WE can legalize it... literally

[TyPR124]

We've been learning about something called nullification in history. There are two forms of it (that I know of, and one I found through google). What these laws (yes they are laws!) do is prohibit the federal government from making/enforcing unfair laws.

The first, regular nullification (I guess you would call it that...) gives states the right to declare ANY federal law null and void. Then that state doesn't have to follow that law. End of story! WHY HASN'T IT OCCURED TO STATES TO USE THIS? The only reason I can think of is that it's not a law anymore (asked my teacher, she says she thinks its still a law but she isn't sure).

The second thing, though, IS a law. Jury nullification, which says a jury (as in trial by jury, ordinary people) has the right to declare that a law is unconstitutional or say someone is not guilty because they don't agree with the law. This is one link I found, though theres plenty more... BTW, about halfway down is some info about how this helped stop the alcohol prohibition in case you don't see what I'm getting at

Jury Nullification (http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07JuryNullification.html)

What's sad is that judges PURPOSELY 'forget' to tell jurors about these rights... And somewhere in there I read that it was created so that the government wouldn't enslave the people, but rather the people would own the government... Funny how it's the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted

I think I'll just stop there to prevent paragraphs upon paragraphs of ranting... believe me it could go on for a while...

[Rusty Trichome]

WHY HASN'T IT OCCURED TO STATES TO USE THIS?
Because the state risks losing federal funds as a result of flaunting federal law. The feds are kinda funny that way.


The second thing, though, IS a law. Jury nullification, which says a jury (as in trial by jury, ordinary people) has the right to declare that a law is unconstitutional or say someone is not guilty because they don't agree with the law.
Ever try to get 12 people to agree 100% on anything?
Not all citizens agree with cannabis decriminalization/legalization. It would have to be a unanimous verdict but could technically set legal precedence, if all subsequent prosecutorial and political challenges were unsucessful.


What's sad is that judges PURPOSELY 'forget' to tell jurors about these rights...
It's up to the procecutor to inform the jury of charges, evidence and circumstances, beyond a reasonable doubt. It's up to the defense attorney to point-out the lack of evidence or lack of victim, along with pointing-out the social injustices. Would have to be a concerted effort to gain the confidence/support of the entire jury.

The problem with this approach is...the defense attorneys are just trying to get one person to see the injustice of the "bad laws" to avoid prosecution. To set legal precedence, he'd (or she'd) have to convince all 12 (and likely the alternates) jurors of the archaic policy.

The judge is the referee. If rights or laws are infringed upon, he has the right to step-in, and assert his authority. Take the overtly invasive techniques that Judge Larry Seidlin used, (Anna Nichole baby case) versus the camera-induced stupidity of Judge Lance Ito (O.J. murder case) for example. Had Judge Ito asserted his authority during the OJ trial, he would have asked the defense what happens to leather when moisture (blood) is added, then the leather is dried. (it shrinks, so of course the friggin glove wouldn't fit) The case would have taken a left-turn to the electric chair. But then again...the prosecutors were morons to begin with, so this insight is rather subjective.

And although Judge Seidlin was overly emotional, he demanded asnwers to questions that some thought were tangental to the case, but he left no stone unturned prior to making his heartbreaking ruling.

The point is, you'd have to face the right charges, with the right defense team, facing the right judge and jury...before any of this would be feasable. Not nearly as easy as some would lead you to believe.

[boaz]

point of info, nullification of federal law has been discussed by the States in Congress on at least two occasions that I am aware of. One of them was right before we had a civil war. The other one, interestingly, actually involved nullification of federal probibition of medical cannabis. Not sure what happened but I'm guessing it didn't have much effect on the administration at the time.

[LOC NAR on probation]

We are looking at this wrong.

Locals have the right to make thiers own laws no matter what the feds say. Just look at Cali, locals laws allow it, but the feds don't. nullification is a joke.

In the gangster days we could not take away guns. Am I right ? so one persons, look it up decided to make it illeagle if you did not have a tax stamp you could not own a tommy gun or machine gun auto fire. The first guy to walk into a courthouse to get the tax stamp had to bring the tommy gun to prove he had it. He was arrested and did 20 years for not having the tax stamp.

Now later on the feds got smart and again one person put the tax stamp on MJ. That's how the whole blite of the black mans drug was made illeagle by feds. Still today you must have your tax stamp for the feds.

Funny thing in both cases. NO tax stamps have ever been made for either and showing up at the courthouse with a bag of weed or the wrong gun will get you behind bars.

It's not a matter of nullification it's a matter of side stepping your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to bear arm and to injest what you want as long as you hurt no other persons.

Laws are what has screwed this country.

I want my constitutional rights back not laws.

[silkyblue]

We are looking at this wrong.

Locals have the right to make thiers own laws no matter what the feds say. Just look at Cali, locals laws allow it, but the feds don't. nullification is a joke.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

My 2

The DEA has stopped raiding medicinal despensaries in Cali
around 500 to be exact

that' my stoned friends is a start to the marijuana mess
lets hope the hope will will 'spread like wildfire'

legalization begins at, and, with the state ballots

state by state we will cast a vote for herby

:jointsmile:




puff with care

[the image reaper]

an Illinois jury recently (Feb 2009) cut loose a marijuana defendant based on Nullification:
Maybe This Is The Way The War On Marijuana Ends | Cannabis Culture Magazine (http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/news/maybe-this-is-the-way-the-war-on-marijuana-ends) :thumbsup:

[veggii]

well I have been saying that the current placement by the DEA of cannabis at schedule 4 is done so ILLEGALY as it requires it and i quote; "have no medicinal value" to legally be placed there. why doesnt our govmt uphold this?

[painretreat]

an Illinois jury recently (Feb 2009) cut loose a marijuana defendant based on Nullification:
Maybe This Is The Way The War On Marijuana Ends | Cannabis Culture Magazine (http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/news/maybe-this-is-the-way-the-war-on-marijuana-ends) :thumbsup:

:D :rastasmoke:

[TyPR124]

an Illinois jury recently (Feb 2009) cut loose a marijuana defendant based on Nullification:
Maybe This Is The Way The War On Marijuana Ends | Cannabis Culture Magazine (http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/news/maybe-this-is-the-way-the-war-on-marijuana-ends) :thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

Nice to see my idea sorta works... it just needs to happen on a larger scale. And I'm willing to bet that if every juror knew about this right, there would at the very least be a lot more hung juries in cases like this.

[anaacid]

THIS IS PECULIAR ABOUT CUlTURE WHEN THER IS AN ISSUE OF DRUGS AT STAKE. IN AMERICA ASSETS CAN BE LEGALLY SEIZED UNDER ONLY SUSPICION. A stupid law because Everyone repects the police TO RESIST becomes difficult BECAUSE PRECEDENCE IS OFTEN THE GREATER GOOD! THIS IS EXPRESSED VERY POORLY BUT THE MAIN PROBLEM IS THE CATCH22 THAT PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO USE DRUGS GUNSHOT POLICE OR WORSE

does this make any sense?

[boaz]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

My 2

The DEA has stopped raiding medicinal despensaries in Cali
around 500 to be exact

that' my stoned friends is a start to the marijuana mess
lets hope the hope will will 'spread like wildfire'

legalization begins at, and, with the state ballots

state by state we will cast a vote for herby

:jointsmile:




puff with care


i got nothing profound to add :stoned: just thought that beared repeating.

vote for herby in 2010 and start planting your initiatives now! :greenthumb: :jointsmile:

[luciddreamer]

THis is awesome. Spread the word people!

[painretreat]

Maybe they are clearing out Gitmo for us! lol!!!

There were 2 busts this month in Calif. One in San Francisco another in Homeland (a small town outside of Hemet, Ca). I don't have any details, except MAPP is getting involved. I'll send this info to the lawyer and see what he thinks of it. Will post more about busts, when I know more.

The right to grow is a big one and needs to be retained and approved in all states! One little battle at a time. When I was younger and healthy, cannabis was fun. Now, it is a medication and i hope it doesn't take the world getting ill or diseased to realize it! Would be nice if our docs could pass out samples!:cool:
PR :rastasmoke:

[mrreverb]

this would be great if we could actually get moving on this. what i hate is how in the constitution it says that the people have to.. nay, NEED to fight for whats right and against any unjust laws. At this point in our countrys history with all the fighting and economic problems I dont think anything bad can come from either decriminalzing or even legalizing the use of marijuana. it would allow people to give kids the FACTS about it not just the myths. thats just my couple pennies i guess