Ever read a book called OUTRAGE? A man stalks and murders his daughter's killer and then walks into a police station and confesses. His public defender proceeds to put the law on trial. It's an excellent read, for a non Sci-Fi book.. :D I highly recommend it..

So my question to you is: would you support legalization if the state's voters approved it by referendum? If a majority voted for it, in other words?

The problem with the "adult use in the privacy of one's home" argument is, where do you stop? All sorts of drugs could be made legal based on that argument. And it would be just as valid an argument for those drugs as it would be for marijuana.

I wouldn't "support" it in the sense that I would think it was a good idea. I would rail against as being stoopid, moronic, lazy and all sorts of other descriptive terms.

However, if it were to become the law of the land, either state or federal, I would have to accept that.

But I would never ever think it would be a good idea.

Michale.....

I think I understand the point you're trying to make, and there are parallels to a previous issue we've debated. Rosenthal wanted to achieve "jury nullification" which is basically where you are proved guilty, but the jury lets you off anyway because they believe the law itself needs changing, or that there were extenuating circumstances which dictate an acquittal (in other words, that you're justified in breaking the law in your particular situation). The feds didn't want that, and precluded his defense. But there are indeed parallels to other parts of the law -- where something should be illegal, but "no jury in the land" would convict you if extenuating circumstances justified it.

But putting all that aside, since everyone knows how we both feel about it, I'd like to ask you a different question, since you seem to be rationally taking a middle line here. You say you'd have no problem with MJ moving to Sched. II, but would frown on outright legalization.

So my question to you is: would you support legalization if the state's voters approved it by referendum? If a majority voted for it, in other words?

California may be very close to doing just that, next year. Three ballot measures are working their way to being on the ballot.

But since the folks I talk to are usually pretty strongly one way or the other on the whole question of MJ, I'd be interested in hearing your answer. No strawmen, either -- this would legalize it for adults only (no kids) and DUI/DWI laws would still apply to driving under the influence. So, just adults in the privacy of their own homes, approved by the voters -- what would you say about that? I'm not baiting you, I'm truly interested in your answer.

Osborne Ink -

Yeah, no surprise. It's been demogogued for about 90 years now (first MJ laws were anti-immigrant laws against Mexicans in the early 1900s...), so I don't expect it to end any time soon. Sigh.

-CW

So, are we all agreed that this is a legitimate legal defense to employ??

As to the rest, I agree with you in principle, that this is all a big mess and that adequate legal defense should be allowed yada, yada, yada...

I also agree that drugs for medicinal purposes should ALL be allowed, under strict guidelines and controls as we see today...

I have no problem with seeing marijuana placed in a Schedule II classification.

But that is as far as I will go. Any talk of legalization (outside of the scope previously mentioned) will fall on very stubbornly deaf ears.

Personally, I would love to outlaw nicotine and all forms of tobacco smoking as well.. But that's just me.. :D

Michale.....