20 Years for Growing Pot to Treat M.S.?

this is just bullshit, stories like this that never make it on newspaper but are the sad truth

even though they don't allow him to say that he grew it for his M.S. i'm sure he and his attorney will sneak it in a few times that this was the reasoning, and even if objection is called, and the jury told to disregard it, the jury is made up of average citizens and will take this into consideration for sure.

his charges on owning a drug manufacturing facility is ridiculous, granted he should be charged for owning the pot plants (because let's face it it was a law and he violated it) but such a harsh charge is dumb.

Too bad there's not a douche bag screening process to become an attorney general. Although I guess that would be a crippling blow to the functioning of our justice system.

fuck our governments... we should just do what we want, they don't have enough jail cells for all of us

"Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.

Strictly speaking, a jury verdict which rules contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of invalidating statute[citation needed]. Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the evidence and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, especially when that practice has drifted from its constitutional origins. However, in most modern Western legal systems, juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the verity of the evidence presented,[2] instructions that are criticized by advocates of jury nullification.

Historical examples of nullification include American revolutionaries who refused to convict under English law,[3] juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general,[4] the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases,[5] and cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case.[6]" Source from Wikipedia

They can't just leave people with illnesses and deficiencies alone? What is the problem with a person trying anything they can to alleviate the pain they experience when doctors won't help. In this country pot has been used as a means of gaining money and increasing the statistics of prosecutors for too long.

Ahh...They should send that picture to the Attorney General. Why can't he have a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers? Is there absolutely no way he can get a fair jury trial?

I would like to know why the judge thought the motive behind a crime was irrelevant. This seems a little fishy. I would like to know if there was proof that he sold some of his weed to someone else and they ratted on him. How else would a man with m.s. even get caught? There are too many questions about this case. It seem to be a little one sided. Just on a note: Just because someone may have a disease, it does not mean they can break a stupid law and get away with it.

All the restraints on what is and isn't allowed stems back to someone with a legal degree going hog wild to either convict or free a client. Once something is in the court records it can be sited and used against/for someone else.
No wonder people label lawyers as BAD, those that cause such extremes in common sense situations make it bad for reasonable lawyers to get their due credit.
Is that right, sgwhites?

Sad, sad, sad! If he had led us into a war of choice, he would get a pass. If he authorized torture, he would get a pass. If he had ruined our financial institution, he would get his bonus and a pass. There are so many things wrong in America, one would think cannabis would be a low priority.

Instead of helping people with illness, they prosectute them. Compassion is 'soooo' yesterday. Sad, sad, sad!

That is just wrong