SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11491)8/7/2003 4:41:33 PM
From: Alan Smithee  Read Replies (1) of 14610
 
Your case, er, you meant the one you were referring to.

Ah, let's see. Criminal case, involving possession of presumably large amounts of marijuana. You didn't mention whether it was a state or federal prosecution, so I'll assume federal.

Ah, let's see. The jury probably didn't hear about the circumstances of this being a medical grow operation because the federal statute doesn't recognize the right to cultivate marijuana for one's own use? Therefore, the underlying circumstances were most likely deemed not relevant by the Judge, since the government did not have to prove that the pot was not grown for medicinal purposes, and the fact that it was grown for medicinal purposes is not a defense to a federal possession or trafficking charge.

The search for truth and justice has nothing to do with this one bud.

Is there something I'm missing?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News