Life Without Parole for Pot? 10 Worst Cases of Cruel and Unusual Punishment

[signalmankenneth]

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/156061

It's a damn shame and a waste of taxpayers money and jail and prison space too!

Everything is Better with a Bag of Weed!

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

as one of the boards key stoners, without even reading the link I am 98% confident you are sensationalizing, and it was likely because of three strikes law or something similar. I am now going to go read the article.

 

[IVAN CHESNOKOV]

OH BOO HOO HOO. POOR JOBLESS HIPPIE VOTE FOR OBAMA, THINK HE MAKE DRUG LEGAL, THEN GET FUCK IN ASS AND ASK FOR SECONDS. IVAN LAUGHS AT FOOLS. OBAMA VOTE FOR POWER, LIKE ALL PRESIDENTS, NOT FOR FOOLISH HIPPIES.

 

[Airstrip One]

The Family Guy video doesn't really help this story, because in the episode, they wrecked Quahog by legalizing pot, and the whole city shut down as everyone turned into lazy stoners. Just sayin'...

 

[anatta]

as one of the boards key stoners, without even reading the link I am 98% confident you are sensationalizing, and it was likely because of three strikes law or something similar. I am now going to go read the article.

I'd read it, there are some atrocious stories there.
They don't need to be sensationalized "truth is stranger then fiction " when it comes to weed laws.


a quick redact.

As Judge Paul G. Cassell pointed out, Angelos got more time than he would have for hijacking an airplane (25 years), beating someone to death in a fight (13 years), or raping a 10-year-old child (11 years). Making matters worse, the father of two didn’t even have a criminal record: he was a first time-offender.

Mandatory minimums for drug felonies involving a gun, however, stacked up to make Angelos’ weed bust a near life sentence. Angelos never used or brandished his two weapons, but because the police said they saw them -- in his center console and strapped to his ankle -- he received one five-year and two consecutive 25-year sentences.
Judge Cassell was outraged at Angelos’ mandatory sentence, calling it "unjust, cruel, and even irrational.” He urged President Bush to commute Angelos’ sentence to 18 years or less, and 29 former judges and prosecutors filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief imploring Angelos’ sentencing judge to declare the sentence unconstitutional. Unfortunately, none of those efforts were successful.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

jury nullification. but the gov doesn't want the proles knowing their rights.

 

[Disillusioned]

jury nullification. but the gov doesn't want the proles knowing their rights.

You mean like the right to ignore and break laws? That's a good one.

Until pot is legal, it is still illegal, not in some weird limbo area, ILLEGAL. Not sure why people have a hard time with this. You want not to go to jail over this? PASS A LAW TO LEGALIZE IT. Until then, obey the law and you won't have a problem.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You mean like the right to ignore and break laws? That's a good one.

Until pot is legal, it is still illegal, not in some weird limbo area, ILLEGAL. Not sure why people have a hard time with this. You want not to go to jail over this? PASS A LAW TO LEGALIZE IT. Until then, obey the law and you won't have a problem.

From some comments it does seem that the pot smokers feel that if they "disobey" the law long enough; that there will be so many of them in jail and prison, that it will FORCE a change.
Then of course; now they get to complain how many are in prison, for disobeying the law.

Working to change the law, just takes to long.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You mean like the right to ignore and break laws? That's a good one.

so even though owning and carrying a gun is a fundamental right, if they make a law that says you can't own one, turn it in regardless? just because it's the law?

Until pot is legal, it is still illegal, not in some weird limbo area, ILLEGAL. Not sure why people have a hard time with this. You want not to go to jail over this? PASS A LAW TO LEGALIZE IT. Until then, obey the law and you won't have a problem.

and i'm not sure why some people have a hard time understanding that it's OUR government. that it's OUR system of justice. that the government serves us, not us serving them. WE THE PEOPLE created the government, not the other way around. If a law is unconstitutional or being applied in an unjust manner, it's our right as we the people to be the last check on government power by nullifying a case with a 'not guilty' verdict.

 

[Disillusioned]

so even though owning and carrying a gun is a fundamental right, if they make a law that says you can't own one, turn it in regardless? just because it's the law?

and i'm not sure why some people have a hard time understanding that it's OUR government. that it's OUR system of justice. that the government serves us, not us serving them. WE THE PEOPLE created the government, not the other way around. If a law is unconstitutional or being applied in an unjust manner, it's our right as we the people to be the last check on government power by nullifying a case with a 'not guilty' verdict.

Our means "more than mine" I live with two roomates, it's "our" apartment, doesnt give me the right to trash the shit out of the place on the basis that it's ours. If you want to smoke pot get together with enough people to change the law, that's the "our" bit. Until then, the majority is ok with illegal pot. That's the "our" bit too. Breaking the law isn't constitutional, changing it is. I'm not sure how you fail to understand this, it's really that simple.

I'm beginning to think that when STY says "the people's government" he really means "My government" since he's doesn't get that when people vote in(democracy) representatives that want to put laws into place, that's "our government" at work. Somebody voted for them after all. I guess it's easier to just use "fascist government" as an excuse to break whatever laws you want.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Our means "more than mine" I live with two roomates, it's "our" apartment, doesnt give me the right to trash the shit out of the place on the basis that it's ours. If you want to smoke pot get together with enough people to change the law, that's the "our" bit. Until then, the majority is ok with illegal pot. That's the "our" bit too. Breaking the law isn't constitutional, changing it is. I'm not sure how you fail to understand this, it's really that simple.

I'm beginning to think that when STY says "the people's government" he really means "My government" since he's doesn't get that when people vote in(democracy) representatives that want to put laws into place, that's "our government" at work. Somebody voted for them after all. I guess it's easier to just use "fascist government" as an excuse to break whatever laws you want.

Illegal =/= wrong.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Our means "more than mine" I live with two roomates, it's "our" apartment, doesnt give me the right to trash the shit out of the place on the basis that it's ours. If you want to smoke pot get together with enough people to change the law, that's the "our" bit. Until then, the majority is ok with illegal pot. That's the "our" bit too. Breaking the law isn't constitutional, changing it is. I'm not sure how you fail to understand this, it's really that simple.

I'm beginning to think that when STY says "the people's government" he really means "My government" since he's doesn't get that when people vote in(democracy) representatives that want to put laws into place, that's "our government" at work. Somebody voted for them after all. I guess it's easier to just use "fascist government" as an excuse to break whatever laws you want.

your whole problem lies with the belief that our country was founded upon 'majority rules', when that couldn't possibly be any further from the truth. Individual rights aren't meant to be infringed or denied simply because 51% believe its a good idea. Furthermore, if the document we wrote limits the federal governments power to do things, they shouldn't be allowed to do them simply because the courts and the majority of fools think it's a grand idea either.

 

[anatta]

You mean like the right to ignore and break laws? That's a good one.

Until pot is legal, it is still illegal, not in some weird limbo area, ILLEGAL. Not sure why people have a hard time with this. You want not to go to jail over this? PASS A LAW TO LEGALIZE IT. Until then, obey the law and you won't have a problem.

Pass a law?? do you have any idea how long we've been trying to pass a law? Whom are you up against - the DEA -one of the most powerful enforecement agencies of DoJ. They carry enormous political clout - if you had read the Rolling Stone link i provided, you'd see they are the ones whom decided to pressure Holder/Obama( synonymous).

It would also take a Congress to stand up to Big Pharma -do you know what Sativex is?, do you know the FDA is doing clinical trails? it might be on the market next year. It's supposed to use the "whole plant" but there are over 200 cannibinoids in weed.Sativex only uses 2.
So what does this mean? It means Big Pharma can PATENT ( or TMark) Sativex -as a "safe alternative to smoked marijuana" -only 1 problem.
It doesn't give the relief that the whole plant ( all the cannibinoids combines) do.

which leads to.. what will Big Pharma do next? add another cannibinoid -voila' another patent. with 200+ cannibinoids, that menas they wil never run out of formulations to patent. Which means a plant that is literally a weed that doesn't require cultivation is illegal forever, 'cuz Big Pharma has the rights.

Where is the weed coming from? The US gov't is setting up farms around the country to provide the marijuana.

So you got the gov't growing weed to feed to Big Pharma, which will eliminate madical marijuana, which is why Obomber is going after growers and dispensaries- because he's a corporate whore same as the rest of them in DC.

I'd tell you more, but catch up to this, and read the damn Rolling Stone article if you care about sick ppl, and not just the absurd notion that "change the law". There are too many special interests lined up a against even decriminalizatrion -muchless legalization.

 

[Disillusioned]

Illegal =/= wrong.

See this is a more interesting question, it would be even more interesting if it wasn't about something as stupid as pot, but here's my shot at it.

Illegal is a societal definition of evil, or at least wrong. It's what has been decided upon by the vast majority of the people as an action that should not be taken and is punishable by something. The reasons for the illegality may have passed but they have not been changed so it may assumed that the majority of people are against the action.

Evil on a personal level however is more of a philosophical issue, I personally go Aristotelian with the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people being good and the opposite with evil, but that's a matter to debate. However I would say that breaking a law is a step towards anarchy which is never "good" therefore the action that may have been deemed illegal while not inherently evil in itself, the lawlessness promoted by disobedience to that law is wrong and a bad precedent.

 

[Disillusioned]

Pass a law?? do you have any idea how long we've been trying to pass a law? Whom are you up against - the DEA -one of the most powerful enforecement agencies of DoJ. They carry enormous political clout - if you had read the Rolling Stone link i provided, you'd see they are the ones whom decided to pressure Holder/Obama( synonymous).

It would also take a Congress to stand up to Big Pharma -do you know what Sativex is?, do you know the FDA is doing clinical trails? it might be on the market next year. It's supposed to use the "whole plant" but there are over 200 cannibinoids in weed.Sativex only uses 2.
So what does this mean? It means Big Pharma can PATENT ( or TMark) Sativex -as a "safe alternative to smoked marijuana" -only 1 problem.
It doesn't give the relief that the whole plant ( all the cannibinoids combines) do.

which leads to.. what will Big Pharma do next? add another cannibinoid -voila' another patent. with 200+ cannibinoids, that menas they wil never run out of formulations to patent. Which means a plant that is literally a weed that doesn't require cultivation is illegal forever, 'cuz Big Pharma has the rights.

Where is the weed coming from? The US gov't is setting up farms around the country to provide the marijuana.

So you got the gov't growing weed to feed to Big Pharma, which will eliminate madical marijuana, which is why Obomber is going after growers and dispensaries- because he's a corporate whore same as the rest of them in DC.

I'd tell you more, but catch up to this, and read the damn Rolling Stone article if you care about sick ppl, and not just the absurd notion that "change the law". There are too many special interests lined up a against even decriminalizatrion -muchless legalization.

Meaning you need to elect people who want to get it changed, rather than just don't care. What your comment seems to boil down to is "It hasn't happened yet so it'll never happen therefore we should ignore the law."

See above rationale for reasons such is "wrong".

 

[Disillusioned]

your whole problem lies with the belief that our country was founded upon 'majority rules', when that couldn't possibly be any further from the truth. Individual rights aren't meant to be infringed or denied simply because 51% believe its a good idea. Furthermore, if the document we wrote limits the federal governments power to do things, they shouldn't be allowed to do them simply because the courts and the majority of fools think it's a grand idea either.

Um, that's exactly how it works. As evidence I present the patriot act, Guantanamo bay, homeland security and many others. Democracy is "will of the people" 51% is more than 49% and therefore their rights take precedent. Oh, and not a constitutional right to get as drugged up as you like. But by all means if you can convince 51% of people to remove the law, fine.

Would you prefer that the country was run by a minority of fools rather than a majority? At least with a majority the government can tell us we're at fault for the stupid things it does.

You seem to be in favor of "people power" only as long as they decide the right things. Interesting stance.

 

[leaningright]

Pass a law?? do you have any idea how long we've been trying to pass a law? Whom are you up against - the DEA -one of the most powerful enforecement agencies of DoJ. They carry enormous political clout - if you had read the Rolling Stone link i provided, you'd see they are the ones whom decided to pressure Holder/Obama( synonymous).

It would also take a Congress to stand up to Big Pharma -do you know what Sativex is?, do you know the FDA is doing clinical trails? it might be on the market next year. It's supposed to use the "whole plant" but there are over 200 cannibinoids in weed.Sativex only uses 2.
So what does this mean? It means Big Pharma can PATENT ( or TMark) Sativex -as a "safe alternative to smoked marijuana" -only 1 problem.
It doesn't give the relief that the whole plant ( all the cannibinoids combines) do.

which leads to.. what will Big Pharma do next? add another cannibinoid -voila' another patent. with 200+ cannibinoids, that menas they wil never run out of formulations to patent. Which means a plant that is literally a weed that doesn't require cultivation is illegal forever, 'cuz Big Pharma has the rights.

Where is the weed coming from? The US gov't is setting up farms around the country to provide the marijuana.

So you got the gov't growing weed to feed to Big Pharma, which will eliminate madical marijuana, which is why Obomber is going after growers and dispensaries- because he's a corporate whore same as the rest of them in DC.

I'd tell you more, but catch up to this, and read the damn Rolling Stone article if you care about sick ppl, and not just the absurd notion that "change the law". There are too many special interests lined up a against even decriminalizatrion -muchless legalization.

Sounds like you need to elect enough like-minded people to get it done.

 

[anatta]

Meaning you need to elect people who want to get it changed, rather than just don't care. What your comment seems to boil down to is "It hasn't happened yet so it'll never happen therefore we should ignore the law."

See above rationale for reasons such is "wrong".

my claim is along the lines DoJ is pressured to surpass the Ogden Memo, and there is no Congrssionalpolitical will to change any fed'l law.
These isn'tany candidates on a national level calling for changing FDA Schedule 1 status for weed.
Gary Johnson ( Lib) is an exception, wants to stop many of the wars of America's Exeptionalism,on foreign soil, and senseless domestic wars...
When ppl are being denyed or impared from receiving medicine, that is "wrong"

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Um, that's exactly how it works. As evidence I present the patriot act, Guantanamo bay, homeland security and many others. Democracy is "will of the people" 51% is more than 49% and therefore their rights take precedent.

If that was indeed the case, then the civil war should never have been fought, since a majority of people still supported slavery. and your viewpoint of 51% over 49% means the rights of the 49% don't matter seems to have 'evolved' after Bush, hasn't it?

Would you prefer that the country was run by a minority of fools rather than a majority? At least with a majority the government can tell us we're at fault for the stupid things it does.

so you're of the mindset that the people are too fucking stupid and NEED the gov to tell us whats right and wrong?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

See this is a more interesting question, it would be even more interesting if it wasn't about something as stupid as pot, but here's my shot at it.

Illegal is a societal definition of evil, or at least wrong. It's what has been decided upon by the vast majority of the people as an action that should not be taken and is punishable by something.

Well, than the inverse would be that something legal would equal something that is morally good, at least at a societal level. Now, do I need to lead you to the logical conclusion that this line of thought produces? I would certainly hope that I don't. See, just because there is a law, does not mean that it is a good law. If the law does not prevent behavior, does not prevent harm, and does unfairly target people, than it is a bad law, and any self respecting human being would say that it should be broken UNTIL it is repealed, not upheld.