Is Jury Nullification the right tool to end modern day Prohibition of Cannabis?

Jury Nullification is a controversial practice, yet has a long history. With recent new chapters in that history getting some attention, the question has arisen again if juries should allow people to go free even in clear violations of the law.

I admit to being torn on this issue. I can see the pros and cons to both sides of the argument, and I have sat in the jury pool to be chosen to decide the fate of someone arrested for selling drugs. However, even after the judge told the jury pool that our opinions on the rightness of drug laws were not to be taken into account, he asked if anyone would have a conflict that could prevent them from being on the jury. I raised my hand and said “I might, your honor.” The judge asked me to approach the bench and I explained that I could not be an unbiased jurist since I did not agree with the drug laws. The judge was not happy with me because it was going against his instructions, and he tried to debate with me, “What if he committed murder during the deal?” I replied, “Then try him for murder and I can sit on that jury” at which point the accused’s defense attorney came to my aid and told the judge I had already admitted I couldn’t be impartial, and that I should be excused. The judge did excuse me.

Is it better to voice your displeasure about the law before you are picked for the jury, or is it better to get on the jury and try to affect the outcome? If everyone did as I did, then it is possible that only those who agreed with the laws would sit in judgment of drug offenders. It is also possible that if the entire jury pool did as I did, then there would be no one left to decide the guilt of the accused and the trial could not go forward, saving a lot more time and money. I do see the second scenario as less likely though.

However, every 2 years or so, we as a people sit as jurors of those who write the drug laws. How will you decide their fate this year and every election going forward? Will you vote for someone who has prosecuted offenders and helped write more draconian laws, or will you nullify their role? And between elections, what is the role a juror should have at trial?