Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: San Diego Mayor Urges Jury Nullification for MJ Dispensary Case [View all]RainDog
(28,784 posts)19. Petitions to back off marijuana prohibition
...have been the petitions for the "We the People" White House site with the most signators.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/marijuana-legalization_n_2440352.html
"From 'legalization is not in my vocabulary and it's not in the president's,' as Gil Kerlikowske often used to say, to 'it is clear that we're in the midst of a serious national conversation about marijuana' is a pretty stark shift," he said. "Of course, what really matters is to what extent the administration actually shifts enforcement priorities and budgets, but I sure do like hearing the U.S. drug czar acknowledge the fact that marijuana legalization is a mainstream discussion that is happening whether he likes it or not."
Iow, it appears that legalization has been added to the vocabulary, but not the table of contents for the current President.
Democratic Party platforms in states as varied as Texas and Washington state included legalization in their platforms.
In 2012 - the legalization votes in CO and WA.
In 2011, Colorado, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington requested federal rescheduling - and got nothing in reply.
In an historic request - 42 members of the Washington State legislature requested cannabis rescheduling in 2012. Nothing.
- after threat of a lawsuit, the DEA finally acknowledges a 9-year old request to look at rescheduling - by refusing to look at rescheduling. iow, nothing.
Obama knows from his own experience that marijuana is not a dangerous drug. His hypocrisy on this issue is truly creepy - because current law targets African-Americans more than any other group in this nation.
And, of course, we now have at least three pieces of legislation to remove cannabis from the drug schedules - two for "marijuana" - i.e. recreational cannabis, and two for hemp - i.e. industrial, non-psychotropic cannabis.
So, Obama KNOWS which way the wind is blowing on this issue - and it's not going to change direction because the prohibitionists are dying.
He is choosing to be behind the time.
If he thinks the right wing will use this against him - let them. Since 3/4s of the nation favors legal medical mj and half the nation favors full legalization - let Republicans try to use this as something to gain votes... they don't even have the support of people in their own party for this.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
80 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And thats why the Fully Informed Jury Association exists! www.fija.org
TampaAnimusVortex
May 2013
#44
If you believe that the law is unjust, you wouldnt get on the jury. The prosecutor will ask you
rhett o rick
May 2013
#7
He doesnt have to make a big issue out of it, just tell Holder to back off. I doubt it would be
rhett o rick
May 2013
#32
Sorry my point wasnt better presented. If Pres Obama was in favor of letting the states
rhett o rick
May 2013
#43
I guarantee that will happen in this case. But it's not necessary. The prosecutor will always
rhett o rick
May 2013
#13
I agree but the discussion was about "jury nullification". I dont think that's an option. Sure you
rhett o rick
May 2013
#33
If you believe the law is unjust, then you would be lying if you said you could convict.
rhett o rick
May 2013
#37
What the judge will say is that if the prosecutor proved that the defendant was
rhett o rick
May 2013
#40
So, in your opinion, the crime has one and only one element? That's not how it works.
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#41
"So, in your opinion..." What? Are you telling me what my opinion is? We are way off the original
rhett o rick
May 2013
#42
Jury nullification has a long history in this country, including helping to defeat the Fugitive
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#52
There is a question mark after the sentence because a question is being asked. I'm asking for your
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#49
That sounds wonderful, however, explain how jurors with that in mind get past
rhett o rick
May 2013
#59
Explain how someone gets seated on a jury if they believe the law is unjust. The prosecutor will ask
rhett o rick
May 2013
#61
Again, what would a prospective juror (that thinks the law is unjust) say when asked
rhett o rick
May 2013
#79
At the federal level, the judges commonly ask the questions of prospective jurors, not prosecutors.
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#77
Because I'm a fair and open minded person, I would like to volunteer for jury duty.
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#18
Southerners have engaged in jury nullification on and off for years. Failing to convict a white
byeya
May 2013
#23
Jury nullification began much earlier in the North when juries refused to convict under the Fugitive
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#53
Ed Burns, Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price, David Simon and William F. Zorzi Jr
RainDog
May 2013
#24
So smoking a little weed warrants trashing the first amendment. I wonder what Geo.Washington
byeya
May 2013
#38
The DOJ guidelines for the discretionary enforcement of the law can be found here:
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#54
Adhering to current law also lets criminals walk free and sends innocent people to jail
RainDog
May 2013
#75
What, that juries should uphold the law? I'm sorry you think that's "strident".
Donald Ian Rankin
May 2013
#71