nobody is going to Pardon him .. it would be political suicide. He has more chance of being abducted by aliens from the prison yard ..
Well with the exception that someday in the future they perform a Colombia and start legalizing all sorts of drugs and switch to a regulated model, not that I expect to see that happen for a few more decades.
Still won't happen even if everything was legalised. They don't release people due to law changes. And he's not just some guy selling pot from his garage. By operating SR he was thumbing his nose at the powers that be. They have long, long memories for that type of thing.
That's part of the point.
People existed before the current government, right? What was legal then, before the time of the government? Legal didn't have anything to do with anything. It all depended on what was lawful, by common law, among the people.
Government came along and started making things legal and illegal. What about the things that government hasn't judged on? Is it legal to carry a comb in your pocket? Which kinds of combs are legal and which aren't?
How many molecules of breathing air is it legal to breathe? Is this number the same for people who live in the mountains at high altitudes as it is for those who live below sea level in the Death Valley? Or isn't there anything legal or illegal that the government has done regarding breathing air?
The point is, since it would take untold volumes of legal codes if government were to judge legality or illegality about everything that exists, perhaps government should make one, all-encompassing law that says that the people are slaves in any way that government decides, right? Of course, government has already made slavery illegal.
So, since government has made slavery illegal, how can they make any law apply to anyone without enslaving that person to some extent? Here's how. If a person harms someone or damages his property. It's is the only way.
Why can government enslave someone who has harmed another or damaged his property? Because that person
enslaved someone else by harming him or damaging his property. Thus, to uphold freedom for all, government has the duty to stop the slave-making person from enslaving those he has enslaved. If government enslaves somebody by making laws and forcing that person to obey them, isn't it government who is enslaving people against their (the government's) own laws?
In Ross's case, where is the person who was harmed by what Ross did, or where was the property that Ross damaged? There wasn't any. How do we know? Because nobody got on the stand in court and showed the harm or damage while attesting to the fact that Ross did it. Since there wasn't any harm or damage done, government is doing the harm and damage against Ross by enslaving him, which is against their own laws.