Choosing which laws to obey
A friend who admits she smokes marijuana says laws declaring the drug illegal are "stupid."
"When the law is stupid I see no reason to obey it," she adds.
She and other members of the Floyd County’s marijuana community are upset over Commonwealth’s Attorney Stephanie Shortt’s dogged enforcement of laws against marijuana manufacturing and use. Shortt recently obtained a guilty plea from Patrick Fenn, a local pot user who grows a lot of the drug for his use and to hand out to friends. Shortt is also threatening to take Fenn’s house because Virginia law allows confiscation of property used in drug production and distribution.
"Stephanie Shortt’s problem is that she never smoked grass," my friend declared.
I don’t know if Shortt smoked grass as a young woman or not. A lot of people her age did so during their college years. It’s not a question I normally ask a candidate for office. For the record, I did not smoke grass in college. My drug of choice was scotch and I abused it and other alcohol for more than 30 years. My last use of that drug was 14 years, 11 months and two days ago.
Shortt campaigned for office on a promise to enforce the drug laws and to crack down on the "get out of jail free" plea deals of previous Commonwealth’s Attorney Gordon Hannett. Her pursuit of Fenn and other marijuana growers in the county has angered some of the pot heads who supported her in the 2007 elections, making Shortt one of those rare politicians who is in trouble with some supporters for actually delivering on a campaign promise.
"We must be a nation of laws," said John Adams, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. That notion provided one of the foundations of that historic document and the Constitution that followed it.
Yet I hear from people who suggest that we should be a nation of laws only when they happen to agree with that law. This issue has popped up in recent weeks with our stories on the the widespread violations of traffic laws.
Says one emailer: "The stop sign at Barberry should be a yield sign. It used to be one. It should be again."
Or another: "Passing on the right is not that dangerous. It should not be against the law."
If we are to be a nation of laws can we be one if people are allowed to pick and choose which laws to obey and discard those they feel are "stupid" or "wrong?"
Some might say that breaking a traffic law is no big deal. After all, traffic laws are not even considered misdemeanors, much less a felony.
If you run a stop sign and cause an accident that causes a death you can be charged with vehicular manslaughter, which is a felony. If a car ahead of you is turning left and you whip around on the right and strike a pedestrian, motorcyclist or another vehicle and someone dies you could, and should, end up in prison.
And if you grow marijuana and give enough of it to your friends that is called distribution under the law and is also a felony.
A felony conviction can cost you basic rights of citizenship, including the right to vote, to obtain a passport and travel or keep you from getting a job and making a living.
Yeah, the law might be stupid but the real stupidity is putting your future at risk by ignoring it.
I believe Stephanie Shortt has done an excellent job since taking office. She has gotten convictions consistently in cases that I have followed. Whatever one believes about drug legalization, it is totally unrealistic to expect local law enforcement agencies and the local prosecutor to ignore someone who grows and/or distributes marijuana (especially in large quantities).
I am disappointed to hear about the use of asset forfeiture by the local authorities. I can agree with “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”, but taking real estate and other property that often has been paid for with legitimate funds and has a tangential relationship or no real relationship to illegal activity happens far too often with asset forfeiture laws. I am unaware of the Patrick Fenn case and how the property was related to the growing and sale of marijuana. I do know that the risk of asset forfeiture has influenced some to grow marijuana on federal land or on rural land that is unoccupied rather than risk losing their own property. As long as there is demand the growing will continue in some form.
…it is subject to seizure.
In this case, the marijuana was apparently cured inside the home, which makes the home vulnerable.
For those opposed to asset forfeiture, here is a campaign against it from DownSizeDC.
The site has other campaigns to cut government spending, preserve local farming, repeal Real ID, end Bailouts, and more. Their “Read the Bills Act”, “Enumerated Powers Act” and “One Subject at a Time Act” are particularly interesting. So if drugs aren’t your thing, but Liberty is, check these others out.
Doug,
With all due respect, I predict that marijuana will be legalized everywhere in the United States some time in the next decade.
You might not like it, and I respect your views, but take that to the bank. Pot will no longer be illegal for several reasons, not the least of which is that it will become obvious to everyone, including the most die-hard prohibitionist doomsayers, that enforcement isn’t working, and that the “war on drugs” is a failure of epic proportions.
Furthermore, the medicinal uses of pot are well documented, and the weed serves well where other meds fail.
Last but not least, the hemp economy is needed, and legalization of hemp cultivation will be railroaded by the big ag corps once they finally realize that society views the non-recreational uses of the plant as a boon to a sagging economy.
But even though the industrial hemp plant is a distant relative to its “weaponized” Berkeley cousin, it will nevertheless provide the final chink in the rusting armor of the decades old anti-pot groups, many of whom find their roots in the liquor companies to begin with.
Alcohol prohibition failed. So will pot prohibition.
It’s not a question of if, but when…it’s just taking longer because we’re not as smart as we were seventy some years ago.
And Doug, with all due respect, your dear friend wasn’t killed because a careless driver smoked some weed.
He was killed because a driver who makes stupid choices with weed could have just as easily made the same stupid choice with anything, be it weed, booze, or just looking down to read a text message from his best girl.
Asset forfeiture, and end run around the Constitutional protections afforded to flesh and blood citizens of the United States of America.
When the settled law is deemed insufficient to punish the lawbreaker, jurisdictions use a tool that provides them with the means to sidestep prohibitions against abuse of due process.
The justice system presumes that a citizen is “innocent until proven guilty” but no such protection is afforded inanimate objects such as property, therefore it is easy to charge the object with a crime, and in the case of asset forfeiture the object is presumed “guilty until proven innocent”.
Thus, a car has committed a crime and it is impounded, thus a house committed a crime and it is auctioned off, with proceeds going to the coffers of the jurisdiction, and in cases like the tiny town of Tenaha, Texas, sometimes directly into the pockets of the judge, jury and executioners themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Police_seizures_scandal
We haven’t come too far since the days of the witchhunts. Sometimes the cost to recover property seized unjustly is more than the value of the property itself, and because seizures take place merely by charges being filed, it’s usually pointless to bother with a trial, either for the accused or their property.
Obviously we haven’t come too far since the days of the Black Hand, either.
But it’s all good…just be sure to sit down and have a nice long chat with your property, and tell it to watch its back.
only has to be ACCUSED of being used for production and distribution. The mere accusation of such by law enforcement is enough to trigger asset forfeiture proceedings. There is no requirement that the local governmental entity PROVE anything at all.
If a judge or a police chief gets it into their head that they want a piece of property taken, they file a brief or request a warrant, or one of their officers simply uses “probable cause”, and the property can be seized.
Yes, it IS that easy, and yes it IS that difficult to get your property returned if said governmental entity decides that they don’t want you to have it back.
All the talk will not change one thing. Mrs. Shortt is bound by law to prosecute the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Supreme Court is very clear about selective enforcement and our rights. Until marijuana is made legal Mrs. Shortt is obligated to the citizen’s of Floyd County that elected her and those that didn’t to prosecute the laws as they are written. Now may I suggest if you don’t like the laws, talk to your Senator about them. I don’t like to wear my seat belt..but if I get caught I know what will happen…same with marijuana and other laws…if you choose to break them, be prepare to face the punishment.
…and it is one lost on those who argue that Stephanie should be selective in what laws she chooses to enforce. We can argue until the cows come home over whether or not grass should be legal. I don’t happen to believe it should. I’ve witnessed too much of the damage it can cause. I didn’t care much for the national 55 miles-per-hour speed limit but I slowed down because breaking that law would have cost me my license after too many speeding tickets.
When someone knowingly breaks the law, he or she should be prepared to accept the penalty if caught. Arguing that Stephanie or any other prosecutor should look the other way simply because some people like to get stoned is a step towards anarchy.
I know a number of Floyd County residents who came here to live as part of the alternative lifestye movement. They have moved on from that lifestyle and no longer use drugs. I don’t buy into Jonny’s unsubstantiated claim that hippies have the power to vote anyone in or out of office or control any of the legislative process in Floyd County. Too many of the hippies grew out of the lifestyle and became what they once feared most: The establishment.
Hi Doug,
In answer to my question,
“Do you approve of Stephanie’s choice (if she were to act upon it, your article suggests it is still under consideration) to prosecute Patrick?”
You offer,
“Stephanie Shortt does not have the luxury of choosing which laws to enforce. She campaigned on a promise to enforce all the laws and I applaud her for delivering on that campaign promise.”
In other words
Does she or does she not have a choice? Your answer contradicts itself. If she makes an intentional choice (and acts upon it) to harm Patrick, she has committed a crime.
Your first sentence tries to get her off the hook by saying that she is just a cog in the wheel and bears no responsibility for her actions.
Your second sentence says that she is making a choice to harm Patrick, but this is okay with you because our rulers say it is.
Then you go on to say that it is okay to harm Patrick because he is in a minority and Democracy allows us to persecute minorities.
These are the same things I was taught by the government school system. It was a morality full of logical contradictions that denied historical and personal evidence. Any argument could be made so long as it always came to the same conclusion: obey authority. It took me some 20 years to realize what nonsense it all was.
Each of us should consider if ethical behavior is ultimately defined by the “legislative process”, or if we have some higher moral compass. As the bumper sticker says, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”.
My moral code is this: “Do not initiate force or fraud against any person”. Unless I am defending myself against criminal attack, it is never legitimate for me to lie, steal, murder, or commit any other act of aggression. Other people don’t have to “earn my respect”. They are entitled to live their lives upon this earth however they wish, so long as they commit no crime against me. To quote Thomas Jefferson,
“[O]ur rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Frankly, Doug, as much as it seems I am lecturing you, my real audience in this post is people who are outraged by what is happening to Patrick. You, Doug, have a personal goal to help people overcome addictions, and in this situation crimes are being committed that support your goal. It’s hard to have a change of heart and re-examine your moral code when things are going your way. But when suddenly you find that you are the persecuted minority, it will be time to question what is right and what is wrong, and if it is ever ethical to harm an innocent.
Each of us has our personal goals, and someday soon the time will come when those of us who side with Patrick will find that there is some convenient outcome of the “legislative process” that can force people to live the way we want. Maybe it is outlawing a brewer, or asking for taxes to subsidize our business, or restricting motorcycles on the Parkway. That is the stage where we will have to ask ourselves if we change our idea of right and wrong depending on what suits us, or if we follow a consistent moral code.
Unless we give up using violence as a way to achieve our goals, and respect each others’ lives, we will never live in a free society.
You say we don’t need “another destructive drug” made legal – but are you for alcohol being made illegal?
If not then how can you reconcile the position of being against marijuana being legal for the public health but not against alcohol when it’s obviously far more harmful? How about cigarettes and the hundreds of thousands of Americans they kill every year? How ridiculous is it that a drug that has never been associated with a single death is illegal for the “public health” while another one that has killed millions of people is legal?
And if you are for cigarettes & alcohol being illegal too then where do you stop in your pursuit of puritanism?
Maybe we should make ice cream illegal too. Think about the health problems associated with being overweight. Isn’t it far worse for someone’s health to eat a box of ice cream every night than to smoke a joint every night? I’d say those extra 1500 calories would hurt someone a lot more than smoking a little pot.
The point is that anything can be “abused” – I don’t want to live in a police state where the government picks and chooses which things are OK to abuse and which things are not.
Sometimes people make the claim that because alcohol is enjoyed as a “social drug” by so many people that it should be legal. But basically that’s saying that the popularity of something should be the deciding factor in it’s legality. That’s clearly a ridiculous notion. The fact is that alcohol leads directly to many thousands of deaths every year (car accidents primarily) while the same cannot be said of marijuana.
When someone gets really drunk they get in their car and kill someone else. Or they beat their wife. Or they get into a brawl in the street. When someone gets really high they sit on the couch and eat Doritos. Which one is a more frightening situation for other people?
I personally don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own homes when they aren’t effecting me. And I find people who do make it their business (what other people are doing) to be quite distasteful.
In America we are supposed to have the freedom to do what we like with our own lives and our own bodies. If we are not hurting anyone else then we should be left alone.
As the saying goes: “one man’s freedom ends where another man’s freedom begins.” That’s the only reason we should have a law – Because it impinges on someone’s freedom. That’s why laws against DUI make sense. Because someone who is driving while intoxicated is putting other people in danger. But it’s also why laws against drug use make no sense. Someone who is using their drug of choice (whether it’s alcohol or marijuana or anything else) in their home is not causing any problems for other people.
Prohibition was a massive failure in the 1920s and marijuana prohibition is just as much of a failure today. It doesn’t stop people from smoking marijuana because reasonable people enjoy smoking it. Just like reasonable people enjoy drinking alcohol.
All the “War on Drugs” does is cause crime. You could greatly reduce real crime (murders etc) by taking away the incentive for a black market in drugs.
And you are wrong about about marijuana legalization not happening. There is a real shift in perception right now because most young people know that everything the government has been telling them about marijuana is false. Support for marijuana legalization is growing every day.
Consider this recent poll where 52% of Americans are for legalization while only 37% are against it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/majority-of-americans-wan_n_198196.html
Also consider the results in Portugal where all drugs were made legal 8 years ago:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
What happened there? Drug use actually went down. Laws against drug use have no positive effect on this society.
People’s freedoms are being taken away, for what? So some people can feel holier than thou (yes I’m talking about you.) That’s not OK.
You are wrong.
“Floyd County is not Berkeley and the hippies are not about to seize control of the government.”
Oh really? Well do you think Stephanie Shortt would have been elected without the help of hippie votes? I strongly doubt it. Her current actions may lead to her not getting those votes next time.
I hope she considers her political future in this county. The constituents’ concerns must be heard and if they are not heard then they will be heard with their votes next election.
It’s absolutely heartless to steal property of a man and throw a man in prison who is doing something that a majority of Americans think should be legal anyway (see the latest Zogby poll) and that a great number of Floyd Country residents do themselves. Almost everyone in Floyd either has smoked marijuana or knows someone who has done so. Her actions are basically getting across the idea that she thinks we are all criminals who do not deserve to keep our property or our freedom. How do you expect the people of Floyd to respond to that?
And do you think there’s this type of argument over real crimes? Murders? Robberies? Rapes? No of course not. Everyone wants those crimes prosecuted and we want those dangerous people in jail. That’s what’s really disgusting. Often times harmless people who are doing nothing but growing some pot get more jail time than those who rape & rob. That’s is unconscionable. How anyone can think that is “justice” is beyond me.
The “War on Drugs” is a war on American citizens. The real crime is the law itself. The real criminals in my view are those that steal good Americans property by abusing these despicable laws.
History will not look back kindly on those who looked the other way while this kind of abuse of power is going on.
Jonny:
You claim:
What data do you have to support your theory that "almost everyone in Floyd either has smoked marijuana or knows someone who has done so?" I didn’t see that question on the Floyd County demographic survey that was conducted a few years ago.
Floyd’s alternative lifestyle community makes up less than 10 percent of the total population of the county. That number is validated by the demographic survey. I know a number of members of that community who tell me they no longer use drugs. Even hippies grow up, move on and leave their pot-smoking days behind them.
There is an old concept that once defined residents of Floyd County. It was called "personal responsibility." It came from taking responsibility for your actions. When somone knowingly violates the law, then that someone must take responsibility for his or her actions and live with the consequences of those actions.
Freedom does not include the right to pick and choose which laws we want to obey. Freedom includes the reality of living with laws passed by the people we elect to represent us. Stephanie Shortt does not have the luxury of choosing which laws to enforce. She campaigned on a promise to enforce all the laws and I applaud her for delivering on that campaign promise.
The Zogby poll you cited found that 52 percent of Americans supported government "regulation and taxing" of marijuana distribution. I find it a bit odd that you rant and rail against government regulation and the cite a poll that favors bringing grass under the umbrella of regulation.
Zogby’s poll was also heavily skewed towards California where 56 percent of those polled favor legalization but Zogby’s numbers are different than nationwide polls by Gallup, Harris and other more reputatable polling firms that still show a minority of Americans favoring legalization.
Your aguments are typical of what I have heard from stoners for the past 40 years. As I’ve said before, I work with drug addiction and base my opinions from first-hand experience with those who have abused grass and other drugs. I find no value in sitting around in a THC-induced stupor when life can be more fully enjoyed without having one’s mind altered by drugs or alcohol.
You may not like it but you are in a minority in this county and this county is where the Commonwealth’s Attorney serves. From my examination of the voter base in Floyd County, I believe Stephanie Shortt could piss off every hippie in the county and still win re-election by a comfortable margin. I doubt that any of Floyd’s remaining alternative lifestyle community voted for John McCain but he got 60 percent of the county vote in the 2008 Presidential election and I know a lot of non hippies and non pot smokers (myself and my wife included) who voted for Obama.
Your arguments about use of grass reminds me of an old Cheech and Chong routine where Tommy Chong said:
If you blindly follow the mandate of rulers, you will bring ruin to your life and those around you.
When the founders spoke of this being a nation of laws, they were talking about constraining the whims of rulers, not the actions of free people. The Constitution does not permit the federal government to decide what you may or may not ingest (though it was amended to do so with the prohibition against alcohol between 1919 and 1933).
I am definitely not a member of “Floyd County’s marijuana community”, but the federal war on drugs–including laws allowing asset forfeiture–is not just inconvenient for some pot smokers. It is dangerous to all of us. It has militarized the police of this country, and allowed them to be a self-funding army. The only thing that protects us from being a police state is the personal integrity of the men and women who serve. For more information on the deadliness of the government’s war on drugs, see Radley Balko’s work on paramilitary police raids.
I do not advocate kidnapping people at gun point, locking them in a cage, and stealing their home from them because they live their life in some way that does no harm to any other party. I am incensed that my tax money is being used to do this to my neighbors against my wishes. If it can be done to pot smokers, it can be done to those of the wrong religion, or those who don’t register vehicles or livestock or guns, or those who don’t report all their financial details, or who offend our rulers in some other way.
Every country has flags to die for and rulers who must be obeyed. America was unique because it advocated Liberty for every sovereign individual. Please, Doug, reconsider whether you want to advocate blind obedience to authority.
Mark:
There is a big difference between "blind obedience to authority" and "obeying the law." In a Democratic Republic we have ways to change laws that we — the people — feel are unjust. It’s called the legislative process.
But I do not believe that society is served by making another drug legal. As a recovering alcoholic I know all too well the damage that abuse of drugs can do to a person and those around him. Alcohol is legal but national studies show alcohol dependence and abuse cost the US approximately $220 billion in 2005. This was greater than the amount of money spent to combat cancer ($196 billion) and obesity ($133 billion).
I work with alcoholics and drug abusers and, as a result, do not buy into the myth that marijuana is harmless or non-addictive. As the medical site Healthline reports:
I believe that those who abuse drugs should be helped and I believe those who manufacture illegal drugs and distribute those drugs to others should be punished.
When the law is wrong (as it is in this case) it does not deserve to be respected and it should not be followed. Authority is never more important than what is right and wrong.
The many thousands of Floyd County residents (and I assure you I am not exagerating) who smoke marijuana are all criminals by the current law’s definition. Should they all be thrown in jail? Do you believe your friend who smokes marijuana deserves to be thrown in jail because of their personal choice of what they put in their own bodies?
The real stupidity is laying down your civil liberties for some false concept of justice that does not stand up to any sort of critical analysis.
How is it that alcohol and cigarettes are illegal while marijuana is not? It’s obvious to anyone who has studied the health impacts that these legal substances are far more dangerous than marijuana. The law makes no sense on “public health” grounds and what other grounds could their possibly be for restricting people’s personal freedoms in this way?
Remember that old slogan about the United States, the one about how we live in the “land of the free” well as long as we are throwing innocent people in jail and stealing their land that is nothing but empty rhetoric. It’s time for this country to start measuring up to it’s promise. The founding fathers certainly never could have imagined that we would make marijuana illegal. It’s a travesty of justice.
Stephanie Shortt should be ashamed of herself. She needs to stop persecuting productive members of the Floyd County community and instead spend her time on real criminals (there must be some, right?) who actually hurt other people. If you don’t hurt anyone else, if you don’t steal from anyone else – then you are not a criminal. The real crime is the law itself.
It’s astonishing to me that you think that the people of Floyd who voted for Shortt shouldn’t be angry at her for what she is doing. Do you realize that most of the people that voted for her have smoked marijuana before? And a good number of them have grown it and “shared it with their friends.” Shortt’s actions indicate that she would steal their property and try to throw them in jail if she got the chance. That’s not how I would treat my voters if I was her.
The citizens of Floyd County love marijuana. Everyone with a bit of sense knows that marijuana is a large part of the “alternative community” that makes Floyd county an interesting place. Hell even the locals smoke marijuana in Floyd. And they have every right to love marijuana in a truly free country. Your thinking is old and outdated and it will be overcome as people begin to start thinking more critically.
And I’d like to leave an open invitation for anyone who would like to run for county office who is for the legalization of drugs. I will personally make sure your campaign is extremely well funded and that you get many thousands of votes. It’s time we turn the corner on drug prohibition.
Authority must never be respected over what’s right. Authority is never more important than freedom. If everyone thought like you did over the last 200 years this country would be a very sad place indeed. Laws are often wrong, and when they are wrong the only right thing to do is to disobey them.
Jonny:
Sounds like you are using too much of what a convicted murderer in Floyd County Circuit Court this past week called "that good Floyd County weed."
The alternative lifestylers make up just one part of the many diverse parts of the community that make Floyd County so unique but they neither control the County nor dominate its culture. Floyd County is not Berkeley and the hippies are not about to seize control of the government. The have — and do — contribute much to the community.
Floyd County has long had its share of underground cultures, from the moonshiners of my youth to the hippies of the 70s to the meth heads of today. All practiced their illegal trade. Most argued that what they did should be legal. Didn’t happen then, won’t happen now.
Marijuana is a destructive drug that breeds dependence by its user. Those who choose to use it long term will pay down the pike with health problems, memory loss and other problems.
As a recovering addict whose drug of choice was alcohol, I will not endorse the legalization of another destructive drug. I am not a fellow traveler when it comes to the use of illegal drugs and I will never join that parade.
Forgive me my ignorance Doug, I’m but a lay person yet even I know that the majority of Law and Statute is created to address a societal problem or injustice . . . yeah right . . . and I micturate Moët Premier Cru
The majority of law is devised and promulgated by vested interests.
Motoring law was driven(sic) by the need for safe transport, the laws regarding marijuana were based on ignorance and outright disinformation and manipulation of the public. I assume you know the history and farce of the “Reefer Madness” film? And it’s still illegal to grow industrial hemp in the US even though it contains virtually no traceable amount of THC. There’s nothing like a bit of wilful ignorance to screw up a legitimate prospective and environmentally friendly industry.
Here you cannot apply the same logic to a need for safe roads and a personal choice but if you want to try you can start by removing the driving licence of everyone on a prescription medicines that alter perception and mental acuity.
I’m not a marijuana user, but I have a dear freind who is drastically afflicted with MS and functions only with its assistance, I have made myself aware of its millennia of history and its uses both medicinal and recreational. It barely registers on the chart for injury and death by its use and it’s clear that it is an easy and politically advantageous target for law enforcement . . . Apocryphal personal observation indicates that many law enforcement officials are barely capable of and only motivated to pursuing the ‘low hanging fruit’ that includes the marijuana user (and on our crowded European roads, the Motorist).
Rather than make vacuous allegory in your rant wouldn’t we be better employed looking to take the statute book and give it a dam good ‘colonic’.
I’m not arguing that law should be ignored if we feel it unjust, I am saying that we should not slavishly kowtow to a law simply because it’s written. Apparently God has given us free will . . . but only so far as our self described betters allow us to think
John:
You say "the laws regarding marijuana were based on ignorance and outright disinformation and manipulation of the public." As a self-admitted lay person, what evidence do you have of such a conspiracy?
I deal and see first hand with what happens with those who use and abuse a variety of drugs, including marijuana.
Notes Dr. Nora D. Volkow, Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse:
Last year, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse reported:
This from Monitor on Psychology magazine:
And, finally, this from the American Medical Association:
These conclusions do not come from a "Reefer Madness" propaganda campaign but from serious medical research into use and abuse of an illegal, and dangerous, drug. That’s why I oppose its legalization and feel that those who manufacture and distribute it should be punished.
Doug, We both know it’s easy to isolate supportive argument in regard to any subject and I share some of the views and apprehensions expressed by the medical profession about the hybridisation of the plant’s genome to strengthen and enhance the chemical properties of the resulting drug. However the legislation introduced in the 30′s dealt with the Native Himalayan herb and not today’s bio-engineered varieties. It was miss-information and ignorance that included the benign industrial Hemp in the legislation.
While danger is the subject, we have to ask how many people are killed by prescription drugs?
Consumer Law:
A medical report in 1998 estimated that adverse reactions to prescription drugs are killing about 106,000 Americans each year — roughly three times as many as are killed by automobiles.[1] This makes prescription drugs the fourth leading killer in the U.S., after heart disease, cancer, and stroke. The report included only drugs that were given properly and under normal circumstances, excluding drugs that were administered in error or taken in attempted suicides. (When errors of administration are included, the death toll may be as high as 140,000 per year.[2] Such errors include prescribing the wrong drug or the wrong dosage; giving medications to the wrong person; giving medications to the right person but in the wrong quantities or the wrong frequencies, and so forth.)
We are both clearly aware that motoring offences are demonstrably more prevalent than public marijuana use. How many people have run you off the road whilst they’re trying to light a joint? . . .
However Doug, I wasn’t arguing directly for the deregulation of weed, I was opinioning that your juxtaposition of Drug legislation and Motoring Law is disingenuous and an unworthy addendum to your oeuvre.
Take a stand by all means but I ask you not to use artifice to justify it.
Best regards, John.
Please look into the history of why marijuana was made illegal in the first place and also look at the causes for it still being illegal to this date. It has nothing to do with the effects of marijuana and everything to do with politics.
Every time there has been a commission made to study the effects of marijuana being illegal that commission has come back with a recommendation for legalization. Guess what the politicians have done every time? Ignored that recommendation because it didn’t fit with their political goals.
Richard Nixon is the best example:
http://www.csdp.org/news/news/nixon.htm
The examples you cite are absolute hogwash. Anyone who has actually been around marijuana and it’s real effects knows that. We are done being lied to.
Doug,
I was not arguing for legalization of one particular substance: marijuana. I don’t particularly care how dangerous it is or isn’t to the person who decides to use it. I also don’t care how dangerous any other substance is–alcohol, heroin, red meat, tobacco, pharmaceuticals or herbal remedies–it is not a crime for someone to ingest these substances. Further, I argued that it is expressly forbidden for federal legislators to make laws against substance use by the Constitution they all voluntarily agree to uphold upon taking office.
What I call a crime is when a person undertakes some action with intent to do harm to another party. According to the link you posted, Ted Bundy was a mass murderer. He should be punished and forced to make restitution to his victims’ families. I am not arguing that nice people should not be punished. First and foremost, I am arguing that it is wrong to punish people who do not take some action with the intent to harm others, and you and I and your readers should not give such unjust punishment a shred of legitimacy.
Second, I am arguing that any federal laws that were created against ingesting substances are unconstitutional and were made “illegally”. I put the terms in quotes, because we now have diverging meanings of the term “legal”. Elected officials who were part of the legislative process you allude to took a solemn, voluntary oath to abide by the Constitution when they took their job. If they thought it was important to write laws against a substance, legislators had the means through the amendment process to do so, as was done with the 18th amendment prohibiting alcohol use. But this prohibition was reversed by the 21st amendment and never repeated for any other substance. The war on drugs uses government guns, jails, and confiscated revenue for a purpose the Constitution never authorized.
Contrast the legislators’ “illegal activities”–violating a voluntary oath so they could lend legitimacy to violent actions–to the “illegal activity” you say we must avoid. I don’t know the facts of the case against Patrick Fenn, but from your posting, I don’t see mention of anything he did that was intended to harm another person. You said that he was growing marijuana for his own use, and that he was also giving it to friends. Even if he were selling it to strangers, this would be a voluntary exchange between consenting individuals. As far as I know, he is not accused of giving it to minors against the wishes of their parents, or misrepresenting what the product is that he is selling, or failing to deliver goods after accepting payment (each of which might fit my definition of crime). The things you say Patrick is accused of are only “illegal” by the decree of the authorities.
So, there seem to be two types of “illegal activity”. Rulers are allowed to violate a solemn voluntary oath and authorize force against those who have committed no crime. Under what I take to be your view, this “illegal activity” is allowed. All’s fair within the DC beltway because it makes up the “legislative process”. But for you and I and Patrick, “illegal activity” is the result of that process, and we better follow it whether we like it or not, otherwise expect a gun in our face while our neighbors cower in fear. Our input into the “legislative process” is to vote for red team or blue team every few years and hope that whoever gets the spoils of our confiscated wealth doesn’t find our lifestyle objectionable. Are there two types of people–rulers and ruled? Or are “all men created equal”?
Thirdly, I alluded to the argument that once you empower people to legitimately use force beyond self-defense, it is abused.
You say that you don’t advocate “blind obedience to authority” but rather “obeying the law”. Maybe you object to my use of the word “blind”–maybe you advocate obeying authority under the full understanding that the authoritarian is wrong, but still we should submit. This would be inconvenient for pot smokers in this case, and home-schoolers, homosexuals, conscripts, and various buyers and sellers in others. But I hope that you don’t characterize Stephanie Shortt as “obeying the law”. In her case, she is undertaking actions intended to harm another–threatening to lock Patrick in a cage and take his home. Such actions are criminal, and having a fancy title and the sanction of the federal government does not change this. Do you approve of Stephanie’s choice (if she were to act upon it, your article suggests it is still under consideration) to prosecute Patrick?
I sincerely hope that the passion of my convictions hasn’t alienated you or other readers. I spent years living under different governments, reading, and pondering before arriving at these views. In retrospect, it seems I should have known from the age of six that initiating force and fraud are always wrong. But we receive a lot of conditioning to obey our rulers, and it is too easy for us to succumb to peer pressure and think that we can take a shortcut and use violence to achieve our well-intentioned ends. I hope that, after consideration, you will agree that it is wrong to steal from an innocent, even if you disapprove of his choices in life.
You have your opinion about marijuana being dangerous and Patrick and his friends have their opinion. I believe you volunteer to help people deal with marijuana and other addictions and I find this very admirable. You should be allowed to live according to your opinion and Patrick should be allowed according to his, so long as neither of you intentionally harm another person.
I don’t believe I even know Patrick. What is upsetting me in this story is that it is destroying a myth I held about Floyd–that the inhabitants of this small mountain community would value the peaceful choices of their neighbors above the decrees of Washington. It is probably too late to save Patrick, but we all better consider these ideas seriously. The steady accumulation of federal power over decades seems to me ready to collapse upon itself over the next few years. We had better decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong before we hurt each other any more by “obeying the law”.
You hit the nail on the head. Crime is when you hurt someone else. It is not a crime to hurt yourself. And you also hit it when you say this isn’t just about marijuana. I too believe all drugs should be legal even those that really are harmful to people (like heroin & meth.)
It’s a very slippery slope for the government to decide what’s OK for us to do in the privacy of our own homes and what is not OK.
I find it really disturbing that so many people don’t see the importance of personal freedom. That so many people in this country choose some sort of false sense of “safety” over what’s really important.
I think the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves about us even having to debate this. After all hemp was grown at Mount Vernon. By today’s laws George Washington would be a felon.
Doug, you can keep your police state. I’d rather live in an America that actually makes the slogan “Land of the Free” a true reality. That’s what I want in my lifetime. And I strongly believe that the young people growing up today will help make that a reality.
People that want to live in a police state should go find a country that is based on that kind of puritan ideal. That’s not what this one is supposed to be about.
…but again I have to disagree that it is disingenuous to use both traffic and drug laws in the same context. I was arguing that those who routinely violate both traffic laws and laws against recreational drugs like marijuana often claim they do so because the laws are "stupid" and should not be enforced.
I know people who argue that speed limits on public roads are a violation of individual freedom.
Driving under the influence of drugs is considered DUI in Virginia and most states and about half the DUI cases I see in general district courts involve driving while under the influence of drugs.
The web site, JustThinkTwice.Com reports:
Just because some hippies have “moved on” (as you condescendingly put it) from that lifestyle doesn’t mean they now disrespect people’s personal freedoms the way that you do. You don’t have to be a marijuana smoker to believe in personal freedom, you just have to have a little bit of common decency. Just a bit of heart. You just have to have a true understanding of what it means to live out the founding father’s ideal that America would be the “land of the free” where people could live out their lives as they want to without a tyrannical government impinging upon their rights. To borrow a neocon phrase, you just have to be a “real American.”
But what it really comes down to is this: Do you have the decency to respect other human beings enough not to take away their personal freedom for not living up to your own lifestyle standards? You seem to respect authority a great deal, but sadly I am under the impression other people’s lives mean very little to you.
Perhaps if you personally knew someone whose life was being torn apart by these insane laws against personal choice you would feel differently. Perhaps if you had a child or a grandchild whose property was being taken away because he happened to like to smoke marijuana you would feel differently. Or perhaps you are just that heartless?
You may think that’s overly confrontational, overly personal. But when you say you are for our friends and family being thrown in jail (as many of us do have friends and family who have been imprisoned for marijuana related “crimes”) and having their property stolen because they smoke marijuana – that’s a very personal thing indeed.
I think most people in my generation (I am 35) and particularly the younger generation (those in their 20s and younger) are shifting their perceptions of what’s right and wrong. No longer do people value authority for the sake of authority like you do. No longer do people respect something just because it’s “traditional” to do so. More and more people are valuing what’s really important. Morals is when you respect your neighbor enough not to want their life destroyed simply because they choose to live a different lifestyle than you.
Morals is not you pointing your finger down at everyone else who doesn’t live like you. Some people enjoy smoking marijuana, some people enjoy drinking alcohol. Just because it’s not right for your life shouldn’t mean that you feel you have the right to tell others it’s not right for theirs.
This progression to true morals in the new generation is why gay marriage will be legalized. It’s no one’s business what kind of sex life someone wants to live. And it’s also why marijuana will be legalized. People have the right to do what they want with their own lives in a truly free nation.
Those of you who are reading this comment and want to do your part to move this country forward from this kind of archaic thinking please join the ACLU & NORML and do your part to change the laws in this country so more people’s lives are not being destroyed by these insane laws and the ridiculous War on Drugs.
Whether you enjoy marijuana or not should have nothing to do whether or not you want to abolish these awful laws. This is a matter of personal freedom.
It’s also true that the war on drugs simply has not and does not work. It causes far more problems than it could ever hope to fix and it’s never been proven to be effective in lowering drug use rates. In fact America has some of the highest drug use rates in the world despite some of the harshest anti drug laws (yes sadly there are many countries where people have more civil liberties than we do in the supposed “land of the free.”)
I also encourage you to contact Senator Jim Webb and express your support for what he’s doing in finally bringing the issue of prison reform to the nation’s capital.
We have 25% of the world’s prisoners and only 5% of the world’s population. Something is very, very wrong with that. This high prisoner population is directly related to the War on Drugs and the fact that we put a lot of people in jail who do not belong there. Jail should be reserved for those who harm others.
For more on what Jim Webb is doing go here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/27/jim-webb-pot-legalization_n_180073.html
Please tell me that you have more respect for the lives of human beings than you do for laws which were born out of racism in the 1930s and which only still exist today because of political reasons ( please read about how Richard Nixon threw out the recommendation that marijuana be legalized for political reasons http://www.csdp.org/news/news/nixon.htm )
Yes, Mr. Thompson – you side with Richard Nixon. I’ll side with human decency. I promise you when history looks back at this you will have lost this argument.
I respect the law and I respect those who live within the law. Obviously, you do not. We are not going to agree on this and it is a waste of your time and mine to continue this senseless debate. I’m willing to let history be the judge. I suggest you do the same.
I have been reading this debate and decided to leave it alone. Opinions are opinions are opinions and we’re all entitled to them. BUT I HAVE to say two things cause i am so irritated by a few repetitive statements here. It isn’t only “hippies” that smoke marijuana in floyd or anywhere else. I think that it is unfair to continue to point that finger.
Secondly, yes the Commonwealth Attorney has to do her job. And yes, by VA law she is “ALLOWED” to confiscate property. BUT she doesn’t have to.
Rio:
I wasn’t me who suggested that the debate was all about the "hippie" community. I used the term "marijuana community." I didn’t say if that community was primarily hippies, yuppies, aging baby boomers or Calvinists. It was a member of the alternative community who claimed the hippie vote put the Commonwealth’s Attorney into office and who claimed it could remove her from office. He is also the one who claimed this all about hippies. It’s not.
Stephanie Shortt campaigned on a promise to enforce the law equally and without favoritism. The fact that she now wants to do so against a friend of yours and others in the alternative community is not the issue. Equal enforcement of the law is.
Justice, by design, is blind. It’s just too bad that those who equate violating the law with freedom fail to understand that.
Doug, I wasn’t addressing you but everyone who has been writing here and beyond (regarding the social finger pointing). Regarding Stephanie Shortt, I think I made my point. And by the way, this has nothing to do with who is a friend of mine or not. I am not writing in defense or offense on this issue. I was simply pointing out two points that didn’t sit quite right with me. Thanks.
Doug, It’s not simply members of the so called “marijuana community” who smoke marijuana. Many people smoke marijuana and it doesn’t become their lifestyle to do so. Some people only smoke a little bit on the weekends just like other people only drink on the weekends. It can be a social thing. It can be something someone does once a month.
I find it interesting that you assume I smoke marijuana simply because I argue for personal freedom. I don’t actually smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, or even coffee. I think this shows how quick you are to want to place people into categories. That’s often how it is with people like yourself who respect authority over humanity.
Just because I don’t do those things doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t have the choice to.
You seem intent, because of your own personal experiences, on dictating how other people should live. Just because you were an alcoholic and just because some people “abuse” marijuana doesn’t mean that these things should be illegal. I know quite a few people who use these drugs in moderation and live happy productive lives.
It seems obvious to me that it’s not the drugs themselves that is the problem here, it’s the unjust laws. The problem is the people who feel it’s their right to tell other people how to live.
You don’t have to be a marijuana smoker to believe in freedom. You just have to be a “real American” who understands what this country is really all about.
I get it, you respect law & authority over all else. Even over human decency, empathy, and compassion. To me there’s nothing sadder that can be said about someone.
Are you serious? So if someone is on drugs or intoxicated and goes out and takes the life of someone else we should ALL be comassionate and have empathy for this person? It doesn’t matter if you are a casual pot smoker, crackhead, or whatever drug of choice, or the addict it is ALL the same. Marijuana, heroin, crack, cocaine, meth, crank, steriods, ect. is ALL illegal. Those doing those drugs, selling those drugs, and even having those drugs in posession SHOULD be prosecuted to the full end of the law. How many murders have taken place DUE to drugs being involved? MILLIONS. How many people have had to be taken down by police due to drugs? MILLIONS
I have the highest respect for Stephanie Shortt and will support her throughout her “War on Drugs” because this county needs it. Too many young people now a days have become hooked on these drugs. Too many people have wasted their lives because of drugs when they had the chance to be someone. Stephanie is doing a wonderful job as Commonwealth Att. And you can bet that come next election she will have the vote of EVERY eligable voter in my household.
Monica, I am absolutely serious.
On the other hand I question your seriousness because it seems to me you have not thought about this subject very deeply at all. It’s clear you got your “education” on drug issues from “Just Say No” propaganda.
Your argument is illogical. First of all this has nothing to do with DUI. That is illegal regardless of the drug being used (including alcohol even though it is legal.) I agree that DUI should be illegal. Why? Because it puts other people in danger.
I do not ask you to have compassion for those that hurt other people. That’s the whole point. In this case the person being prosecuted didn’t hurt anyone else.
Smoking marijuana (or drinking alcohol or doing any other drug) in your own home does not put anyone else at risk.
It is not a true crime to consume drugs in the privacy of your own home. People have been brainwashed into thinking that it should be. But it’s not. And the founding fathers would certainly agree with that. Anyone who has an understanding of how these laws came into being in the first place would agree with that as well.
It’s unfortunate that so few people know the history of drug laws. It’s unfortunate that so many people know so little about this subject yet feel so sure of themselves in taking away other people’s rights.
Your assertion that millions of murders have taken place because of drugs is pure nonsense. No one has ever murdered someone because they smoke marijuana. If you really believe that marijuana turns someone into a murderer than I am actually astounded at your level of ignorance.
Almost all of the crime associated with drugs is because of the laws against them in the first place. Prohibition in the 1920s lead directly to the growth of organized crime. Drug prohibition today leads to drug cartel crime. In fact one of the best reasons to legalize drugs is that it would actually decrease crime by a great deal.
Please do some research on this. It does no one any good to have people making arguments based on absolutely no facts and no logical merit.
And Stephanie Shortt may have your vote, but she lost mine (and yes I voted for her last time.) I have a feeling she has lost a great many votes. Certainly she has a chance to win them back if she concentrates her efforts in a more productive way in the future.
didn’t come from the “Just say No” propaganda. I have lived in this county for 34 years and have seen first hand somethings that go on. Have you never watched the news? There have been TONS of murders take place IN the home due to drugs. What about what drugs do to the minds of young teenagers? I know dozens of people who smoke it and it has done some damage to them. What about those that may “choose” to smoke a little at home and then take off for a ride with some friends? From the way you make it sound that should be perfectly fine as well. I mean, hey it is their freedom to do so right? Not one single person can sit and tell me that drugs of ANY kind do not have some sort of negative affect on a persons life.
And honestly I doubt Stephanie will be too upset that she lost your vote. And probably the only votes she HAS lost is of those who are hell bent on breaking the law.
I had written a rant a few days ago but it was lost to cyberspace due to a dropped connection. Too bad these things don’t save the page I was in the process of Previewing prior to Posting.
The this and that pot and drug talk wasn’t what I was commenting on, it was the bigger question about whether we the people make personal decisions about living entirely within the law. It’s probably impossible at this point to be perfectly law abiding citizens. I’ll let the research experts come up with the total number of laws, many of which most are unaware of until selective and discretionary enforcement shows up. Rio made the best points when mentioning labeling and profiling and also the possibility of case by case discretion. This happens at the lowest levels if you have ever gotten a warning instead of a citation.
I have issues with certain laws and policies that create situations resulting in the punishment not fitting the crime. Let’s not forget the socio-economic factors of justice. A fine based system is unequal punishment for something as simple as a parking ticket.
What’s really important is how obvious that is to anyone paying attention to current events. Apparently the highest positions are above the law and clearly indicate that Rules are for Fools.
I might drive above the speed limit in certain situations but I’m not a habitual reckless driver. I’ve driven with an open container of beer, the one and only in my possesion, and the first and last of the day, while on my way to the other side of my property. I guess that’s risky if some sober careless driver crashes into me while texting. I guess that will go into the alcohol related data base. If the texting or cellphone using driver is not a teen, no big deal for them.
So, my answer is yes, I break the law by choice or in ignorance. Enforcement is random, selective, bad luck, or a vendetta. Prosecution is discretionary and so are the penalties.
Take your own inventory, you’ll rationalize too. Life is messy and risky.
Good Luck to all.