Marijuana Reform. (an interesting article.)

[sloasdaylight]

Well, thats not what Ive been told on more than one occasion from multiple LEOs. Not consenting to a search gives them reasonable cause to assume that you are hiding something or have something you don't want them to see, is how its been put to me.

That's fascism, just fyi.
Refusing to allow the police to search your car if they do not already have probable cause is completely within your constitutional rights in the US, and should hold up as such in any court room. Then again you do live in California and things are kinda topsy-turvy there anyways, so I dunno.

 

[ssbass]

Refusing to consent to a search is NOT probable cause. It's exercising a Constitutional right. If you refuse to consent and they have no probable cause other than that (one that will stand up in court) and they search you anyway, even if they do find anything, it won't matter, because they discovered it illegally. In other words, the case would be thrown out.

That is all fine and dandy, but they will just make you sit there until the dog unit arrives.

 

[sloasdaylight]

That is all fine and dandy, but they will just make you sit there until the dog unit arrives.

This is also unconstitutional.

They have to determine probable cause on the scene or obtain a warrant in order to search any piece of private property. I'm pretty sure a dog sniff test is considered a search, and as such probable cause must be established in the first place.

 

[ssbass]

This is also unconstitutional.

They have to determine probable cause on the scene or obtain a warrant in order to search any piece of private property. I'm pretty sure a dog sniff test is considered a search, and as such probable cause must be established in the first place.

I don't think it's unconstitutional. They just call for backup and the backup is a K9 unit. They bring K9 units to schools and walk them around the parking lot sniffing cars. What probable cause did they have to sniff all the cars in the parking lot?

Most cops will not take kindly to you refusing a search and I guarantee they will be calling in a K9 unit. If the dog catches a scent, they now have probable cause to search. A dog sniffing your car isn't a search.

 

[chondro776]

Because what is in your blood has an impact on your behaviour, your behaviour has an impact on the people around you. The people around you are members of the society you live in. etc etc.

By that basic premise you are stating, is it ok to drink drive. What is to the government what you do and what you have in your body?

Sorry, but IMO you are looking at this incorrectly.
My body chemistry does not infringe upon your rights in any way shape or form. My actions may or may not infringe upon your rights.

And honestly, the problem is not that someone is drinking and driving. The problem occurs if they hit you, etc. THAT is the crime, and should be treated accordingly.

What about bad drivers? What about women drivers ( I kid...I kid...). What about people that just aren't smart?

Should we have IQ tests?

You can't legislate against potential problems, only actual problems. Again....IMO.

Didn't you see Minority Report? (joke, but my point remains).

It is just like the ridiculous argument that crime follows drug use. Well, ok, so prosecute the darn CRIME, not the circumstances that may or may not have anything to do with it. PLENTY of crime follows booze, love, sex, food, and a million other substances/acts/behaviors.

If blood chemistry is involved there are arbitrary lines which must be drawn. I only drive if I have had less than 2 beers (I am not much of a drinker)- but others could probably drive just fine on 4-5 beers (or more).

Either way, the only problem comes when they hit someone, etc. Which is ALREADY a crime.

 

[sloasdaylight]

However your body chemistry influences your actions, through a loss of inhibition or reduced motor function, using alcohol as an obvious example, which as a result can have disastrous implications. At some point you establish a correlation between drunk drivers and car accidents. Now I know correlation does not prove causality, but let's be real here for a second.

Your example of dumb people I don't think really helps your case, since in some cases, people who have proven to be reckless and just plain dumb get their rights as an adult taken away and are placed in the custody of people who are more mature. People who are severely mentally deficient cannot drive or own firearms for example because of their mental development.

 

[baalroo]

Well, thats not what Ive been told on more than one occasion from multiple LEOs. Not consenting to a search gives them reasonable cause to assume that you are hiding something or have something you don't want them to see, is how its been put to me.

Well, keep in mind that LEOs are allowed by law to intentionally LIE and mislead citizens in order trick them into giving up information that can lead to probable cause. The old "if you just have a little bit on you go ahead and just show it to me and we'll take it easy on you" line is a classic example as is the "refusing a search is probable cause" line.

Think about it this way,
if the act of refusing a search was actually probable cause to be searched then any LEO could search anyone at any time for no reason at all. They would simply have to ask "can I search you?" and you would be caught in a catch-22 of either allowing the search or giving the officer probable cause to search you... either way simply asking the question would result in you getting searched... and thus completely negating the most basic concepts of the 4th amendment.

 

[metron]

Invalid Link Removed

Personally, I think it should be legalized for recreation use. I've done much research on Marijuana and every bit of it supports that it's not nearly as bad for you as certain legal substances such as cigarettes and alcohol. I'm not saying it's entirely good for you, just that it's not nearly as bad for you as the government would have us to beleive.

I agree. The craziest part of the pot story is not what BS the gov't is feeding us today, but the original premises that were used to make it illegal: that it is THE prime cause in society for rape, murder, theft and whatnot. During the 1930s it was officially claimed that one toke makes you crazy, two makes people very likely to steal or harm others, and that three tokes turns you into a murderer ready to kill at any time. Reefer madness is empirical proof.

Turns out it was all about money. WR Hearst and the paper lobby. That we even have discussions today about whether or not it should be decriminalized based on personal health is ridiculous. The whole entire thing was a farce to begin with.

 

[baalroo]

However your body chemistry influences your actions, through a loss of inhibition or reduced motor function, using alcohol as an obvious example, which as a result can have disastrous implications. At some point you establish a correlation between drunk drivers and car accidents. Now I know correlation does not prove causality, but let's be real here for a second.

Your example of dumb people I don't think really helps your case, since in some cases, people who have proven to be reckless and just plain dumb get their rights as an adult taken away and are placed in the custody of people who are more mature. People who are severely mentally deficient cannot drive or own firearms for example because of their mental development.

I think this is pretty well said. As a society we tend to make most things that are obviously endangering the lives of others illegal. It's ok to own guns and it's OK to fire them off responsibly and in appropriate situations, but it's not OK to haphazardly fire a weapon on a busy street corner in the middle of an urban area. It's ok to drink alcohol responsibly, but it's not ok to get loaded on booze and get behind the wheel of a large fast moving vehicle. I see no reason why the case should be any different for marijuana. It should be ok to smoke a little reefer in the privacy of your own home or at a "hash bar," but you should get the hammer dropped on your @5$ if you become irresponsible enough to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and endanger the lives of others while stoned.

 

[chondro776]

I think we both see each other's point...but lemme just ask:

Do you care that the guy that hit you was drunk, or that he hit you?

And my dumb people argument I stand by. I am positive you could correlate IQ scores (flawed though they may be) with driving skill (and the relationship here is very likely causal). So, by your argument, dumb people shouldn't drive.


*edit- well I am not editing it b/c it is funny...but that is one helluva bad sentence about 'dumb people'. lol

So....what number test score do you have to have to drive? Point being, that in the end the actions are the problem, not the surrounding circumstances.

 

[sloasdaylight]

I think we both see each other's point...but lemme just ask:

Do you care that the guy that hit you was drunk, or that he hit you?

And my dumb people argument I stand by. I am positive you could correlate IQ scores (flawed though they may be) with driving skill (and the relationship here is very likely causal). So, by your argument, dumb people shouldn't drive.


*edit- well I am not editing it b/c it is funny...but that is one helluva bad sentence about 'dumb people'. lol

So....what number test score do you have to have to drive? Point being, that in the end the actions are the problem, not the surrounding circumstances.

Frankly I'd almost certainly care more that he was drunk and hit me. If s/he were sober then I could write it off as possibly an accident, or a freak thing, but if some one's drunk, the fact that they're not able to see straight and yet still got behind the wheel of a car is more infuriating.

Edit: Unless I'm misunderstanding your argument, I don't see your point, since I think that what goes into your body is most definitely the concern of other people as long as it's in a public place. I don't understand that argument at all, nor do I see it as valid.

 

[baalroo]

I think we both see each other's point...but lemme just ask:

Do you care that the guy that hit you was drunk, or that he hit you?

And my dumb people argument I stand by. I am positive you could correlate IQ scores (flawed though they may be) with driving skill (and the relationship here is very likely causal). So, by your argument, dumb people shouldn't drive.


*edit- well I am not editing it b/c it is funny...but that is one helluva bad sentence about 'dumb people'. lol

So....what number test score do you have to have to drive? Point being, that in the end the actions are the problem, not the surrounding circumstances.

I still think your argument is flawed. There are already written driving tests required to determine that you are smart enough to understand the basic "rules of the road." It is no secret that certain actions have a very high likelyhood of causing direct negative results to others... again, I'll use randomly firing a weapon in public as an example. Should a person be allowed to walk out into public, close their eyes, and fire randomly? It seems that with your line of reasoning that this should be a perfectly legal thing to do, assuming the person firing the weapon gets lucky and causes no damage. There is such a thing as obvious reckless endangerment, and it's a completely reasonable concept IMO. There are simply certain activities that are risky enough and dangerous enough to others that we as a society deem to be punishable. Driving while intoxicated is one of those activities... and rightfully so. However, that really has very little to do with the legalities of using the intoxicants themselves, it only has to do with the irresponsible actions that are sometimes associated with their usage.

To answer your question (even though I'm not certain it was addressed to me):

I would certainly care about the fact that I had been hit, but I would care MORE about the circumstances of the incident. If you intentionally punch me in the face I'm going to react much differently than if you turn around with your hand extended and accidentally smack me in the nose with your fist. If you get behind the wheel of a vehicle when intoxicated, you know good and well that you are MUCH more likely to injure or kill someone and that is IMO the difference between a legitimate accident and willful intent.

 

[chondro776]

I don't know what to say, I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I don't care what the circumstances are, if someone hit me, then they hit me. Why do I care why?

Shooting a weapon is an inherently dangerous act*. Driving a car, smoking a joint, or drinking a beer, or shooting up, whatever...is not (except maybe to the user).

I will leave you with this, I have met people who shouldn't drive sober, let alone drunk. I have also met people who could drive the daytona 500 absolutely blind-drunk.

We are all different, we all have different body chemistry, we all react differently to substances (including food, etc.).

The only way to address this fairly is to worry about the problem, and not the circumstances.

*I can see how a gun rights advocate would dispute this, but I do see it as an inherently dangerous act.

 

[MatticusMania]

Well, keep in mind that LEOs are allowed by law to intentionally LIE and mislead citizens in order trick them into giving up information that can lead to probable cause. The old "if you just have a little bit on you go ahead and just show it to me and we'll take it easy on you" line is a classic example as is the "refusing a search is probable cause" line.

I was never told this by an officer who had pulled me over. I was told once by a former detective who was speaking at a Drug & Alcohol Awareness Class. The second time was in High School Government class by an on duty campus police officer (not a 'campus police' officer but an actuall uniformed officer assigned to our school). And a third time by a friends uncle, who works for the Long Beach Police Department.

Think about it this way,
if the act of refusing a search was actually probable cause to be searched then any LEO could search anyone at any time for no reason at all. They would simply have to ask "can I search you?" and you would be caught in a catch-22 of either allowing the search or giving the officer probable cause to search you... either way simply asking the question would result in you getting searched... and thus completely negating the most basic concepts of the 4th amendment.

Of course its a Catch-22, its written that way so that officers can search your car whether you give them the ok or not. The marijuana stamp act of 1937 was written as a Catch-22. Pot was illegal to possess unless you had a MJ Stamp, but in order to obtain a MJ Stamp you had to have the pot in your possession, thus breaking the law.

 

[baalroo]

I don't know what to say, I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I don't care what the circumstances are, if someone hit me, then they hit me. Why do I care why?

Shooting a weapon is an inherently dangerous act*. Driving a car, smoking a joint, or drinking a beer, or shooting up, whatever...is not (except maybe to the user).

I will leave you with this, I have met people who shouldn't drive sober, let alone drunk. I have also met people who could drive the daytona 500 absolutely blind-drunk.

We are all different, we all have different body chemistry, we all react differently to substances (including food, etc.).

The only way to address this fairly is to worry about the problem, and not the circumstances.

*I can see how a gun rights advocate would dispute this, but I do see it as an inherently dangerous act.

I'm honestly surprised when I see someone who doesn't believe that driving a vehicle while intoxicated is an inherently dangerous act. It's pretty hard to refute these sorts of facts:

I agree that drinking, owning a gun, smoking pot, etc are not inherently dangerous (or at least, not dangerous enough to outlaw), but getting into a vehicle while intoxicated obviously is.

 

[baalroo]

I was never told this by an officer who had pulled me over. I was told once by a former detective who was speaking at a Drug & Alcohol Awareness Class. The second time was in High School Government class by an on duty campus police officer (not a 'campus police' officer but an actuall uniformed officer assigned to our school). And a third time by a friends uncle, who works for the Long Beach Police Department.

Yeah, I've met a lot of cops who use this line so much that they actually start believing it's true. It doesn't stand up in court though.

Of course its a Catch-22, its written that way so that officers can search your car whether you give them the ok or not. The marijuana stamp act of 1937 was written as a Catch-22. Pot was illegal to possess unless you had a MJ Stamp, but in order to obtain a MJ Stamp you had to have the pot in your possession, thus breaking the law.

I agree that there have been (and still are) many catch-22s when it comes to marijuana law, but this just simply isn't one of them. Trust me, you and I are on the same side of this issue man, and I share your frustration, but this is actually one of those situations where the catch-22 violates a constitutional amendment so directly and blatantly that it is not permissible in court. I don't feel like researching to find specific examples for you, but I'm "into" this subject enough to have stumbled upon reports of judicial decisions on these situations in the past... and they don't hold up in court.

 

[Schlyder]

They are called firearms... not weapons. A weapon can be anything, a knife, a baseball bat, a rock. A firearm is a firearm. It is an object. It only becomes a weapon when a person uses it for that purpose.

 

[MatticusMania]

and they don't hold up in court.

Well, thats certainly good to know. I havent experienced it first hand myself. But despite the unconstitutionality of it, it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. Its fairly easy for an officer to come up with probably cause for his police report. All and officer has to write down is that he saw you swerve, and that he thought you might have been smoking pot.

 

[baalroo]

They are called firearms... not weapons. A weapon can be anything, a knife, a baseball bat, a rock. A firearm is a firearm. It is an object. It only becomes a weapon when a person uses it for that purpose.

I assume you are talking to me?

A firearm has no purpose other than to be used as a weapon, and thus IMO can always be referred to as such. I'm not sure what the point of nitpicking any further than that serves. I thought my stance was pretty clearly pro-firearm anyhow, am I missing something here?

 

[sloasdaylight]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

For those interested in the actual wording of the amendment, via Wikipedia.