"it's all good, kids"
"burn up that bong"
Posted on 09/01/2006 10:15:43 PM PDT by freepatriot32
The Drug Policy Alliance is releasing a powerful flash movie that highlights the plight of 18-year-old Mitchell Lawrence, the teen now spending two years in jail for selling one joint’s worth of marijuana to an undercover cop in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
The two-minute movie introduces people to Mitchell Lawrence and the details of his case. The flash asks and then explains how an 18-year-old (he was 17 when arrested) who has never been in trouble before could be sentenced to two years in jail for selling such a minuscule amount of marijuana.
The movie states: "It takes two things: A bad law. And a cruel prosecutor."
Mitchell Lawrence received the two-year jail sentence because he was within 1,000 feet of a school and because the fanatical district attorney of Berkshire County, David Capeless, decided to press school zone charges, which trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison.
The movie explains that, contrary to assumptions, the Drug-Free School Zone laws do nothing to protect children and are instead used to fill our prisons with people like Mitchell Lawrence. The flash explains:
98 percent of people arrested in "Drug-Free School Zones" weren’t selling drugs to children. 95 percent of all sales aren’t near any schools. Most of those arrested have no idea they are in a so-called school zone. 97 percent of all people arrested in "Drug-Free Zones" are Black or Latino. The movie is being sent out to the Drug Policy Alliance’s email list of 100,000 subscribers. After people view the flash they are encouraged to support the Mitchell Lawrence family and to help reform the disastrous "Drug-Free School Zone" laws.
Viewers of the movie are asked to show their solidarity with the Lawrence family by signing a letter of support to the family. The Drug Policy Alliance will send a candle on behalf of every person who signs the petition. The community of Berkshire County will be laying out the candles at a vigil this summer on the Court House steps in opposition to the inappropriate and harsh sentence.
Viewers are also asked to become members of the Drug Policy Alliance and help reform the ineffective "Drug-Free School Zone" laws. The Drug Policy Alliance recently commissioned a report authored by the Justice Policy Institute, "Disparity by Design: How drug-free zone laws impact racial disparity - and fail to protect youth." The report received national attention in USA Today, The Washington Post and hundreds of other media outlets across the country.
Quoting what the law is does not make the law just, and it does not explain why the punishment fits the crime. If a law was passed to put someone who goes 5 MPH above the speed limit in jail for 10 years, that would definitely be an unjust law. However, I couldn't defend its justness by just saying "gee, that's the law, if you don't like it change it, but the punishment is just because that's the law."
So once again, since you appear to have trouble with the question, why is putting someone in jail for 2 years for selling a joint 500 or whatever feet from a school just? How is the punishment fitting the crime?
In Florida we have 10-20 -life with no parole for committing a crime with a gun is that fair to you liberal whiners??
Ohh, liberal whiners. Solid technique right there, if solid means the technique of a third grader who can't articulate his opinion without namecalling because that's all the brain power he has to work with. But to answer your question, it depends on the crime (I'd wager most crimes committed with a gun are armed robbery, murder, and attempted murder). I would say the punishment far more fits the crime than going to jail for 2 years for selling a joint within 1000 yards of a school.
Do you know of any users who keep their marijuana split up into joint-sized packets, or do they simply keep it in one baggie?
"Lawrence sold the marijuana to undercover Berkshire County Task Force officer Felix A. Aguirre for $20 on June 30, 2004. The sale took place between 426 and 556 feet of the preschool, which is inside the First Congregational Church."
"The parking lot, located within 1,000 feet of the Great Barrington Co-operative Preschool and Searles/ Bryant Middle School, was a popular hangout for young adults and reportedly rife with drug activity at the time"
. "Most of those arrested were accused of selling cocaine, ecstasy and other "hard" drugs, but seven of the defendants -- including Lawrence -- were charged with selling small amounts of marijuana."
That's correct. He didn't find one -- they found 19.
"Lawrence was among 19 people arrested on drug-dealing charges as a result of an undercover operation from January to September 2004 at the former Taconic Lumber parking lot in Great Barrington."
The time to make a case for changing the law is before you get caught, not afterwards.
I don't condone parents drugging their kids in order to control them. When did I ever give you that impression?
Sounds like another subject for another forum.
The time to argue against a law that has an unjust punishment is anytime. Certainly for someone like me who has never been caught, but those who get caught have every right to rail against opressive punishment. Of course, it's up to the public and legal system to agree if it is opressive or not, much like it's up for the supporters of the punishment to validate that support, and for the opponenets of it to invalidate it.
We, as a society, decide which rights we will protect --- We choose not to protect your right to do drugs. If and when a majority of the people decide that we should, then we will.
Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.
Hell of a thing.
No worse than filching abused asparagus.
I do not believe minorities have exclusivity to use of drugs.
Sounds like another subject for another forum.
Well, since you brought the subject of "Meth" up on this forum I have no idea why you say that.
(that has got to be the most subtle "why don't you go back to DU" I've ever seen)
Sorry, but you are wrong, I did not mean DU. I meant that your subject regarding use of drugs for ADHD and kids is an involved topic. I think it sidetracks this discussion.
I referred to meth as a substance which I feel is far more harmful to kids/teens. It was used comparatively to weed. But then again, you knew that didn't you?
I don't really need to answer your question as it is not relevant to what was being discussed.
If you truly want to discuss the topic, why not start a new discussion? In any case, this is my last response to you on this subject. Have a nice day.
You are a loon and obviously looking for a fight.... over what is anyone's guess.
Once again, have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.