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

[Bob001]

...
It doesn't work like that ... the cops didn't kick down her door ...

Actually, that's basically what happened. Helmsley and her 80-year-old husband were charged with over 200 counts of criminal tax evasion and mail fraud. It's not like she failed to pay a bill from the IRS. Her husband was ruled too sick to stand trial, so she was tried alone. Key testimony against her came from an accountant who was under investigation for crimes in other cases and apparently made a deal with prosecutors. Her appeals attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Robert Bork (quite a spectrum), contended that she was framed for political purposes. It's hard to believe that if she had been offered the chance to pay a civil fine and penalty she wouldn't have taken it.

 

[KingMerv00]

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.

What if he wasn't a gang-banger?

 

[WildCat]

Do you think that people should be imprisoned for possessing or selling alcohol?

It actually happens all the time, if you don't think so try operating a still in your back yard ands selling its product.

 

[KingMerv00]

It actually happens all the time, if you don't think so try operating a still in your back yard ands selling its product.

He asked "should".

 

[NewtonTrino]

But this guy was trafficking marijuana, and that causes many thousands of deaths every year.

Proof? I would argue that any deaths involved fall squarely on the shoulders of the legislators creating such ill informed laws that create vast black markets. Get rid of the laws and the deaths going away. Just like alcohol. Oh well, society is doomed to repeat it's failures over and over apparently.

 

[JamesDillon]

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

Well, I like to think it means that I at least know a bit more about how the law works than most people. I wouldn't be much of a lawyer if I didn't.

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

I've already explained, in post number 156, why the slavery analogy is absurd. I am not going to repeat myself.

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.

We've been discussing state law all along. Hood was convicted under a state statute. Are you claiming that when you said:

There is IMHO no moral obligation to follow or enforce all the laws on the books.... Especially laws that are blatantly unconstitutional like drug laws.

that you were actually referring to federal drug laws? Why? In what way are federal drug laws relevant to the discussion? And why didn't you clarify that in response to my repeated attempts to get you to explain why you find "drug laws" to be "blatantly unconstitutional," particularly after this post?

I've asked others for some explanation of how recidivism-enhancement laws are unconstitutional, so I'll ask you for some explanation-- hopefully beyond your own heartfelt belief-- as to why drug laws are "blatantly unconstitutional." And bear in mind we're dealing with state drug laws here, which aren't subject to Article I limitations on Congressional power.

I never expressed any opinion on the constitutionality of federal drug laws-- that would take us on a deep detour into Commerce Clause jurisprudence that's completely irrelevant to the questions of state law we've been discussing. Yes, since you asked, I'm not fully persuaded that the expansive view of the Commerce Clause adopted by Raich and Wickard v. Filburn is a historically legitimate one, but getting into that issue would require starting another thread because it has nothing to do with what we've been talking about all night.

 

[NewtonTrino]

It actually happens all the time, if you don't think so try operating a still in your back yard ands selling its product.

How about just operating a still for your own consumption then?

Anyway you evaded the question.

Why can nobody around here answer a question simply and honestly? I try to be dead honest and not bring my agenda into how I answer questions.

 

[Furcifer]

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?

So are mushrooms, hops and poppy flowers right?

Alcohol is legal and very easy to make, but bootlegging will still land you in the slammer.

Even if pot was legal I don't think it will ever be legalized to the extent that anyone can sell it like tomatoes at a road side stand. Like I said, try selling your own hooch at a roadside stand. (I suspect you'll spend a lot of time running from the cops in a orange Charger)

And think about this, if you sell tomatoes at a roadside stand and get busted 4 times for not paying taxes on the income what's going to happen?

 

[NewtonTrino]

Well, I like to think it means that I at least know a bit more about how the law works than most people.

:rolls eyes: AGAIN.

I've already explained, in post number 156, why the slavery analogy is absurd. I am not going to repeat myself.

I asked you a direct question that you've refused to answer. It's a yes or no question, not hard. Evasion noted. You certainly are a lawyer.

We've been discussing state law all along. Hood was convicted under a state statute. Are you claiming that when you said:

I asked a DIRECT question about FEDERAL law. You simply evaded my question.

that you were actually referring to federal drug laws? Why? In what way are federal drug laws relevant to the discussion? And why didn't you clarify that in response to my repeated attempts to get you to explain why you find "drug laws" to be "blatantly unconstitutional," particularly after this post?

Drug laws are blatantly unconstitutional on a federal level. The supreme court disagree with me. They are wrong.

I never expressed any opinion on the constitutionality of federal drug laws-- that would take us on a deep detour into Commerce Clause jurisprudence that's completely irrelevant to the questions of state law we've been discussing. Yes, since you asked, I'm not fully persuaded that the expansive view of the Commerce Clause adopted by Raich and Wickard v. Filburn is a historically legitimate one, but getting into that issue would require starting another thread because it has nothing to do with what we've been talking about all night.

Bottom line, you agree with me. The feds don't have a leg to stand on with regards to regulating drugs. The FDA should be abolished and the authority passed to the states.

 

[Mister Earl]

*whistles innocently*

Ok, ok. I couldn't help myself.

 

[NewtonTrino]

So are mushrooms, hops and poppy flowers right?

Yup, and all of those should be legal to sell out of your doublewide as well.

Alcohol legal and very easy to make, but bootlegging will still land you in the slammer.

Not on the small scale we are talking about here. Feel free to post a link to a case involving a small scale bootlegger going to jail though. Like someone selling booze out of a doublewide going to jail for life would be a good example. Good luck.

Even if pot was legal I don't think it will ever be legalized to the extent that anyone can sell it like tomatoes at a road side stand. Like I said, try selling your own hooch at a roadside stand. (I suspect you'll spend a lot of time running from the cops in a orange Charger)

Lol, you're probably right. It doesn't mean it's not a good idea though.

Pot laws are immoral and unjust. Supporters of them are evil.

 

[KingMerv00]

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

Well, yes. Going to med school makes you way more educated. Becoming an apprentice electrician makes you way more educated. etc. Isn't that what the word educated is supposed to mean?

I don't think an education makes you smarter but it can certainly help you know more than the average person.

 

[JamesDillon]

:rolls eyes: AGAIN.

Is this also to demonstrate my "bias," or are you just throwing out the ad hominems for fun now?

I asked you a direct question that you've refused to answer. It's a yes or no question, not hard. Evasion noted. You certainly are a lawyer.

Your direct question is already answered. I'm sorry if you can't be bothered to read what I wrote.

I asked a DIRECT question about FEDERAL law. You simply evaded my question.

I evaded your question by citing the Constitutional provision and Supreme Court case directly on point? Yeah... shifty of me.

And just to review, let's return to that question:

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?

I'll note that this doesn't say anything about asking for my opinion. It asks, as a factual matter, what part of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate growing marijuana for home use. My response was precisely on point, citing the relevant provision and the leading case.

Bottom line, you agree with me. The feds don't have a leg to stand on with regards to regulating drugs. The FDA should be abolished and the authority passed to the states.

No, I don't agree with you at all. Some degree of hesitation with respect to Raich and Wickard is hardly the same thing as saying "the feds don't have a leg to stand on." A decision by the United States Supreme Court is certainly "a leg." It's also interesting how you've jumped from "grow[ing] and consum[ing] your own pot"-- which I'll concede is a shaky application of the Commerce Clause power but clearly addressed by Raich-- to abolishing the FDA and all drug laws. Congress clearly has the authority to regulate drugs in interstate commerce.

 

[KingMerv00]

Pot laws are immoral and unjust.

I agree.

Supporters of them are evil.

Bit much, don't you think?

 

[NewtonTrino]

Bit much, don't you think?

- 1000's of deaths a year related to trafficking similar to the deaths during the gangster era of alcohol prohibition
- 100,000's of people in jail unnecessarily

Nope, evil describes it nicely.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Congress clearly has the authority to regulate drugs in interstate commerce.

Not the question I asked. I framed my question very specifically.

What gives the feds the authority to prevent me from growing and consuming my own pot?

 

[JamesDillon]

Not the question I asked. I framed my question very specifically.

What gives the feds the authority to prevent me from growing and consuming my own pot?

Once again, I'm not going to repeat myself. I've addressed this thoroughly.

 

[Furcifer]

Pot laws are immoral and unjust. Supporters of them are evil.

I agree. But...

I think this has to do more with not following the law. He's a habitual offender. In the eyes of the law that is going to overshadow his crime. It suggests that he just isn't ever going to follow the laws.

Now you could say that if there wasn't stupid laws concerning weed he would have never been involved with the law. Or you could say no matter what the laws this guy is never going to follow them.

Because it was his fourth time the assumption is going to be the latter. Just sayin.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Didn't they try 3 times before not to spend the $2 million? This guy was determined to have a long prison stay.

I fail to spend $2 million punishing victimless lifestyle choices every day, it's much easier than Louisiana makes it look. I agree with NewtonTrino that no one who supports these laws better complain that their taxes are too high. If they want the government poised to interdict massively in the personal lives of the public they should write the government a thank you letter whenever their taxes get raised to fund this moral abomination.

Now you could say that if there wasn't stupid laws concerning weed he would have never been involved with the law. Or you could say no matter what the laws this guy is never going to follow them.

Because it was his fourth time the assumption is going to be the latter. Just sayin.

Unless you know of other laws he's violated it's kind of a baseless assumption.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Once again, I'm not going to repeat myself. I've addressed this thoroughly.

No you haven't. Feel free to quote the relevant text.

Again my specific question:
What part of the constitution grants the federal government the power to restrict my ability to grow and consume my own pot?