Federal Judge Blisters DEA over Medical MJ

[Minimalist]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/20...osecutions

In a scathing decision, a federal court in California has ruled that the Drug Enforcement Administration's interpretation of a recent medical marijuana bill "defies language and logic," "tortures the plain meaning of the statute" and is "at odds with fundamental notions of the rule of law."

Judge Breyer didn't stop there:

Breyer goes through the arguments against the DoJ's case, referring to the floor debate as well as the plain language of the bill. But, "having no substantive response or evidence, the Government simply asserts that it 'need not delve into legislative history here' because the meaning of the statute is clearly in its favor," Breyer writes. "The Court disagrees." He called the DoJ's interpretation of the amendment "counterintuitive and opportunistic."

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If people want drugs to be legal then they should stop convicting drug users. The common man is his own greatest oppressor.

[Ravenshire]

If people want drugs to be legal then they should stop convicting drug users.  The common man is his own greatest oppressor.

Most drug offenders never see a jury because they plead out.
Sources:
Alternet
Human Rights Watch
Forbes

The "common man" rarely gets a chance to oppress drug offenders.

[MentalGiant]

If people want drugs to be legal then they should stop convicting drug users.  The common man is his own greatest oppressor.

Most low level offender plead out and don't ever go to trial. Plus, a jury is suppose to convict or not based on whether or not the prosecution has convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty of violating xyz law. They don't necessarily have to agree with the law, just that the person broke it. 

And marijuana is a "drug" like alcohol or coffee are "drugs". People want to legalize it because it is not dangerous or harmful to health. Most people aren't campaigning for dangerous drugs like meth and crack to be legalized.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If people want drugs to be legal then they should stop convicting drug users.  The common man is his own greatest oppressor.

Most low level offender plead out and don't ever go to trial. Plus, a jury is suppose to convict or not based on whether or not the prosecution has convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty of violating xyz law. They don't necessarily have to agree with the law, just that the person broke it. 

And marijuana is a "drug" like alcohol or coffee are "drugs". People want to legalize it because it is not dangerous or harmful to health. Most people aren't campaigning for dangerous drugs like meth and crack to be legalized.

It's only a crime if the dummies on the jury convict the person.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's only a crime if the dummies on the jury convict the person.

Actually, that's not so. Whether or not an act is criminal is determined by the relevant statutes, not by a conviction. If I murder someone and I'm adjudication not guilty, it doesn't alter the fact that murder is illegal.

That being said, I think drug laws are largely stupid and needlessly draconian.

Boru

[houseofcantor]

Then there's this:

Did you know that, no matter the evidence, if a jury feels a law is unjust, it is permitted to “nullify” the law rather than finding someone guilty? 

~from http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23...oo-verdict

Watching all that silly Law & Order shit was good for something.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Unfortunately, they try hard to make sure Juries don't nullify state persecution:

In the past, it was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. In most modern Western legal systems, however, judges often instruct juries to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, the weight accorded to the evidence, to apply that evidence to the law, and to reach a verdict; but not to question the law or decide what it says. Similarly, juries are routinely cautioned by courts and some attorneys not to allow sympathy for a party or other affected persons to compromise the fair and dispassionate evaluation of evidence during the guilt phase of a trial. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

In a trial, a jury isn't even allowed to see the law they're enforcing; they only get "instructions" from the Judge that include the "elements of the crime", the facts that must be proved for the State to make its case, and these can be worded/skewed any way the Judge would like, often recommended directly by the prosecutor or based off "pattern instructions" in the statute-books. The Jury then becomes a simple computer, saying "was this element met? Yes/No."

It was a judge lying to a jury about the elements required for my conviction (they could not prove their case, so they cheated to remove that element by rewording it into nothingness) that ended up with my exoneration after serving only nine years of my 30. The Jurors had specifically asked for better explanations of the abridged instructions, and the judge told them, "Refer only to my instructions as written."

[popeyespappy]

Plus, a jury is suppose to convict or not based on whether or not the prosecution has convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty of violating xyz law. They don't necessarily have to agree with the law, just that the person broke it. 

That's not really true although most judges and prosecutors would like for their juries to believe it is. The process is called jury nullification, and it has been practiced in the US since we were still an English colony.

[Ravenshire]

Most low level offender plead out and don't ever go to trial. Plus, a jury is suppose to convict or not based on whether or not the prosecution has convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty of violating xyz law. They don't necessarily have to agree with the law, just that the person broke it. 

And marijuana is a "drug" like alcohol or coffee are "drugs". People want to legalize it because it is not dangerous or harmful to health. Most people aren't campaigning for dangerous drugs like meth and crack to be legalized.

It's only a crime if the dummies on the jury convict the person.

Do you even read other posts? Most drug offenders never see a jury.