Georgia Lawmaker Calls For Executing Marijuana Offenders
August 12th, 2009 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
State Republican lawmaker Tommy Benton (31st House District) favors “caning” minor marijuana offenders and “executing” those who sell the drug, according to a recent correspondence sent by the representative to a constituent.
In a July 29, 2009 e-mail (which was voluntarily forwarded to the NORML office), Rep. Benton wrote: “Thanks for the email. We will have to agree to disagree on this and whether or not money is wasted (by mandating the state to prosecute minor marijuana offenders). I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana. I think we should go to caning for people caught using and maybe execute dealers. [emphasis NORML’s] That would solve the problem as well. That is what they do in Singapore and they don’t have a drug problem.”
Caning is a form of corporal punishment consisting of up to 24 violent lashes with a long rattan cane that has been soaked in water. The procedure inflicts intense pain and deep, bloody lacerations that can take several months to heal.
Rep. Benton followed up his remarks in a separate e-mail on August 11 (also forwarded to NORML) in which he threatened to turn over the names of citizens who disagreed with his political viewpoints to local law enforcement.
He wrote: “You and your cronies want it (marijuana) legalized so you can get a hit anytime without having to worry about getting arrested. I have forwarded your email to the Lowndes County sheriffs [sic] office so that they can be on the lookout for you. [emphasis NORML’s] Consider this my last correspondence on the the [sic] subject to you or anyone else who shares your similar “conservative views’.”
I just e-mailed his office.
I just e-mailed his office. Geezzz.....hope I didn't say anything too crazy. AARRRGGGG.....this makes me so mad. Everyone here needs to contact this lunatic and let him know what you think.
I just called his office,
I just called his office, his home and emailed him to tell him what a sick person that he is.
We
We should have a mass mailing or something to annoy this fellow.
I sent an e-mail to his
I sent an e-mail to his office and told him he was a lunatic.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams
Now how come he can say something as blatantly stupid...
...and provocative as that but if someone here were to say the same thing about, lets say, State Republican lawmaker Tommy Benton... what if we said that since he supported the bailout that 'caning' should be his punishment and that if he supports the health care bill, he should be executed?
Why isn't the FBI pounding on his door forcing him to explain himself?
Why isn't this seen as a 'call to violence' by an elected official?
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
google "Barry Seal & George Bush"
Mr Benton
Shouldn't worry about the marijuana smokers he needs to start working on the real criminals. He ought to look into who was flying the US CIA rendition plane that crashed in Mexico headed loaded with 3000 pounds of cocain. He might look into who was flying drugs into Mena Arkansas and distributing all over the upper midwest. He might talk to Mike Ruppert who knows first hand that cocaine was brought into California by the CIA to purposely be cooked down into crack (a real hardcore killer drug) He might ask Gary Webb except Gary conveniently committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the head and in the back of the head to boot?These are all international federal crimes about real bigtime dealers, THE DEALERS as these smalltime dealers don't have executive access to major ports and airports. Yep Mr Benton if your serious don't blow smoke up our backside go for the gold and get the people bringing in the hard stuff. In the meantime I won't be holding my breath.
Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow
Benton and NORML deserve ech other
both should go away
Have a good posting day!
(((( Hug to you )))) ;)
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Please explain the problem
Please explain the problem with NORML. I'm not too up on it other than somewhere I got the impression they aren't the hardcore opponants of drug laws I had been led to believe.
marlow
marlow
I remember NORML ads in Playboy magazine
The only political party I ever joined was the Libertarian Party under the influence of the NORML ads in Playboy magazine. I have been to meetings from time to time, but the meetings, perhaps because NORML started in the 70s, had a"NARC NARC who's the NARC? umbrella. You always felt like you were walking into a "trap". Maybe it was because NORML was more established, on college campuses, community libraries, not rallying at federal buildings and public places?
When Jack Herer and Chris Conrad came out with "The Emperor Wears No Clothes", which explained how the word "marijuana" was a slang word, a word that was invented to wipe out cannabis, which the book educates what cannabis is good for, and who the enemies of cannabis really are. Pharmecuetical companies for one. How they used the word marijuana to evoke prohibition.
This book brought cannabis awareness and culture to a new leverl which NORML, maybe because it has the word "marijuana", maybe because it's an old non-profit that selects it's leaders from a pool of priveledged, who know all about the war on drugs, but it's not them, so they don't do anything... what the war on drugs has become is the gateway to a police state. So what good has NORML been in three decades?
Now, instead of taking on Benton and Obama;'s healthcare, and making an issue, because the vast majority do NOT agree with Benton, and pointing out, the govt plan is not including cannabis, NORML who could be setting up a petition, writing a resolution, exposing Benton on MSM, exposing the situation about canabis on MSM, would rather tell the public, "Don't hurt Benton" (people are venting rage and NORML works to put out the flames) WHY? Don't they want the war on drugs to end?
Shame on them for turning on the public and trying to protect Benton from flames. I'm sorry, but to me, this is not leadership, and why the police state is growing. NORML is backing down, not standing up against violence and slavery. What's Benton want marijuana dealers executed for? Not paying the fed taxes? NORML won't ask.
Have a good posting day!
(((( Hug to you )))) ;)
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Decriminalize! Stop funding facism police state!
I'd rather have cannabis decriminalized, however, most "groups" seem to take the middle road of legalization. But as Granger has noted before, what we have now is legalization for police to knock your door down in 134 countries if you are suspected for having a bong.
I recieve pertainant info from the following organization and sign petitions with them for many years now.
DPA Network is the nation's leading organization working to end the war on drugs. We envision new drug policies based on science, compassion, health and human rights and a just society in which the fears, prejudices and punitive prohibitions of today are no more.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
FEDERAL LAWS ON MARIJUANA
MARIJUANA IS NOT ILLEGAL AND NEVER HAS BEEN!!
THE UNITED STATES CODE AT 21 U.S.C. 822(2)(c)(3) ALLOWS YOU TO LAWFULLY “POSSESS” MARIJUANA IF YOU ARE THE 21 U.S.C. 802(27) “ULTIMATE USER”, TO WIT:
TITLE 21 U.S.C. Food and Drugs
Section 822(2)(c) Persons Required to Register - Exceptions
clearly states:
"The following persons shall not be required to register and may
lawfully possess any controlled substance or list I chemical under this subchapter: (3) An ultimate user who possesses such substance for a purpose specified in section 802(25)* of this title."
*Section 802(25) of this title, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), was redesignated section 802(26) of this title by Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 507(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2071, and was further redesignated section 802(27) of this title by Pub. L. 99–570, title I, § 1003(b)(2), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–6.
TITLE 21 U.S.C. Food and Drugs Section 802 Definitions at (27):
"The term ‘‘ultimate user’’ means a person who has lawfully obtained, and who possesses, a controlled substance for his own use or for the use of a member of his household or for an animal owned by him or by a member of his household."
It is an undisputed fact that Marijuana is listed as a Schedule I Controlled Substance at 21 U.S.C. 812(c) Schedule I (c)(10)
It is an undisputed fact that Federal Law at 21 U.S.C. 822(2)(c)(3) clearly states that an “ULTIMATE USER” as defined by 21 U.S.C. 802(27) need NOT register with any authority and MAY LAWFULLY POSSESS MARIJUANA in any amount, in any state or territory of the United States, regardless of local laws and statutes!!
Further, it is NOT illegal to "possess" or “use” drug paraphernalia if you are the 21 U.S.C. 802(27) “ULTIMATE USER” nor is it illegal to “possess” or “use” drug paraphernalia unless you are using it with intent to deliver or manufacture with intent to deliver!
“THE STATUTE IS VIOLATED ONLY IF POSSESSION IS ACCOMPANIED BOTH BY KNOWLEDGE of the nature of the act AND ALSO BY THE INTENT “TO MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTE, OR DISPENSE.” United States v. Clark, 475 F.2d 240, 248-49 (2d Cir. 1973).” UNITED STATES v. JEWELL, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. February 27, 1976.) (It is crystal clear that 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) is worded in the conjunctive “and.”)
United States v. Jewell, supra, makes it clear that:
POSSESSION BY ITSELF IS NOT ILLEGAL!!!
21 U.S.C. 822(2)(c)(3) clearly establishes that if you are the 21 U.S.C. 802(27) “ULTIMATE USER” then possession of Marijuana is NOT illegal!!!
Deprivation of any right secured in the US Constitution or the Laws of the United States under color of state authority is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 242 and 42 U.S.C. 1983
DON'T BE SCAMMED, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!!!
for more info visit: www.ultimateusers.com
interesting
----------------
Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
`Wise people, even though all laws were abolished, would still lead the same life'- Aristophanes -
“We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and overrun by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with.” Ron Paul
Thanks for sharing this report.
I have been pro cannabis for over 45 years.
One of the best moral decisions I ever made.
Grow hemp!
Grow your own!
Treat it like a tomato.
DECRIMINALIZE.
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
:)
Southwest citizens call for execution of Georgia Lawmaker.
Couldn't resist.
Had to email him :-)
New Hampshire and Ecuador
Look at the photo
Upper left.
http://www.tommybenton.com/
Then look at the video on his website (bottom front page)
Gained a little weight? Somebody got the munchies Tommy boy!
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
Looks like somebody already caned him and he died.
Of course he loves throwing evil potsmoking criminals in prison. Good for the economy. And if he could kill the dealers there would be even more money to go around with his private prison lobbyists.
Hey, send that clown my address, too
I'll be waiting for him.
http://goldsteinrepublic.com
While I would be all for
Caning, for offences like stealing, or dui's, for prohibition it does not make sense. Jail doesnt make sense for prohibition. Repeal the federal laws on this stuff. And on everything else for that matter.
End the war on drugs. (less funding for facism).
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
...DUI's?
Umm ...wow you would be ok with State sanctioned(and taxpayer funded) violence and assalt upon a citizen for doing something that didn't infringe upon any other citizens rights or property? Good to know...wraiththirteen is an ignorant tyrant that has no problem violating an individuals rights....you would probably make a good revenue generator(cop) for the banksters that own Corp USA.
What about physically handicapped persons, or the blind.
After three hours of drinking, some people simply "pass out".
In California, the fine is over $4,000 Lots of people do not drink and drive for this fact alone.
Driving in the lonely mountains or desert stupified? Plenty of trees or sand to crash into, as your attention gets diverted down to the floor of your pickup truck because a bottle is rolling on the floor of your vehicle, you stare at the bottle too long . . . and you veer of the road, and crash and roll. And speeding under the enfluence (alot easier, everything's groovy)
So, should blind people be given the opportunity to drive a vehicle?
You know, like, until they hit someone?
Analyze this using the laws of nature. How many drunken birds find their nest after happy hour?
This is a question for having respect for others, and making healthy life choices as well.
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
DUI's do infringe
DUI's most definitely infringe upon other peoples' rights. When you get behind the wheel under the influence, you are putting other people in extreme danger. I don't support caning for DUI offenders, but I definitely support prison for people who have multiple DUI's.
Simply "driving while
Simply "driving while intoxicated", does not infringe on anyone.
It's the potential for a accident thats possible,but not probable.
Education/others interjecting is the remedy,not prison or revoking "privileges" to which the state makes a fortune on it's citizens(fines,fees,court costs,confiscation of property...) for a supposed crime that does not have a injured party.
------------------------------------------
"...we are face to face with the problem whether ours is a government under a written constitution and the laws made pursuant thereto, or whether it is a government by ambitious and usurping men.'" -- F.Pierce
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
Nope, you're wrong
DUI = 'Driving' Under the Influence
To my knowledge NO ONE has ever died from driving around while intoxicated...EVER...(unless they actually died from alcohol poisoning while driving)
Question...How are my right's being infringed upon by someone else driving around intoxicated? Please cite the specific right that this intoxicated person is infringing upon.
...but, that being said, once that person does infringe on another's rights or property(by crashing or whatever) then the individual can(and should) be held liable for actions taken that resulted in the damage of another citizens rights or property.
"To my knowledge NO ONE has
"To my knowledge NO ONE has ever died from driving around while intoxicated...EVER...(unless they actually died from alcohol poisoning while driving)"
Is this a serious statement? More than 10,000 people die each year! One of my friends a couple years ago died while driving under the influence...
Surely you jest.
GET REAL!
DUI laws are nothing but BIG $$$ for the states, prosecutors, law enforcement, etc. In order for something to be UNLAWFUL there must be a deprivation of Life Liberty or Property. If someone is impaired while driving and kills someone, they should be prosecuted for depriving a fellow man of his life; however if there is no harm there is nothing to prosecute.
The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.
The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.
So endangering lives doesn't matter.
If some shoots wildly with a firearm up and down the street, this should be ignored if no one is hit or there's no property damage?
Sounds like a typical response from a brainwashed sheeple...
Redefine the argument in order to twist the logic...
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION... Ignored? NO, I WOULD OBSERVE the situation CAREFULLY and if the man were truly WILDLY SHOOTING IN ALL DIRECTIONS, then he is not acting in a controlled manner now is he?
However if he is walking down the street with a loaded gun there is no harm. There is the potential, mind you, as he could go Wild at anytime, however there is no harm. The same is true with someone whom is in control of a vehicle and traveling about the public ways.They may be driving while intoxicated according to CODE, and have the potential to harm, however if they are not acting "WILDLY" then what reason would anyone have to question what they are doing?
The potential for Harm exists everywhere and if you look long enough you can find a way to make everything against code.
Take responsiblity for yourself and friends/neighbors, stop relying on Government, what are going to do when they are not there to ride to your rescue?
The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.
The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.