Police Sieze 17 Tons of Marijuana | Page 3 | WrestleZone Forums

Police Sieze 17 Tons of Marijuana

If I can chime in here, yes it is. Whether it's just or not isn't the point. At the time you broke the law, it was what was on the books. Simply believing it's unjust doesn't mean you don't have to follow it. It may be a totally pointless law but until it's off the books, if you break that law you should be punished accordingly.

It was illegal for Rosa Parks to refuse to vacate her seat on the bus. Was she wrong?
 
Yes.

In America, we have a very ideal system of justice. It's not the job of the prosecution to question whether a law is just, it's his/her job to prosecute a criminal action if they feel they have the evidence to do so.

It would then be up to the jury to decide whether the law was just, and if the one accused of breaking the law is judged by his peers to have broken an unjust law, then the jury has the right to find him not guilty.

And about .01% of the population is actually aware of jury nullification, and if you ever tell a lawyer that you know about it, he'll see you off the jury faster than you can sit. We both know that it doesn't work like that.
 
And about .01% of the population is actually aware of jury nullification, and if you ever tell a lawyer that you know about it, he'll see you off the jury faster than you can sit. We both know that it doesn't work like that.
Which you could make into a debate, if you so wish.

However, that's not the debate currently before us. Ignorance of the concept of jury nullification has no place in the argument of whether or not it is just to prosecute laws which some people may find unjust.

Please focus on the topic at hand.
 
It was illegal for Rosa Parks to refuse to vacate her seat on the bus. Was she wrong?

You're asking about a different thing. I answered if it was right for her to be prosecuted and yes it was. The law may have been unfair, but that was the law at the time. She was in fact a criminal at that point and should have been prosecuted.
 
What exactly is so unjust about weed being an illegal substance? It deters movement. Just like alcohol. It may not be as dangerous to the human body as cocaine, meth or such and in some cases it's good for medical reasons. But not everyone knows how to control their intake of it. Same as alcohol and smoking. And people end up suffering from its abuse. It's not good that people who can control said intake can't do it legally and have to pay for those who can't.

Making marijuana legal won't do much as long as there are so many other drugs out there as well. Smuggling rings aren't gonna go down just because marijuana is legal. It's just gonna let stoners with no control feel more privileged and get their share easier.

Hell, if it were up to me, I'd ban alcohol and smoking too. I'd probably spare some people from cancer and lower DUI arrests, but I'd be a dictator for cutting on people's free will like that.
 
What exactly is so unjust about weed being an illegal substance? It deters movement. Just like alcohol. It may not be as dangerous to the human body as cocaine, meth or such and in some cases it's good for medical reasons. But not everyone knows how to control their intake of it. Same as alcohol and smoking. And people end up suffering from its abuse. It's not good that people who can control said intake can't do it legally and have to pay for those who can't.

Making marijuana legal won't do much as long as there are so many other drugs out there as well. Smuggling rings aren't gonna go down just because marijuana is legal. It's just gonna let stoners with no control feel more privileged and get their share easier.

Hell, if it were up to me, I'd ban alcohol and smoking too. I'd probably spare some people from cancer and lower DUI arrests, but I'd be a dictator for cutting on people's free will like that.

The problem is that it's beyond the sphere of influence that a government ought to have, at least in my (and many others') perspective. It's about the government fundamentally lacking the right to infringe upon these liberties.


You're asking about a different thing. I answered if it was right for her to be prosecuted and yes it was. The law may have been unfair, but that was the law at the time. She was in fact a criminal at that point and should have been prosecuted.

I see your point here. Let me see if I understand you - one "deserves" prosecution regardless of the justice of a law. But do you consider it to be right that a government should pass and prosecute unjust laws?
 
Which you could make into a debate, if you so wish.

However, that's not the debate currently before us. Ignorance of the concept of jury nullification has no place in the argument of whether or not it is just to prosecute laws which some people may find unjust.

Please focus on the topic at hand.

Mayhaps I misinterpreted your argument. You argue that the jury has the power to rule on the justice of the law. They most certainly do - but how many of them are aware of it? The vast majority of juries are under the impression that their obligation is to decide whether or not a law has been broken, without regards to justice. Hence my point about jury nullification.
 
The problem is that it's beyond the sphere of influence that a government ought to have, at least in my (and many others') perspective. It's about the government fundamentally lacking the right to infringe upon these liberties.
Smoking weed is not a fundamental liberty necessary for the pursuit of life, liberty, property and happiness.

But do you consider it to be right that a government should pass and prosecute unjust laws?
"Unjust" is in the eye of the beholder. It's unjust in yours, and just in mine. Which is why we would then turn to a jury to decide if, in a particular case, the law is justly applied.

Mayhaps I misinterpreted your argument. You argue that the jury has the power to rule on the justice of the law. They most certainly do - but how many of them are aware of it? The vast majority of juries are under the impression that their obligation is to decide whether or not a law has been broken, without regards to justice. Hence my point about jury nullification.
No, you understood my argument about jury nullification just fine.

But to say a law should not be prosecuted on the grounds a jury MIGHT not know about their right to jury nullification is silly. Laws which are broken should be prosecuted, regardless of the knowledge of the jury of their rights. We can't just stop prosecuting murderers and rapists because a certain percentage of the jury may not know their right of jury nullification.

So as I said:

"Ignorance of the concept of jury nullification has no place in the argument of whether or not it is just to prosecute laws which some people may find unjust."
 
The problem is that it's beyond the sphere of influence that a government ought to have, at least in my (and many others') perspective. It's about the government fundamentally lacking the right to infringe upon these liberties.

I don't think so. It's controlling something that if left uncontrolled could cause problems to society. A curfew would be cutting unjustly on our liberties. But I don't feel the case with weed is.
 
I see your point here. Let me see if I understand you - one "deserves" prosecution regardless of the justice of a law. But do you consider it to be right that a government should pass and prosecute unjust laws?

What is just to one person might not be just to another. When those laws were originally passed, they were social norms. Times changed and the laws weren't updated yet. When they were passed, they were considered just.
 
Fair enough, Sly. A confusion of definitions, no more. All that remains is the conversation over whether weed ought to be illegal or not, which we already know won't get us anywhere.
 
Fair enough, Sly. A confusion of definitions, no more. All that remains is the conversation over whether weed ought to be illegal or not, which we already know won't get us anywhere.

Yes, because you damn hippies simply won't listen to reason. ;)
 
If I may interject....

Smoking weed is not a fundamental liberty necessary for the pursuit of life, liberty, property and happiness.

That's not entirely true, or a factual statement. That is your personal view on the matter and one you are completely entitled to. While by your personal logic it is not a fundamental liberty, for many others it is. For some, the ability to smoke marijuana is something that makes them happy and to them enriches their life, it is something they posses as property of their own that they feel no one has the right to take from them, and it is their personal liberty to have it.


"Unjust" is in the eye of the beholder. It's unjust in yours, and just in mine. Which is why we would then turn to a jury to decide if, in a particular case, the law is justly applied.

Just as the use of marijuana and it being a personal liberty is as well. To you that may not be the case, but for a large segment of the country it very much is. For as harmless a substance as it is I think it very petty of the government to continue to make criminals of otherwise lawful people for what they choose to do in the privacy of their own homes at no detriment to anyone else or technically even themselves.

People can make their cases about the danger of marijuana, and I can turn around and tell you the dangers of caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and even vitamin C which can actually be fatal if one ingests too much. Funny thing though, marijuana doesn't become fatal at any point of consumption, and while there are these other things that are legal and highly dangerous, it remains a schedule 1 substance above or equivalent to methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, lsd, crack, and even worse the drugs created within the medical industry that are highly addictive with vicious side effects, high potential to be lethal, and yet also more widely available.

I think the key to reversing marijuana prohibition is by unraveling the cases that were made to make it illegal in the first place which is very easy to do if you look at your history. The challenge outside of that is getting the case heard.
 
That's not entirely true, or a factual statement.
Sure it is.

While by your personal logic it is not a fundamental liberty, for many others it is. For some, the ability to smoke marijuana is something that makes them happy and to them enriches their life, it is something they posses as property of their own that they feel no one has the right to take from them, and it is their personal liberty to have it.
But it's not. Smoking marijuana is not NECESSARY to anything. Smoking marijuana is a product which, as your said, ENRICHES their life. Enriching a life is great, but that doesn't mean it's necessary.

If smoking marijuana was necessary to being happy, then everyone who didn't smoke it wouldn't be happy. I've never once even been around it, and I'm a very happy person. Smoking marijuana is not necessary for happiness, and those who think it is, are likely addicted to it. And addiction can never be considered an element of happiness.

Just as the use of marijuana and it being a personal liberty is as well.
That's all fine and good, but it is illegal. And thus, since it is illegal, it deserves to be prosecuted.

You're now wanting to discuss whether or not marijuana should be legal or not, and as xfear can tell you, that argument is pointless. You can provide your facts and studies, I can provide my facts and studies and nothing will ever get accomplished. I'm not going to get into another debate on whether or not marijuana should be legalized.

The challenge outside of that is getting the case heard.
No, the challenge is getting people to care. Outside of mostly those who smoke marijuana, people don't care and see no reason for it to be legalized. I know xfear tries to paint a pretty picture of sunshine and rainbows if marijuana was legalized, where drug dealers would no longer exist, there would be no more violent drug crime, where our country would become economically wealthy again, but the fact is not only is all that conjecture, is not likely to become true.

So the challenge for potheads is not getting the case heard, it's getting people to care. And considering, rightly or wrongly, the perception that people who smoke marijuana are high school dropout losers who leech off the welfare system, it's not likely people are going to care for a long time.
 
Sure it is.

But it's not. Smoking marijuana is not NECESSARY to anything. Smoking marijuana is a product which, as your said, ENRICHES their life. Enriching a life is great, but that doesn't mean it's necessary.

Who are you so say what is and is not essential to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Is there some sort of list available somewhere with what is essential to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
 
Who are you so say what is and is not essential to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Is there some sort of list available somewhere with what is essential to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

If only you had quoted more of that post...like the very next sentence...

But it's not. Smoking marijuana is not NECESSARY to anything. Smoking marijuana is a product which, as your said, ENRICHES their life. Enriching a life is great, but that doesn't mean it's necessary.

If smoking marijuana was necessary to being happy, then everyone who didn't smoke it wouldn't be happy. I've never once even been around it, and I'm a very happy person. Smoking marijuana is not necessary for happiness, and those who think it is, are likely addicted to it. And addiction can never be considered an element of happiness.
 
If only you had quoted more of that post...like the very next sentence...

That doesn't explain anything. Video games aren't necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness either, but those are legal. Same with booze and cigarettes and pornography and plenty of other stuff.

So why not weed?
 
That doesn't explain anything. Video games aren't necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness either, but those are legal. Same with booze and cigarettes and pornography and plenty of other stuff.

So why not weed?

You're right, those things are not necessary, I never said otherwise. But you need to go back and read what I replied to when I said that. You're taking something completely out of context, and then trying to debate whether marijuana should be legal. Go read my comment in context, and you'll see why your post here makes no sense.
 
You're right, those things are not necessary, I never said otherwise. But you need to go back and read what I replied to when I said that. You're taking something completely out of context, and then trying to debate whether marijuana should be legal. Go read my comment in context, and you'll see why your post here makes no sense.

My interpretation of your conversation with Harthan is that Harthan said that the Government doesn't really have any moral ground to stand on when it comes to prosecuting marijuana crimes (which isn't entirely true as there are tons of people who see it as a dangerous drug, and not for terrible reason either), and you responded that since it's not necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness they have more than enough reason to keep marijuana illegal.

But that begs the question, are only things necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness legal? If that's not the case (which it obviously isn't because things like booze and cigarettes are legal), then what does make something legal?

I understand you don't think weed should be legalized, and I understand that the debate shouldn't be as one sided as Harthan, X, and myself often make it out to be, but I don't think your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness argument holds much water here.
 
That doesn't explain anything. Video games aren't necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness either, but those are legal. Same with booze and cigarettes and pornography and plenty of other stuff.

So why not weed?
You may not get what is meant by pursuit of happiness. There is no list, it is vague just like freedom of speech. It's like that for a reason and up for interpretation. Happiness isn't the same for everyone, have to leave those things open as lots of things that made people happy now didn't exist then. Of course pursuit of happiness isn't in the constitution.
 
My interpretation of your conversation with Harthan is that Harthan said that the Government doesn't really have any moral ground to stand on when it comes to prosecuting marijuana crimes (which isn't entirely true as there are tons of people who see it as a dangerous drug, and not for terrible reason either), and you responded that since it's not necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness they have more than enough reason to keep marijuana illegal.
You misinterpreted the argument.

Harthan's argument was that Government shouldn't have the right to decide whether or not one engages in the consumption of marijuana. Harthan's argument wasn't about the legality of it, but whether Government should even have the right to decide on the legality.

Let's put it in terms of a WrestleZone example. It would be like you and a regular member debating on whether the forums should allow custom avatar uploads. The regular member would say it should be allowed, but you would tell the regular member it doesn't matter what WE want, it's up to the people at Crave to decide. In essence, we can debate it, but we lack the power to do anything about it anyways.

That's Harthan's argument. While the government can hold marijuana use is bad, dangerous etc., Harthan was arguing they shouldn't have the right to pass laws on it, that they should lack the power to do so.

The problem with this statement is marijuana is not a natural right. Our country separated from England under the idea that all people have certain unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", which is to say no government can deny its citizens those rights. However, marijuana is not necessary to achieve life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and thus, it is not a natural right.

What you are arguing is that smoking weed should be a legal right. Harthan was arguing it was a natural right. While I disagree with your position, it is one which can be debated. Harthan's was simply wrong.

In conclusion, you misunderstood the argument Harthan made, and I responded to. You're trying to make smoking marijuana a legal right, and Harthan tried to say marijuana was a natural right.

but I don't think your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness argument holds much water here.
Only because you didn't understand it. :thumbsup:
 
I follow you now. I suppose your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness argument (can't wait to not type that anymore) makes less sense in our argument than yours and Harthans because I'm talking about what makes something illegal, while he's talking about what makes it legal.
 
I follow you now.
Good.

I suppose your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness argument (can't wait to not type that anymore) makes less sense in our argument
It doesn't make any sense in the context of whether smoking weed should be illegal. But it makes great sense in the argument of whether government should have the right to decide on the legality of it.
 
Sly, there is a petition circulating in Missouri that seeks to add a constitutional amendment on the November 2012 ballot. The measure will legalize marijuana for people ages 21 and older; allow people to grow it at home for personal use; regulate it in a manner similar to alcohol; allow physicians to recommend medical marijuana to patients; and allow the cultivation of hemp, a low-potency (AKA no chance in getting intoxicated) strain of marijuana. The measure will also release people incarcerated for non-violent, cannabis-only offenses, and would expunge all records related to such offenses.

What are your thoughts on each specific part of this statute?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top