So the guy admits to it even after it’s been settled in court, and you still don’t buy it? Umm, ok.

“Finally, any charge that is based solely on the possession of some quantity (large or small) of something (drugs, child porn, guns, etc) can easily be manufactured simply by planting the evidence. Of course, given the unerring code of moral integrity that all cops subscribe to, we all know that doesn’t happen, so we unquestioningly believe the cops.”

I have all kinds of resentment for the police, but planting 3/4lb on a disabled veteran during a routine traffic stop is unbelievably sinister. I’d love to hear how he’s been able to convince this guy who lost a giant fucking house on the planted evidence to keep quiet.

“Personally, I’m not inclined to convict anyone for simple possession of anything. I’m a stickler for insisting on a victim when I destroy someone’s entire future.”

People who sell drugs sell them because they’re illegal. Getting busted is part of the game. If they didn’t we would all sell drugs b/c 200% profit margin plus no work plus no risk is a pretty sweet job.

In the case of an ordinary citizen with a normal amount of pot (or any other drug) and no violent record, I think there’s a special place in hell reserved for cops and prosecutors who pursue them beyond the minimum that is required for their jobs. But that clearly isn’t the case here.

Proofread carefully to make sure you didn’t any words out.

Oops! I can’t believe I ate the WHOLE THING!

WTH?

Precisely. Now, I don’t quite like it that watching smoking has this psychological affect on me, but it’s real. And that reality has market consequences, which studios are free to cater to if they want. As long as the government isn’t involved, I don’t really see the problem.

Of course, we do know that the government sometimes DOES get involved… without informing people upfront about payoffs or special deals. Hopefully that’s not what’s going on here.

By the way, I feel the same about witnesses, in trouble with the law, who testify in return for favorable treatment by prosecutors. When someone stands to have years shaved off a prison sentence, I think only a complete utter moron would think a witness wouldn’t say anything the prosecutor wishes.

Finally, any charge that is based solely on the possession of some quantity (large or small) of something (drugs, child porn, guns, etc) can easily be manufactured simply by planting the evidence. Of course, given the unerring code of moral integrity that all cops subscribe to, we all know that doesn’t happen, so we unquestioningly believe the cops.

Personally, I’m not inclined to convict anyone for simple possession of anything. I’m a stickler for insisting on a victim when I destroy someone’s entire future.

But the story is never about a “convicted drug dealer” if the plea deal doesn’t manufacture a “convicted drug dealer” out of someone who likely never sold any drugs. It’s the fundamental dishonesty of plea deals that causes these kinds of situations time and time again.

That’s certainly a problem that occurs way too often, but this guy was caught with 1) a shitload of pot 2) in seperate containers 3) with scales. That’s about as much evidence of intent as you’ll ever find during a traffic stop (legit in this case).

Also, “after discovering he had plead guilty for marijuana possession” should read “after discovering he had plead guilty to felony marijuana possession with intent to distribute.” There’s quite a difference between the two.

‘I’m an eternal optimist (between predictions of doom). ‘

I’m a complete pessimist- that way I’m never disappointed when I’m wrong (which is often!), and I can gloat when I’m right!

I have to agree that the newspaper was looking to manufacture a salacious story. But the story is never about a “convicted drug dealer” if the plea deal doesn’t manufacture a “convicted drug dealer” out of someone who likely never sold any drugs. It’s the fundamental dishonesty of plea deals that causes these kinds of situations time and time again.

Strike the root, boys.

#19 Marty

The church was able to instill fear into the believers and profit from that fear. It wasn’t very efficient. Too many people are directly profiting from the drug war and it’s had 90 years to become entrenched. The burnings will continue.

I’m an eternal optimist (between predictions of doom). :)

I think it could certainly be argued that the reporter was just doing his/her job, though I can see what you’re saying too.

But, yeah, once the reporter made it clear that the “Recipient of free house is a drug dealer” story was going to run, I think the charity had to chose between:

a. Taking a stand that a conviction for selling drugs was no big deal and potentially alienating donors and thus being able to build fewer houses for veterans who needed them

and

b. Not giving West a free house and not alienating those donors.

I don’t blame them at all for chosing “b,” which certianly seems to be the choice more in line with their goals, and I don’t get the anger at the head of the charity.

CC

1. They “got a tip”.
2. They interviewed West, who told the truth.
3. They ran immediately to the charity, to ask what they’re doing giving a house to a “convicted drug dealer”.
4. They were ready with a story to run about the charity’s back-pedaling.

That’s not journalism, that’s manufacturing a story.

#36 | NutellaonToast | February 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm

‘I thought you only hated when the government told you what to do. Isn’t this just the natural free market response to a harmful and useless product?’

this is in response to govt and nanny organizations applying pressure based on bullshit research. the propaganda state is leading the charge to eliminate tobacco and hollywood’s buckling…

I was all set to ask you to roll me a joint.

I can probably do about 2.25g in one 1-1/4. But that’s pushing it, and it canoes like crazy because the paper doesn’t help it burn evenly.

I saw it quoted, from one of Jefferson’s letters that he had reffered to smoking hemp. And in fact, Lincoln was quoted in the same fashion. I wish these could be substantiated as facts.

And then, if we think about it,the demon-ization of hemp has occurred since Anslinger and his racist buddies had the drug laws enacted. Before then, the presidents would, likely, have never thought twice about it!

OMG, you did not say that!! LMFAO!! But, you do have a point!

I have to disagree with you about the Christian nation thing. Well, maybe not. Most of the Christians follow a bunch of man made rules, they added to the Bible. They should realize, even God, in all His wisdom, did not try to prohibit alcohol. Yet, most “Christians” will tell you that you will go to hell for drinking it. They are not real “Christians” only a bunch of fake Christians, running around trying to push their puritanical (not Biblical) views on everyone else. The Bible dose not have most of the stuff they push around as truth, in any of its pages. Christianity is supposed to be about personal salvation. Not running around condemning everyone one else! But most of them do!