The only word I can think of to describe this is “barbaric.”
From San Angelo Standard Times:
The Amarillo man arrested in Brownwood in late June for what he called “medical marijuana” has been indicted by a Brown County grand jury.
Chris Diaz, 20, was indicted on a charge of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a first-degree felony. He remains in custody at the Brown County Jail with bail set at $40,000. If convicted, Diaz could face up to life in prison and a $10,000 fine.
…
Diaz’s supporters have maintained his innocence, saying that Diaz uses marijuana to treat asthma. They allege that Diaz has been mistreated while in jail and essentially has been “kidnapped” by Brown County officials. Supporters also claim that he is the victim of civil and human rights violations.
On the website iamsovereign.org, which offers daily updates on his case, Diaz is referred to as a “medical cannabis prisoner of war.”
“Now the State of Texas, Inc. is offering him a possible life sentence in prison for exactly 14 grams of evidence found during an unlawful search …” the website says.
Update: Reason Magazine has a great overview of this story here.
it’s their war on us I think it’s time we take a lesson from AL Capone. They declared war on us but we are not fighting back. If we start fighting back it is then combat and out of the hands of the courts. why was this civilian cop hurt over a bag of plants answer cuz we declared war on our own people. and they took it to hart.
A life sentence for 14 grams?!?!
Oh please problem with this is, there is no medical marijuana law in Texas, so he is in violation of the law. Something you may need to understand; medical marijuana, sold in California is sold out of state licensed facilities and can only be purchased from these facilities with a prescription from a state licensed doctor, so this means you can’t grow the shit in your backyard and claim it is for medical use!!! This young man also has a prior conviction for narcotic sells, do some research before jumping on the back of a cause, he ain’t it!!!! As for taking on law enforcement like Al Capone, lots of things have changed since Al Capone’s reign of domestic terror. How many killings of law enforcement officers do you hear of going unsolved? If you shoot the police, everyone including the CIA is activated to find that ass, do not make that mistake of ignorance. You hear about how some people kill themselves when corned by the LEA, it would be better described as assisted suicide. I saw an autopsy report of a guy who wounded a Houston Police Sgt. he had 45 bullet holes front and back, don’t get it twisted, you kill a LEA and we find out who you are, you will be safer in jail then out on the streets, so much pressure will be brought to bear on your affiliations, they will kill you or turn you over to us.
McGruff wrote: “Oh please problem with this is, there is no medical marijuana law in Texas, so he is in violation of the law.”
So McGruff, are you saying that it’s okay to lock people up in prisons for life over a harmless plant?
And your evidence, Dr. Q, for that assertion is … ?
Which assertion?
“Oh please problem with this is, there is no medical marijuana law in Texas, so he is in violation of the law.”
And that makes it right to put someone in a cage FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE? Murderers go to prison for life. Do you seriously think that possession of a half-ounce of a plant is ethically even in the same universe as killing someone?
The guy had 14 grams. A fucking half ounce. Where I live, I can walk around with up to three times that much before I even have to worry about being arrested. Any less than that, and it’s like a speeding ticket only less expensive. And even that is an excessive penalty.
Who did this guy hurt? Nobody but himself, that’s for damned sure, and because it’s illegal to even research the shit, we don’t even know how bad he was hurting himself. If you think it’s OK to lock people up for harming themselves, I know a guy who chopped his fingertip off with a bandsaw today. I’ll give you his address if you want to come lock him up. He’s probably doped up on prescription narcotics right now if you want to tack on some bonus charges.
“I saw an autopsy report of a guy who wounded a Houston Police Sgt. he had 45 bullet holes front and back, don’t get it twisted, you kill a LEA and we find out who you are, you will be safer in jail then out on the streets, so much pressure will be brought to bear on your affiliations, they will kill you or turn you over to us.”
Nice attitude. How would you feel about it if the general public were to adopt the same tactics when it comes to cops who kill innocents? There are a lot more of us than there are of you.
Dr. Q – “Which assertion?”
The one that says “a harmless plant.” Love to read your evidience that supports that assertion.
What should be argued is whether the individual is presenting a sound argument that the seizure of, and subsequent arrest for, contriband is based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment and/or the laws of Texas.
bgwillia wrote: “The one that says ‘a harmless plant.’ Love to read your evidience that supports that assertion.”
Well, for starters, no one has ever died from cannabis consumption. Ever.
You can’t say that about too many things including many things that most people would consider harmless. You can’t say it, for instance, about water.
You can’t say it about tasers, rubber bullets, and all the other weapons police trot out as “non-lethal.”
“What should be argued is whether the individual is presenting a sound argument that the seizure of, and subsequent arrest for, contriband is based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment and/or the laws of Texas.”
Really? That’s it? You’re not at all concerned about how a life sentence for possession of a plant jives with the 8th amendment?
Want to talk about dangerous plants? How about the good old castor bean plant? Castor beans contain ricin. 4-8 castor beans is enough to kill a man. It’s 100% legal. I could have a field of them in my year right now, and it would be perfectly legal. You can buy seeds at your local garden store. But it will kill you.
Nobody has ever died of a marijuana overdose. Not one person. Ever.
Or how about hemlock? Another perfectly legal plant that had been used for centuries as a poison.
Does it make any sense at all that hemlock and castor beans are legal and marijuana isn’t? Does it make any sense to put someone in a cage for the rest of their life to own marijuana, when others are free to cultivate truly poisonous plants in their back yards?
Even if marijuana were dangerous on the same level as castor beans or hemlock, why should it be treated any differently?
You see, hemlock and castor bean plants are treated rationally. You can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don’t cause harm to others. If you use them to hurt other people, it is a crime, if you don’t, you don’t have to worry about anything.
Or are you not concerned so much about danger as you are about people having fun?
So far, Dr. Q, you’re not presenting evidience but assertion upon assertion.
Now, if you studied and read between the lines from Diaz while he’s making an emotional appeal, you can see the error he made that attracted initial attention. As one of the rules from the video “Ten Rules for Dealing with Police” from “Flex Your Rights” states, he exposed himself by having expired registration stickers on his plates; cops notice things like that. Even I got pulled over for that but had an out – the stickers were in my car with me.
Being a resident of Texas, he knows the stricter laws regarding contraband there and take extra precautions not to attract LEO’s. That includes not having even a hint of a light-up in the vehicle; and I bet he did at one time if not at that time. But he fails to take that extra precaution to “scrub” his vehicle from attention.
About the claim about police brutality, that would be harder to prove against testimony that he resisted by pulling away and/or touching the officer; two more no-no rules from TRFDWP. And it’s likely there’s a camera recording the encounter from the police cruiser’s dashboard. When in public always assume you’re on candid camera, you just might be.
If Diaz’s pain is as real as he claim and still be legal in Texas, then he could get that doctor to prescribe Marinol or Sativex, which ever his insurance plan would cover.
ALowe, As the Fifth amendment clause states “…, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; …” Texas is harsh, but it is the law, just as “three strikes” laws in a number of states or the abolishment of parole in Virginia. And the Eighth doen’t abrogate the Fifth.
Please, present your case that it violates the Eight amendment. I’m interested in good legal arguments (a hobby of mine).
btw, ALowe, the Eighth contains nothing about a requirement of proprotionality (Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 US 957 [1990]).
bgwillia wrote: “So far, Dr. Q, you’re not presenting evidience but assertion upon assertion.”
If you feel that I’ve made any factual errors, feel free to correct them.
“Now, if you studied and read between the lines from Diaz while he’s making an emotional appeal…”
I don’t really care. What I care about is the fact that a person might have his entire life taken away from him and he hasn’t even been accused of a performing an action that victimizes another person.
Dr. Q, you made a claim for which you were rightly challanged for evidence backing that assertion. That means original documentation, peer-reviewed research, accumulated historical experience, etc., to qualify that marijuana is ‘a harmless plant.’ So far, you present more assertions pretending they are facts. So I like to see the evidences and warrents that qualifies your assertion.
If you can show me a single confirmed instance of a death caused by cannabis consumption, I will retract my previous statement. Until then, I maintain that no one has ever died from cannabis consumption.
Your original statement didn’t say cannabis doesn’t kill, but that it is ‘a harmless plant.’ Many things may not have to kill but cannot be considered as harmless as new-driven snow. So, again, please present your evidence and warrents to support the assertion that it is ‘a harmless plant.’
Dr. Q: “What I care about is the fact that a person might have his entire life taken away from him and he hasn’t even been accused of a performing an action that victimizes another person.”
Yet, you’re not presenting an argument why Texas law violates the Eighth amendment, which what counts. You may want to read Harmelin v. Michigan as it involves the very principle we’re discissing here.
That is: a gentleman, Ronald Harmelin, was convicted under Michigan law for possession of over 650 grams of cocaine and was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Harmelin challenged his sentence as cruel and unusual, claiming it was disproportionate to the crime he committed and was statutorily mandated without consideration for the fact that he had no prior felony convictions. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no requirement of proprotionality in the Eighth amendment and the sentence stands. Taxas law may be, in your consideration, cruel but it is not “and unusual.”
The majority opinion in Harmelin v. Michigan is completely out of touch with reality.
First, the assertion that a punishment has to be both cruel and unusual to be a violation of the constitution is absurd. Why would anyone read it that way? It’s OK to be cruel, but it’s fine as long as it isn’t unusual? You can torture people as long as it’s a common practice? Get real.
Even if you buy that argument, you don’t have to go back in time very far to find a time when it would absolutely be unusual to put someone in jail for life for owning a plant. If it’s not unusual now, it was when the first person was sentenced to life over a plant.
Second, the assertion that the 8th does not have anything to do with proportionality is pure bullshit. It has everything to do with proportionality. Look at the full text.
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Proportionality, proportionality, proportionality. That’s all there is. How can one read that and think that proportionality isn’t a central theme? The clear intent is to ensure proportionality for all punishments, monetary or otherwise.
The majority even acknowledges that proportionality does come into play, but only when the death penalty is involved. Where the hell does that come from? If you want to accuse me of reading too much into the 8th amendment, you’ll have to accuse the majority in the case you cited of reading a lot more into it than me.
Life in prison is at least as cruel as death.You die in a cage either way, you just spend more time suffering in it with a life sentence.
Finally, just because six guys in dresses say it’s OK, that doesn’t make it so. I don’t need the law on my side to assert that it is unethical to imprison someone for life over a plant.
Do you think it’s ethical to imprison someone for life over a plant?
bgwillia: “So, again, please present your evidence and warrents to support the assertion that it is ‘a harmless plant.’”
The burden of proof is really with you on this one. You’re the one who seems to think cannabis isn’t harmless. Why don’t you present some evidence that it isn’t? I’d particularly like for you to show that cannabis is so harmful that we can justify imprisoning people for life simply for possessing/selling it.
“Yet, you’re not presenting an argument why Texas law violates the Eighth amendment, which what counts.”
That’s because I don’t care about “Texas law” or “the Eighth amendment.” They are not “what counts”; they are just words on paper. “What counts” is actual right and wrong.
Dr. Q, I made no claim or assertion either way. You made the claim that it is “a harmless plant” and that assertion was rightly challanged. Therefore, you must supply reasons, evidences and warrents that will be assessed and responded further. If the reasons, evidences and warrents of your augumentation is deemed satisfactory, the discussion will stop. If not, then you need to elaborate further on the reasons, evidences and warrents to satisfy the challange.
So far the only evidence you advanced that it is “a harmless plant” is it does not kill; that is poorly reasoned as many things don’t have to kill to be non-harmless. It that is your only evidence you may have to rethink your position.
I don’t understand why you’re so fixated on the fact that I referred cannabis as “a harmless plant” when it’s really completely beside the point.
The question I was asking was this: should people be imprisoned for life because they were found in possession of cannabis and records indicating that they may have sold cannabis in the past?
If you think that they should, then why?
ALowe, the clause protects against unusual methods of punishment, not necessarily cruel ones. Severe, mandatory penalties may be cruel, but they are not unusual in the constitutional sense and been used in various forms throughout U.S. history. The line tends to be drawn at physical punishments, such as the rack, burning at the stake, crucifixion, or breaking on the wheel , that were already considered considered cruel at the time of Constitution’s adoption and would shock the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society both then and now. See In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 10 S. Ct. 930, 34 L. Ed. 519 [1890], and Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86, 78 S. Ct. 590, 2 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1958). So your straw-man argument about torture being protected by the Eighth is a complete fallicy.
“…, the assertion that a punishment has to be both cruel and unusual to be a violation of the constitution is absurd. Why would anyone read it that way?” There’s a funny little word in there known as “and” so both cruel and unusual must be evaluated together to rule something unconstitutional. And “and” has to evaluated as having the same meaning thoughout the Constitution just as the word “people” has in various articles and amendments. Had the founders wanted “cruel and unusual” be “cruel or unusual”, they would have said so. But you can advocate and convence the people, the states and the Congress to amend the Constitution to change the wording. After all, that’s what the First is for.
Dr. Q “I don’t understand why you’re so fixated on the fact that I referred cannabis as “a harmless plant” when it’s really completely beside the point.” You interjected the point into the discussion assuming all parties agreed with an implied premiss. I like to know that premiss and how you derived your argument from there to the conclusion of “cannabis as ‘a harmless plant.’” If you felt the point is not relevent or germine to the discussion then I’m sure that you, a reasonable individual, wouldn’t have made it. Otherwise you’re comitting a non sequitur.
You can blow all the hot air you want, but the bottom line is that the burden is on you to show that such a severe punishment is justifiable.
It’s the point you’ve been trying to avoid.
Explain to me, please, the great harm that is being prevented by imprisoning a man for the rest of his life over a little bit of plant matter.
No more dancing around, arguing from your little statist box. Let’s talk right or wrong and leave laws and opinions of guys in dresses out of it.
I did not say the punishment is justifiable or not, mearly the argument you’re presenting is flawed in the light of the Eighth. You’ll need another tact than “right or wrong”, which is subjective truth to which no one could ever be wrong since there is no standard for right and wrong. So one can argue “right or wrong” all day but no one will be convinced of the justness of the cause. The standard remains then is the law and whether it violates the Constitution or precedents, fashion considerations not withstanding.
Now Diaz, being of sound mind, is aware that his script for contriband is not vaild in Texas, as he had to leave the state to obtain it. The smart course would have remain out of the state until his course of treatment is complete then return. I suspect there’s more to this then what’s being presented as Diaz is not presenting his RAP sheet to help boster his case for public opinion; that is he has never been through the court system before on drug charges. Same for presenting only one page of his habeas, though the language on the page appears needing improvement if it is to convence a judge. Texas law has much stiffer penalties for repeat offenders and must be taken into consideration in the argument.
For you to claim that all ethical statements are merely “subjective truth” (which I take to mean that statements about ethics either cannot be validated or are meaningless), yet insist that it’s right to follow “the law” is utterly ridiculous. Your claim that we must use “the law” as our “standard” is an ethical statement.
You may feel that, but until you can convence Texas government otherwise through the people as represented by their legislature you must abide by the law when there. “When in Rome …”
In the meantime, as I suspected, some additional information came to light. In addition to expired registration stickers Diaz also could not produce a drivers’ license or proof of insurance, which led to an arrest for failure to identify and the immediate discovery of contriband on his person. Subsequent search of the vehicle as part of the arrest investigation turned up a cell phone containing text messages referring to drug sales as well as a notebook with drug and law writings in addition to more contraband, that would classify him as a distributer. Now, there are many nuances and exceptions in the statutes and Texas case law that make it difficult for the prosecutor to prove that one “knowingly possessed” (key word here) marijuana if the defense attorney knows what he is doing.
But I suspect Diaz exposed himself too much to get off easily and has his work cut out for himself. As you are interested in law (or don’t care about it) and ethics, you may remember a Heinlein quote that goes like: “if you intend to live outside the law you must be honest.”
Shut up about the law already and get to the point where you explain why a man deserves to spend the rest of his life in a cage over a little bit of dried plant matter.
If you want to argue that it is a just sentence, you have to explain why. “Because the law says so” doesn’t cut it. If you think the law is right, defend it. Why is it right that someone who has not even been accused of harming anyone should have to spend the rest of his life in prison?
Saying “the law is right because the law says it’s right” is like saying “the bible is true because it says so in the bible.” You’re using circular reasoning to deflect from the real issue.
Perhaps your reading is selective or just cherry picking the evidence presented thus far. Diaz had no license, no registration, no proof of insurace, no way to legally identify himself, had contriband on his person in a bottle with his name on it, had more contraband in the vehicle he had control over, had contacts for drug sales, had text messages of drug sales and possibly resisted arrest. Plus he left the state for a script not valid in the state of Texas so he knew he wasn’t to have contriband there when he returned. As argued above, Texas law on this matter, while harsh, is not unconstitutional. And as stated above Diaz has his work cut out for exposing himself the way he did.
I’m surprised, sir, you haven’t brought up a certain matter that came before Texas legislation regarding your interests and would bostered your argument. Though I doubt it would help Diaz with the totality of his situation.
The law, unlike the Bible, is amendable by the people as represented by their legislature. If Texas law is not to your liking, then convence the good people there of the correctness of your cause. You may not like the law, but it is the price one pay for living in society. Good luck on your Texas campaign.
Answer the question. Who has this man harmed so grievously that he should be jailed for life?
It’s not a question of harm, but one of Diaz behaving in accordance of the laws of Texas. He knew it, he violated it, got caught with it and more, now have to fight it in court to avoid sentencing.
As much as you railed against the laws of Texas, you have not demostrated it is unconstitutional, as per your original premise.
Fuck the constitution.
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” -Lysander Spooner
It doesn’t matter whether the constitution allows for it or that the law demands it. It’s wrong to lock someone up for life when they have not harmed anybody.
I don’t care what the constitution says about it. If the constitution say it’s right, then the constitution itself is wrong.
You keep saying “the law is right because the law says it’s right.” That’s a circular argument – a logical fallacy. You’re begging the question.
If the law said circular reasoning was punishable by life in prison, and the supreme court said that it wasn’t unconstitutional, would you still support locking people up for the rest of their lives over a logical fallacy?
So you consider youself, and Diaz, above the law? Is that your argument? “Nemo est supra legis”, sir.
There is no circular argument – the law is right until the people, through their legislature and upheld by the courts, says otherwise. If you feel the law is unjust or is flawed, then there are procedures to peaceably petition the govenment for a redress of your grievances. Mearly concealing one’s identity and resisting arrest is not the way to go about it.
You argued as your premise Texas law violates the Eighth, then damned the entire Constitution when shown it does not. Then, sir, I wish you well in finding a jurisprudence elsewhere more to your liking; perhaps sharia?
bgwillia, The real question is between natural law and man-made law. If our “ruling class” actually followed natural law, then their would not be a prohibition against cannabis. A plant that was one of the original cash crops in this country. A plant that can be used for producing clothing (Cotton manufacturers beware), plastics (oil companies beware), hempseed oil (corn growers beware) and a host of other uses. Read some history about the decision to outlaw cannabis and you will find that natural law was not used in declaring it illegal. You are correct about man-made laws and petitioning the government to change laws, etc, blah, blah, blah., but the bottom line that Dr. Q is making is that THE PROHIBITION OF CANNABIS VIOLATE NATURAL LAW, SO THEREFORE THE LAWS ARE IMMORAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You will probably retort that some court, some time, somewhere, heard these arguments, blah, blah, blah. You sound like you know the textbook example of changing the law, but fell for the premise that the law is moral or good, etc.
Why don’t you justify your position that this cannabis is harmful, provide studies, show examples of overdose causing death, etc and then show how the law of cannabis prohibition follows natural law—which is what the Founding Fathers intended. Also show how Natural law would support throwing a man in a cage for possessing the said plant material. While you stumble over yourself in justifying your position, please answer this question: Why did the U.S. Government have to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol, but did not have to regarding cannabis? It is when you start to investigate these questions that you will understand why people are outraged about this and many other cases that are similar. You sound like someone who knows the law, but doesn’t realize the out of control power and unconstitutionality of their many laws.
Bonus question: Why is it that we have more people in prison and the highest percentage of a population in prison than any other nation in the world? Justify this using natural law.
Natural law is that law which corresponds to a spontaneous order in the absence of a state and which is enforced, (in the absence of better methods), by individual unorganized violence. Now Diaz is under the jurisprudence of the United States of America and subjected to it and to the laws of Texas, which are better methods, so natural law doesn’t apply. And he knew it by concealing his identity when operating a motor vehicle which is a privilege not a right on the roads of texas.
The Twenty-first amendment, which repealed the Eighteen, allowed intoxicating liquors to be posessesed and consumed because of their place in our culture is firmly established and accepted as a norm, although an increasingly politically incorrect norm. But it is still a controlled substance in as far as the need for licenses for commerical establishments to sell and is regulated as to where it is to be consumed. From there, the degree of regulation for controlled substances increases depending on medical need and accepted norms of society.
Texas offers no allowance for the use of marijuana to treat illness symptoms, and Diaz knew that by his leaving the state to obtain a script. If he thought that script served as a “get out of jail free” card when he returned and perform additional acvities as a distributor, he has his work cut out convincing a judge.
“There is no circular argument – the law is right until the people, through their legislature and upheld by the courts, says otherwise. If you feel the law is unjust or is flawed, then there are procedures to peaceably petition the govenment for a redress of your grievances. Mearly concealing one’s identity and resisting arrest is not the way to go about it.”
That is a completely absurd argument.
You’re saying that nothing is wrong as long as it’s legal. All sorts of unequivocally evil shit has been allowed by law throughout history. In the right places at the right times, you could own slaves, you could beat your wife, you could be imprisoned over debt, tortured, summarily executed, imprisoned (or worse) for speaking out on controversial subjects, burned at the stake as a witch, the list goes on. Buy hey, as long as the law says it’s OK, right?
If you think the supreme court is such a good indicator of right and wrong, how do you reconcile that against decisions like Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson?
You’re also saying that something can be both wrong and right. You’re saying that it was fine to throw people in jail for selling alcoholic beverages between 1925 and 1933, but (presumably) that it’s not OK to throw people in jail for exactly the same action now. You’re saying that it’s right to send someone to jail for life in Texas over a little bit of weed, but someone caught in an identical situation in any of the dozen or so states that have decriminalized it should be allowed to walk free.
What if we had a three strikes law for speeding? Would you support life in prison for someone caught doing 75.2 MPH in a 75 MPH zone? As long as the law says it’s OK, right?
You clearly don’t know what a circular argument is if you think you aren’t making one. I’m asking you what makes this law right, and you’re saying the law is right because the law is right.
Enough of what “the people” think, what do you think? Do you not have the capacity of independent thought, or do you just choose not to use it?
What makes it right for the law to allow for life imprisonment over such a minor offense? You still haven’t given one reason why it should be, aside from the fact that the law decrees that it be so.
The law is the problem. There shouldn’t be a law against possessing marijuana and you haven’t given one reason why there should be. If you can’t even tell me why there should be any penalty at all, how could you possibly justify a life sentence?
As far as the eight amendment goes, I never even said anything about it in my first post. I dropped it because it’s tangential to the real issue. I brought it up as a direct response to your own invocation of the constitution and your assertion that only the fourth amendment and Texas law were applicable. You wanted to make a big deal about it, so I dropped it to focus on the real central issue. From my first post in this thread, I have maintained that the issue is about a draconian sentence for a non-harmful action. Look at the post where I first brought up the eight amendment. See how there’s one little tiny line mentioning it, and a whole bunch of other stuff that has nothing at all to do with the constitution. It’s hardly the center of my argument, and I’m not going to waste my time defending a point that my argument doesn’t even have to rest on.
So why are you still arguing, since you damned the Constitution and therefore no longer have a case?
Did you read anything I wrote? You’re the one who hasn’t made a single non-circular argument.
Justify the existence of the law. Tell me why there should be any penalty at all.
@ALOWE
You can stop arguing with this fool bgwillia. You have already won the argument. (great comments by the way) bgwillia is a sheeple; a lemming who can take his “law” with him straight over the cliff. If he thinks that words on paper make something “right” he is a lost cause. It may be time to give up on bgwillia and spend your time trying to spread the liberty to people who have the capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.
ALowe: If you want justification of the existance of any law in Texas, ask the good people there. They wrote it and it pass muster with the Constitution, despite your sexual desire for it.
Paula: So your idea of “winning and losing” arguments is bestowing a blanket ad hominem upon one whose statements you don’t like or agree with? All that was done is an examination by reasoning through argumentation the claims and assertions put forward in this thread regarding Diaz’s situation. I’ve maintained focus on that situation and have treated all with the upmost courtesy without resorting to ad hominems or needlings against the person whose claims were examined.
“If you want justification of the existance of any law in Texas, ask the good people there. They wrote it and it pass muster with the Constitution, despite your sexual desire for it.”
Do you agree with the “people of Texas” or not?
If you do, why?
It’s that simple. If you can’t answer those questions, we have nothing else to talk about, because you refuse to discuss the issue at hand.
I disagree with your “people of Texas.” I have made arguments in favor of my position. You have not only failed entirely to rebut my arguments (aside from that 8th amendment thing, which I already explained to you), you have also failed to make a single argument in favor of your opinion.
You can’t declare victory just because you defer to someone else to make your argument for you.
Kim Jong Il is a good guy because Kim Jong Il says he’s a good guy. I can’t really say why, though, so you’ll have to ask the people of North Korea about that. I win.
Again:
Do you agree with the “people of Texas” or not?
If you do, why?
I neither agree nor disagree with Texas; as long as the law is valid and the rights of the people, according to the Constitution, are protected. You may feel differently for which there are proceedures by which you can appeal to the good people of Texas to change their law through their legislature. But then, we already know where your feelings lie with the Constititution though it may be better and more productive to find a different venue for that sexual urge.
This thread is about Diaz, not Kim Jong Il; but it seems we now know the jurisprudence elsewhere that is more to your liking. I wish you good luck in your journey there.
The adolescent ad-hominems are cute. I’ll try to remember to send you a graduation card in a few years.
Thanks for making it clear that you’re unwilling to defend the actions of the state of Texas. It’s been fun.
I’m not interested in “defending” anything, the only item of interest is examining the claims put forward in this thread of Diaz’s situation. These claims were weighed, measured, and found wanting. You attempted to morph the thread into a false dichotomy that if one examine those claims then one must be for the status quo and therefore cannot think for oneself.
Now let’s examine the claim of “The adolescent ad-hominems are cute.” As seen above the ad hominem started by your declaration to, lets see, what was it? Oh yea – “Fuck the constitution”, without any proper counter-argument to Harmelin. Then your attention turned to your statement denigrating the wardrobe of the Surpreme Court; a tradittion advocated by John Adams who also advocated ditching the wig as worn by British courts. ‘Tis better to wear the cloth that shows no allegiance as opposed to one worn, not too long ago in a continent not that far away, the symbol showing allegiance to the state. So your ad hominems was only repaid by the same coin.
Saying “fuck the constitution” is not an ad hominem. It’s not even an argument. I recommend this resource for understanding what actually would constitute an ad hominem.
In the cherry-picking of evidence by Diaz supporters, a little detail is overlooked. Diaz was carrying over fourteen ounces of marijuana and hashish. Texas law puts hashish (“resinous extractives of Cannabis”) in Penalty Group 2, making possession of four to 400 grams with intent to deliver (shown by his text messages and notebook) a first-degree felony, which carries a possible life sentence. In other words, the charge isn’t merely possession. It’s possession with intent to distribute. In other words, dealing.
But, while waiting in jail until he or his friends estabilsh his identity, Diaz may want to take up reading lessons so he can read the bottle containing the contraband the notice from a California doctor warning against taking the marijuana to a state in which it was illegal.
“Diaz was carrying over fourteen ounces of marijuana and hashish.”
Do you have a source for this? All the articles I’ve read said fourteen grams. That’s only half an ounce.
Either way, why am I supposed to care? The guy shouldn’t be serving any time is prison–let alone life–just because he was in possession of cannabis whether its fourteen grams, fourteen ounces, or fourteen pounds. The amount is entirely irrelevant.
My error: Sullum, Jacob. “Life for Half an Ounce of Medical Marijuana?” Reason Magazine. 12 Aug. 2010. Web. 19 Aug. 2010. http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/12/life-for-half-an-ounce-of-medi . Thank you for pointing out and correcting my misspeak of fact.
But still it is over four grams with intent to distribute. And you still haven’t shown that Texas law is unconstitutional, or that Diaz’s rights is violated in accordance thereof. That is – we think it’s Diaz, as he still refuses to identify himself to the eyes of Texas and sits in jail on a $40k bail which no one will throw for a flight risk who refuses to identify himself.
And you’re still cherry-picking the evidience as you refuse to mention the hash stash, the text messages, the notebook, the expired registration, the no licience, the no insurance, and Diaz refuses to identify himself. As Senior Trooper Sparky Dean states: “The car had an expired registration. That could have been a citation and sent him [Diaz] down the road. He had no license or proof of insurance. Again, that could have been a citation. He had two ounces of marijuana, and that could have been a citation. But he had a controlled substance and he wouldn’t identify himself. [Trooper] Martin [Molotsky] had to arrest him.”
And I don’t think that hash had a “prescription” for it. Diaz brought all this upon himself.
“But still it is over four grams with intent to distribute.”
Intent to distribute a half-ounce? Get real. That’s a pretty modest amount for personal use. And 4g is nothing. 4g means it’s time to resupply.
“And you still haven’t shown that Texas law is unconstitutional, or that Diaz’s rights is violated in accordance thereof.”
Don’t need to. The constitution isn’t a system of ethics, it’s just framework for government. Our argument is that it’s unethical, not that it’s illegal. I’d think you would have figured that out by now.
“And you’re still cherry-picking the evidience as you refuse to mention the hash stash, the text messages, the notebook, the expired registration, the no licience, the no insurance, and Diaz refuses to identify himself.”
Hash – It’s the same thing as Marijuana. There’s no need to address it.
Text Messages – Harmless.
Notebook – Also harmless, and there’s nothing illegal about having a notebook containing “drug and law writings.”
Expired Registration and no License – No direct harm, some arguable indirect harm to others who have to bear the excess burden of taxation, but nothing that warrants anything more than a small fine.
No Insurance – Harmless. All that means is that he’s personally liable for any accidents he causes. If he crashed and refused to pay, then he should be penalized, but that doesn’t appear to be the case, and a life sentence still wouldn’t be appropriate (other than in a case of vehicular homicide).
Refusal to Identify – Harmless.
Nothing he’s been accused of comes anywhere near justifying depriving him of the rest of his life.
“And I don’t think that hash had a “prescription” for it. Diaz brought all this upon himself.”
As stated above, hash is marijuana. There’s nothing in hash that isn’t also in weed, and yes, prescriptions do cover it in at least California and Oregon.
One other aspect that hasn’t been touched on is the cost of imprisonment. Average cost of imprisonment in the US is $24,000 per year. A life sentence for a 20-year-old means a cost of over $1.4 million. Is it really worth that much of the taxpayers’ money to keep a harmless person off the street?
ALowe
Thank You
Saying Hashish is the same as marijuana is like saying crack is the same as cocane. Both start from their respective origins but are stronger and and more concentrated. All states have stiffer penalities for these items and for distributing. And they all use quantifiable measurements in determining penalties.
To claim Texas law is unethical is to claim it’s unjust. “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.” From what is seen is Texas law applies to all who live there no matter what social-economic status, including Texas cops (Tffhthewriter. “Cop Busted While Smoking Marijuana On Duty In His Police Car [Video].” Hip-Hop Wired. 29 Apr. 2010. Web. 20 Aug. 2010. http://hiphopwired.com/2010/04/29/cop-busted-while-smoking-marijuana-on-duty-in-his-police-car-video/ .) If you feel Texas law is bad, or unjust or unfair, (states pass bad or stupid laws quite frequently, note the orchid), then it becomes your civic duty to work to convince the good people of Texas of the righteousness of your cause to get that law changed through their legislature. If civil disobedience accomplishes that objective, it’s an ethical act. But Diaz wasn’t commiting a social protest in what he did simply by violating a law because he didn’t like it or disagree with it. Now that’s unethical.
Even where you live, you have to carry licience, registration and (maybe) proof of insurace while driving a vehicle and present them to police when pulled over on the road. Now if you want proof leave them at home and, assuming your registration stickers are current and not peeled off, go barrowing down the road greatly breaking the speed limit in front of a cop and see what happens when you refuse to identify yourself to him.
“An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.”
I wonder if you’re familiar with the source of that quote. It’s from Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
Earlier in the essay, he describes the distinction between just and unjust laws as follows:
“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”
Just like we’ve been saying, the distinction is between natural and man-made law. The essay you quote from backs that up. The specific sentence you cite is one specific example of a particular category of unjust laws, about which Dr. King was primarily concerned.
“Saying Hashish is the same as marijuana is like saying crack is the same as cocane. Both start from their respective origins but are stronger and and more concentrated. All states have stiffer penalities for these items and for distributing. And they all use quantifiable measurements in determining penalties.”
All states? Wrong. The first state I checked (Minnesota) makes no distinction in either case.
“”Marijuana” means all parts of the plant of any species of the genus Cannabis, including all agronomical varieties, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin, but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.”
“”Cocaine” means coca leaves and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of coca leaves, including cocaine and ecgonine, the salts and isomers of cocaine and ecgonine, and the salts of their isomers and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation thereof that is chemically equivalent or identical with any of those substances, except decocainized coca leaves or extraction of coca leaves, which extractions do not contain cocaine or ecgonine.”
The words “hashish,” “hash,” and “freebase” don’t even come up in a text search of Minnesota law. “Crack” never comes up in any drug-related context.
Even the DEA makes no distinction in their scheduling of drugs under the controlled substances act.
I’m sure I could come up with more examples, but one is enough to sink that argument.
Regardless, absent any evidence of actual harm to others relating to the possession or sale of any of the substances in question, there is no basis for punishment.
You claim Texas law is unjust law, but don’t distiquish what is an unjust law from a law that you simply do not want to comply to. Is it because that is simply prejudicial to your interest? When an unjust law is challenged by just men, it is displayed to the world what is wrong with the law. MLK showed the evil that was Alabama law of the period and showed it went against the Constitution and enabled Alabama law be changed by the court and by their legislature. Diaz, on the other hand, was making no public demostration that Texas law was unconstitutional or what he thought was wong with Texas law but was evading it.
Texas law is not Minnesota law so it’s wrong for Minnesota to impose it’s view of morality on Texas. And Diaz was busted in Texas, not Minnesota. Btw, there were no seizures of hashish in Minnesota in 2009, is that why you chose it as your example? And Minnesota considers hashish a fifth-degee controlled substance. So your statement of fact is in error.
And as stated before: natural law is that law which corresponds to a spontaneous order in the absence of a state and which is enforced, (in the absence of better methods), by individual unorganized violence. But it appears you consider it the same as nihilism, which goes against Christian doctrine.
You’re not that bright are you? Yeah, it’s an ad-hominem, what are you going to do about it? It’s probably the only one you’ll try to refute, judging by your record, but I’ll take the fun out of it and tell you right now that it’s invalid.
“You claim Texas law is unjust law, but don’t distiquish what is an unjust law from a law that you simply do not want to comply to.”
I do. What distinguishes an unjust law from a just law is that a just law is a law that prohibits acts that cause harm to others, whereas an unjust law is a law that prohibits acts that either cause no harm to others (commonly referred to as “victimless crimes”), or that threaten harm against people who have not caused harm to others.
And it’s true that I don’t want to comply with unjust laws, but you have the cause and effect backwards. I don’t think laws are unjust because I don’t want to obey them, I don’t want to obey them because I think they’re unjust.
“When an unjust law is challenged by just men, it is displayed to the world what is wrong with the law.”
Well I’m challenging this unjust law. What’s wrong with is that it threatens violence against people who have not harmed others. I have made this assertion since the beginning of the discussion, in every post I’ve made and you still refuse to address it. It’s time for you to put forth a refutation of my assertion or exit the discussion. You can’t win if you can’t offer even a weak argument against my core assertion.
“MLK showed the evil that was Alabama law of the period and showed it went against the Constitution and enabled Alabama law be changed by the court and by their legislature.”
Good for him. He convinced enough people to get the interpretation of the law changed of the good of humanity. If it takes a constitutional amendment to change the drug laws in this country, I’m all for it. If it takes a supreme court ruling on it to expand privacy rights to things we put in our bodies, I’m all for it. If it takes a revolution, I’m all for it. But I have to start somewhere. It’s not that segregation was just until congress and the supreme court said otherwise, it was never just. Prohibition of marijuana has always been unjust. It was unjust before it was illegal, and it will be unjust long after civilization has died out. The way you would like to have it, a law can’t be unjust unless it is overturned. In that case, how can it be overturned if it can’t be unjust because it hasn’t been overturned yet. Your argument that the law is just because no law or official government interpretation of a law has shown it unjust is patently absurd. It is a catch-22 of epic proportion, and serves to highlight how unbelievably absurd the entire authoritarian mindset is.
“Diaz, on the other hand, was making no public demostration that Texas law was unconstitutional or what he thought was wong with Texas law but was evading it.”
He went out of his way to ensure a draconian reaction. He could have been a sheep, complied with all their demands, and gone on his merry way. The fact that he committed all the crimes he did, in front of someone willing to punish him for it, all without threatening or harming anyone, and then writing about it on a website called iamsovereign.org is pretty good evidence that he was deliberately engaging in civil disobedience as an activist against the laws he is charged with breaking.
Regardless of his intentions, his punishment is still unjust for reasons detailed earlier in this post that have gone unrefuted since the start of the discussion.
“Texas law is not Minnesota law so it’s wrong for Minnesota to impose it’s view of morality on Texas.”
What’s your point? I was responding to the following statement:
“Saying Hashish is the same as marijuana is like saying crack is the same as cocane. Both start from their respective origins but are stronger and and more concentrated. All states have stiffer penalities for these items and for distributing.”
You said “all states.” You don’t get to say that when you said “all states,” you really meant Texas.
Furthermore, my argument is not restricted to any geographic area. Any law that puts people in prison for possession of marijuana is unjust, whether it’s Texas law or the law of the moon. What’s not right is the state of Texas imposing it’s morality on someone who has not caused harm to others.
“Btw, there were no seizures of hashish in Minnesota in 2009, is that why you chose it as your example?”
No, but it makes sense considering the fact that Minnesota statute 152.01, subd. 9 legally defines hashish as marijuana. You can’t seize something that doesn’t exist in a legal sense.
I looked at Minnesota law first because I live there. I chose Minnesota as an example because I didn’t need to look any further to show that you were making shit up.
“And Minnesota considers hashish a fifth-degee controlled substance. So your statement of fact is in error.”
Care to cite any sources? Maybe quote the law or give me a link? Oh wait, you’re making shit up again. You want to know what the law defining 5th degree controlled substance offenses in Minnesota looks like? Go to:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=152.025&year=2009
Show me the part where it talks about hash.
“And as stated before: natural law is that law which corresponds to a spontaneous order in the absence of a state and which is enforced, (in the absence of better methods), by individual unorganized violence. But it appears you consider it the same as nihilism, which goes against Christian doctrine.”
Now you’re starting to sound a little crazy…
I get the “And as stated before: natural law is that law which corresponds to a spontaneous order in the absence of a state and which is enforced, (in the absence of better methods), by individual unorganized violence.” I disagree because natural law is state-independent. Natural law exists with or without the state. Any government can implement natural law, but none have.
What I don’t get is “But it appears you consider it the same as nihilism, which goes against Christian doctrine.” What the fuck do nihilism and christian doctrine have to do with this conversation? It was bad enough when you made shit up that was almost relevant to the argument, now you’re just making shit up that has nothing at all to do with drug laws.
There you go. A point by point refutation of your entire post. You’re probably feeling a little foolish by now, but you’ll still try to save face. You’ll probably attack a couple little pieces of a couple of the points I made, but you probably never will address the central argument. You might make some more things up, but hopefully you’ve learned your lesson about that. I’m sure you’ll take offense from some of the naughty words and insults, but those are just for fun and their existence doesn’t excuse you from acknowledging the legitimate arguments.
With any luck, you’ll quote another article as hilariously contrary to your position as that King essay, but that will be hard to top. You could have quoted Lysander Spooner and not given me material so relevant in support of my argument. I can’t believe you thought that was a good idea.
I would be nicer, but you keep coming back for more with the same tired arguments evasiveness.
You brought up Minnesota claiming there is no law on hashish there. Try: “State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. George Kostas Papadakis, Appellant. C1-01-961, Court of Appeals.” Minnesota State Law Library. 7 May 2002. Web. 22 Aug. 2010. http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0205/c101961.htm , in decisions: “The record contains sufficient evidence to support appellant’s fifth-degree controlled-substance convictions for hashish and steroids”. Therefore, my point on hashish stands. But, please, acquire some and smoke it in front of a cop, let him know you’re doing it, and report back here what happened.
If you are challenging Texas law, then go to Texas and duplicate Diaz’s behavior, and do this in front of cameras to show the world you’re not trying to hide your activities that Diaz was clearly doing. Please do so to show the courage of your convictions, MLK showed his for his cause many times and succeded. You might too.
Regarding your earlier post, Congress didn’t create just one schedule, but five (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/21C13.txt). Substances in Schedule I have a high potential for abuse, no accredited medical use, and a lack of accepted safety under medical supervision. And modern medicine sees no acceptable role for burning crude leaves as a drug delivery system and never has in its entire history. Nor has any legitimate medicine require the popular vote to be acceptible. But Diaz knew that by his behavior in leaving Texas to get a recommendation for contriband, and since he’s a resident of Texas and not California he violated the laws of California because it reqires county residency to obtain a medical marijuana card (which doesn’t cover hashish).
“You brought up Minnesota claiming there is no law on hashish there.”
No, as I already made clear, I brought it up because you claimed that “all states have stiffer penalities for [hashish than marijuana].” I never said there was no law against hash, I said that the law did not differentiate between hash and marijuana. Hash is illegal in Minnesota because it matches the legal definition of marijuana.
“Try: “State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. George Kostas Papadakis, Appellant. C1-01-961, Court of Appeals.” Minnesota State Law Library. 7 May 2002. Web. 22 Aug. 2010. http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0205/c101961.htm , in decisions: “The record contains sufficient evidence to support appellant’s fifth-degree controlled-substance convictions for hashish and steroids”. Therefore, my point on hashish stands.”
What? Where have you shown that there are stiffer penalties for hash than marijuana in Minnesota? That was your assertion, and you still haven’t backed it up. That case is not in any way contradictory to my assertion.
Learn to read.
“But, please, acquire some and smoke it in front of a cop, let him know you’re doing it, and report back here what happened.”
I don’t have any interest in doing that. It’s decriminalized here, so he can’t arrest me, but he’ll still fine me and take my shit. If you want to pay the fine, I’d be more than happy to show you.
“If you are challenging Texas law, then go to Texas and duplicate Diaz’s behavior, and do this in front of cameras to show the world you’re not trying to hide your activities that Diaz was clearly doing. Please do so to show the courage of your convictions, MLK showed his for his cause many times and succeded. You might too.”
Why the fuck would I set foot in a state where they will lock me in a cage for the rest of my life for doing something that causes no harm to others? I’m not a full-time activist. I have a life that I would rather keep living. While I admire those who do take a more direct approach to their activism, I choose to agitate for change in other ways. The fact that I don’t care to go to jail for a cause has nothing to do with the validity of that cause.
“Regarding your earlier post, Congress didn’t create just one schedule, but five (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/21C13.txt).”
Never said they didn’t…
“Substances in Schedule I have a high potential for abuse, no accredited medical use, and a lack of accepted safety under medical supervision.”
So show the evidence supporting those claims.
“And modern medicine sees no acceptable role for burning crude leaves as a drug delivery system and never has in its entire history.”
I own my body. It is up to me and only me to decide what goes into my body. If I want to inhale smoke, who are you to tell me differently? The law doesn’t have a problem with me inhaling tobacco smoke, so why should marijuana smoke be treated any differently?
According to this argument, hash would be preferable because it is a refined product, however that appears to contradict your earlier arguments against hash. What if I want to eat it instead? If the smoke is your concern, I assume mixing marijuana or its derivatives into baked goods would be an acceptable use.
“Nor has any legitimate medicine require the popular vote to be acceptible.”
Well I suppose we can agree on that point. I already find it acceptable to use marijuana as medicine or anything else regardless of what the government tells me.
“But Diaz knew that by his behavior in leaving Texas to get a recommendation for contriband, and since he’s a resident of Texas and not California he violated the laws of California because it reqires county residency to obtain a medical marijuana card (which doesn’t cover hashish).”
So what? As I have maintained from the beginning, legal or not, there isn’t anything wrong with it. You still haven’t shown any evidence of harm caused to others by Diaz.
Why is it any of the government’s business what I put in my body?
You said “The words “hashish,” “hash,” and “freebase” don’t even come up in a text search of Minnesota law. “Crack” never comes up in any drug-related context.” and I refute that with a trial conviction regarding Hashish. As a native of Minnesota, you should know about things like that.
On the source of a marijuana as schedule I drug: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/notices/2001/fr0418/fr0418a.htm . It is both the denial of petition by the DEA to Jon Gettman, former head of NORML, and scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation by HHS; but you should already know that. You’re finding it acceptable to use marijuana as medicine or anything else regardless of what the government tells you is really making the issue a red herring to give marijuana a good name through a scam and you don’t care to find clinical truths, and you do not want purified or synthetic cannabinoids. You want smoked dope. You may own your own body, but I have to pay the cost of your foolishness.
“You said “The words “hashish,” “hash,” and “freebase” don’t even come up in a text search of Minnesota law. “Crack” never comes up in any drug-related context.” and I refute that with a trial conviction regarding Hashish. As a native of Minnesota, you should know about things like that.”
Court cases aren’t laws.
Of course he was convicted for possession of hash – the state defines hash as marijuana, as I already pointed out, which is illegal. I’ve already linked you to the law under which he was convicted. Go ahead and show me where it makes the distinction between hash and marijuana.
You still haven’t shown that the law treats hash differently from weed. Enough of these failed diversions – either back up your original claim that all states have harsher penalties for possession of hash than possession of marijuana, or shut up about it. I’ve already caught you making shit up and your credibility is going down the drain with every post.
“On the source of a marijuana as schedule I drug: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/notices/2001/fr0418/fr0418a.htm . It is both the denial of petition by the DEA to Jon Gettman, former head of NORML, and scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation by HHS; but you should already know that.”
Got anything that isn’t from the government? I thought the government was a simple servant answering to the will of the people. Surely if prohibition is the will of the governed, you have some non-governmental sources on the matter.
The bottom line is that it can’t kill you over the short term, the smoke does contain carcinogens, but it isn’t clear that the risk of cancer is as large as tobacco, and there may even be cancer-fighting properties according to some studies, but we don’t throw people in jail for life for selling or possessing cigarettes.
It’s not chemically addictive. Most users can quit whenever they want to without any withdrawal effects. Can it be habit forming? Sure, anything enjoyable can, but anyone who has been through real withdrawal because of a real chemical dependency should be offended that marijuana could receive the same label. I’ve stopped smoking pot numerous times for various periods and never once felt any withdrawal symptoms. I wish I could say the same about tobacco and SSRIs (both legal).
The harm just isn’t anywhere near deserving of a life sentence. You don’t arrest people for hurting themselves. Do you think I should have called the cops and turned myself in for skinning my knuckle the other day?
And all that is only a factor if you use it. We don’t charge people with using it, we charge them with merely possessing or selling it.
When it comes down to it, none of the arguments painting marijuana as dangerous or addictive are applicable because there are already more dangerous and more addictive substances on the shelves at the corner store.
If you were concerned about harm, you would support bans on alcohol, tobacco, hemlock, and a host of other items. Are you? Or are you more concerned about the fact that people enjoy it, and you don’t want them to?
“You’re finding it acceptable to use marijuana as medicine or anything else regardless of what the government tells you is really making the issue a red herring to give marijuana a good name through a scam and you don’t care to find clinical truths, and you do not want purified or synthetic cannabinoids. You want smoked dope.”
That was a hell of a sentence. You’re funny when you start to babble.
“You may own your own body, but I have to pay the cost of your foolishness.”
And how exactly are you hurt by someone else smoking a joint? Are you upset because you’re not having any fun?
Meanwhile, the government is robbing me to pay for the arrest, persecution [sic], and imprisonment of people who have not caused any harm to others. That is wrong. That hurts everyone in the country more than pot smokers hurt themselves, and certainly more than they hurt other people.
“Meanwhile, the government is robbing me to pay for the arrest, persecution [sic], and imprisonment of people who have not caused any harm to others. That is wrong.” If you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime.
“And how exactly are you hurt by someone else smoking a joint? Are you upset because you’re not having any fun?” Ah, the bloom is off the rose – the Diaz issue really is a smoke-screen and there’s nothing medical about it at all. If what you mean by “fun” is unnecessary risk taking, then I’m no fun at all. But as long my as part of my taxes goes into social programs then, like it or not, I’m a compelled stakeholder in society.
“If you were concerned about harm, you would support bans on alcohol, tobacco, hemlock, and a host of other items. Are you? Or are you more concerned about the fact that people enjoy it, and you don’t want them to?” Nice straw-man there, as we’re only discussing Diaz and his claims. But, hey, if you want to burn leaves of a paranoia, psychosis, severe anxiety, panic causing substance that combines properties of alcohol, tranquilizers, opiates and hallucinogens while risking fines and incarceration possessing it and call it fun, have at it. But don’t call it “medicine.”
“When it comes down to it, none of the arguments painting marijuana as dangerous or addictive are applicable because there are already more dangerous and more addictive substances on the shelves at the corner store.” You don’t read warning labels, do you – more risk taking? Items on the shelves at the corner drug store have been evaluated by the FDA and considered their benefits outweight the risk. “Marijuana has never passed the safety and efficacy tests by the FDA and thus jeopardizes consumer protection. Medicine by popular vote is a dangerous precedent. Some treatments are thought to be useful but turn out to be ineffective or dangerous when submitted to rigorous scientific study” (Dr. Eric Voth, M.D., Fellow of the American College of Physicians).
“And all that is only a factor if you use it. We don’t charge people with using it, we charge them with merely possessing or selling it.” I take you don’t watch “COPS” where people are busted all the time for being under the influence from contraband.
“The harm just isn’t anywhere near deserving of a life sentence. You don’t arrest people for hurting themselves.” So now you’re saying Diaz was was trying to hurt himself for driving that vehicle? It’s called attempted suicide and you can be arrested. And speaking of suicide: “Professor Jovan Rajs, Department of Forensic Medicine, in Stockholm, Sweden, and psychologist Ana Fugelstad, Psychiatric Dependency Clinic, St. Gorans Hospital, Stockholm, did a study about narcotics-related fatalities in Stockholm. They found that people who have used cannabis on its own, without simultaneous consumption of other substances, have frequently died in connection with impulsive and unforeseen acts of violence. The predominant form of death is suicide. (Jovan Rais, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden)”
“It’s not chemically addictive. Most users can quit whenever they want to without any withdrawal effects. Can it be habit forming? Sure, anything enjoyable can, but anyone who has been through real withdrawal because of a real chemical dependency should be offended that marijuana could receive the same label. I’ve stopped smoking pot numerous times for various periods and never once felt any withdrawal symptoms. I wish I could say the same about tobacco and SSRIs (both legal).” Then consider youself luckly, as most occasonal users can. But you kept coming back to it; because you felt it is an important part of your idenity? Long-term regular users have real withdrawal symptoms in irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit. You may not regard it as “chemically addictive” but everything in the body is a chemical and different addictive substances have different withdrawal symtoms.
“The bottom line is that it can’t kill you over the short term, the smoke does contain carcinogens, but it isn’t clear that the risk of cancer is as large as tobacco, and there may even be cancer-fighting properties according to some studies, but we don’t throw people in jail for life for selling or possessing cigarettes.” Strange you left out what kind of cigarettes and the quanity in terms of weight? But smoking a few tobacco cigarettes, or even a package of tobacco cigarettes, has never necessitated emergency room medical or psychiatric attention. Long-term tobacco use leads to a deterioration of the lungs, heart, circulation, etc. There are no recorded deaths from smoking tobacco short term. It is known that marijuana undermines the immune system so it is likely that in another 20 years, if use continues to escalate, the death toll from side effects of long-term marijuana use will equal those of longer-term tobacco use. Additionally, because marijuana is hallucinogenic, smokers often indulge in risky or irresponsible behavior that results in tragic or lethal consequences.
“Got anything that isn’t from the government? I thought the government was a simple servant answering to the will of the people. Surely if prohibition is the will of the governed, you have some non-governmental sources on the matter.” Into conspiracy theories much and let me guess – you’re a truther? The government acted as a simple servant to Jon Gettman’s petition and gave it careful consideration and Congress reflects the will of the people. If you care to look, you’ll find the references several web pages back. The HHS compiled studies from non-governmental medical journals that did the basic research and forward it to the DEA, who gave it consideration in their answer. But, please, if you feel you have research studies not included in the Federal Register, file a petition to change the scheduling. You might get luckly. But a bunch of anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence.
“You still haven’t shown that the law treats hash differently from weed.” As we’re talking Texas law: Texas law puts hashish (“resinous extractives of Cannabis”) in Penalty Group 2, making possession of four to 400 grams with intent to deliver a first-degree felony, which carries a possible life sentence. Mere possession of four to 400 grams is a second-degree felony with a maximum sentence of 20 years. By contrast, the maximum penalty for delivering a quarter ounce to five pounds of marijuana is two years, while merely possessing two ounces or less is a Class B misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of three months in jail. And hash has a THC concentration twenty times higher than marijuana, just as crack is a concentrated form of cocaine, both made from their respective base products to get more “bang” for the buck, otherwise why make them? So my analogy eariler stands.
“Court cases aren’t laws.” Courts follow the law and cite the law in their determinations, otherwise they are overturned. Nice try.
So far, you’re not even trying to mount a good legal defense for Diaz. But keep trying.
“So far, you’re not even trying to mount a good legal defense for Diaz.”
Nope, but it’s a damned good ethical one.
““You still haven’t shown that the law treats hash differently from weed.” As we’re talking Texas law…”
This right here is why you’re not worth arguing with. You make a general statement about all state laws which is a bald-faced lie, then when you’re called on it and can’t back it up, you want to switch back to Texas law. If you’re this desperate to save face over a clear mistake of fact that is completely tangential to my argument, then my work here is done.
Alright we’ll use your state then: Minnesota- Felony, A person convicted for possession or sale of resinous marijuana or Concentrates may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $ 10,000, or both. Minnesota Statutes 152.025. So while marijuana possession is treated in Minnesota as a petty misdemeanor for small amounts, hashish is clearly treated harsher.
You say yours an ethical argument but, like religion, everybody got one. And is it ethical for Congress to authorize and release to the general public a substance that while having medicinal properties is not the same thing as being safe and efficacious for medical use? And before you go off on another “hands off my body” canard remember this: “[a] patient does not have a constitutional right to obtain a particular type of treatment or to obtain treatment from a particular provider if the government has reasonably prohibited that type of treatment” (Mitchell v. Clayton, 995 F.2d 772, 775-776 (7th Cir. 1993) ) and “a patient’s ‘selection of a particular treatment, or at least a medication, is within the area of governmental interest in protecting public health’” (Rutherford v. United States, 616 F.2d 455, 457 (10th Cir.) ) Both upheld by the Surpreme Court.
“Alright we’ll use your state then: Minnesota- Felony, A person convicted for possession or sale of resinous marijuana or Concentrates may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $ 10,000, or both. Minnesota Statutes 152.025.”
Did you seriously just say that? I referred you to that statute twice, and now you’re making shit up about it. It doesn’t say anything like that anywhere. In case you missed the first link, here’s another:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=152.025&year=2009
Do you have any shame? Do you think anyone will take you seriously when you try to pull shit like this?
I dare you to link me to the source of that statement.
Try: http://www.legaljoint.net/state_by_state/FirstDraftOfHashish.asp. Now call me a liar, fool.
I’m sure that’s a more accurate source for Minnesota law than the state of Minnesota.
Now for the fun part. I was hoping you’d post that link. Do you remember why you’re making this argument? Oh wait, you were trying to defend this statement:
“Saying Hashish is the same as marijuana is like saying crack is the same as cocane. Both start from their respective origins but are stronger and and more concentrated. All states have stiffer penalities for these items and for distributing.”
Let’s have another look at that link you posted. Notice how that page shows that almost half of the states treat hash exactly the same as pot. I’m not sure I’d trust that page given its inaccuracy on Minnesota law, but any way you cut it, you’re being disingenuous.
Thanks for the laughs.
Every time I see a good post I go ahead and do three things:1.Share it with the close contacts.2.keep it in all my popular sharing websites.3.Be sure to return to the website where I first read the article.After reading this article I am seriously thinking of doing all three…