Marijuana and diabetes.

[Gill Baka Esq. LLC.]

. Told y'all Jchambers was trolling. Trolls know trolls. I read page 3 3 times. And I'm high as hell right now. Love reading this thread high. Still can't believe we can actually talk about weed. NT has came a long way. I'm proud to be an NTer for the first time ever. I love you guys, son.

People gotta learn how to handle their drugs.

Just like when I watched my little brother get high for the first time. Uncomposed.

 

[cocotaso1]

i keep saying though, we need a "what did you smoke today" thread!

 

[MajinZuub]

i keep saying though, we need a "what did you smoke today" thread!

Not allowed on NT.

 

[htg designs]

Not allowed on NT.

what if we all llive in colorado tho?

 

[HEATHEN]

Its a bit discouraging that we can have a gun thread, a cigar thread, and alcohol threads but we can't have a cannabis thread. I mean I would hope that at some point we as a community can eventually move on together from the stigma that surrounds marijuana and the stereotypes surrounding it's users as a large part of NT's constituency enjoy marijuana.

Just extremely hypocritical to allow all these other things but to not have a marijuana thread because of minors. Yet there are parents with kids that have health problems who give their kids tinctures and concentrates. I mean we can talk about prescription drugs that are far more narcotic in nature and have far more adverse effects but we can't post a picture of a bud.

Beyond ignorant.

 

[jchambers]

Its a bit discouraging that we can have a gun thread, a cigar thread, and alcohol threads but we can't have a cannabis thread. I mean I would hope that at some point we as a community can eventually move on together from the stigma that surrounds marijuana and the stereotypes surrounding it's users as a large part of NT's constituency enjoy marijuana.

Just extremely hypocritical to allow all these other things but to not have a marijuana thread because of minors. Yet there are parents with kids that have health problems who give their kids tinctures and concentrates. I mean we can talk about prescription drugs that are far more narcotic in nature and have far more adverse effects but we can't post a picture of a bud.

Beyond ignorant.

It's not ignorant.You are forgetting the one key point. Marijuana is illegal everywhere in the United States(your local laws do not trump Federal law). The owners and mods don't want us on here discussing illegal activities for obvious reasons.

 

[HEATHEN]

It's not ignorant.You are forgetting the one key point. Marijuana is illegal everywhere in the United States(your local laws do not trump Federal law). The owners and mods don't want us on here discussing illegal activities for obvious reasons.

Nah I don't hear that bro. I know the malicious lengths big pharma and the like go to keep marijuana illegal. I know the lengths a lot of law enforcement agencies go to keep it illegal. It's in a lot of people's interest to keep it illegal, greedy people. I don't recognize or adhere to such tyrannical laws. I will not bite my tongue for what I believe is good for the interests of the malicious and neither should NT.

 

[cocotaso1]

It's not ignorant.You are forgetting the one key point. Marijuana is illegal everywhere in the United States(your local laws do not trump Federal law). The owners and mods don't want us on here discussing illegal activities for obvious reasons.

Nah I don't hear that bro. I know the malicious lengths big pharma and the like go to keep marijuana illegal. I know the lengths a lot of law enforcement agencies go to keep it illegal. It's in a lot of people's interest to keep it illegal, greedy people. I don't recognize or adhere to such tyrannical laws. I will not bite my tongue for what I believe is good for the interests of the malicious and neither should NT.

View media item 417331

 

[HEATHEN]

View media item 417331

K

 

[jchambers]

It's not ignorant.You are forgetting the one key point. Marijuana is illegal everywhere in the United States(your local laws do not trump Federal law). The owners and mods don't want us on here discussing illegal activities for obvious reasons.

Nah I don't hear that bro. I know the malicious lengths big pharma and the like go to keep marijuana illegal. I know the lengths a lot of law enforcement agencies go to keep it illegal. It's in a lot of people's interest to keep it illegal, greedy people. I don't recognize or adhere to such tyrannical laws. I will not bite my tongue for what I believe is good for the interests of the malicious and neither should NT.

If you have a problem with it then message Method Man or one of the other mods. I don't make the rules, but I understand why they are in place.

 

[HEATHEN]

If you have a problem with it then message Method Man or one of the other mods. I don't make the rules, but I understand why they are in place.

Oh, thought this was a community. You know, where things can be opened up for discussion.

 

[jchambers]

If you have a problem with it then message Method Man or one of the other mods. I don't make the rules, but I understand why they are in place.

Oh, thought this was a community. You know, where things can be opened up for discussion.

Not really. Most internet sites are run more like a dictatorship than a democracy. This site is free and it doesn't seem like too big of an issue that the people who run it don't want illegal activities discussed here.

 

[HEATHEN]

Not really. Most internet sites are run more like a dictatorship than a democracy. This site is free and it doesn't seem like too big of an issue that the people who run it don't want illegal activities discussed here.

Okay, but its starting to trend away from being illegal. Most states are decriminalized or on their way. It's illegal on a federal level, yes, but isn't the American way to stand up to tyrannical governments? I mean isn't that pretty much how we came to be?

I'm just doing my duty sir, want me to stop talking about bud permanently? Ban me, permanently.

 

[jchambers]

Not really. Most internet sites are run more like a dictatorship than a democracy. This site is free and it doesn't seem like too big of an issue that the people who run it don't want illegal activities discussed here.

Okay, but its starting to trend away from being illegal. Most states are decriminalized or on their way. It's illegal on a federal level, yes, but isn't the American way to stand up to tyrannical governments? I mean isn't that pretty much how we came to be?

I'm just doing my duty sir, want me to stop talking about bud permanently? Ban me, permanently.

I don't have any power to ban you. I agree that it should be legal and if you want to stand up, then start campaigning for jury nullification in local and federal trials concerning marijuana. I don't see the rules here changing anytime soon to allow certain discussions tho and It isn't that big of a deal to me.

 

[jchambers]

Doug Darrell Acquitted Of Marijuana Charges Through Jury Nullification In New Hampshire

The Huffington Post | By Hilary Hanson Posted: 09/17/2012 2:07 pm Updated: 09/19/2012 9:07 am







A New Hampshire Rastafarian facing felony marijuana cultivation charges was declared not guilty on Friday because a jury believed that punishing him for the offense would be unjust.

59-year-old Doug Darrell was arrested in 2009, after a National Guard helicopter flying over his home found he was growing 15 marijuana plants in his backyard, according to WNTK. At Darrell's trial, PRWEB reports, jurors nullified the case against him.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury concludes that a defendant is technically guilty, but fails to convict the defendant on the grounds that the law in question is unjust. While jury nullification is legal, judges frequently do not inform juries of this power, and may prohibit defense attorneys from doing so, according to the University of Missouri.

At Darrell's trial, however, the jurors were fully informed of their nullification power, the Laconia Daily Sun reports. As per the recommendation of defense attorney Mark Sisti, Judges James O'Neill read aloud to the jury:

"Even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case."

Sisti argued that convicting Darrell would be unfair, given that he was growing marijuana for personal medical and religious use.

After deliberating for six hours, the jury unanimously declared Darrell not guilty.

Juror Cathleen Converse, self-described as a "straitlaced little old lady," explained her reasoning in an interview with Free Talk Live.

"Mr. Darrell is a peaceful man," she said. "He grows for his own personal religious and medicinal use. I knew that my community would be poorer rather than better off had he been convicted.”

Prior to the trial, Darrell turned down several plea deals, including one that included no jail time or fine, Reason.com reports. Sisti said his client insisted on a jury trial because "[Darrell] didn't think he was guilty of anything; [marijuana is] a sacrament in his religion."

Informing jurors of their nullification rights will likely become the norm soon in New Hampshire. In June, Governor John Lynch signed HB 146, a bill that explicitly allows defense attorneys to tell jurors about jury nullification.

The law will take effect in January.

 

[jchambers]

These days, a lot of law enforcement officers and prosecutors know that jury nullification is possible in marijuana related prosecutions where locals are not receptive to prohibitive laws, so they will take the charges federal, because federal grand juries are picked from many different counties.





Jury Nullification
by Doug Linder (2001)
What is jury nullification? Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.
When has jury nullification been practiced? The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.
Do juries have the right to nullify? Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.
If jurors have the power to nullify, shouldn't they be told so? That's a good question. As it stands now, jurors must learn of their power to nullify from extra-legal sources such as televised legal dramas, novels, or articles about juries that they might have come across. Some juries will understand that they do have the power to nullify, while other juries may be misled by judges into thinking that they must apply the law exactly as it is given. Many commentators have suggested that it is unfair to have a defendant's fate depend upon whether he is lucky enough to have a jury that knows it has the power to nullify.

Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications--the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders--that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws.

On the other hand, jury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid--it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely.

 

[HEATHEN]

I don't have any power to ban you. I agree that it should be legal and if you want to stand up, then start campaigning for jury nullification in local and federal trials concerning marijuana. I don't see the rules here changing anytime soon to allow certain discussions tho and It isn't that big of a deal to me.

I know you can't ban me nor am I saying you can. I just hate the ambiguity of rules here on NT. Like how we can talk about everything but there are certain invisible lines. Take racial jokes for example, it's all fair game til Asians are the butt of the jokes. Like we can objectify women all day long but don't make a kitchen crack. Like here we are talking about bud, but it we post a picture or dedicate a thread to it we crossed the line.

It's either all okay or it isn't.

 

[jchambers]

I don't have any power to ban you. I agree that it should be legal and if you want to stand up, then start campaigning for jury nullification in local and federal trials concerning marijuana. I don't see the rules here changing anytime soon to allow certain discussions tho and It isn't that big of a deal to me.

I know you can't ban me nor am I saying you can. I just hate the ambiguity of rules here on NT. Like how we can talk about everything but there are certain invisible lines. Take racial jokes for example, it's all fair game til Asians are the butt of the jokes. Like we can objectify women all day long but don't make a kitchen crack. Like here we are talking about bud, but it we post a picture or dedicate a thread to it we crossed the line.

It's either all okay or it isn't.

As I said before, it is a dictatorship, not a democracy. I find the moderation here to be fair.

 

[MajinZuub]

As a regular smoker, I have no problem with NT's rules regarding the discussion of marijuana use on the board. It's illegal in all but two states, regardless of how socially it's accepted in certain places (and I live in the Bay Area).

 

[jchambers]

As a regular smoker, I have no problem with NT's rules regarding the discussion of marijuana use on the board. It's illegal in all but two states, regardless of how socially it's accepted in certain places (and I live in the Bay Area).

It isn't really legal anywhere. The feds still bust people even when they are doing everything according to local laws.

 

[MajinZuub]

As a regular smoker, I have no problem with NT's rules regarding the discussion of marijuana use on the board. It's illegal in all but two states, regardless of how socially it's accepted in certain places (and I live in the Bay Area).

It isn't really legal anywhere. The feds still bust people even when they are doing everything according to local laws.

I'm sure they do in certain places, I lived in Santa Cruz for a little in college though and they turned a blind eye to it basically no matter what. I've been pulled over with it once back home and the cops took it from me then gave it back to me when they were done talking to me. They're pretty lenient out in NorCal from my experiences.

 

[jchambers]

As a regular smoker, I have no problem with NT's rules regarding the discussion of marijuana use on the board. It's illegal in all but two states, regardless of how socially it's accepted in certain places (and I live in the Bay Area).

It isn't really legal anywhere. The feds still bust people even when they are doing everything according to local laws.

I'm sure they do in certain places, I lived in Santa Cruz for a little in college though and they turned a blind eye to it basically no matter what. I've been pulled over with it once back home and the cops took it from me then gave it back to me when they were done talking to me. They're pretty lenient out in NorCal from my experiences.

That's local cops, bruh. The feds have no problem kicking down the door of a "legal" dispensary and putting the owners in Club Fed.

 

[MajinZuub]

Oh yeah, I've seen plenty of dispensaries go down around my way

 

[cocotaso1]

Oh yeah, I've seen plenty of dispensaries go down around my way

whoomp, there it is.

 

[MajinZuub]

Oh yeah, I've seen plenty of dispensaries go down around my way

whoomp, there it is.

I mean, for patients that rely on them it's ******. I'm still getting top shelf **** for a great price from the people I know just because of where I live, never had a card in my life. I don't want to get more into it because this thread is sniffing lock status but in the end the whole situation won't be ideal until it's nationally legalized.