This story really shocked me. A family of three near Antlers - a school teacher, a professional man who works for the Dept. of Agriculture and a college student are being prosecuted on FELONY drug charges for having marijuana plants in pots near the house. The family also owns Kat's Pups, a breeder of Yorkshire Terriers. I called the sheriff's office in Push county to complain. What a waste of man hours and work in law enforcement and the prosecutor's office. They are going to RUIN this family's life over a few pots of marijuana? We're almost in 2010 and it's hard to believe this is a law enforcement priority. These people are obviously not crackhead drug dealers. How embarrassing.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-teacher-family-charged-with-felony-marijuana-cultivation/article/3389865?custom_click=lead_story_title

Gut wrenching and heart breaking. Makes me wanna cry.

The Oklahoma marijuana laws are one thing I absolutely despise about Oklahoma. There is so much to like here, but our lawmakers got this one wrong. Far too many people are thrown into prison for non-violent crimes, and to add insult to injury, this family will likely be tossed into prison right next to murderers and rapists. And just imagine being a 21 year old white male in a state prison...ever heard of prison rape? Look it up and prepare to be shocked.

I hope they hire the best law firm possible and beat this bogus rap. What a waste of law enforcement resourses.

It seems like it had to be a lot or the plants were pretty big if they spotted them from a helicopter!

What is so shocking about them getting arrested? Like or not, growing marijuana is against the law. As for ruining their lives, surely they knew what the consequences would be if they were caught (if they are guilty).

You should be complaining to the legislators. They are the ones that have the power to do something about it.

What is shocking is the cost of running a helicopter looking for marijuana to bust a family for 5 potted plants. Marijuana has a distinctive color, unlike any other plant and even one good sized plant is easy to spot from the air. The fact that the local law enforcement is not bragging about the size of the bust indicates it is a very small amount.

You can bet my legislators know my opinion concerning prison overpopulation because of marijuana laws. It is also a good topic of discussion right here on OKC talk. What better public forum than this community forum to discuss the impact of wasted law enforcement resources than here, as just one of many possible discussion forums?

All politics are local. This is one area we, as citizens of this state, could have an impact on. Just because a law makes an activity illegal does not mean it is a good or just law. What good could possibly come from ruining this family? A felony? Please! Maybe a citable misdemeanor, but a felony? A total waste of law enforcement time and money.

Can I ask why you would complain to the sheriff's office? It seems to be a pretty dangerous proposition to allow law enforcement agencies to decide which laws to enforce. You also indicated in your complaint / post that you question why law enforcement made this case a priority. Was there something in the article that suggested this was a priority for the sheriff's office? Unless I'm misinformed, the Push County Sheriff's Office does not own a helicopter, nor did I see any reference in the article that it was even a case initiated by their office.

MadMonk has it right - your complaint is better directed at the legislature, unless you are aware of facts that weren't described in the news article.

Is it still against the law to brew your own corn liquor in Oklahoma?

Oh yeah... heartbreaking... a poor innocent schoolteacher gets arrested for growing pot to smoke right before she goes out and influences children...

Hon, I can tell you have never lived in the real world. You are speculating based on a prejudice. I'm sure you mean well.

five potted plants were found near an outbuilding on their property. those were discovered by LEO's as they followed a path from other plants initially seen from the air.

The number of plants or size of plot seen from the air is not discussed in the article, but the article permits a fair inference this is not a 5 plant only situation.

Please note - No opinion is expressed on what knowledge the property owner had, or did not have, regarding the presence of any of the plants. Just offering a clarification for anyone who hasn't clicked the link to the article, or did not read it through.

Hon, I can tell you have never lived in the real world. You are speculating based on a prejudice. I'm sure you mean well.

Speculating about what? Prejudiced toward what?

The shocking thing to me is that these three should have known better but still chose to break the law.

I don't feel sorry for them. We all know the rules, if you don't want to follow them then you face the consequences.

I just want to say that this is another Fail for law enforcement.

That's a small town, right? I suggest residents evict from the town, so that the law enforcement dry up on their revenues.

Maybe the town prefers their school teachers and park rangers not engage in illegal activities?

Look, I think that marijuana should be legal and regulated, but until that happens, I can't really feel sorry for someone that knowingly breaks the law. They took their chances and now have to deal with the consequences. C'est la vie.

I have mixed personal feelings about this, but the law is the law. When you willingly break it in this manner, you just gotta take your licks while putting up your best defense.

Prosecutors don't have alot of leeway when it comes to crimes like this. If their actions meet the 'elements of the crime' then that's the crime they get charged with and they leave it up to a jury to weigh the evidence and forward the desires of the community.

I didn't read anything about distribution, so at least that may be a bright side.

Personally, I have mixed feelings on pot legalization, but in most instances tend to lean towards legalization. Or, at the least decriminalization.

Really won't mater much what happens to them now, the defense fees and publicity will return to haunt them time and time again for the rest of their lives.

Reminds me of the craziness with some of our counties prostitution prosecutions. If a hooker keeps her crimes completely out of the view of the public (where it is most offensive to the community) and works off the Internet, she is charged with a felony. If she does it in people's front yards and in front of businesses, then she is only charged with a misdemeanor. This is because technically her crimes meet the elements of the computer crimes act.

Wasn't very smart to have the potted plants near their home. They should have kept it appearing wild in some secluded part of their property and maintained plausible deniability .

One thing this thread illustrates fairly well, at least to my tired eyes ... the presumption of innocence, which once more fully cloaked any defendant facing his or her govt. absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt, has become rather threadbare.

I read it once (either here or on some other board) that innocent until proven guilty is for the court of law, not the court of public opinion. I tend to agree. The fact is 99% of defendants plead "Not Guilty" regardless of the evidence against them. The pharmacist case is a great example. The public has cast its vote despite the public's lack of details privy only to the prosecution and defense. Maybe its a social flaw, but it is the reality.

> it is the reality

Indeed, and more's the pity. Benefit of the doubt by those comprising the general public is as threadbare as the presumption of innocence, if not more so. I'm not denying the reality, though I do lament it at times. All the more when I catch myself doing so.

I agree with those that support legalizing marijuana. But I don't want it to happen until everyone that was smoking weed back in the 1960's has stepped on over to the other side and left this world behind.

Hey, if it's illegal, it's illegal. If you don't like it, change the law. Until then, it's illegal. You can't prosecute one law and not another. One of the posters above said it best, do you really want these two lighting up some fatty's and then going to influence our children?

If anyone here knows anything about Antlers and the surrounding locale, there has to be more to do with this particular bit of enforcement than meets the eye. There are supposedly quite a number of large-scale growing operations in that part of the state.

There are MUCH bigger fish than a school teacher and her husband. From what I know, according to my friends from that part of the state, the drug laws are generally just not enforced. Cultivation operations basically occur out in the open and no one cares.

I agree that those who break the laws run the risk of someone enforcing those laws, but when this sort of thing happens, it's almost safe to assume that these folks rubbed the wrong person the wrong way.

That said, I don't have an ounce of compassion or 'shock' in this situation. They knew the laws and allegedly broke 'em anyway -- flagrantly. If found guilty, they deserve whatever justice the jury metes out to them.

If anyone here knows anything about Antlers and the surrounding locale, there has to be more to do with this particular bit of enforcement than meets the eye. There are supposedly quite a number of large-scale growing operations in that part of the state.

There are MUCH bigger fish than a school teacher and her husband. From what I know, according to my friends from that part of the state, the drug laws are generally just not enforced. Cultivation operations basically occur out in the open and no one cares.

I agree that those who break the laws run the risk of someone enforcing those laws, but when this sort of thing happens, it's almost safe to assume that these folks rubbed the wrong person the wrong way.

That said, I don't have an ounce of compassion or 'shock' in this situation. They knew the laws and allegedly broke 'em anyway -- flagrantly. If found guilty, they deserve whatever justice the jury metes out to them.

I bet you would feel completely different if it was your family in this situation. Your profile says you are a law student. And above you state that the marijuana laws in the Antlers area are essentially ignored, and it is likely these people rubbed someone the wrong way. If this is true, then local law enforcement is selectively enforcing the law as a vendetta against this family. And as a student of the law, you should be outraged if what you speculated is indeed the case, unless your aspiration within the law is to become an unethical prosecutor interested in convictions at all costs rather than seeking justice. Surely that is not true about you.

Marijuana laws are overfilling our prisons and costing us untold billions of tax dollars. Oklahoma has some of the longest prison sentences in the nation for minor marijuana offenses. We need our aspiring young lawyers working to put an end to these ridiculous laws that serve only to create criminals where none previously existed.

If I were on their jury, I would do everything I could to convince the other 11 to issue a "not guilty" verdict. An unjust law should not be enforced by a rational jury, and it's the last line of defense for these people who, as you have speculated, may simply be victims of a government officials vendetta.

I bet you would feel completely different if it was your family in this situation. Your profile says you are a law student. And above you state that the marijuana laws in the Antlers area are essentially ignored, and it is likely these people rubbed someone the wrong way. If this is true, then local law enforcement is selectively enforcing the law as a vendetta against this family. And as a student of the law, you should be outraged if what you speculated is indeed the case, unless your aspiration within the law is to become an unethical prosecutor interested in convictions at all costs rather than seeking justice. Surely that is not true about you.

Marijuana laws are overfilling our prisons and costing us untold billions of tax dollars. Oklahoma has some of the longest prison sentences in the nation for minor marijuana offenses. We need our aspiring young lawyers working to put an end to these ridiculous laws that serve only to create criminals where none previously existed.

If I were on their jury, I would do everything I could to convince the other 11 to issue a "not guilty" verdict. An unjust law should not be enforced by a rational jury, and it's the last line of defense for these people who, as you have speculated, may simply be victims of a government officials vendetta.We can hope someone on the jury knows about Jury Nullification.

If it was legal, I would certainly have a few pots myself - I happen to think the marijuana plant is gorgeous!!!!

I bet you would feel completely different if it was your family in this situation. Your profile says you are a law student. And above you state that the marijuana laws in the Antlers area are essentially ignored, and it is likely these people rubbed someone the wrong way. If this is true, then local law enforcement is selectively enforcing the law as a vendetta against this family. And as a student of the law, you should be outraged if what you speculated is indeed the case, unless your aspiration within the law is to become an unethical prosecutor interested in convictions at all costs rather than seeking justice. Surely that is not true about you.

I don't really get bent out of shape over selective enforcement. To a degree, every enforcement is selective. No law can be 100% enforced, every single law gets broken and no prosecution happens whatsoever. Break the law enough times or in a conspicuous manner and eventually, you run a good chance of prosecution and punishment.

If it is your contention that because this is rarely prosecuted compared to the number of times the law is broken, ergo injustice, then by extension, where do you come down on rape? It happens a lot, especially with date rape, and it's never prosecuted. Speeding? Child pornography? Where exactly do you draw the line?

The only way to be 100% safe from prosecution for violating the law is to not violate the law. That is allegedly not what happened here, so the prosecution is proper.


Marijuana laws are overfilling our prisons and costing us untold billions of tax dollars. Oklahoma has some of the longest prison sentences in the nation for minor marijuana offenses. We need our aspiring young lawyers working to put an end to these ridiculous laws that serve only to create criminals where none previously existed.

Well here's the thing. Lawyers aren't the ones who make laws. And unless a law happens to be unconstitutional (and this one has been tested many, many times and is not unconstutional), there's not much that can be done to change things. What you have to do is influence those in the state legislature and Congress to change the laws. "It's not fair!!!!" is not a defense and will probably not impress anyone at trial.


If I were on their jury, I would do everything I could to convince the other 11 to issue a "not guilty" verdict. An unjust law should not be enforced by a rational jury, and it's the last line of defense for these people who, as you have speculated, may simply be victims of a government officials vendetta.

First, these sorts of cases almost never make it to jury trial. The state will offer a plea and the defendant will accept it rather than risking a long prison sentence hoping for some jury nullification. Second, if a trial ever did happen, there is very little chance someone with your attitudes about marijuana laws would be picked to serve on that jury.

As an aside, I tend to agree with you that these laws are a public policy nightmare. Unfortunately for these people and lots of others, these laws are on the books, and there's pretty much no way these folks didn't know that. Being in a place where the law is seldom enforced is not an excuse to violate the law with impunity.

If this is your method of challenging these laws, it really only makes you look foolish and like you don't understand how laws are made. So far on this board, I've seen a couple of stories about the horrors of drug prosecutions. In all of these cases, the "undeserving victim" was white and employed. I guess blacks and hispanics probably don't show up anywhere on your radar even though they make up the majority of defendants charged with this crime. Your approach to protesting these laws is too narrowly focused. You'll get nowhere if all you do is complain when white, middle class folks are prosecuted for drug crimes. You would do well to broaden your horizons -- look at legislators and congressmen who sit idly by while the state locks up thousands of non-violent offenders for this crime. Look at the private prison industry which is not only building private prisons all over the state to house these people, it's also peddling an amazing amount of influence at both the state and federal levels. When you complain about these individual cases, you're really complaining about the end result of a process, so why not turn your focus to the beginning of the process where if enough pressure is brought, real change could happen?

HVAC - if the law says possession of pot is against the law, why would you, as a jury member find the accused NOT guilty? The law says possession is against the law. If you don't like the law, change it. Its being done all over the country so it's possible to do it.

HVAC - if the law says possession of pot is against the law, why would you, as a jury member find the accused NOT guilty? The law says possession is against the law. If you don't like the law, change it. Its being done all over the country so it's possible to do it.


Jurors have the right to judge the validity and the fairness of the law itself. Many would argue that they are expected to.

Caboose - I respectfully disagree. In fact, jurors are typically instructed in both State and Federal court to the contrary. Jurors are finders of fact - judges rule on the law. Jurors are duty-bound to follow the law.

I'm not so naive to overlook the fact that jurors often reach a compromise in the jury room, often associated with varying degrees of jury nullification theory. It happens. That is not, however, a "right" of a juror and in fact, in direct conflict with every juror's oath to "follow the law".

Caboose - I respectfully disagree. In fact, jurors are typically instructed in both State and Federal court to the contrary. Jurors are finders of fact - judges rule on the law. Jurors are duty-bound to follow the law.

I'm not so naive to overlook the fact that jurors often reach a compromise in the jury room, often associated with varying degrees of jury nullification theory. It happens. That is not, however, a "right" of a juror and in fact, in direct conflict with every juror's oath to "follow the law".

What Positano said.

Caboose - I respectfully disagree. In fact, jurors are typically instructed in both State and Federal court to the contrary. Jurors are finders of fact - judges rule on the law. Jurors are duty-bound to follow the law.

I'm not so naive to overlook the fact that jurors often reach a compromise in the jury room, often associated with varying degrees of jury nullification theory. It happens. That is not, however, a "right" of a juror and in fact, in direct conflict with every juror's oath to "follow the law".

Despite the fact that modern judges look upon jury nullification negatively and take preventative measures, it does not mean that mean it is not a power (I should have used the word "power", not "right") of a jury.

The practice of jury nullification was intended by our founding fathers, but it has been eroded over the years.

Caboose - I totally disagree with you. Jurors are asked to judge the case on the facts. Not whether or not the law is fair. If you have a case where someone is charged with 1st degree murder and the facts of the case make it so distasteful as to convict him if 1st degree, a jury can ask that the charges be reduced or they find him not guilty based on the FACTS. Laws are there for a reason and if we just start picking and choosing which ones are OK to break and which ones aren't then we are doomed to sink into anarchy. Your idea of what is acceptible and mine differ on this one issue, think about if this were the case across the spectrum of citizens and the spectrum of laws. Laws that are no longer valid or acceptible as written should be changed, not disregarded.

Caboose - I totally disagree with you. Jurors are asked to judge the case on the facts. Not whether or not the law is fair. If you have a case where someone is charged with 1st degree murder and the facts of the case make it so distasteful as to convict him if 1st degree, a jury can ask that the charges be reduced or they find him not guilty based on the FACTS. Laws are there for a reason and if we just start picking and choosing which ones are OK to break and which ones aren't then we are doomed to sink into anarchy. Your idea of what is acceptible and mine differ on this one issue, think about if this were the case across the spectrum of citizens and the spectrum of laws. Laws that are no longer valid or acceptible as written should be changed, not disregarded.

I know what they are ASKED to do, that doesn't mean they don't have the power to do otherwise.

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy" - First Chief Justice of the US John Jay

There are activist groups currently trying to keep judges from burying jurors power of jury nullification.

Midtowner,

I don't always agree with everything you comment on, but that (#25) was a very good post.

I hope all went well for you on the Bar exam. When will you get the results?

Might we all expect a big celebration when you get the results?

Whether or not there's a celebration will depend entirely on the results.

Consider this scenario:

Using the set of facts described in the thread (family appears to be gainfully employed, law-abiding members of a local community, without a terribly aggravated allegation of marijuana cultivation), and in the rare event of a trial, the Court allows an instruction on jury nullification and the family is acquitted (and for the sake of argument, assume the defendants admit the conduct, but rely on the nullification instruction).

Down the hall, a case of substantially the same facts goes to trial, although this defendant is not a local - perhaps an unemployed transplant from Los Angeles. This defendant can't even afford a suit for trial, much less money to post bond, so has a pretty rough appearance from several months in the county jail prior to trial. No ties to the community, a virtual unknown in Antlers, America. This judge also allows a jury nullification instruction, but this defendant is convicted.

Seems to me to be pretty dangerous for a jury to be empowered to determine who the law should apply to. When judges and lawyers argue and make legal determinations, the arguments and findings are all in the light of day - on the record - and subject to appellate review. Remember jury deliberations are not - there is no avenue for appealing what occurs in the confines of a jury room unless a juror chooses to reveal those exchanges (which seldom happens).

Jury nullification is a dangerous concept. "We the jury choose to acquit one defendant for the same actions for which we would convict another...."

This illustrates the value of reputation and roots in a community.

Whether or not there's a celebration will depend entirely on the results.

I was being and thinking positive on your behalf. You know, see it in your mind as coming true and it will. I am a product of psychocybernetics. But that sure ain't been no good to me with the Oklahoma Lottery.

Jury nullification - what is the relevance in state court? Kevin? Other practicing Oklahoma lawyers?

If found guilty, they deserve whatever justice the jury metes out to them.

And if I was on the jury I would require the prosecution to put a witness on the stand to tell how someone was harmed from this pot growing. If it wasn't done, I would vote not guilty because the law against marijuana as used against this case is totally wrong and unjust.

Jury nullification is a dangerous concept. "We the jury choose to acquit one defendant for the same actions for which we would convict another...."

Wrong. As I stated elsewhere, in a drug case I would base my judgement as a juror upon if the defendent has actually harmed someone against his or her will, not based on who the person is. So I'm all for jury nullification.

Caboose - I respectfully disagree. In fact, jurors are typically instructed in both State and Federal court to the contrary. Jurors are finders of fact - judges rule on the law. Jurors are duty-bound to follow the law.

I'm not so naive to overlook the fact that jurors often reach a compromise in the jury room, often associated with varying degrees of jury nullification theory. It happens. That is not, however, a "right" of a juror and in fact, in direct conflict with every juror's oath to "follow the law".

Whatever, the secret to getting out of jury duty is to have some jury nullification propaganda sticking out of your pocket when being questioned as a prospect.

You should be complaining to the legislators. They are the ones that have the power to do something about it.

It would be a waste of time. The majority of Oklahoma legislators fear they would get thrown out of office if they eased up on Oklahoma laws against marijuana. The same goes with the federal legislators. I would even bet the majority of Oklahomans would be highly irate and strongly opposed to any ideas of making medical marijuana legal. Ater all, another conservative state, South Dakota nixed legal medical marijuana at the polls.

Further more, as an astute political observor in here pointed out to me, the Republicans are out to claim the governor's office in 2010 and they sure don't want to take a chance blowing it by getting associated with anything like supporting legalizing medical marijuana.

A side note on the legalization of medical pot. In Colorado, they've realized that a pretty fair number of folks using pot for medical reasons don't seem to have any real medical problems. They've started pressuring a chiropracter in a Denver suburb that has significantly increased his business since he got his license to sell. He claims he never keeps more on hand than he sells in one day but he had at least a dozen different varieties "on hand." He's currently under investigation but they can't decide what constitutes distribution for "medical purposes" vs. "dealing."

Midtowner - A fairly well thought out and verbose reply, (as practicioners of jurispurdence are wont to do) but you made a lot of incorrect assumptions:



If it is your contention that because this is rarely prosecuted compared to the number of times the law is broken, ergo injustice, then by extension, where do you come down on rape? It happens a lot, especially with date rape, and it's never prosecuted. Speeding? Child pornography? Where exactly do you draw the line?

The topic of this discussion is Oklahoma marijuana law. Why create additional arguments concerning other offenses having nothing to do with the topic at hand? Further, it was your contention that the law is selectively enforced and rarely prosecuted, and that these people must have somehow crossed someone within the local government, hence their being charged.



Well here's the thing. Lawyers aren't the ones who make laws. And unless a law happens to be unconstitutional (and this one has been tested many, many times and is not unconstutional), there's not much that can be done to change things. What you have to do is influence those in the state legislature and Congress to change the laws. "It's not fair!!!!" is not a defense and will probably not impress anyone at trial.

Are you saying that lawyers have no influence with lawmakers, probably a majority of whom are lawers themselves? I have already stated earlier in the thread that I have voiced my opinion on Oklahoma's drug laws, among other issues, to my legislators. Why would you even make such a statement such as "it's not fair!!!" not being a defense? Lets be realistic here. You know little about me, but had you read earlier posts, perhaps you could have avoided such a statement. Discussion boards are only one of numerous methods of public communication. You seem to have assumed that OKC talk is the only place I voice my opinion.


If this is your method of challenging these laws, it really only makes you look foolish and like you don't understand how laws are made.

There you go again with the assumption that because someone voices an opinion on a message board they look foolish. Well, it looks pretty foolish that an aspiring attorney who just completed the bar exam would make such assumptions. Hopefully you will not make similar assumptions in court when you get your opportunity. I'm not trying to turn this into a personality issue, I just want to avoid unnecessary assumptions bordering on insult.



I guess blacks and hispanics probably don't show up anywhere on your radar even though they make up the majority of defendants charged with this crime. Your approach to protesting these laws is too narrowly focused. You'll get nowhere if all you do is complain when white, middle class folks are prosecuted for drug crimes.

Yet another incorrect assumption. I believe Oklahoma's marijuana laws to be unjust across the board regardless of the race or socio-economic status of the individuals who find themselves being charged with marijuana posession. Laws like OK's are one of the reasons so many blacks and hispanics populate our prisons. This working family we are discussing will likely have the money and means to hire the best attorney to resolve this issue outside of court whereas many minorities and poor whites will not. That is an even greater injustice to me.


You would do well to broaden your horizons -- look at legislators and congressmen who sit idly by while the state locks up thousands of non-violent offenders for this crime. Look at the private prison industry which is not only building private prisons all over the state to house these people, it's also peddling an amazing amount of influence at both the state and federal levels. When you complain about these individual cases, you're really complaining about the end result of a process, so why not turn your focus to the beginning of the process where if enough pressure is brought, real change could happen?

More assumptions, now as to the broadness of my horizions? My friend, you have no idea. Other than the "horizions" assumption, and the assumption that I am only complaining about the end result, I agree with you about idle legislators who cause our prisons to be filled with non violent offenders and the private prison lobby.

The bottom line is that Oklahoma's marijuana laws are out dated, too harsh and need to be changed because no good whatsoever is being done for our communities as a result. In the meantime, while we work toward convincing our legislators to change these laws, jury nullification is one method that can be used to get the message across to idle legislators and over zealous prosecutors looking only for the next conviction to place in their "win" column, instead of actually seeking justice.

So Bunty - simply because you don't agree with the law, would you acquit all prostitution charges? Would you acquit a possession of heroin charge because no one was harmed? Would you acquit the man getting on board an international flight because he hadn't done anyone any harm? Again, laws are on the books for a reason. If each American goes around interpreting the law for his own peace of mind or trying to decide if I think graffitti is art or vandalism, then we are in for legal chaos and anarchy. There's that group discussed in the other thread that is going around the country pushing for legalization (if only for medical purposes). If you don't want to convict folks like these in Antlers, then work with this group to get the law changed. Until then, laws are on the books and people need to abide by them. I will even put my seatbelt on as long as it is the law.

Beautiful post, man.

So Bunty - simply because you don't agree with the law, would you acquit all prostitution charges? Would you acquit a possession of heroin charge because no one was harmed? Would you acquit the man getting on board an international flight because he hadn't done anyone any harm? Again, laws are on the books for a reason. If each American goes around interpreting the law for his own peace of mind or trying to decide if I think graffitti is art or vandalism, then we are in for legal chaos and anarchy. There's that group discussed in the other thread that is going around the country pushing for legalization (if only for medical purposes). If you don't want to convict folks like these in Antlers, then work with this group to get the law changed. Until then, laws are on the books and people need to abide by them. I will even put my seatbelt on as long as it is the law.

Should have said "acquit the man who tried to get on board the international flight with a gun....."

Should have said "acquit the man who tried to get on board the international flight with a gun....."

So by your standards those who ran the "underground railroad" DESERVED to be prosecuted. Civil disobedience is always wrong in your world? Bad laws are just fine with you?

Civil Disobedience is a tool to demonstrate how ridiculous the penalties for a given infraction can be when good people are willing to pay the price on principal. Civil disobedience takes courage and conviction. Trying to equate possession of pot to civil disobedience is an insult to the men and women who have laid their freedom on the line to change bad laws. This wasn't about changing the law. This was about a family smoking pot and hoping they didn't get caught. Nothing noble about it and it WASN'T civil disobedience.

So Bunty - simply because you don't agree with the law, would you acquit all prostitution charges? Would you acquit a possession of heroin charge because no one was harmed? Would you acquit the man getting on board an international flight because he hadn't done anyone any harm? Again, laws are on the books for a reason. If each American goes around interpreting the law for his own peace of mind or trying to decide if I think graffitti is art or vandalism, then we are in for legal chaos and anarchy. There's that group discussed in the other thread that is going around the country pushing for legalization (if only for medical purposes). If you don't want to convict folks like these in Antlers, then work with this group to get the law changed. Until then, laws are on the books and people need to abide by them. I will even put my seatbelt on as long as it is the law.

For a more free and safer society, consensual crimes like prostitution should be legal. After all, not all of us have the charm and sex appeal to get sex for free. You can't really regulate prostitution unless its legalized.

Same with drugs. If heroin was legal I wouldn't be any more concerned about someone in possession of it any more than someone in possession of strong whiskey? But with it illegal I'm more concerned about the heroin because unlike alcohol it's sold under unregulated conditions and so some risk of unintentionaly taking an overdose. But then addiction to heroin is less harmful to the body than addiction to alcohol. So, yes, heroin should be legalized. Then cops can make society more safe by having more time going after the people, the real criminals who are really committing harmful acts against the will of the people.

Should have said "acquit the man who tried to get on board the international flight with a gun....."

It's still not comparabe to someone selling marijuana to someone or a clerk in a liquor store selling a body of alcohol to someone.

I would add, though, if the prosecutor could provide evidence that there was a conspiracy or intent to do harm I wouldn't have trouble voting guilty, rather than not guility.

Civil Disobedience is a tool to demonstrate how ridiculous the penalties for a given infraction can be when good people are willing to pay the price on principal. Civil disobedience takes courage and conviction. Trying to equate possession of pot to civil disobedience is an insult to the men and women who have laid their freedom on the line to change bad laws. This wasn't about changing the law. This was about a family smoking pot and hoping they didn't get caught. Nothing noble about it and it WASN'T civil disobedience.

My goodness, Eco, I missed the part about them smoking the pot. I guess I better go back and read it. I never said they were doing it as civil disobedience. I was using that to question his view that laws are all good and should be obeyed BECAUSE they are laws. That is a tad absurd.

If someone calls for a smoke-in at the Capitol, I'll be there and putting my freedom on the line.

Acquitting simply because you feel prostitution is a victimless crime IS. So is acquitting someone for possession of heroin IS. Acquitting someone for possession of a handgun in an airport IS comperable because all 3 are against the law. However, on 1 or 2 of the 3 examples above, you may feel the law is wrong and take it upon yourself to acquit simply because you feel like it. In all 3 cases, the law is the law. Though this jury nullification situation may be legal (which I believe is true, though maybe not everywhere or in all circumstances - I dont know) and allowed, but is it moral and is it right? Again, if everyone starts to interpret the laws themselves, we have chaos. Interpretation of the laws is what the courts and the judges are for. Juries are there to decided facts. Yes, there are times that the facts may not support the charges and in those cases, I believe the jury should have some leeway to discuss the charges with the judge and the prosecution. However, to acquit someone who is guilty of a crime simply because you don't agree with the law is wrong-minded.

If someone calls for a smoke-in at the Capitol, I'll be there and putting my freedom on the line.
Good for you. When did this become about you, though?

For a more free and safer society, consensual crimes like prostitution should be legal. After all, not all of us have the charm and sex appeal to get sex for free. You can't really regulate prostitution unless its legalized.

Same with drugs. If heroin was legal I wouldn't be any more concerned about someone in possession of it any more than someone in possession of strong whiskey?

I agree with you on the prostitution issue, Bunty, but I dont have such strong feelings on it that I am going to go out and try to change the law. I will leave that to someone else. The point is, that if I were on a jury that was hearing a prostitution case (lets say its the Elliot Spitzer case, just for fun) and the facts bore out that the woman was guilty of prostitution, I would have to find her guilty because the law is the law.

As for heroin, you have to be kidding.....you are no more worried about someone on heroin that Whiskey? OK. I hope someone doesn't try to GIVE a young relative of yours a sample of black tar heroin - the kind that killed 14 Dallas area teenagers and Dallas Cowboy Mark Tuinei in the 1990's, all of whom probably only took the drug the one time. It was so potent it hooked many other teens on the FIRST try. The ******* who were dealing it gave the drug out for free to hook teens of wealthy families at parties knowing they had the money to buy it.

I agree with you on the prostitution issue, Bunty, but I dont have such strong feelings on it that I am going to go out and try to change the law. I will leave that to someone else. The point is, that if I were on a jury that was hearing a prostitution case (lets say its the Elliot Spitzer case, just for fun) and the facts bore out that the woman was guilty of prostitution, I would have to find her guilty because the law is the law.

As for heroin, you have to be kidding.....you are no more worried about someone on heroin that Whiskey? OK. I hope someone doesn't try to GIVE a young relative of yours a sample of black tar heroin - the kind that killed 14 Dallas area teenagers and Dallas Cowboy Mark Tuinei in the 1990's, all of whom probably only took the drug the one time. It was so potent it hooked many other teens on the FIRST try. The ******* who were dealing it gave the drug out for free to hook teens of wealthy families at parties knowing they had the money to buy it. That would not have hapened if it were legal. Also, because it is cheap to make, people would not have to be crimanals to get it. People on heroin are much less dangerous than drunks.

That would not have hapened if it were legal. Also, because it is cheap to make, people would not have to be crimanals to get it. People on heroin are much less dangerous than drunks.

I don't even have a reply for that other than to wish you luck in your life - you're going to need a lot of it if you really believe what you just typed.

Good for you. When did this become about you, though?Sorry. I thought that you thought that I didn't fully understand civil disobediance and it's function in a democratic republic.

I don't even have a reply for that other than to wish you luck in your life - you're going to need a lot of it if you really believe what you just typed.

USG '60 is right and wrote some good sense. But thanks to you for pointing out horrors that can happen upon society as a result of making drugs like heroin illegal.

Listen, illegal drugs mean they are utterly out of control in society from no regulation the way alcohol is. That means when kids buy banned drugs they're not asked to show an ID. Who knows how many kids think illegal drugs might be OK for them, after all, after they find out that narcs estimate they only confiscate 10% of the underground drug market? Aren't you afraid kids might come to think they have been lied to all along about how harmful drugs can be, or otherwise, the government would be trying to do a lot better job of trying to protect them from drugs?

Let me get this straight. Through the logic of you, Bunty and USG60, you are saying the likes of those selling the black tar heroin wouldn't happen if heroin were legal? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? How do you come to the conclusion that drugs are not harmful? What about all the grunge rockers of the 90's that died - I think, exclusively from heroin? Did they die of OD's simply because heroin is illegal? NO! They died because heroin is deadly. Do I think marijuana is deadly? No. It's still illegal. So if I am sitting on a jury on a pot possession charge and the facts point to guilt, I will find guilty because that is the law - not because I think the law is wrong or right.