Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ansel12
When you grow up and quit using the phrase “dead plants”

Time for me to grow up some more?

Well, I'm afraid I've just gotten more conservative as I've grown older and I don't think that's going to change. The "buds" they found sound to me like dead plants. I guess if you want to see them as something more spiritual or cosmic, you have a right to your own personal view.

Anyway, the older I've gotten, the more clearly I've been able to see that we really need to get ahold of the size of government. This may be hard for you to believe, but our Founding Fathers did not prosecute eachother for possessing dead plants, even the ones called "buds."

I have no problem with prosecuting people for dangerous conduct and if this guy is guilty of some as yet unpunished dangerous conduct, then prosecute him for the dangerous conduct.

Just don't waste our time and money prosecuting people for having dead plants, cursing, not keeping their nails clipped, etc.

24 posted on 12/22/2010 8:46:15 PM PST by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Walts Ice Pick

This was the state of Montana, fewer than a million people, these were their own drug laws.


31 posted on 12/22/2010 9:15:56 PM PST by ansel12 (Lonnie, little by little the look of the country changes, because of the men we admire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Walts Ice Pick

Something that always gets me about cases like this is the way one of the very first things that are brought up is the idea of “NULLIFICATION”.

Like that’s some kind of cosmic vampire or something.

That’s simply not true. There is a reason, and if a person thinks about it, it makes sense.

The founders didn’t get into the details of what constituted a “crime”, per se.

Instead, they left it to the jury. The legislature has the power to try to define crime, but it is still in the power of the jury.

If the jury cannot agree UNANIMOUSLY that a crime has been committed, then there can be no conviction. This is based on something I think the founders took as a truth, that THE PEOPLE ultimately knew how to govern themselves.

If unanimous agreement cannot be reached, then what we talking about is not so much FACT, as it is OPINION.

We each have an idea of what is right and wrong. In some cases we agree, in others we might disagree.
But as a protection of those accused of high crimes, we must ALL AGREE to get a conviction.

You know, it’s a pretty darn good setup!!


35 posted on 12/22/2010 9:28:41 PM PST by djf (Touch my junk and I'll break yur mug!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson