Medical Marijuana

NJ Weedman Leaves Jail Once a Month For Medical Marijuana Treatment, Running a "Just Say No" Campaign Against Chris Christie for President

Marijuana activist previously beat a possession with intent charge thanks to jury nullification


you can vote for him sometimes
Reason TV

In late 2012, a New Jersey jury found marijuana activist and medical marijuana user Ed Forchion, AKA the NJ Weedman, not guilty of a possession with intent charge. Subsequently, Forchion, who had moved to California and opened a medical marijuana dispensary, claimed the DEA was targeting him and his dispensary in part because he beat the New Jersey charge.

Now the Weedman is back in New Jersey, serving a nine month "staggered" prison sentence on a 2010 marijuana possession conviction and related probation violation. Forchion's sentence is staggered because he's allowed to leave for ten days every month for bone cancer treatment, which includes taking medical marijuana. He's not stopped his marijuana activism while in jail, either. My 9 NJ reports:

Forchion's latest endeavor is the "Just Say No To Governor Christie" campaign.

"Governor Christie made a political point to be opposed to the marijuana laws and cannabis laws and just taking a cue from the "Just Say No" campaign I figured I would put out the ads nationally to opposed Governor Christie's campaign for presidency," Forchion said.

Forchion has voiced his displeasure in the past with the difficulty to get a medical marijuana card in New Jersey and the lack of recipients who have been approved compared to the amount of people who need it.

Last year, a New Jersey medical marijuana patient and his physician sued the state government of New Jersey, alleging the Christie administration was sabotaging the medical marijuana program by deliberately delaying the approval of applications and missing required reports.

Christie is widely expected to make a run for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, positioning himself as an anti-libertarian candidate.

Related, Reason TV talked with Forchion last year about how jury nullification got him his 2012 not guilty verdict. Watch below:

NEXT: General Mills Succumbs to Anti-Biotech Activist Lies - Removes GMO Ingredients from Cheerios

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Throw a guy with bone cancer in jail for possession. Yeah, the fat fuck really cares about people.

    I read a thing recently about pregnant women in prison. It was just as depressing as you would expect. More than anything it shows how monstrous our justice system and the people in it have become. It would be one thing if a pregnant women committed murder or a home invasion or a car jacking or some other crime that did real harm. But as a judge there is no way I would send a pregnant woman to jail for some BS probation violation or drug possession or really even petty theft. I just couldn’t do it and live with myself. But we have thousands of judges and DAs who every day do that and worse and sleep soundly every night thinking they are good public servants. The guy who threw this guy in jail I am sure is very proud of himself.

    And people tell me that if hell exists it would be an injustice.

  2. How can El Fatso not understand that he’s basically making himself unelectable?

    1. I am not sure he is. If the media comes to the conclusion the Dem nominee is a goner, they may cover for Fatso just like they did for Obama on the theory that he is the least evil of the available Republicans.

      1. More likely the media will do as they did in the last couple of elections: Pump for the left-wing/statist Republican candidate in the primaries, and then hammer him as an ultra-extreme radical capitalist christian-taliban right-winger in the general election.

        1. They will certainly try that. They will absolutely want Christie because he would be more leftwing if he won and his getting nominated is more likely to demoralize the evil GOP voter base.

          1. They’ll go easy on Christie if it looks like Hillary isn’t going to win the presidency. They prefer the narrative of the establishment Republicans taming the Tea Party. This is why it is vitally important to support Rand Paul for the nomination even if it’s likely he loses to Hill or whoever.

            Remember: Goldwater is much preferable to Nixon.

  3. Hey, look on the bright side. What are the odds that Christie makes it to 2016 without a heart attack or two?

    (Note: Normally, I despise fat jokes. But Christie deserves every bit of derision that comes his statist way.)

  4. Christie is widely expected to make a run for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, positioning himself as an anti-libertarian candidate

    He will oppose Elizabeth Warren, who’ll run as the populist liberaltarian candidate.

    1. A Warren-Christie matchup is my nightmare for 2016. Ritual suicide would likely be our best option.

      1. No matter who gets elected, the media will be the big losers, after 8 years of tax deductible Hawaiian vacations with Obama nothing else will measure up.

        1. God. I just had a nightmare thought. I live about 5 miles from the Christie home. If he does get elected, I’ll pray he never vacations here.

          Please Lord, let them vacation on the shore.

      2. Why waste time on ritual? A heroin overdose would be relatively painless. If the object is to avoid the pain of…

      3. I think ritual homicide a better option

  5. Christie, King & Huckabee. You know the Republicans are going to screw this one up again. As if they don’t mind Hillary getting the presidency.

  6. Statist should choke on stories like this. Government is fucking evil.

    1. The only reason they let him leave is so they don’t have to pay for the treatment. Dirtbags.

  7. Yesterday I made a joke about future feminists trying to claim that 100% of women had been raped.


    First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not ? which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances ? it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.

    The most anti-sex statements always seem to come from the left. I’ve never met a social conservative who is this much of a prude.

    1. That’s become an increasingly common radfem viewpoint. It’s not new either; I think that Andrea Dworkin’s been beating that drum since the 80s.

    2. Andrea Dworkin was on this train a while ago, Irish.

      The closest thing I’ve seen to that quote from social conservatives has been from Catholics (not typically considered social conservatives, but I’m specifically talking about conservative Catholics) who write about how unless you are “open to life” when you have sex with your wife or whatever, you are just “using her like a sex doll” or something similar. It doesn’t actually come off as prudish as this, but seems akin all the same.

      1. Catholics aren’t considered social conservatives? WTF?

        1. Catholicism is the bottom of my religion heirarchy. Taoism leads (but that kinda punts since it isn’t a religion as much as a philosophy), but Evangelical Christianity actually comes in second. I’m sometimes surprised how much I respect the consistency of evangelicals, even if I disagree with the underlying premises.

          1. Evangelicals that I know don’t have a problem with sex for pleasure inside of a marriage. Most of them screw like rabbits and enjoy every minute of it.

            1. Sects that deny all sex don’t last very long. The Shakers, Skoptics and Heaven’s Gate, for example.

        2. Well, I used to think of them that way, because I grew up in an area where most all Protestants were mainline and the only actual believers were Catholic, but in adulthood I’ve noticed people think of Catholics as more liberal than evangelicals. Maybe that’s just for economic reasons, I don’t know.

          1. Most American Catholics are pretty liberal.

          2. Catholics are more liberal than evangelicals they just aren’t necessarily more liberal than protestants.

            Protestants occupy a really wide range of beliefs while Catholics tend to have far fewer differences.

            1. The mainline Protestant faiths are nothing but leftist social clubs. That is why they are all dying. They really don’t offer much of anything to anyone that membership in the Democratic Party doesn’t already offer.

      2. There is some pretty good overlap between the really conservative catholic view of sex and the whack job feminist view of sex.

        The only real difference is that Catholics value procreation and thus view sex as a necessary and excusable evil when done for that purpose. Feminists manage to be even more anti sex by considering any sort of sex to be rape and harmful.

        The funniest thing about feminists is that they either ignore or embrace the use of penetrative sex toys by lesbians. If penetrative intercourse with a man is always rape and never sex from the woman’s perspective, then I would think penetrative intercourse between two women using some kind of substitute phalis would be the same. But feminists never seem to go there. For them I guess there really is something magical about the penis, which them in a way makes them a bit of an old time fertility cult in reverse.

      3. No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion ? one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. All women’s “attraction” to men is 100% eroticised trauma bonding / stockholm syndrome. There is no other form of attraction to men possible than that. None. Any woman “sexually” or “sentimentally” attached to a man is ONLY trauma-bonded to him. This is a universal rule under patriarchy.

        “Damn, girl… you wanna trauma-bond with me this weekend? I’ll Stockholm you up right, baby.”

        1. You read this shit more than I do, so let me ask you. How does anyone get to the point of being so fucked up that they think women’s attraction to men is some kind of false consciousness created in response to the trauma of the evil of men? How does that happen? Every normal person man or woman finds being attracted to the opposite sex one of the great pleasures in life and those that don’t find equal pleasure in being attracted to the same sex but consider their difference to just being born different. What sort of pardon the pun, trauma in life could cause someone to make the conclusions this woman makes? Did her father beat her and make her watch porn while locked in a closet or something?

          Why isn’t this woman getting the help she so clearly needs instead of being enabled by a university?

          1. Here’s your answer:

            Lastly, from a structural point of view, as a class oppressed by men, we are not in any position of freedom to negotiate what men do to us collectively and individually within the heterocage. Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.

            They just appropriated Marxist and anti-imperialist terminology and jammed it together with feminism. This is why Marxism is so evil. When you start arguing that anyone who disagrees with you is suffering from some sort of ‘false consciousness’ entire races and genders are denied any agency or control over their own actions. Furthermore, you’ve just given yourself the right to abuse people against their will because the ‘false consciousness’ canard lets you think that they have no control over their own minds, and it’s therefore okay for you to manipulate them.

            1. Yeah, it just a dog’s breakfast of Marxist bullshit shoved into the study of gender relations.

          2. She’s pitching sexual dimorphism as some sort of unnatural state, an enforced cultural construct. You can dislike sex, even hate men utterly–but if you want to deny the necessity of sexual reproduction in humans, you have the sort of deep delusional structure that springs from either some deep organic damage or early childhood sexual trauma.

            She needs some professional help, but has built a web of self-reinforcement through on-line relationships that will prevent her from ever having the sort of crisis moment that would drive her to have enough self-awareness to seek that help.

            tl;dr She’s not a radical feminist or even–in the traditional sense–a lesbian. She’s a broken personality that needs help.

            1. Something is seriously broken to cause you to reject biological reality like that. Unless she is a total lesbian, she has to feel some kind of attraction to men and God must she hate herself for it.

            2. Yeah I’m going to have to agree completely on that one. I actually feel like a jerk reading it and being somewhat fascinated.

              1. It’s OK to pity her; hating her is sort of beside the point.

                Voluntary asexuality becoming more common. The “Herbivore Men” of Japan and the component of the MRA movement that claim they want no more contact with women under any terms.

                1. Voluntary asexuality becoming more common. The “Herbivore Men” of Japan and the component of the MRA movement that claim they want no more contact with women under any terms.

                  This isn’t surprising. The progressive worldview has sapped the young of the money needed to have a long term relationship, has created fault lines where none existed before, and breeds internecine hatreds between different parts of society.

                  In the long term, progressive ideology makes the genders hate each other, makes the races tip toe around each other for fear of causing offense, and creates a class war.

                  Truly it is a wonderful way to order a society.

              2. She’s a very coherent batch of crazy, that’s for sure.

    3. Maybe she’s just pissed off because God gave her an innie instead of an outie.

    4. “well intercourse”? “unilateral penetration”?

      What does this even mean?

      1. The first is a typo or just bad writing, should be “First, well… intercourse”

        “Unilateral penetration” means that gay guys having sex is not rape. Or they are both being raped so it cancels out or something. (Never mind that the suggestion that all gay men engage in penetrative anal sex is offensive when put forth by “homophobes.”)

    5. Yesterday I made a joke about future feminists trying to claim that 100% of women had been raped.

      Kinda like how you believe any activity of a sexual nature between someone above the AoC with someone below is 100% of the time rape?

    6. So lemme get this straight. Normal vaginal intercourse is un-natural. How do we know this? It hurts the first time. So whats the vagina for? Childbirth only. How do we know this? Because childbirth never hurts.

  8. I know it shouldn’t matter, but if I was going to stand trail on a serious charge, I would probably get a hair cut, shave, and don a nice suit. I might also downplay the “weedman” nickname for a while. Just me.

  9. If only you awful libertarians would look at just how bad Republicans are for once, you might understand that voting Democratic is the only path to freedom.

  10. Sure Christie can say no to drugs but he can’t say no to just one more donut. Given his personal lack of self control, I guess it makes sense that he doesn’t trust the rest of us to have any.

  11. Choke on a turkey leg, you fat fuck.

  12. How can El Fatso not understand that he’s basically making himself unelectable?

    I was talking to somebody not long ago who is (as far as I can tell) not completely insane, and Christie is her pick. I don’t get it.

  13. whether she thinks she wants it or not

    “Stupid bitch, how dare you acquiesce to heterosexual urges?”

  14. Weedman once republished my:

    How To Put an End to Drug Users

    He gave me a one year free sub to his samizdat in exchange.

  15. I sort of wish we could get some people to speak up on anti-prohibition who didn’t look like they needed a bath/delousing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.