Quote Originally Posted by killerweed420
The affirmative defense issue was always concocted by our own government, it was never part of the intiative. Affirmative defense assumes you are guilty and you must go to court to prove you're innocent. I'm pretty sure that violates the 4rh Amendment.
The old saying of " You get the government you deserve" applies here. When you allow these thugs to rewrite the intitiatives that the voters legally voted on and passed its all downhill from there.
I agree totally. They do as they damn well please and reinterpret the law as they see fit regardless of the language of the law. You'd think the lawyers who write these initiatives could get it right the first time around.
gypski Reviewed by gypski on . Why did the Wa. St. Supreme court "use" 3 different defenses in State v. Fry? So I have been dissecting State v. Fry our Wa. Supreme court ruled on...I am finding our court here is smoking controlled substances themselves, way worse than "MARIJUANA/CANNABIS"...they have "used" 3 different defenses claiming they are the same defense...statutory-affirmative- and "COMPASSIONATE USE"... O.K., looking these "definitions" up separately are completely different from one another...talk about corruption TO WATCH THE BANK...geez people, can you use your law degrees in a more Rating: 5