Life sentence for pot conviction. When will the madness end?

[BenBurch]

Repeatedly selling pot from your house where your young son lives isn't too bright.

Especially when you've been given enormous breaks the last 2 times you were arrested for distributing pot. He should have been in jail still from those arrests.

Even the proper sentence, 15 years for a continuous offender, means his life is pretty much over. He'd be fifty when released, with little chance at much of a life. He'd have missed his son growing up anyway.

I have no problem with reducing this to the normal 15 years for such a slow and ungrateful learner.

So, you own a tavern. And you have children who live upstairs, as was very typical of taverns not so many years ago.

Should the barkeeper have his children taken from him because he exposes them to alcoholics?

A proper sentence is zero. Marijuana causes no harm to society that is worse than the harm caused by it being contraband. Decency and humanity would consist of legalization.

 

[Furcifer]

Once upon a time in America there was a "duly enacted law" that runaway slaves had to be returned to their owners.

Some laws are so unjust, that all means of resistance, legal or illegal, are not just acceptable, but a moral imperative. (Not that prohibition is as bad as slavery, but that "X is legal, therefore good; Y is illegal, therefore bad" is lazy thinking).

I consider most laws against drugs to be so unjust, that were I on a jury, I would refuse to enforce them. Just as I would refuse to convict someone who harbored a runaway slave.

Your premise is flawed.

Even if weed was legal I doubt it will ever be sold out of a double wide. If he was selling Tylenol 3's he'd still be in trouble and probably in jail even though they are legal.

Unless you're for declassifying drugs in addition to making them legal? I could imagine people getting on board with legalization, maybe, but never to the extent you are presuming here to consider this guys sentence unjust.

 

[Puppycow]

Your premise is flawed.

Even if weed was legal I doubt it will ever be sold out of a double wide. If he was selling Tylenol 3's he'd still be in trouble and probably in jail even though they are legal.

Unless you're for declassifying drugs in addition to making them legal? I could imagine people getting on board with legalization, maybe, but never to the extent you are presuming here to consider this guys sentence unjust.

Unlike Tylenol 3's, marijuana is a plant you can grow in your garden. Therefore why wouldn't it "be sold out of a double wide"? People can sell their tomatoes, can't they?

 

[JamesDillon]

A Lawyer? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHHA I knew it! Nobody else could have such a high regard for the law. I was half expecting you to say you were a cop.

Do you have anything to say beyond more ad hominems? Let's see.

Laws are binding to me only insofar as you can exert force to make me follow them. I have accepted no social contract to follow the laws that the legislature passes. I simply do not accept their authority over me. It's really that simple. Whether that's legally the case or not is only relevant if they can catch me. The legal obligation itself is a fiction. Quite simply it's not my government and I simply don't recognize it's authority. All the legal garbage flies out the window with that. I'm sure this might be shocking to you but it's simply reality. The government itself is a legal fiction.

Legal obligation is undeniably a social construct, and whether you accept it or not, the law claims authority to impose duties on you. It claims that authority regardless of whether you violate any law or not, and regardless of whether you're caught and punished or not. So nothing you say here contradicts my statement to Taarkin, regardless of whether you "accept" the legitimacy of governmental authority.

You're a lawyer. Of course you're going to think this.

Pausing to note that your response is riddled with ad hominems like this, I'm going to jump to the part below, which I think captures all the rest:

My entire argument doesn't hang on it. The vast majority of people aren't going to think murder or rape is ok, therefore if everyone follows their conscience things will be fine. It's a total straw man BS idea that I'm proposing people murder each other. How much of current behavior is simply due to the law vs what people would do naturally? The place where I think laws get out of hand is when they start to usurp areas that span "soft" moral boundaries. You have to show that murder laws are what prevent people from murdering before you can claim this point. This is kind of like when moralist religious nuts claim that atheists are evil and have no conscience. Laws don't create conscience, they mostly follow it.

Again, you're missing my point here, which is not about the substance of any particular moral decision but about who gets to make those decisions for society. Murders, rapes, and pedophilia happen today, so we needn't hypothesize some far-off dystopia to believe that people are capable of these acts, and that some people see nothing wrong with them. Under your view, how would such crimes be punished? Who would have the authority to punish them? If each individual is free to decide for himself which laws to follow, then who has the right to punish any crime?

Black people and mexicans. Why do you think drug laws exist in the first place? I literally think prohibition is simply an extension of Jim Crow which was an extension of slavery. Yes, I am dead serious.

In this particular case I think there is a direct connection between drug laws and racism.

I don't doubt that you are serious, and you're right. The disparate impact of the drug laws on blacks in particular is a serious issue, and it calls for a serious response. The recent recalibration of the crack-to-powder cocaine sentencing ratios in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is a step in the right direction, and more needs to be done.

So Mr. Lawyer, which part of the constitution gives the federal government the ability to make it illegal for me to grow and consume my own pot?

The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. See Gonzales v. Raich. But note that here, we're talking about state legislation, not federal. State governments are not governments of enumerated powers-- they can enact whatever legislation they want as long as it doesn't violate a constitutional restriction.


BOTTOM LINE: Following the sound of cries, a policeman turns a corner into an alley to find a man defiling the freshly-dead corpse of a young girl. The policeman pulls his gun and tells the man he's under arrest. "But," says the man, "I reject your laws against murder and rape. My conscience tells me that these acts are morally upright." Under the NewtonTrino theory of moral legitimacy, what is the policeman to do? Is he justified in arresting the man? Should he be convicted of murder and rape despite his sincerely-held views that those laws are unjust? If so, why?

 

[BenBurch]

Unlike Tylenol 3's, marijuana is a plant you can grow in your garden. Therefore why wouldn't it "be sold out of a double wide"? People can sell their tomatoes, can't they?

And boiled peanuts. (Ick.)

 

[dtugg]

Hardly. In fact that statement is far more outrageous.

Do you think that people should be imprisoned for possessing or selling alcohol? It is more dangerous than most illegal drugs. Certainly way more dangerous than marijuana.

 

[Tony]

So this is the land of the free, huh? Impressive...

Shameful, isn't it?

 

[KingMerv00]

A Lawyer? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHHA I knew it! Nobody else could have such a high regard for the law. I was half expecting you to say you were a cop.

As someone who has gone to law school, I can only respond with .

 

[NewtonTrino]

Do you have anything to say beyond more ad hominems? Let's see.

I've said my piece. It wasn't an ad hominem. It was simply pointing out that you have a vested interest in the current legal system and that you're likely biased.

Legal obligation is undeniably a social construct, and whether you accept it or not, the law claims authority to impose duties on you. It claims that authority regardless of whether you violate any law or not, and regardless of whether you're caught and punished or not. So nothing you say here contradicts my statement to Taarkin, regardless of whether you "accept" the legitimacy of governmental authority.

You're simply conflating reality and legal reality. Legal means nothing when it comes to reality. My rights begin and end with my ability to enforce them and nothing else. The laws ability to enforce itself is where it begins and ends as well.

Pausing to note that your response is riddled with ad hominems like this, I'm going to jump to the part below, which I think captures all the rest:

I just want the casual read to know you're biased.

Again, you're missing my point here, which is not about the substance of any particular moral decision but about who gets to make those decisions for society. Murders, rapes, and pedophilia happen today, so we needn't hypothesize some far-off dystopia to believe that people are capable of these acts, and that some people see nothing wrong with them. Under your view, how would such crimes be punished? Who would have the authority to punish them? If each individual is free to decide for himself which laws to follow, then who has the right to punish any crime?

Nobody has the right to punish anyone else other than to the extent THEY CAN. No natural right to police and punish other exists. In fact rights themselves are simply a legal construct that have no meaning other than to the extent they can be enforced.

I don't doubt that you are serious, and you're right. The disparate impact of the drug laws on blacks in particular is a serious issue, and it calls for a serious response. The recent recalibration of the crack-to-powder cocaine sentencing ratios in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is a step in the right direction, and more needs to be done.

DIRECT QUESTION: During the slavery era should those on the underground railroad have called the police instead of harboring slaves against the law? If your answer is yes, they should have called the police then at least you are consistent. If your answer is no then extend that same argument to the pot laws and you have the essence of my argument.

The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. See Gonzales v. Raich. But note that here, we're talking about state legislation, not federal. State governments are not governments of enumerated powers-- they can enact whatever legislation they want as long as it doesn't violate a constitutional restriction.

You didn't answer the question. Also, a cite isn't enough, I want an explanation in your words as to what part of the constitution gives the FEDERAL government the right to prevent me from growing and consuming my own pot. I've never argued that the states are so prohibited, but the feds sure are. If you think they have the authority then please cite the constitution and explain in your own words why.

 

[NewtonTrino]

As someone who has gone to law school, I can only respond with .

My main argument would be that as a lawyer he makes his living from this system and is going to be inherently biased.

This isn't to say I hate lawyers BTW. I hate the fact that they're necessary but if I use one (and I do, well more than one) I want the best available.

 

[KingMerv00]

I've said my piece. It wasn't an ad hominem. It was simply pointing out that you have a vested interest in the current legal system and that you're likely biased.

Not necessarily. Some lawyers spend their time changing the legal system.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Unlike Tylenol 3's, marijuana is a plant you can grow in your garden. Therefore why wouldn't it "be sold out of a double wide"? People can sell their tomatoes, can't they?

Exactly. People sell flowers out of their garden all the time. Pot is simply a flower.

Does anyone here dispute the fact that pot per se isn't dangerous? Does anyone here think it's a public menace? If so I would love to hear your reasoning (or lack thereof which is more likely IMHO).

 

[KingMerv00]

My main argument would be that as a lawyer he makes his living from this system and is going to be inherently biased.

See my previous statement.

 

[simper]

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Arrest the judge for doing his job. Good luck finding a judge to try him!

There have been masses of judges who have comitted crimes against humanity because the law allowed it. "doing his job" is not an excuse to act immorally.

 

[Puppycow]

As others have said, that's irrelevent. It IS a crime.

Actually, that is precisely the point. It shouldn't be a crime.

I thought your objection was on moral grounds. Financially it makes far more sense to take him out back and shoot him. Bullets are cheap.

One can have multiple grounds for any position.

Bullets are cheap . . . if you want our criminal justice system to resemble China's. Capital punishment as practiced in the US is not cheap at all.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Not necessarily. Some lawyers spend their time changing the legal system.

Absolutely. But you have to admit that a lawyer is going to have a special relationship to the law.

 

[JamesDillon]

I've said my piece. It wasn't an ad hominem. It was simply pointing out that you have a vested interest in the current legal system and that you're likely biased.

I suppose I am "biased" in the sense of having spent a lot of time thinking about these issues and studying in some detail a couple of centuries of writing by judges and scholars trying to derive a morally legitimate balance of majoritarian rule and individual liberty. Mea culpa.

Nobody has the right to punish anyone else other than to the extent THEY CAN. No natural right to police and punish other exists. In fact rights themselves are simply a legal construct that have no meaning other than to the extent they can be enforced.

Isn't this inconsistent with everything you've said? If right is nothing more than might, then legislative enactments are right by definition, to the extent they're backed by the force of the state. You accused me of believing that, but it sounds like you do. And if that's the case-- if the right to punish is nothing more than having the power to do so-- then how can we apply moral standards to the exercise of that right? Under your theory, if the government can enforce racially discriminatory prohibitions through the criminal law, then it has the right to do so. What room is there for moral criticism?

The answer, obviously, is that the power to punish is more than simply having the brute strength to do so. There is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate authority, and for that reason we can speak of morally justified and unjustified punishment. But as soon as you concede that, you have to concede that you, as a citizen, are also subject to the state's legitimate right to impose legitimate restrictions on your conduct-- even restrictions that you may personally dislike.

DIRECT QUESTION: During the slavery era should those on the underground railroad have called the police instead of harboring slaves against the law? If your answer is yes, they should have called the police then at least you are consistent. If your answer is no then extend that same argument to the pot laws and you have the essence of my argument.

I've already addressed the slavery analogy. Read what I said above.

You didn't answer the question. Also, a cite isn't enough, I want an explanation in your words as to what part of the constitution gives the FEDERAL government the right to prevent me from growing and consuming my own pot. I've never argued that the states are so prohibited, but the feds sure are. If you think they have the authority then please cite the constitution and explain in your own words why.

I did cite the Constitution. I won't repeat it but I'm sure you can't miss it if you pay attention to what I said previously. The question of federal authority is a red herring; we've been talking all along about a Lousiana state law, which you did say several pages ago was "blatantly unconstitutional." Personally I am somewhat skeptical of the broad reading that the Court has given to the [provision of the Constitution that I previously cited] since the New Deal, and I don't necessarily believe that Raich was correctly decided. But as a descriptive matter, it is the law.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I suppose I am "biased" in the sense of having spent a lot of time thinking about these issues and studying in some detail a couple of centuries of writing by judges and scholars trying to derive a morally legitimate balance of majoritarian rule and individual liberty. Mea culpa.

Yeah, and going to law school makes you way more educated than everyone else too. :rolls eyes:

Isn't this inconsistent with everything you've said? If right is nothing more than might, then legislative enactments are right by definition, to the extent they're backed by the force of the state. You accused me of believing that, but it sounds like you do.

No.

I've already addressed the slavery analogy. Read what I said above.

I asked you a direct question which you've refused to answer because you know I'm right. Evasion noted.

I did cite the Constitution. I won't repeat it but I'm sure you can't miss it if you pay attention to what I said previously. The question of federal authority is a red herring. Personally I am somewhat skeptical of the broad reading that the Court has given to the [provision of the Constitution that I previously cited]since the New Deal, and I don't necessarily believe that Raich was correctly decided. But as a descriptive matter, it is the law.

You weaseled. I didn't ask about state law. I asked about your opinion and your explanation of why you think they have the authority. Bottom line I was asking for YOUR OPINION on the provision that lets the feds regulate. Allow me to clarify your answer "I agree with you that the feds have no authority to regulate this but the supremes disagree and it's the law". So basically you agree with me. Thanks.

 

[KingMerv00]

Absolutely. But you have to admit that a lawyer is going to have a special relationship to the law.

EVERYONE has an interest in the law being followed predictably. If laws were arbitrary and capricious (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) they'd be impossible to follow.

For the record, I don't think a man should spend his life in prison for being convicted of pot offenses...whether it be the fourth time or the four hundreth time.

 

[WildCat]

A proper sentence is zero. Marijuana causes no harm to society that is worse than the harm caused by it being contraband. Decency and humanity would consist of legalization.

But this guy was trafficking marijuana, and that causes many thousands of deaths every year. If I'm on a jury I'm not letting some gang-banging dope dealer off because I don't think marijuana should be illegal. Not that I know this is the case here, but this wasn't some guy getting busted for smoking a joint at a Snoop Dogg concert.