Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Plead Guilty or Go to Prison for Life: The Medical Marijuana Grower's Stark Choice
Townhall.com ^ | January 2, 2013 | Jacob Sullum

Posted on 01/02/2013 7:47:05 AM PST by Kaslin

Chris Williams, a Montana medical marijuana grower, faces at least five years in federal prison when he is sentenced on Feb. 1. The penalty seems unduly severe, especially because his business openly supplied marijuana to patients who were allowed to use it under state law.

Yet five years is a cakewalk compared to the sentence Williams originally faced, which would have kept the 38-year-old father behind bars for the rest of his life. The difference is due to an extremely unusual post-conviction agreement that highlights the enormous power prosecutors wield as a result of mandatory minimum sentences so grotesquely unjust that in this case even they had to admit it.

Of more than two dozen Montana medical marijuana providers who were arrested following federal raids in March 2011, Williams is the only one who insisted on his right to a trial. For that, he paid a steep price.

Tom Daubert, one of Williams' partners in Montana Cannabis, which had dispensaries in four cities, pleaded guilty to maintaining drug-involved premises and got five years of probation. Another partner, Chris Lindsey, took a similar deal and is expected to receive similar treatment. Both testified against Williams at his trial last September.

Williams' third partner, Richard Flor, pleaded guilty to the same charge but did not testify against anyone. Flor, a sickly 68-year-old suffering from multiple ailments, died four months into a five-year prison term.

For a while, it seemed that Williams, who rejected a plea deal because he did not think he had done anything wrong and because he wanted to challenge federal interference with Montana's medical marijuana law, also was destined to die in prison. Since marijuana is prohibited for all purposes under federal law, he was not allowed even to discuss the nature of his business in front of the jury, so his conviction on the four drug charges he faced, two of which carried five-year mandatory minimums, was more or less inevitable.

Stretching Williams' sentence from mindlessly harsh to mind-bogglingly draconian, each of those marijuana counts was tied to a charge of possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, based on guns at the Helena grow operation that Williams supervised and at Flor's home in Miles City, which doubled as a dispensary. Federal law prescribes a five-year mandatory minimum for the first such offense and 25 years for each subsequent offense, with the sentences to run consecutively.

Consequently, when Williams was convicted on all eight counts, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 80 years for the gun charges alone, even though he never handled the firearms cited in his indictment, let alone hurt anyone with them. This result, which federal prosecutors easily could have avoided by bringing different charges, was so absurdly disproportionate that U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter offered Williams a deal.

Drop your appeal, Cotter said, and we'll drop enough charges so that you might serve "as little as 10 years." No dice, said Williams, still determined to challenge the Obama administration's assault on medical marijuana providers. But when Cotter came back with a better offer, involving a five-year mandatory minimum, Williams took it, having recognized the toll his legal struggle was taking on his 16-year-old son, a freshman at Montana State University.

"I think everyone in the federal system realizes that these mandatory minimum sentences are unjust," Williams tells me during a call from the Missoula County Detention Facility. But for prosecutors, they serve an important function: "They were basically leveraging this really extreme sentence against something that was so light because they wanted to force me into taking a plea deal." Nine out of 10 federal criminal cases end in guilty pleas.

The efficient transformation of defendants into prisoners cannot be the standard by which we assess our criminal justice system. If the possibility of sending someone like Chris Williams to prison for the rest of his life is so obviously unfair, why does the law allow it, let alone mandate it?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: cannabis; drugs; drugwar; federallaw; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; medpot; montana; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 01/02/2013 7:47:20 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It’s a BS sentence all right ,but one he wouldn’t have gotten if he hadn’t grown the crap in the first place.

He knew he was shading the law ,and he chose to do it.

We will all be facing sentences when the Feds outlaw our guns. I doubt the jails will be able to hold us all.We all know it’s coming , are we prepared to pay the price?


2 posted on 01/02/2013 8:04:15 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Venturer

When we agreed that the government could outlaw a vegetable, we certainly whetted their appetite to outlaw firearms. The goal of reasonable conservatives should be to limit overreach by governments. I see no purpose to marijuana prohibition. It doesn’t limit use very much and simply allows government to raid homes. I’ve been in jurisdictions here it’s essentially legal and not used it nor been tempted to; I suspect most folks are the same.


4 posted on 01/02/2013 8:13:49 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: greene66

Where EXACTLY in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is Congress given the specific, enumerated power to criminalize the growing of a plant?

Thanks in advance. I await the results of your diligent research.


5 posted on 01/02/2013 8:13:49 AM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
We will all be facing sentences when the Feds outlaw our guns. I doubt the jails will be able to hold us all.We all know it’s coming , are we prepared to pay the price?

I hope so; there is evil in this world and it must be fought -- sometimes even to bloodshed and death.

It’s a BS sentence all right ,but one he wouldn’t have gotten if he hadn’t grown the crap in the first place.
He knew he was shading the law, and he chose to do it.

There's a problem here; a fundamental problem: is a 'law' [statute, ordnance, rule, etc] which is unlawful legitimate?
First, let's start with the power to regulate the drug: the 18th amendment was required to enable the regulation of alcohol by the federal government -- by what power then is the regulation of drugs assumed? If it is the commerce clause, which has been cited in Gonzales, then all one needs to do to repudiate that is look at the commerce-clause: it is in a list which contains "foreign nations", the [attempted] enforcement of such regulations in a foreign country would correctly be construed both an act of war and the waging of war -- therefore, such regulation applies to the States is also an act of war and definitionaly satisfies the charge of Treason as laid out in the Constitution.

That's right, the War on Drugs is literally Treason.

6 posted on 01/02/2013 8:32:31 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Since marijuana is prohibited for all purposes under federal law, he was not allowed even to discuss the nature of his business in front of the jury,...

Sure wouldn't want the jury to have ALL THE FACTS would we?

7 posted on 01/02/2013 8:34:34 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
I think it emanates from a penumbra ... or something ...
8 posted on 01/02/2013 8:35:16 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

There is so Gotdamn much treason in our laws today it’s hard to pick which is worse, and then Obama wants a traitor as his Secretary of State.

We already have at least one on the Supreme Court, I speak of the Chief Justice who stabbed us all in the back and confirmed an Unconstitutional health care bill.


9 posted on 01/02/2013 8:37:12 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If I were a judge, anyone coming into my courtroom with a charge of growing marijuana (medicinally or not) would receive a minimum of 10yrs behind bars, and then we’d work from that statute. Life for growing illegal drugs is OK in my book...


10 posted on 01/02/2013 8:37:28 AM PST by R AND R IN 2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Where EXACTLY in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is Congress given the specific, enumerated power to criminalize the growing of a plant?

The courts have settled on the Commerce clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

What they fail to realize is that by placing the 'several states' in a list including foreign nations and Indian tribes (which could be called native nations) there is a limit placed thereon: the federal government cannot legitimately assume 'regulation' to mean something that applied to foreign nations would constitute an act of war -- the enforcement of which would be waging war -- and therefore, being applied to the states, would constitute treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So, keep in mind that those advocating the War on Drugs are doing no less than advocating Treason.

11 posted on 01/02/2013 8:38:45 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The “War on Drugs” is total nonsense and needs to end.


12 posted on 01/02/2013 8:39:45 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Where EXACTLY in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is Congress given the specific, enumerated power to criminalize the growing of a plant?

Thanks in advance. I await the results of your diligent research.


I had some one here at FR quote the general welfare clause on another issue.......................


13 posted on 01/02/2013 8:43:21 AM PST by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
We will all be facing sentences when the Feds outlaw our guns. I doubt the jails will be able to hold us all.We all know it’s coming , are we prepared to pay the price?

Wait until the public service announcements emerge revealing govt research showing exposure to handguns leads to schizophrenia, cancer, induces white women to cohabit with black jazz musicians, grows breasts on men, and is a "gateway firearm" to hardcore automatic weapons.


14 posted on 01/02/2013 8:43:34 AM PST by fattigermaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: R AND R IN 2012
So why did we need a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol but not for drugs.

The war on drugs is a a failed policy that caused a huge enroads into are constitutional rights.

15 posted on 01/02/2013 8:45:23 AM PST by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
We already have at least one on the Supreme Court, I speak of the Chief Justice who stabbed us all in the back and confirmed an Unconstitutional health care bill.

While I agree that the decision was despicable, and horrid, I must also conclude that it is not Treason -- treason is very carefully and strictly defined in the Constitution -- though it may certainly be sedition.

16 posted on 01/02/2013 8:45:38 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: R AND R IN 2012

You’re really tough aren’t you n00b?


17 posted on 01/02/2013 8:47:48 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple; Lurker
I had some one here at FR quote the general welfare clause

I hope you pointed out to them that the clause is a statement of purpose not a grant of power - and that if it were the latter, every present and future program of the federal welfare state would be constitutional.

18 posted on 01/02/2013 8:54:05 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: R AND R IN 2012

and what about life for illegal guns????

your ignorance is showing, newb..


19 posted on 01/02/2013 9:03:29 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: R AND R IN 2012

I love it when faux conservatives like you show their true colors by pissing on the Constitution just as hard as any Leftist.


20 posted on 01/02/2013 9:06:57 AM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

weellll..

the libs have been using that one for decades now to pass everydamn social program they see fit..

but justice Roberts, ya know, the one people are calling a traitor, actually ended this practice with his ruling on fubocare....

you should really read his ruling, there are some solid bars of gold in there, and plenty of ammunition to fight the libs ( if only we did not hand them this election )..


21 posted on 01/02/2013 9:07:41 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: R AND R IN 2012

Jack ass.
Your post maybe one of the most stupid on FR in a long time.


22 posted on 01/02/2013 9:18:13 AM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fattigermaster
Wait until the public service announcements emerge revealing........

rewards and bounties for private citizens to out their families and neighbors that have those evil scary guns.

And BTW, don't try to cut a fast one. Mine were all stolen.

23 posted on 01/02/2013 9:24:17 AM PST by showme_the_Glory (ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fattigermaster

It used to be Jazz Musicians, Now it’s Rappers and Basketball players.


24 posted on 01/02/2013 9:33:29 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
What they fail to realize is that by placing the 'several states' in a list including foreign nations and Indian tribes (which could be called native nations) there is a limit placed thereon:

Actually, the limit goes further than that. The 'commerce clause' was for the purpose of gathering taxes at the point of entry. The federal government was to regulate commerce between these points so the States (and Indian tribes) would all get a reasonable 'share' of taxes from imports and exports from foreign countries.

It has nothing to do with the movement or production of goods occurring within or between the States themselves.

Mr. MADISON was surprised that any gentleman should return to the clauses which had already been discussed. He begged the gentleman to read the clauses which gave the power of exclusive legislation, and he might see that nothing could be done without the consent of the states. With respect to the supposed operation of what was denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman, he said, was mistaken; for it only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress; namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.
Elliot's Debates, Volume 3, page 455

-----

So, keep in mind that those advocating the War on Drugs are doing no less than advocating Treason.

Again, I agree with the sentiment, but not the line of reasoning.

The War on Drugs is treason simply because the federal government was NEVER given the suthority to make laws concerning the People, only to act as a municipality in their area of exclusive legislation....the city of Washington, D.C.

In the United States of America the people have retained the sovereignty in their own hands: they have in each state distributed the government, or administrative authority of the state, into two distinct branches, internal, and external; the former of these, they have confided, with some few exceptions, to the state government; the latter to the federal government.

Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
View of the Constitution of the United States / Note B

25 posted on 01/02/2013 9:39:19 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: R AND R IN 2012
If I were a judge, anyone coming into my courtroom with a charge of growing marijuana (medicinally or not) would receive a minimum of 10yrs behind bars, and then we’d work from that statute. Life for growing illegal drugs is OK in my book...

If I were a juror in your courtroom, I would carefully weigh all the evidence, then vote to acquit and urge my fellow jurors to do the same, citing jury nullification.

Even if they did not follow my example, I would still vote to acquit to make sure that the trial ended in a hung jury and force the government to retry him, if for no other reason than to spite a jerk like you.

26 posted on 01/02/2013 10:22:04 AM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
There's a problem here; a fundamental problem: is a 'law' [statute, ordnance, rule, etc] which is unlawful legitimate?

Of course it is.
Just check out Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo if you don't believe me. Everything they did within their own borders was in accordance to legal statutes from their legislators.

I believe Ayn Rand said it best: The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws

27 posted on 01/02/2013 10:53:46 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
There's a problem here; a fundamental problem: is a 'law' [statute, ordnance, rule, etc] which is unlawful legitimate?

Of course it is.
Just check out Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo if you don't believe me. Everything they did within their own borders was in accordance to legal statutes from their legislators.

I believe Ayn Rand said it best: The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws

Treason? I agree!

28 posted on 01/02/2013 10:54:48 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: brityank
>>There's a problem here; a fundamental problem: is a 'law' [statute, ordnance, rule, etc] which is unlawful legitimate?
>
>Of course it is.

Ah, and therein we heartily disagree. For to construe a 'law' which is unlawful as legitimate is to assert that law holds no power: it is the assertion that true is exactly equal to false -- nothing at all can be built on such a foundation, for such a foundation excludes all logic and rationality.

29 posted on 01/02/2013 11:03:50 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
but justice Roberts, ya know, the one people are calling a traitor, actually ended this practice with his ruling on fubocare....

What are you seeing that Clarence Thomas and Mark Levin overlooked?

you should really read his ruling, there are some solid bars of gold in there, and plenty of ammunition to fight the libs ( if only we did not hand them this election )..

Quote from the ruling where these solid gold bars and explain how they reverse any Commerce Clause or General Welfare case law.

You can start by telling us how Raich is curtailed by this ruling.

30 posted on 01/02/2013 12:01:23 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Here is one of many things I have written about the fubocare decision… keep in mind that the courts have used minority opinions as a kind of “back door” for judicial activism..

In your anger (and many others) over this decision, you have overlooked the bars of gold, and the removal of many abuses of the constitution contained in this decision..

First, fubocare sucks and I both hate and detest it..

with that in mind, here are the bars of gold, and the brilliance in obtaining them...

the libs have used 3 main hammers in their attack on the constitution and our way of life for over 80 years now... they have not veered in their attacks.. roberts took all of these hammers away with this ruling...

The libs have used the commerce clause with impunity, creating commerce in order to regulate it, as they tried here..

Roberts ruled that the commerce clause can no longer be used this way, and ruled that to be unconstitutional..

Now, here is the brilliant part... the minority opinion... concurs..

This hammer has been taken away, and with the minority opinion concurring with his ruling, the backdoor is effectively closed....

There goes hammer #1.

The libs have used the Necessary and Proper clause to pass anydamn social program they see fit..They tried it here..

Roberts ruled (I am going to paraphrase here) that the Necessary and Proper clause cannot be used to create social programs out of thin air...

And the minority opinion.... concurs..

Hammer #2 take away, back door closed..

Now the third one ( and this one is already being used ) is unfunded mandates to the states..

The fed issues a mandate, does not fund it, and threatens to take away fed dollars for failure to comply. This is hammer #3..

Roberts ruled that the feds cannot issue unfunded mandates with the threat of loss of other funds..

and the minority opinion.... concurs...

Hammer #3 taken away and back door is closed.

These 3 items have effectively rendered the libs entire game plan useless, and have removed the 3 major abuses of the constitution used by the libs for over 80 years...

As for the tax thing, it was always a tax, it was written as a tax, and sworn testimony by fubo’s own lawyer said it was a tax...and in no fewer than 17 places in the monstrosity of a bill it is called a tax...

The only people that said it was not a tax was fubo and his henchmen... gee, fubo lied, who would have guessed..

Roberts took this opportunity to state 2 things that are 100% true:

1) That it is not the Supreme court’s responsibility to save the people from themselves...this bill was written by duly elected representatives of the people..

2) That the voting public got the government they voted for, and need to take a greater responsibility for whom they cast their ballots..

I agree with both these statements.


31 posted on 01/02/2013 12:16:59 PM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Ah, and therein we heartily disagree.

I don't think we disagree at all. Consider:

Legal is the rule or regulation created by a valid legislature, and applied through the judiciary and administrative edicts of that society.

Lawful is the impact those rules and regulations have on that society.

The first is "the letter of the law" - the second is "the spirit of the law", and they should, in a just society, be equivalent.

Now consider "Roe v. Wade". Legal and unlawful.

32 posted on 01/02/2013 12:44:08 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
Roberts ruled that the commerce clause can no longer be used this way, and ruled that to be unconstitutional..

'No longer' implies that it was used that way before, but that this is now changed. How are Raich or Wickard trimmed back in any way?

Now, here is the brilliant part... the minority opinion... concurs..

Where are you getting that? Read what Ginsberg herself said.

Unlike The Chief Justice, however, I would hold, alternatively, that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision. I would also hold that the Spending Clause permits the Medicaid expansion exactly as Congress enacted it.

1) That it is not the Supreme court’s responsibility to save the people from themselves...this bill was written by duly elected representatives of the people..

So the duly elected Congress can start infringing 2A rights if that's what the people vote for?

2) That the voting public got the government they voted for, and need to take a greater responsibility for whom they cast their ballots..

This is supposed to be a constitutional republic with limitations on the federal government. SCOTUS is supposed to strike down acts which are repugnant to the Constitution, regardless of popular will, right?

33 posted on 01/02/2013 1:56:25 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
"When we agreed that the government could outlaw a vegetable, we certainly whetted their appetite to outlaw firearms."

That's incorrect. Pot was legalized, and that "whetted their appetite to outlaw firearms" (both in Colorado, one immediately after the other).

Rebel, folks. Pot is a tool of slavery. Get off of the stuff, and get off of the plantation. Let the bipartisan, socialist, political/regulator bosses, their rotten kids and their pocket authorities keep doing it without you.


34 posted on 01/02/2013 2:41:32 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: familyop

If you read what I wrote, you would have seen that I don’t smoke the stuff and aren’t even tempted. If you responded without reading what I wrote, your response is worthless.


35 posted on 01/02/2013 2:48:16 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Potheads and other drug-addicted criminals are worthless. There’s nothing conservative about a drug addict.


36 posted on 01/02/2013 2:57:27 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
"If you read what I wrote, you would have seen that I don’t smoke the stuff and aren’t even tempted. If you responded without reading what I wrote, your response is worthless."

You read my reply and lied about it. I didn't say that you're a pot smoker, even though your comments display delusions.


37 posted on 01/02/2013 3:01:13 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Rebel, folks. Pot is a tool of slavery. Get off of the stuff, and get off of the plantation. Let the bipartisan, socialist, political/regulator bosses, their rotten kids and their pocket authorities keep doing it without you.

Rebel against what? The original intent of the Commerce Clause?

38 posted on 01/02/2013 3:08:17 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Who’s delusional? You offered gratuitous advice that I should rebel and get off the stuff. I’m not on it. Also, get your facts straight. The Feds effectively outlawed marijuana in the 1938 marijuana tax law; gaining that power the feds moved on and now wants to over-rule the second amendment. Careful reading is s valuable life skill, look into it.


39 posted on 01/02/2013 3:09:07 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Rebel, folks. Pot is a tool of slavery. Get off of the stuff, and get off of the plantation. Let the bipartisan, socialist, political/regulator bosses, their rotten kids and their pocket authorities keep doing it without you.

Rebel against what? The original intent of the Commerce Clause?

40 posted on 01/02/2013 3:10:59 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
"You offered gratuitous advice that I should rebel and get off the stuff."

Wrong. My comment repeated in full:

That's incorrect. Pot was legalized, and that "whetted their appetite to outlaw firearms" (both in Colorado, one immediately after the other).

Rebel, folks. Pot is a tool of slavery. Get off of the stuff, and get off of the plantation. Let the bipartisan, socialist, political/regulator bosses, their rotten kids and their pocket authorities keep doing it without you.


You understood "folks" to mean you, apparently, or you're being dishonest. Which is it?


41 posted on 01/02/2013 3:17:50 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: familyop

I took you at your word based on what you wrote. Thanks for explaining that prudent people shouldn’t do that.


42 posted on 01/02/2013 3:24:43 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Potheads and other drug-addicted criminals are worthless. There’s nothing conservative about a drug addict.

There is also nothing conservative about the abuse of federal power demonstrated here. The persons in question are obeying state law. The 10th Amendment delegates to the states powers to regulate such. The feds are usurping those powers. Whether or not you approve of the activity in question should be immaterial.

43 posted on 01/02/2013 5:23:50 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: familyop

There is nothing ‘conservative’ about the the drug war either.


44 posted on 01/02/2013 5:58:56 PM PST by IDFbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: svcw
Spoken like a true POTHEAD!! GROW UP, DOLT!!
45 posted on 01/02/2013 8:09:47 PM PST by R AND R IN 2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: svcw
Spoken like a true POTHEAD!! GROW UP, DOLT!!
46 posted on 01/02/2013 8:10:34 PM PST by R AND R IN 2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: R AND R IN 2012

Seriously two posts with CAPS!!!!!!
And I am the dolt - hahahahahhahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!


47 posted on 01/02/2013 9:00:19 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: familyop

And there is nothing conservatives with people who make blanket and ignorant comments.


48 posted on 01/02/2013 9:02:24 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: R AND R IN 2012
Have you ever heard of the Tenth Amendment? Read this:

Paul Ryan Talks Medical Marijuana Legalization: ‘Let the States Decide’

49 posted on 01/02/2013 9:26:48 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

i do not know what raich or winward is, please explain..

ginberg was in the MAJORITY, and did not write the opinion.. what she says verbally means nothing..

the 4 conservatives agreed with what roberts wrote pertaining to this.. i will hold that ginsberg was disgusted with this ruling, because that old communist knew the jig was up.. the silence from the libs on the court and in congress over this ruling speaks volumes to me..

your next statement is just plain false.. this bill was written years ago by people that are not quite as dumb as the limbaugh, hannity, levin people would lead you to believe, after all, they have been doing this for over 80 years and getting away with it..this bill passed due to prior case law and rulings, with this ruling it would never pass again...

I agree with your last statement, however, the courts can and have been packed with activists for over 80 years.. if the people continue to support and elect activists, you will get activist courts, this is what roberts was saying, and guess what just happened??????

this site is filled with conservatives, however, roberts is not a conservative. He is a federalist, and a member of the federalist society.

This ruling, unpopular as it was, was his best chance to get a majority/minority concurrance on strictly constitutional issues. His plan, as I see it, was that the people would not elect a hard core communist a second time.

The people failed. So called conservatives, evangelicals, and small l libertarians just stayed home in droves, giving us communist rule.

Roberts handed us, on a silver platter, the tools necessary to fight and defeat the socialist / communist on their own playing field.

We blew it...


50 posted on 01/03/2013 4:23:11 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson