Replies

if he told me to get off the fence and join the mob, I'd tell him to bite me

My sentiments exactly. Wouldn't have mattered which side it came from, though. If Feldman had directed that comment at someone who thought DW was guilty, I'd still feel the same way.

Isn't it something? On one side, we have Dusek (who we can consider to be somewhat conservative, because he's fighting for the law and what's supposed to be right) saying things like, "If everyone else thinks one thing, and you think another, maybe YOU'RE wrong".

Then Feldman (who is doing work for NORML, and could probably be described as a lefty) stresses to the jury their responsibility as individuals, and how important their opinion of the evidence is - and points out things from the Constitution.

Black is white, up is down.

I don't think it's at all liberal to be for the legalization of pot, or any drug. I think that the position they're (NORML) taking is that whether to use drugs or not is a personal choice, and people should suffer the consequences of their choices. It's not up to the nanny state to protect individuals from themselves, "for their own good."

If we as a nation decide that drugs are something that we don't want to have here, then I can understand intercepting drugs at the borders, punishing drug traffickers, even dealers to some extent. But to punish the end user is only to make criminals out of people who ordinarily would not be. If a person is not causing harm to anyone (like by stealing from him, or physically hurting him, etc.), then how can we justify calling him a criminal and locking him up?

Like the Crime show last night with Mudd, for example. The defendant was facing seven years in prison, but he was only charged with possession of meth. Not selling, not trafficking, just having it. Seven years of his life for the crime of possessing a baggie of a verboten substance. Does this guy have a wife? Kids? What are they supposed to do for seven years while he rots in jail?

So what happens when the nanny state decides that a certain book is too dangerous for people to possess and they start putting people on trial for simply possessing that book? Is that okay? Or what about alcohol? Guns?

I think it is a very conservative position to say that the state has absolutely no right to tell anyone what they can or cannot possess, so long as their possession of that item does not infringe on anyone else's rights to life, liberty or property.