Posted on 09/21/2002 5:49:50 PM PDT by Libloather
Is there any way to prove that?
At that time, possession of marijuana, first offense,
in Texas was up to twenty years. There must have
been more to the story.
Does it ever mention anything about smoking pot?
I was loath to take on this assignment, because it involved research that you should be doing, if in fact you really wanted to find the answers. But because this isn't really a quest for knowledge on your part (rather, it's an exercise in rhetoric), I realized that if any empirical data were to be brought to the table, it would have to be brought by me.
The most cursory of internet searches yielded the following information from the San Juan County Superior Court log archives:
San Juan County Superior Court February 12, 2001 Judge Vickie Churchill presiding
Kelly Elizabeth Nixon, 39, Orcas Island, was sentenced to four months on a delivery of marijuana charge and three months on a possession of marijuana charge. She may work on the county work crew after completing three months jail time.
The online source for that information is here.
So there you have it... Kelly Elizabeth Nixon was sentenced to three months of jail time for possession of marijuana (in addition to other sentences for other charges), as of September 12, 2001. To be fair, this sentence was imposed for "possession" of pot, not "smoking pot."
As for the answers to your questions, they would be 1) According to the website, "...a possession of marijuana charge," 2) who knows? And 3) Kelly Elizabeth Nixon.
If you'd like a better example, I'm certain I could find you one. There are plenty out there.
And as for your assertion that "...the entire Liberteen [sic] agenda hinges on..." this question, said assertion reveals three things about you:
1. You have no understanding of the basis of Libertarian principles,
2. You may be expressing yourself in reaction to self-proclaimed Libertarians who themselves have no understanding of the basis of Libertarian principles, and
3. You are not in the least bit curious as to what those actual principles are.
In short, you are attempting to use a straw-man argument to discredit opponents for whom you have no respect. Is your time truly so abundant as to be so poorly spent?
The most cursory of internet searches yielded...
- a possession charge? You don't seem to understand the question.
To be fair, this sentence was imposed for "possession" of pot, not "smoking pot."
Then you DO understand the question - and yet you provide evidence of some possession bust?
In short, you are attempting to use a straw-man argument to discredit opponents for whom you have no respect.
I went to the Liberteen home base - LP.org - and it has a link for NORML. I clicked on it. Check out how they attempt to deceive -
War Against Marijuana Consumers
Our country's war on drugs places great emphasis on arresting people for smoking marijuana. Since 1990, nearly 5.9 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges, a greater number than the entire populations of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming combined. In 2000, state and local law enforcement arrested 734,498 people for marijuana violations. This is an increase of 800 percent since 1980, and is the highest ever recorded by the FBI.
Yet, they too can't cite one example of ANYONE busted for smoking pot - because there aren't any. Propaganda - NORML style.
Care to try again? (Pssssst - the answer to the original question is - "no".)
I never said that - you did.
Interesting that you brought this up. The numbnuts involved with pot can be busted for numerous crimes. How many can you name?
You sure poked a touchy libertarian nerve.
The Liberteens have no idea what's comin'.
Please leave me in my revelry...
166 posted on 9/21/02 11:36 PM Eastern by Libloather
Very good! How about just the crimes? I'm currently working on the other - right here on this thread...
Congratulations. Ever spend any time behind bars for smoking pot?
To which I make two replies.
First, if you roll a fat doob and go find a downtown cop and light it up right in front of him, he'll either arrest you or not. But if he arrests you, it'll be for posession of a controlled substance, not consumption of it. So your objection is a semantic quibble, rather than an argument of substance.
Second, you've made a very broad assertion in your own right with the statement I quote above. Shall we see the evidence supporting your assertion, then?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.