Police Break The Law, Marijuana in Texas

[Finshaggy]

Dude, I have blacks law. It is no substitute for having the actual cases. It is a handbook for terminology and abbreviations of the acual case.

The thing I am trying to show you is that the PHRASING or "Terminology" used in the rulings of those cases has NOTHING to do with funding, it simply can be used when making decisions regarding religious funding by government. But is a ruling of "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional", and in this case it was ruled Unconstitutional for government to aid or infringe on religion, and MUST act with secular purpose. And the police that came in my house UNCONSTITUTIONALLY went against the rulings in that case

 

[Totoe]

Lol alright dumbass. When they do a drug bust it serves a secular purpose. They are not persecuting you religiously. They are prosecuting you criminally. They did not design drug laws to weed out religious pot smokers. There is no entanglement, except that of yourself in a web of your own dumbassery. When and where is your trial?

 

[Finshaggy]

Lol alright dumbass. When they do a drug bust it serves a secular purpose.

Do you know how to read? THEY HAD NO WARRANT, and therefor NO SECULAR PURPOSE

 

[Finshaggy]

there has already been a medical neccessity defense that won in weaterford texas i think

Does anyone have info on this?

 

[UncleBuck]

spammy, you are so fucking dumb.

remember back when your plan was to "just say appeal" enough times?

don't commit suicide!

 

[Finshaggy]

spammy, you are so fucking dumb.

remember back when your plan was to "just say appeal" enough times?

don't commit suicide!

That wasn't my plan. That was how to get it to the supreme court The OP on this thread has ALL the same court information/facts as the old thread did. I just copied and pasted it whenever they closed the old one (remember you started going crazy with pictures of my family and sharing my name, you thought you had really figured out how to piss me off when you started making meme's. It took you SOO long to realize that when I say "I don't care" it actually means "I don't care". Remember, you thought I was all but hurt from the meme's. Your life is sad. And if you think MY life is sad, that makes yours SUPER sad, because your life is stalking me

 

[UncleBuck]

That wasn't my plan. That was how to get it to the supreme court The OP on this thread has ALL the same court information/facts as the old thread did. I just copied and pasted it whenever they closed the old one (remember you started going crazy with pictures of my family and sharing my name, you thought you had really figured out how to piss me off when you started making meme's. It took you SOO long to realize that when I say "I don't care" it actually means "I don't care". Remember, you thought I was all but hurt from the meme's. Your life is sad. And if you think MY life is sad, that makes yours SUPER sad, because your life is stalking me

i appeal.

.....

 

[H R Puff N Stuff]

• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
• inShare0​
• Email

[h=2]Successful Medical Necessity Defense in Texas Marijuana Case[/h]Jacob Sullum|Mar. 27, 2008 12:44 pm
This week Tim Stevens, a 53-year-old Amarillo man who smokes marijuana to relieve the cyclical vomiting syndrome associated with HIV infection, used a necessity defense to winan acquittal on a possession charge. His attorney, Jeff Blackburn, says this appears to be the first time the defense, which argues that breaking the law was necessary to prevent a harm worse than the one the law is aimed at preventing, has been successful in a Texas marijuana case.
Stevens, whose vomiting has been so severe that he was hospitalized and received blood transfusions, was arrested last October after an anonymous tipster saw him sharing a joint on a friend's porch in Amarillo and called the police. He had about a twelfth of an ounce of marijuana, resulting in a Class B misdemeanor charge that carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. He probably could have gotten off with a fine or a year's probation, Blackburn says, "but he didn't want to; he wanted to take a stand." The trial lasted about 10 hours on Tuesday, and the jury came back after 11 minutes with a "not guilty" verdict.
Blackburn says the expert testimony of Steve Jenison, medical director of the Infectious Diseases Bureau in New Mexico's Department of Health, helped establish that marijuana is demonstrably effective at treating nausea and superior in some ways to the legal alternatives. (For one thing, unlike the synthetic THC capsule Marinol, it does not have to be swallowed and kept down, a feat for someone suffering from severe nausea.) Blackburn, who was not at all confident about the prospects for Stevens' unusual defense in a "very, very conservative area," also credits "a streak of independence" and a "distaste for government" that he says is common in West Texas. "I think these jurors like the idea that they get to make a decision about what the law means, about when it applies," he says, "and I don't think they were shy at all about deciding how valuable the law proscribing marijuana use really is."

 

[H R Puff N Stuff]

seems there is more than one that have been successfull.

 

[UncleBuck]

seems there is more than one that have been successfull.

move to strike.

 

[mindphuk]

I never asked for help. I asked if anyone reading had a similar case to mine, or could put me in contact with people with similar cases. You guys just took it to mean "Please help". I NEVER asked for anyone's help on my case in that thread. You guys just trolled the shit out of me.

That's the point. We did give you links to similar cases, all of which have been struck down. The SC and state courts have routinely decided against drug use for religious reasons. No one is saying you don't have a case. Your case may actually be a good one but the reality is that the courts don't care. They find reasons to rule against the legitimate use of a sacramental drug. You can disagree with the rulings all day long but that doesn't make your chances any better. Disregarding help because you 'didn't ask for it' is the height of stupidity and arrogance, especially when you ignore the facts and claim people that are trying to help are trolling.

You are disregarding the points made by NORML's legal counsel. If you don't think HE knows, who the fuck does? He's been trying these types of cases for decades. Do you honestly think your case is stronger than the Rastafari? The strength of your case is not important, the justices that are sitting on the bench are. They will not rule in your favor, period. They will probably elect not to even hear another case like your unless there is substantial legal difference between yours and the numerous others they have struck down. That you think somehow you have a winner here in spite of the failure of similar, even stronger cases than yours is why people are ridiculing you. You refuse to listen to reason and common sense. It would be far better for you to join a class action lawsuit along with other cannabis users persecuted for their religious use, rather than trying this on your own.

If you still disagree, tell us why the following case precedents will not apply to you --
Oregon v. Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
Guam v Guerrero http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1355714.html

You should also read all of the cases that Carl Olsen has brought against various jurisdictions as well as the DEA and Eric Holder
He is probably your number one guy to contact regarding your specific case. I posted this information in your other thread that got deleted during the hacker attack on this site, but I doubt you bothered to even click the links based on your snotty reply.
http://www.ethiopianzioncopticchurch.org/Federal/Default.aspx
http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/documents/young.aspx

 

[Finshaggy]

• inShare0​
• Email

Successful Medical Necessity Defense in Texas Marijuana Case

Jacob Sullum|Mar. 27, 2008 12:44 pm
This week Tim Stevens, a 53-year-old Amarillo man who smokes marijuana to relieve the cyclical vomiting syndrome associated with HIV infection, used a necessity defense to winan acquittal on a possession charge. His attorney, Jeff Blackburn, says this appears to be the first time the defense, which argues that breaking the law was necessary to prevent a harm worse than the one the law is aimed at preventing, has been successful in a Texas marijuana case.
Stevens, whose vomiting has been so severe that he was hospitalized and received blood transfusions, was arrested last October after an anonymous tipster saw him sharing a joint on a friend's porch in Amarillo and called the police. He had about a twelfth of an ounce of marijuana, resulting in a Class B misdemeanor charge that carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. He probably could have gotten off with a fine or a year's probation, Blackburn says, "but he didn't want to; he wanted to take a stand." The trial lasted about 10 hours on Tuesday, and the jury came back after 11 minutes with a "not guilty" verdict.
Blackburn says the expert testimony of Steve Jenison, medical director of the Infectious Diseases Bureau in New Mexico's Department of Health, helped establish that marijuana is demonstrably effective at treating nausea and superior in some ways to the legal alternatives. (For one thing, unlike the synthetic THC capsule Marinol, it does not have to be swallowed and kept down, a feat for someone suffering from severe nausea.) Blackburn, who was not at all confident about the prospects for Stevens' unusual defense in a "very, very conservative area," also credits "a streak of independence" and a "distaste for government" that he says is common in West Texas. "I think these jurors like the idea that they get to make a decision about what the law means, about when it applies," he says, "and I don't think they were shy at all about deciding how valuable the law proscribing marijuana use really is."

seems there is more than one that have been successfull.

That's fuckin AWESOME

 

[Finshaggy]

That's the point. We did give you links to similar cases, all of which have been struck down.

That's BULLSHIT and you know it, the only case you guys brought up was the religious use of peyote vs Native American's failing drug tests for work (A Oregon, Washington, or Michigan case, I don't remember which one), which in reality has NOTHING to do with Marijuana OR my case.

 

[Totoe]

Ty mindphuk, fucktardy will not listen. I even empathize with his plight but like you said a I have said the religious argument has lost before. He thinks he is a special case when indeed he is. Only, he is more the Down syndrome variety of special.

 

[Finshaggy]

Ty mindphuk, fucktardy will not listen. I even empathize with his plight but like you said a I have said the religious argument has lost before. He thinks he is a special case when indeed he is. Only, he is more the Down syndrome variety of special.

The religious argument has never been for weed in the supreme court and it has never lost in Texas for a Texan (the only guy who I know of who tried it was from Hawaii, meaning his church was Hawaiian. and I'm not sure he's even done with his case yet). And if I take it to the supreme court, past rulings don't even matter.

 

[bomb hills]

Best of luck to you

 

[Totoe]

I hope you win, but I doubt you have a chance.

 

[UncleBuck]

The religious argument has never been for weed in the supreme court and it has never lost in Texas for a Texan (the only guy who I know of who tried it was from Hawaii, meaning his church was Hawaiian. and I'm not sure he's even done with his case yet). And if I take it to the supreme court, past rulings don't even matter.

i appeal.

.....

 

[Finshaggy]

Best of luck to you

Thanks

 

[Finshaggy]

I hope you win, but I doubt you have a chance.

More than just "a chance", are you reading the same thread as us?