengths to enforce these laws too? If you have taken a bath since October, you are a CRIMINAL! THROW THE BOOK!!

 

[Fletch]

"No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law."
-- Robert Heinlein

 

[UncleMike]

The people of California did change the law. The federal government didn't care though. Let me guess....change federal law!

NOW you're catching on.
If you can maintain that train of thought for more than a few minutes you have a chance of actually changing something instead of whining about the Government enacting laws without your personal approval.
It's called "The Democratic Process", and it actually works, if people get off their soap boxes long enough to participate in the Process.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The commerce clause is a pretty weak foothold for Federal oversight.