Interesting logic.

Drug users are in the majority of convictions for crimes. Your reasoning would empty out the prisons wouldn't it. I personally would rather they either get treatment of be kept in prison. Or, better yet, place them on a website so everyone can know where they live so people can protect themselves, their children, and their property (since many drug users are thieves). And drug users are the most likely to re-offend.

If you want a reason to acquit, I will give you one.

On April 11, 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors are NOT required to turn over evidence that might prove the innocence of someone standing trial. With that ruling, the Supreme Court gave every person in our country enough justification to have "reasonable doubt" about the guilt of every person accused of a crime.

I have no problem with "reasonable doubt", I do have a problem with just acquitting because the accused is on trial for using drugs, importing drugs and selling drugs that are illegal. So, if you want a reason to acquit, reasonable doubt is what you would want to use, because we cannot know if the prosecutor is hiding information. And since the prosecutor isn't required to disclose that information we cannot rule out "reasonable doubt". In order to convict, we are supposed to be able to say the person is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Too many people are being put into prison based on effective presentation, not evidence.

Unless it is illegal, which it is.
So, your feelings aren't supported by the facts.

Cwebbie, you do err.

I replied to a post that said "...for juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don’t deserve punishment. All non-violent drug offenders who are not selling to children, be they users, dealers or importers, fall into this category."

The statement I responded to said "all non-violent drug offenders". The statement did not say "marijuana users". Marijuana can be included in the drugs talked about, but "drugs" aren't only marijuana.

My statement (that you took out of context) has to do with drugs in general. If you want to make it an issue of marijuana, that is fine. But stop talking like a politician or prosecutor, by twisting what I said.

If you want to debate marijuana, then debate marijuana. There are studies which contradict your claim that marijuana doesn't contribute to crime, just as there are studies which support your position. However, the fact that alcohol (which does contribute to crime, proven over and over) being legal would seem to negate the argument that marijuana should be illegal. I do know there are ample studies and statistics that prove alcohol is much more damaging to the human brain (and other parts of the body) than marijuana and the cost of lives is greater as a result of alcohol (drunk cops killing unarmed peacekeepers might be in those studies too).

I also suggested a more realistic reasoning for acquittal, the Supreme Court provided that for us. What's your point?

Your example of a "pie chart" is grossly mistaken.
MJ accounts for 33.8 percent of convictions in this country.
Coke is 26.3 percent
Meth is 14.6 percent
Crack is 13.6 percent
Heroin is 7.1 percent
other drugs are 3.7 percent.

Your argument that MJ is the "vast" majority is incorrect.
And either way you want to split it, if Marijuana were taken out of the equation you would remove 33.8 percent of the pie. That leaves 5 pieces of the pie totaling 65.3 percent. Hardly "less than one piece of pie left to eat".

If what you are attempting to do is convince someone that you are correct, you shouldn't need to misstate the facts. I do agree that when split into categories a chart would indicate that there are more MJ convictions than any other single drug. However, the MJ convictions DO NOT make up the majority. MJ accounts for just a fraction over one third of drug convictions. Thus your argument is, on it's merits flawed.

I need to make a correction to the previous post. I was looking at 1998 figures.
The most recent figures from 2005 are as follows:
Coke powder 27.9 percent
Meth 21.6 percent
MJ 19.8 percent
other drugs 8.6 percent
Opiates 7.9 percent.

So, the facts are that MJ is (as time goes on) becoming less of the percentage of convictions, being replaced by Coke. In fact, MJ convictions have dropped by almost half of what they were in 1998.

However, the out of the conviction rate of 90 percent of arrests for drugs, 86.9 percent are the result of a plea and 4.2 percent of convictions are the result of a trial. So, in order for my argument or your argument for acquittal to make a difference, I guess we would have to educate the defendants that it would be better to go to trial. And we both know that won't happen.

How about discrimination? The drug cartels seem to market freely Mexicos #1 cash crop - weed- in the US. If the government allows this isn't that discrimination if an American citizen wants to make money too.
?

If, as you say, you re-read what I had to say in my first post, you apparently still haven't comprehended what I said.

Nowhere did I suggest that drug defendants defend themselves. Nor did I suggest anything about a pre-trial hearing. I said "jury". In order to have a jury acquit the process has to go to trial.

I would present that it would be much easier for you or me (serving on a jury) to suggest to other members of a jury that there is reasonable doubt because we cannot know if the prosecutor is holding back evidence that would prove innocence than it would be for you or me to "educate" other members of the jury. Just looking at the exchange you and I are having here would be a prime example of how difficult it is to get other people to see things our way when they have their own reasons for believing what they believe.

And, there is no need for a juror to use any "unsolicited" argument as a "pretext for acquittal" when in deliberation with reasonable doubt. The fact that a juror cannot overcome the "reasonable doubt" issue is sufficient reason to bring it up. Your argument, on the other hand, does require some pretext and attempting to re-educate (unless you are very well versed in educating) would only be seen as someone who's personal view is skewed by their probable use of the drug.

It would appear to me that you have just enough education about the law (as it pertains to trial), to get yourself into trouble.

Hi Roberto. I think the “build a fence” idea will never work. Smugglers just build tunnels underneath the fence, or now use boats to travel up the coast and drop off their goods along our shores. I think the better idea is to legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.

Hi Roberto. I was responding to your comment, “Marijuana is illegal. Build a fence and keep it in Mexico.” I assumed you were suggesting that we build a fence to prevent drug traffickers from bringing drugs into our country. The traffickers build tunnels [1] and use boats [2] to smuggle marijuana across the border.

1. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/30/feds-seize-32-tons-marijuana-from-underground-us-mexico-border-tunnel/
2. http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_19439781

Interesting idea, though, to “legalize illegals, regulate and tax them.”

The practice of those people holding medical cards selling on the streets is something you must personally do, or you know someone who does. Otherwise you are presuming something you don't truly know about. I know people who hold a card and they are using marijuana for real medical reasons and they do not sell what they get. There is a legitimate medicinal purpose for marijuana and it is being used for that reason. Anyone doing it differently is violating the law and should be prosecuted.

Do things the way the law requires and there is no problem. But, we all know that there are still those criminally minded people who refuse to follow the law until the law is changed. Even when the law gets changed, these people will find a way to violate the law. And those people will always be the people who complain about getting caught and using logic that they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do.

That is a sad fact we all have to accept in our country.

Secret - now nobody has to have a license, registration, or insurance to drive in California. That makes life alot easier now doesn't it ?

Secrets of Safety, please show me one dispensaries owner that has been shut down or arrested that is actually functioning within the law. Every City and County within our area all have ordinances "against" these dispensaries, so that being said they are illegal from the moment that they open the door. Do you live in Lakeland Village? Have you seen the "sick" that hang out at these dispensaries? If all of the patrons of these dispensaries are truly sick then we sure have a great deal of sick people in the 20 year old range in our area. I do not personally smoke pot of any kind, nor do I sell it as you have insinuated, it doesn't take a genius to use some common sense to see what goes on here. I have had many conversations with several would be dispensaries owners that have wanted to lease space from me in my building, interesting conversations. The cash that runs through these dispensaries that taxes are not filed on or paid on is unbelievable. I don't like having to comply to every stupid law that is out there weather it is personal or business related but guess what................suck it up like the rest of us.............we live in a controlled environment and it is what it is.....To get a prescription takes a written order from a Doctor, when you go to get it filled you pay sales tax on it.........hello that is the way it is done!!!

Stormy,

You made a generalized statement that included all people who hold cards. I responded to that generalized statement. As you stated in your reply to me, you do know people who hold cards that apparently do sell on the streets. I didn't insinuate anything. I said, either you do it or you know someone who does. I pointed out that I know people who don't sell what they get. They have legitimate medical reasons for using it and they don't smoke it. I guess that is what you think all people who use marijuana for medical purposes do, I don't know and I really don't care.

I don't argue that the dispensaries are operating outside the law if they are in Riverside county. Riverside county has banned them. Even if the dispensaries are in other areas, I never claimed they are all operating legally. I simply stated that they should do things the way the law requires.

"suck it up"? cute.. Your statement that I responded to spelled out what you insinuate all card holders do. I pointed out that you are wrong. You are complaining about it, I simply stated it needs to be done within the law. Your "common sense" (as it relates to the conversations you have had and your generalizations resulting from the young people hanging out in front of stores in your area) does not make for very accurate presumptions for all who have need for medical MJ. You not wanting to follow the laws (as you stated) isn't my problem. I don't care where you live.

Stormy,
"To get a prescription takes a written order from a Doctor, when you go to get it filled you pay sales tax on it.........hello that is the way it is done!!!" AND???

You talk as if you are one of the pharmacists who complain about lost revenues from the people who would otherwise have to pay the outrageous prices for the chemical drugs pushed on everyone by the multi billion dollar pharmaceutical companies. The fact is, marijuana is legal for medical purposes. In order to get it, a doctor does have to recommend a person for using it. The fact that you don't seem to approve doesn't make it a bad thing. In fact, the side affects are minimal (unlike the chemicals pushed on everyone by doctors, and the pharmaceutical companies).

I realize there are going to be people who complain about it. Doctors have complained about Chiropractors for years, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a legitimate purpose that reduces the reliance on chemical type drugs as well. I personally choose to support the legal use of both marijuana and visits to chiropractors. That's the way it is!!!

Just reading the papers pal :)

Maybe i can't read too well but if you don't have a license they can't take your car so you don't need no insurance cause you don't need a license so you sure don't need no registration :)

it ain't no kick in the side its the new law SoS :)

The new law doesn't say what you attempted to say. It has nothing to do with the article you are posting in the comments for. However, I will point out that the new law only modifies the automatic impounding of a car if the person they catch at a dui checkpoint only has the violation of not having a license.

The car is held until a licensed driver can be found and the registered owner of the car has to give permission to get the car released. It's already a fact that people who don't have a license have no insurance and can't register a car. So, what is your point? Nothing changes except the money generating practice of police or sheriff deputies automatically impounding a car for 30 days. It means a major loss of revenue, which I personally have no problem with since the unlicensed driver isn't usually the owner of the car. The unlicensed driver is cited for driving without a license, the owner of the car doesn't automatically have to pay the outrageous fees for the 30 day impound. Again, what is your point? Try posting in the comments section that applies to the article you want to talk about.

Yes sir SoS! We will see how your twist turns out. LA police are really pissed about this anarchy. I think most other law enforcement think its a joke too. I certainly will try to clean up my act so you can sleep good :)

Tonto, you replied to my post with something completely unrelated to what I was discussing, in a comments section that had nothing to do with what you wanted talk about. I read the law and told you what you don't seem to understand it said. How the cops apply it isn't my concern. I don't drive without a license and I don't let someone without a license drive my car. If you are worried about it, maybe you should talk to other people who are concerned about it. You will most likely find those people posting in the comments section that is talking about that issue. Take care.

Diana, you misunderstand. Mr. Grumbine's complaint was that the judge was determined to go ahead with the hearing and had not allowed the defense team to do their work on the grounds allowed by the appeal. Are you not aware that marijuana IS a plant; the growth, cultivation and sale of which are all LEGAL, when used for medical purposes?

Well Diana,

I am happy to see you are done. I know I personally haven't directed any comment toward you or your comments. So, I don't understand your need to address me as though I did.

I don't care how many dispensaries are illegal and how many are legal. The fact remains that medical marijuana is legal. I don't care how many times someone wants to claim it's not. It is legal.

If someone is acting outside the law, then they have an issue with the law. If they aren't then they have the right to operate. Plain and simple. However, arguing the point using use of cocaine and heroin as justification for what you say, doesn't matter to me. You obviously have issues with the difference between a plant and byproducts of plants resulting from the processing of those plants. For the record, Heroin is not a plant and cocaine is not a plant, they are both products derived from processing of a plant or a certain part of a plant. Marijuana is a plant.

However, I am glad yours and my exchange is done since you addressed me for the first time and didn't allow for me to respond before you accused me of controlling this posting section I comment the same as everyone else and then respond to those who respond to me and those who address me by name such as you just did.
Wow, glad to have talked with you... Enjoy the rest of the holidays.. If you can...

Diana,

Just to make a correction about your claim that we could debate for months on end.. I would hope that you would simply accept the facts as they are rather than try to argue they aren't. Medical Marijuana is legal, FACT. If someone is operating outside the law, that is illegal, FACT.. What is the debate?
I have said nothing more, other than I support medical use of Marijuana which is LEGAL.

And for further clarification, "Heroine" is not a plant either. Heroine is a female hero.