Montana calling all tokers

[@meric@nwom@n]

http://missoulian.com/news/local/articl ... 03286.html

I wonder what would happen to the law if this started happening on a regular basis.

[Gob]

You think some common sense may prevail?

[Long Run]

While I get the policy position of the jurors, and their honesty is a good thing as well, this is troubling. There are plenty of laws that any one person doesn't like. Are the vast majority of these potential jurors saying they cannot put aside their own viewpoint on the advisability of a relatively minor law to do their best to arrive at an unbiased decision? If so, this was a group of closed minded individuals. Since I doubt that is the case, it may be a study of how people in a group react when the tide starts heading in one direction.

[Gob]

But when it comes to the point that the law, and it's enforcement is so manifestly stupid, should people not make a stand and say "I want no part of this process."?

If I was asked to sit on such a Jury, I'd have the same conflict.

[loCAtek]

Conflict of interest, usually gets you disqualified,

[Big RR]

If it's disclosed and/or comes out on voir dire (the questioning of prospective jurors). Many times the questions are so generic it may not.

[rubato]

I expect that looking back at this moment this will be just one of the symptoms that are appearing across the U.S. that we have passed a tipping point in attitudes about marijuana.

The change has gone far enough that the 'anti's have lost the ability to make people ashamed of having used pot (Clinton's lying about not inhaling) which was their last and best weapon.


yrs,
rubato