Cannabis Protest in Keene

My friend Andrew Carroll held a tiny bud of marijuana in his hand in a public place. Contrary to what many may think, it’s not illegal to smoke pot. It’s illegal to possess it. Andrew put out press releases and contacted law enforcement ahead of time to let them know he would be breaking the law. His offense was initially a class A misdemeanor. It was lowered to class B which means no jail time. It also means no jury trial which is something he would have requested. Most drug offenders plea for lesser charges which makes it quicker to railroad the many cases through the system. If they started asking for jury trials, the drug war would become too cumbersome to continue at the current rate.

Laws like these make victims of innocent people which means the state itself is a criminal in the truest sense. Hopefully Andrew’s actions on Saturday will inspire others to question authority. Below is video from the event.


My interview with Andrew before the event:

The act of possession:

The Arrest:

└ Tags: ,

Discussion (11)¬

  1. Bob Robertson says:

    I’m intrigued to see that the Free Talk Live guy has been summoned to appear, and therefore go back to jail, for the “crime” of helping Andrew.

    Helping, by talking about the event before it happened.

  2. Ted says:

    I would be willing to go to jail for smoking pot if 9,999 other people were going with me for doing the same thing in the same place at the same time.

    I think I just may have figured out how to end the drug war. Get so many people breaking the law at once that there is no place to put them all. Send out lots of press releases before the big event. Invite law enforcement to arrest all TEN THOUSAND of us. (or whatever the number is, it needs to be large enough to totally overwhelm the system).

    I see In New Hampshire there are 655 Free State people. I wonder how many of them would do it.

  3. Dan Steward says:

    If you’re going to gum up the works, why not just go all out? Make it to where it is way too much trouble to sort out just who is smoking the real deal “narrow iguana” and who is smoking tobacco, stuff that only looks like the superb herb.

    I call the ruse “jokers & tokers” and it gets better. The Jokers (those w/fake weed) light up first to frustrate the cops, who will eventually give up trying to even confront tokers, once the event is repeated in different towns (@ once per month in NH).

    Those that do get hauled off in matching bracelets to the county gulag, can also monkeywrench the system. They can ask for jury trials, (get FIJA & NORML involved) change of venue, and repeated motions to tie up the courts.

    Let the 400+ members of the state legislature (and local too) know just how much the fiasco of enforcement of the crummy laws against smoking and possessing Barney are costing an already broke court system. Enact legislation to legalize weed.

    How you like them apples?

    Dan

  4. Dale says:

    Good ideas, Dan, but we might be ahead of you. :)

  5. Agape says:

    I have only one issue, really, with the “legalize weed!” crowd. It’s pretty much the issue I have with every reform crowd, really. You’re admitting they have the right, the power, the authority to say what you can and can’t do. You’re just asking them not to interfere with this one thing. Anarchy baybee! The entire set of laws, legal system, legislation, all of it is bankrupt. Even the way they go after the real crimes, like murder, rape, thievery, is the wrong methodology. It’s not a crime the state should be charging someone with. The crime wasn’t committed against the state! It should be “Injured party v. injuring party”. Even in the case of murder, there is such a thing as an estate. And in the case of murder, even the brokest hobo’s case would be worth a fortune. But no, the state makes the victims pay for the incarceration of the one who wronged them. And incarceration! Is there any bigger crime against the dignity of man? The entire thing is wrong from the ground up!

    And to focus on legalizing weed, begging the legislators to permit you this thing… It’s demeaning, and it’s self-defeating.

  6. Agape says:

    Oh, and afaik the fact that the matter is doubtless greater than the constitutional requirement means that there is no waiver of a right to a jury trial.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Amendment VII

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

  7. Agape says:

    Else they could just completely bypass the jury process and charge whoever they wanted with any non-incarceration offenses they wanted to, and there would be no recourse.

  8. Dan Steward says:

    I have only one issue, really, with the “legalize weed!” crowd. It’s pretty much the issue I have with every reform crowd, really. You’re admitting they have the right, the power, the authority to say what you can and can’t do. You’re just asking them not to interfere with this one thing. Anarchy baybee! The entire set of laws, legal system, legislation, all of it is bankrupt. Even the way they go after the real crimes, like murder, rape, thievery, is the wrong methodology. It’s not a crime the state should be charging someone with. The crime wasn’t committed against the state! It should be “Injured party v. injuring party”. Even in the case of murder, there is such a thing as an estate. And in the case of murder, even the brokest hobo’s case would be worth a fortune. But no, the state makes the victims pay for the incarceration of the one who wronged them. And incarceration! Is there any bigger crime against the dignity of man? The entire thing is wrong from the ground up!

    And to focus on legalizing weed, begging the legislators to permit you this thing… It’s demeaning, and it’s self-defeating.

    No, you’ve missed the entire point.

    I don’t recognize the authority of the police, courts, or anyone to arrest and imprison people for any victimless “crimes”.

    What I do *realize* is that there are only one of me and a lot of them, armed and with the backing and blessings of “the public”, and those that give them their marching orders.

    I’m not “begging” for anything, I would instead want to se a scenario where enforcing laws against marijuana would be more trouble to enforce than they are worth.

    I thought that I was very plain on that. Of course if you have an actual idea that you think would work, I’d like to hear it.

    Dan

  9. Ted says:

    I think that Dan Steward’s plan is superior to mine.

    As to “just asking them not to interfere with this one thing”, if pot was legal I would not shut up and blow away, there are plenty of other unjust laws I would overturn. I want to start with this one because it is low hanging fruit. It is one of the most insanely unjust laws that have ever existed in all of history. If we can’t overturn this one we are doomed.

  10. Agape says:

    Dan,
    Asking for legislation to permit something is begging the leadership. It’s pleading with them to have compassion and mercy, and not subject you to the cruelties they have in mind for you. If their position and authority is illegitimate, then their law is irrelevant. If their position is just, and it is right that you are their bound chattel, then it is appropriate to ask them to stop persecuting and prosecuting this thing. Essentially, you’ve conceded their authority by asking for reform of legislation.

    Ted,
    Then we are doomed. The power structure has demonstrated its overall unwillingness to permit it. And, as stated, their permit or refuse *position* has already conceded their power. They wouldn’t really sacrifice much for the position’s holdings. Just some of their lobbyists would stand to lose some of their granted positions. To me, at this point anyway, the most insanely unjust laws are the laws regarding incarceration at all. The drug laws and other consensual crimes are just the most pointless pieces of stupity in the criminal code. At least you can figure rape, thievery, fraud, murder are bad things done to the unwilling, and wanting to hurt the perpetrator is understandable. The only one drugs ever are really doing bad things to is the person who wants to use them. It’s like eating greasy fast food or skydiving, only usually more fun. So it’s nonsensical. But the system itself is the most insanely unjust thing. I mean, exactly where does it sound like a fair thing to kidnap someone at gunpoint and subject them to any number of humiliating processes, and even rape by those individuals who have been kidnapped previously by the system? Where does it sound like anything but a psychotic criminal act? And even if one could say “but they’re bad people!” you have to realize that the moment an innocent is pushed through the system all excuses for its criminal nature are pushed out the window. Someone whose only crime was to become noticed by the biggest criminal element in our society.

  11. Ted says:

    Agape,
    So, what is your plan? Why don’t you tell us what it is?

    I see no way of taking everything down with one single action. I have been fighting this fight since 1980, and I have seen what we are up against.

    The only way is to find a weak spot and wham on it hard until it breaks. It needs to be doable, and it needs to be something that the average person will not be able to ignore, not something obscure like how many signatures a candidate needs to get on the ballot or how many hours of instruction it takes to become a barber.

    Legal marijuana would be something that no one could ignore, and I can think of no or law of equal or greater noticability that would be more easy to overturn.

    Think about it. All laws have as a justification that they prevent harm. In this case, no harm is involved, not even to the user. You simply can’t hurt yourself with it, no matter how much you take. (Yes, smoke from it is harmful, as is all smoke, but that problem can be avoided with a vaporizor.) This is not true of any other drug, not even caffene. You can die from a caffene overdose, this is impossible with marijuana. Heck, people have even died from drinking too much water!

    No addiction, either. You can use it every day for several years and suddenly stop with no withdrawl cravings.

    I am not saying that the possibility of causing harm to oneself is a justification for laws, I am saying that in this case, even that flimsy excuse is blown to bits.

    There is no justification for laws against marijuana. None. Zero. This makes it the lowest of the low hanging fruit. If we can’t overturn this law we have no hope of overturning any others, except for small obscure things that would make no noticable difference in the lives of most people.

Comment¬

Powered by sweetCaptcha