Not that anyone who can think for himself would want to serve on a jury, where he’ll be asked to sanction, sanitize and legitimize the predominately criminal acts of the government…
The jury sent a note to the trial judge with the following query: Since the Constitution needed to be amended in 1919 to authorize federal criminal prosecutions for manufacturing and smuggling alcohol, a juror wanted to know from the judge where “is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?”
I’ve often wondered the same thing. Alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment to infringe upon individual sovereignty. Modern drug laws face far less resistance.
Apparently, questioning the legitimacy of the law, especially one which clearly fails to meet the standards previously set for similar legislation, will get you removed from the jury. I agree that jury nullification is not the be-all, end-all of libertarian justice, but as long as jurors are not permitted to question the validity of the law, jury nullification is the only moral option.