|
hobbesmaster posted:Would he go to trial in California? I'm sure it won't actually go to trial, but jury nullification here would be amazing. If they're actually arresting them I assume it'd be a federal court.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
computer parts posted:If they're actually arresting them I assume it'd be a federal court. And a federal court in California would have a jury pulled from California. Statistically half of the jury will have voted to make what this guy did legal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:This is how you put pressure on the Feds, by making them defend the indefensible and forcing change in the Supreme Court. There won't be a Supreme Court challenge over this and if it did happen it would be an 8-1 court decision in favor of the Federal government being able to enforce its laws with the lone dissenting vote being Thomas, who demands that the guy be suffocated to death on marijuana smoke because it would be quote "like, totally sick".
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And a federal court in California would have a jury pulled from California. Statistically half of the jury will have voted to make what this guy did legal. Sort of. Here's a map of the federal districts (and the appeals circuits, but the districts are more important here) :  If someone got arrested for marijuana in (eg) the eastern California district it seems pretty likely that they'd be convicted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Sort of. Here's a map of the federal districts (and the appeals circuits, but the districts are more important here) : This guy would be in the central or northern district though, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This guy would be in the central or northern district though, right? It said the district attorney was from the Eastern district actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It said the district attorney was from the Eastern district actually. welp hes hosed
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:You're saying that feds ignoring state laws to enforce federal ones is happening. I'm saying that there are cases where it shouldn't. I don't think we're in disagreement. Murmur, we are in complete and total agreement. I, too, think it's a travesty. I was/am only responding to the original proposition that, because these travesties still happen, it means state-level legalization is a worthless pursuit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Here is an expert's take on the situation:quote:I have to agree with William Portanova that it’s “mind-boggling” if, in fact, “hundreds” of lawyers in California have been telling their clients they can safely run massive enterprises growing and selling marijuana as long as their customers pretend it’s for medical use. So there you go folks, the expert thinks: “he-should-have-seen-it-coming". Still, I don't know how he can wave away the fact that a man might have his life destroyed for the political crime of providing medicine to patients.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Just a thought in regards to the letter of the law stuff with 'small time growers' and 'commercial' growers. It's completely up to the prosecutor to define what is and what isn't a commercial grow. Thankfully they're pretty stupid so it's usually a plant count type thing, the smart commercial growers have learned to minimize this one facet of their operation by growing smaller amounts of plants, but growing them much bigger. Basically, you can grow a pound of amazing weed spread over 15 plants or a single plant. This doesn't change the fact that if your poo poo looks to impressive, you're going to be labeled a commercial grower, whatever that means. Everyone's a commercial grower, because everyone's making money off it. Electricity and the other overhead require everyone to make money, otherwise you're just some rich gently caress literally giving away money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Would he go to trial in California? I'm sure it won't actually go to trial, but jury nullification here would be amazing. So much as breathe a word about state law and there would be a mistrial. It's less likely now, but I remember a news story about a jury who recanted within minutes after they left the courtroom when they were told they had convicted a doctor for prescribing medical marijuana according to state law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
tastethehappy posted:My problem was with the way Tab was saying "you might go to jail! is it really worth it then for states to try and legalize it?!?" which is a dumb defeatist attitude. I don't see how you're concluding that from my statement, let me re-iterate. Yes, States legalizing without a doubt is a great move; small-time users aren't going to jail and freedom is essentially one step closer. While again this is great news it's still not that good. Anyone who has the "biggest" marijuana business is going to be a target and the fact remains there's always going to be someone who's the biggest. Sucks to be them. Now, it's brought up that the Federal Government doesn't have the resources to enforce this but we have yet for anyone to show this beyond quoting the Wikipedia DEA Page they only have ten-thousand some odd agents. True, there's a significant lack of resources when comes to combating this and while I'm unsure if State Police may be "compelled" to enforce Federal Law it's actually optional if state/local police wish to enforce this. Example, when medical marijuana was legalized in Michigan the State Police went to the Federal Government and asked if they could enforce it. The Feds gave a green light and legal dispensaries were shutdown by State Police. hobbesmaster posted:Would he go to trial in California? I'm sure it won't actually go to trial, but jury nullification here would be amazing. I recall reading a New York or Los Angeles Article were this was specifically discussed. Somehow with these Federal cases it doesn't matter and the Judge will reverse the ruling if the jury goes for nullification. They also also ruled out that the defense can't use Obama's claim how he would order the Justice Department to not go after medical dispensaries in California or how his previous legal advice was inadequate. I've been told by some lawyers who've worked with the Fed that if California were to legalize marijuana it would essentially become "Armageddon". I wasn't able to get much more information such as why is California is so important. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Jan 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Saw this today on a vote for recreational Marijuana shops in El Paso county, CO. http://www.csindy.com/IndyBlog/archives/2013/01/15/no-pot-stops-el-paso-county-bans-recreational-marijuana-shops quote:This morning, in a 4 to 1 vote, the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners passed the second and final reading of an ordinance banning retail-marijuana facilities in unincorporated areas of the county. Commissioner Peggy Littleton was the lone dissenter, as her district, which is mostly the city of Colorado Springs, voted in favor of Amendment 64, unlike the majority of outlying areas. She also wanted the board to wait until it could take a look at whatever regulations the state eventually creates. The part that stood out to me though was: quote:The defense of marijuana eventually drew the ire of Commissioner Amy Lathen who alternated between expounding on the drug's federally illegal status; reading from her two teenage sons' Young Marines handbook regarding the side effects of marijuana; and regaling the crowd with the dangers the substance poses to children. And someone in the comments posted an excerpt from the handbook the commissioner was reading from quote:5. Marijuana. Street terms for marijuana are Weed,
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Anyone who has the "biggest" marijuana business is going to be a target and the fact remains there's always going to be someone who's the biggest. Sucks to be them. This google earth tour gives you an idea of scale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMpu0kbsV7w
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I recall reading a New York or Los Angeles Article were this was specifically discussed. Somehow with these Federal cases it doesn't matter and the Judge will reverse the ruling if the jury goes for nullification. They also also ruled out that the defense can't use Obama's claim how he would order the Justice Department to not go after medical dispensaries in California or how his previous legal advice was inadequate. How can a judge overrule an acquittal from a jury? Some sort of Scalia like mental gymnastics of "the constitution assures a right to a trial by jury, not that the jury's decision would be binding". Nevermind state law and all that, the prosecution's case is going to be showing a commercial marijuana operation and odds are the jury is going to be thinking "Wait, isn't this legal?  "
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:How can a judge overrule an acquittal from a jury? Some sort of Scalia like mental gymnastics of "the constitution assures a right to a trial by jury, not that the jury's decision would be binding". A judge cannot overturn an criminal acquittal at his own discretion, but he could grant a motion to set aside judgement, which is fairly rare, but this situation would be a textbook example of when it might work: the judge might ask the jurors how they reached their verdict, and if they admitted they decided to make the ruling based on nullification or based on inapplicable laws, it could happen, and there would have to be another jury trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:A judge cannot overturn an criminal acquittal at his own discretion, but he could grant a motion to set aside judgement, which is fairly rare, but this situation would be a textbook example of when it might work: the judge might ask the jurors how they reached their verdict, and if they admitted they decided to make the ruling based on nullification or based on inapplicable laws, it could happen, and there would have to be another jury trial. And that isn't double jeopardy? Edit: Wikipedia says so: wikipedia posted:Additionally, although a judge may overrule a guilty verdict by a jury, he or she does not have the same power to overrule a not guilty verdict. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jan 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:How can a judge overrule an acquittal from a jury? Some sort of Scalia like mental gymnastics of "the constitution assures a right to a trial by jury, not that the jury's decision would be binding". Usually, the court suppresses certain evidence - say, things like "this 'massive drug dealing operation' was a medical facility" and "if you vote to convict, this person is going to spend decades in prison." The jury votes to convict based on the evidence in front of them, but when they learn what was actually going on, their reaction is "we never would have done that if we knew all the facts." But, by then, the damage is done. Juries don't get take-backs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
tastethehappy posted:My problem was with the way Tab was saying "you might go to jail! is it really worth it then for states to try and legalize it?!?" which is a dumb defeatist attitude. Tab8715 posted:I don't see how you're concluding that from my statement, let me re-iterate. Tab8715 posted:Here's why State's legalizing weed doesn't matter in the long run...
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
KingEup posted:
Yes I'm sure all of his "patients" had medical conditions necessitating the use of marijuana. I think it should be fully legalized and that he shouldn't be prosecuted, but CA's medical marijuana law makes a joke of the whole concept.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 10:48
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Usually, the court suppresses certain evidence - say, things like "this 'massive drug dealing operation' was a medical facility" and "if you vote to convict, this person is going to spend decades in prison." The jury votes to convict based on the evidence in front of them, but when they learn what was actually going on, their reaction is "we never would have done that if we knew all the facts." But, by then, the damage is done. Juries don't get take-backs. And this is why there is a special place in hell for Lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Yes I'm sure all of his "patients" had medical conditions necessitating the use of marijuana. I agree with what you're saying, it's hard to stay completely legal, when you're already in a grey-market. Especially when you have undercover police basically acting like opportunist pushers (Cops will literally push drug deals on you, no joke). But, framing it as the medical laws making a joke of the whole concept seems silly. How easy is it to get adderall or any other stimulant? All you need to say is the correct phrases and congrats! You now have ADHD! I think people are living within the joke and acting accordingly with the farce. Obviously not every patient needs the medicine, but who are you to say? In the same way Alcohol prohibition had patients, most I'm sure didn't really need a cocktail a day to help deal with the wife and kids. But everyone saw it as the only means of enjoying normal life within a bizarre legal structure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Yes I'm sure all of his "patients" had medical conditions necessitating the use of marijuana. Why so leery of MMJ patients? Roughly 20% of Californians are living with a disability and I suspect many of those people would get relief from using cannabis. More still would be living with long term health conditions that cannabis may help. Obviously some people would be in possession of fraudulent recommendations, but this is no different to people in possession of fraudulent scripts for benzos etc. Hardly enough to label MMJ laws a joke. Cannabis should be treated like acetaminophen. I mean for god sake, my girlfriend just gave me a tablet with breakfast because I complained of some mild back pain. It's unlikely to do much and I'm not in genuine need, but really, why care? I sure did sucker that pharmacist into selling it to me! KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Acetaminophen does more harm to your body than MJ does. Ironic eh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Acetaminophen does more harm to your body than MJ does. Alcohol and tobacco aside, it's probably the most dangerous drug.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
There's clearly people abusing the "medical" part of the medical marijuana laws. That said, there are plenty of people who genuinely are helped by it, when no other drug/treatment can help. That said, if you want to throw mental issues into the mix, who's to say some dude with ennui shouldn't be given a script for marijuana, as opposed to Zoloft/Prozac/Etc?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
redshirt posted:There's clearly people abusing the "medical" part of the medical marijuana laws. If we invented a severity of abuse scale, non-medicinal use of medicinal cannabis and the persecution of people who use medicinal cannabis for non-medicinal reasons would be at polar extremes. Forgive me for not giving a poo poo that some people are acquiring and using MMJ cards to purchase cannabis for their own reasons. KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
redshirt posted:There's clearly people abusing the "medical" part of the medical marijuana laws. No snark intended, but so what? Is it really "abusing" if you're just trying to get around some monumentally stupid prohibition? redshirt posted:That said, if you want to throw mental issues into the mix, who's to say some dude with ennui shouldn't be given a script for marijuana, as opposed to Zoloft/Prozac/Etc? I think in a lot of cases this might be a good idea actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Mandals posted:No snark intended, but so what? Is it really "abusing" if you're just trying to get around some monumentally stupid prohibition? Do you think the same thing about the Sudafed prohibition? (And yes I mean for making meth.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Do you think the same thing about the Sudafed prohibition? (And yes I mean for making meth.) Methamphetamine is still available even if pseudoephedrine is not: http://www.lundbeck.com/us/products/cns-products/desoxyn I don't think it should be unlawful to use this substance for your own reasons. I certainly don't think that using medical methamphetamine for non-medical reasons is an example of 'abuse'. KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
KingEup posted:I don't think it should be unlawful to use this substance for your own reasons. I certainly don't think that using medical methamphetamine for non-medical reasons is an example of 'abuse'. Hey hey hey smoke meth erryday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Hey hey hey smoke meth erryday. Abuse of pharmaceutical amphetamines isn't all that terrible. Addictive, not great for the heart, and not a positive thing generally, but most of the terrible side effects that come with scrounging for cash to buy adulterated meth to smoke aren't really relevant to someone with a regular supply of pharmaceutical amphetamine pills.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
quote:Meet the drug warriors working to roll back hard-won advances in marijuana policy Watch out for these guys folks. They manipulate, they lie and they speak in the name of science. They've made a career out of drug prohibition and they're not going to give-up without a fight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Acetaminophen does more harm to your body than MJ does. Is this averaging out ODs with responsible users or does it actually harm people incrementally?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:Is this averaging out ODs with responsible users or does it actually harm people incrementally? There are a lot of inadvertent ODs, especially people with chronic pain. Even a couple grams a day for a few days and a couple of drinks can cause liver damage, and a lot of people just aren't aware of the danger of a higher dosage - if 625mg is good, 1350 must be better. At 4 times a day, that person may end up in the hospital in a hurry. Sure, these aren't exactly responsible users, but all users will never be responsible no matter the drug, and the difference between a therapeutic and a dangerous dose is razor thin, relatively speaking, for acetaminophen. It would probably be far safer to just hand out a handful of opiate pills for even minor aches and pains. Much, much harder to cause serious damage with those. But hey, people might feel good along the way, and we can't have that happening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:There are a lot of inadvertent ODs, especially people with chronic pain. Even a couple grams a day for a few days and a couple of drinks can cause liver damage, and a lot of people just aren't aware of the danger of a higher dosage - if 625mg is good, 1350 must be better. At 4 times a day, that person may end up in the hospital in a hurry. Sure, these aren't exactly responsible users, but all users will never be responsible no matter the drug, and the difference between a therapeutic and a dangerous dose is razor thin, relatively speaking, for acetaminophen. They deliberately add massive doses of Tylenonl to opiate pills just to stop you from taking a sufficient amount. I recently had an injured knee ligament and infected jaw at the same time, and the dose of tylenol in the hydrocodone pills was so high that I could only take 4 a day, which was entirely insufficient for managing the pain and left me totally unable to focus at work for most of that time because it hurt so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:They deliberately add massive doses of Tylenonl to opiate pills just to stop you from taking a sufficient amount. I recently had an injured knee ligament and infected jaw at the same time, and the dose of tylenol in the hydrocodone pills was so high that I could only take 4 a day, which was entirely insufficient for managing the pain and left me totally unable to focus at work for most of that time because it hurt so much. Try a cold water extraction next time around. Just wondering if anyone knows, is it illegal to do that with medicine you've been prescribed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
You would probably get popped for manufacturing if you pissed off anyone who gave a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Yes I'm sure all of his "patients" had medical conditions necessitating the use of marijuana. Of course this same argument could easily describe the situations that Adderall, Xanax, Vicodin, and Percocet are in. Do ivy leaguers snorting Adderall the night before a test invalidate the existence of people who take it for ADHD?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
Mandals posted:No snark intended, but so what? Is it really "abusing" if you're just trying to get around some monumentally stupid prohibition?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 17:47
|
|