Marijuana in Massachusetts

[hotbrownsauce]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123057877061840171.html


Guidelines for a new Massachusetts law that ends minor marijuana arrests say the law may also apply to other drugs with the same psychoactive ingredient, such as hashish.........
Voters passed a referendum in November that instead imposes a civil penalty of a $100 fine and forfeiture of the drug..........
The guidelines also recommend that cities and towns pass ordinances banning public use of such drugs..........

[Scofield]

We won't have freedom until there are,

No arrests
No fines
No forfeiture of the substance
No criminal record

It's NONE of the governments, neighbors, police, et al business what I do in my spare time. Get your fucking nose out of my business.

[powerofreason]

We won't have freedom until there are,

No arrests
No fines
No forfeiture of the substance
No criminal record

It's NONE of the governments, neighbors, police, et al business what I do in my spare time. Get your fucking nose out of my business.

word

[Pepsi]

Better than being throw into prison for a few years.

[RideTheDirt]

We won't have freedom until there are,

No arrests
No fines
No forfeiture of the substance
No criminal record

It's NONE of the governments, neighbors, police, et al business what I do in my spare time. Get your fucking nose out of my business.
THIS!:mad:

[Scofield]

Better than being throw into prison for a few years.

I agree and disagree.

I'd rather be able to go to trial (of my peers) and argue my case, with the benefit of pleading prison is absolutely unfair; whereas It'll be harder to argue and convince the jury that a fine is too much. However, I'd also rather not have the prospect of prison being an option.

I have to go meet with the DA for my marijuana case in Feb., and if he tells me I will have a fine + community service, I'll be going to court. I'm not doing 40-50 hours worth of community service for the State of New York, along with 10 hours of the University. Screw that. I already have preliminary write-up of a speech I can give to the jury, so I think I'll be okay. All I need is a reasonable jury, as I am confident I can convince them the whole situation is a bunch of hogwash.

[speciallyblend]

the only crime against marijuana is the laws themselves. marijuana should be 100% LEGAL

then we can educate people there is NO REASON TO SMOKE IT< just eat it, 100% SAFE TO EAT, safer then most common veggies to your body. END OF ARGUMENT NEXT!!!!!!!!

[speciallyblend]

I agree and disagree.

I'd rather be able to go to trial (of my peers) and argue my case, with the benefit of pleading prison is absolutely unfair; whereas It'll be harder to argue and convince the jury that a fine is too much. However, I'd also rather not have the prospect of prison being an option.

I have to go meet with the DA for my marijuana case in Feb., and if he tells me I will have a fine + community service, I'll be going to court. I'm not doing 40-50 hours worth of community service for the State of New York, along with 10 hours of the University. Screw that. I already have preliminary write-up of a speech I can give to the jury, so I think I'll be okay. All I need is a reasonable jury, as I am confident I can convince them the whole situation is a bunch of hogwash.

just move to colorado and tell them to kiss your lilly white A__!!!!!! pay your fine, the east coast is ancient and backwards, MOVE WEST YOUNG MAN:)

[MRoCkEd]

I already have preliminary write-up of a speech I can give to the jury, so I think I'll be okay.
Post it here!

[surf]

I'd rather be able to go to trial (of my peers) and argue my case, with the benefit of pleading prison is absolutely unfair; whereas It'll be harder to argue and convince the jury that a fine is too much. However, I'd also rather not have the prospect of prison being an option.


good luck w/that. juries are now being instructed not to determine the validity of a law, just whether or not the current law has been broken. i was kicked off a jury a while back for honestly proclaiming that i could not convict the suspect (accused of selling coke to a narc in a "school zone" - which is defined as basically anywhere now) of the crime he was charged with.

[mediahasyou]

The establishment is becoming ready for liberty more and more each day.

[Scofield]

1. “You have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. -(State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall.1)

2. “The JURY has an unreviewable and unreversible power . . . to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge . . .” –(U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972).

3. "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court 1789.

4. “Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local JURY that formerly confronted kings and ministers.” -(Dougherty cited above, note 32 at 1130).

5. "The way the jury operates may be radically altered if there is alteration in the way it is told to operate." (Dougherty, cited above, at 1135.) The jury's options are by no means limited to the choices presented to it in the courtroom. "The jury gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system from more than one voice. There is the formal communication from the 'judge.' There is the informal communication from the total culture - literature; current comment, conversation; and, of course, history and tradition." -(Dougherty, cited above, at 1135.)

6. “We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the, jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power ,to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." -(US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).


Know the law, know your rights.

[speciallyblend]

1. “You have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. -(State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall.1)

2. “The JURY has an unreviewable and unreversible power . . . to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge . . .” –(U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972).

3. "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court 1789.

4. “Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local JURY that formerly confronted kings and ministers.” -(Dougherty cited above, note 32 at 1130).


5. "The way the jury operates may be radically altered if there is alteration in the way it is told to operate." (Dougherty, cited above, at 1135.) The jury's options are by no means limited to the choices presented to it in the courtroom. "The jury gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system from more than one voice. There is the formal communication from the 'judge.' There is the informal communication from the total culture - literature; current comment, conversation; and, of course, history and tradition." -(Dougherty, cited above, at 1135.)

6. “We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the, jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power ,to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." -(US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).


Know the law, know your rights.

NICE, but still just move to Colorado and save yourself from the misery of the east coast!!

[surf]

regarding FIJA (fully informed jury): the courts have become such that you are told not to determine the validity of the law. you don't stand a snowballs-chance-in-hell of staying on a jury if you honestly disclose that you understand your rights and responsibilities as a juror during the jury selection process.

knowing the law doesn't help if prosecutors don't know it.