The 4th Amendment to The Constitution goes bye-bye

[Forsaken]

He can't. But as I also said, just because its illegal, doesn't make it wrong or immoral. I've seen enough suffering for me to believe that his state is wrong, even though it has the law on it's side.

This may be a fine point, but I believe it is what distinquishes a legal system from a system of justice. A legal system says that its illegal, you did it, so you are punished. Pay the fine.

What separates a legal system from a true justice system is mercy and compassion. In that case, one looks at not just the law, but what is good and moral as well. In such a case, we say while it is illegal, we understand that this is a unique case with extenuating circumstances. Charges dropped.

Don't expect me to defend the government. I believe that which governs best, governs least.

I actually wasn't calling you out, just pointing that the criteria you posted is a catch 22.

 

[Fred Sherman]

I actually wasn't calling you out, just pointing that the criteria you posted is a catch 22.

No worries. I don't mind friendly, spirited discussions as long as its done in an environment of mutual respect. No problems with anyone telling me my ideas are half-assed. I just don't want to be called an ass (by anyone except my wife who has earned the right many times over ).

 

[EQnoble]

I appreciate your opinions Fred and you know I respect you as well. Please keep that in mind while reading this response which is not directed at you or anyone...it is a rant of that which I know to be true.

The reason 85% of my state supports legalizing is because 85% of my state smokes. I am using it medicinally. Do you think or believe that someone telling me to take something ( synthetic man made drugs ) that makes my blood itch, makes me nauseous, or just makes me vomit it right out is very medicinal? The ONLY reason weed is still illegal is because big companies will lose money. That is the only reason. By the very definition of medicinal , marijuana is VERY medicinal to ME.

I really don't care what the law says about this...really. I do not hurt anyone, in fact trying to stop me from enjoying my life in the privacy of my home actually hurts my local city more that I ever could by burning a dried out plant. People have to spend money for the police, the arrest, processing, court fees, and while they are booking me for smoking, there is people all around town selling cocaine out of the bathrooms in one of the 27 bars within 9 sq miles from where I stand. I believe those people are dangerous but because alcohol can be controlled and taxed easily because of it's need to be in a sealed bottle we can have bars which by the whole idea of them are REALLY safe right? A bunch of strangers getting intoxicated together so they can leave and go back to their cars that is if they don't get into a drunken brawl.

Like I said before...if weed is so bad...how come there is no real non-biased studies being used in court or allowed for that matter...and for that matter how come the courts require violators of marijuana laws to go to AA (alcoholics anonymous, where people treat you like ass because you do not drink) or they send you to a court appointed treatment center...in my area it is a monopoly (the center which is also a school for mentally unstable people mind you) that makes then a stupid amount of money which is crazy because they don't even have enough fact about the use of marijuana to have a single class lesson plan about it let alone the 24 hours required of class time for one to successfully pass the course and get the certificate to go back to court with to certify that they are "cured". PUHHHLeeease The only thing the law and these classes have ever taught me after being arrested umteen times for marijuana is what the definition of the word wet-brain is.

So again if this was about anything but money, they would have something to teach in these courses that isn't opinion, and if people actually cared about another person besides themselves, weed would not be an issue for them. Remember weed only became an issue for me here once I admitted to smoking it and even then it wasn't really even my issue. I have no problems with it and it causes no one else problems until they tell me I am wrong because they know better.

Ohh by the way my mother used to be prescribed meds when she was younger and nowadays in her 50's she has a hard time remembering things...sometimes my name...or what I told her 5 minutes ago. Yeah you are going to see me taking meds now...because my memory is already awesome

Again this may or may not be appropriate for xf but since it is this far in to it I will say that is why 85% of my state is open about legalizing it. It doesn't mean 15 % are against it, it just means 85% are comfortable admitting that it should just not even be a issue. We waste too much money to stop something that isn't a problem. Why are we processing weed smokers as criminals while there are police officers hiding other officers involvement in the hitting and killing of a high-school kid on his bike while said officer was driving way too fast and way to drunk after leaving a watering hole while off-duty. That my friends is criminal...if you think I fit in that category because of something I TOLD YOU (not something you knew or could discern before I told you because it does not effect your life directly or indirectly) than we shouldn't communicate because we obviously are in two very different places.

There should be no laws surrounding weed...it is a plant and if treated like one ...drug dealers couldn't use it as a cash crop..because someone could always grow it for themselves, or get it from a legal source, which makes the street value of weed nothing, which would make drug dealers who sell poison obvious and make them stand out blatantly so we could grab them up off the street before I and other people like me get shot again.

Ok now I need coffee. Good Morning XF

Funny thing...the land I live on presently...in the 1800's I believe it was a requirement for the farm owners to grow cannabis for the hemp products. They didn't even have a choice. Funny how times change, usually while suiting the richest and most powerful.


On a note about the catch 22, you should look at what the US did to farmers less than a century ago when they invited them to bring their weed crop to Washington to get a stamp for it so they could be legal...and then arrested them for being in Washington before they could be issued their stamps. That would be entrapment as far as I am concerned.

 

[User]

The reason 85% of my state supports legalizing is because 85% of my state smokes.

Unless you used the above for dramatic effect you are obviously wrong about it unless you argue that 85% support it till they have to vote for it at which point they temporarily change their mind and then after the election they go back to 85% support.

 

[EQnoble]

You are talking about the lawmakers, I am talking about the citizens. A committee votes on the legality and the passing of bills into law, not the citizens. Besides, our governor Malloy supports this and he just took office here this year. I doubt he is preparing now for rellection. If it wasn't for Jodi Rell, we would have already been legal here to some degree. This has nothing to do with the population who votes anonymously to polls about cannabis use. Our governor was vetoing the Bill. This is no longer the case and no dramatic effect was intended.

I am going to go on a ride now...when I do I am going to hold my iphone pointed at my driver window. You can then count how many people are smoking as they drive by for dramatic effect if you like.

 

[Digital Doctor]

With the jails overflowing in the US ... time to decriminalize drugs.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/06/02/drug-war-report.html

 

[TheLaw]

The reason 85% of my state supports legalizing is because 85% of my state smokes.

So taking two average families of 2 and 3 children, all four adults smoke as do 4 of the 5 children from both families.

 

[EQnoble]

It would not matter if the children are legal adults. You are supposing I am talking about little kids which just proves you have no point.

You are making nothing out of nothing here...next time I mention senior citizens discount I will make sure to ask a 5 year old if he qualifies for it because it wasn't obvious. Can these children vote. No. Are you looking to start problems...yes. Do I think you believe you are the Law...yes Do I believe you embody freedom or justice...no.

70% of American's drink socially, do you think they went to your kids school to ask them...no...please try again.

 

[TheLaw]

It would not matter if the children are legal adults. You are supposing I am talking about little kids which just proves you have no point. You are making nothing out of nothing here...next time I mention senior citizens discount I will make sure to ask a 5 year old if he qualifies for it because it wasn't obvious. Can these children vote. No. Are you looking to start problems...yes. Do I think you believe you are the Law...yes Do I believe you embody freedom or justice...no.

Who is looking to "start problems?" I'm simply reading what you're writing and doing the same as anyone else here in trying to understand what it's supposed to mean. So assuming we take five families of two parents, according to you (the 85% representation), almost 9 of 10 adult parents smoke marijuana and only 1 family in 13 is "marijuana free."

70% of American's drink socially, do you think they went to your kids school to ask them...no...please try again.

What does "drink socially" mean? Let's take the adult example - that 2 of every 3 adults might agree to have a glass of wine? It's not illegal. But according to your data, more people as a percentage in your state are breaking the law by smoking marijuana than may engage in legal, social drinking. That assumes that no more than 15% of people in your state are legally taking marijuana as a necessary medicine for some ailment which marijuana allegedly treats.

 

[EQnoble]

One I am accounting for my myself using it medicinally. I am not accounting for what people use it for. I want it legal so I can use it legally. What other people want it legal for is their reasons. All in all my general argument is that it should be a choice to use marijuana and the prosecution of marijuana users is borderline cruel and unusual considering what someone who gets locked up for assault receives in comparison for a punishment.

Socially...is exactly what it states...I legally went outside a few minutes ago (because as long as I pay taxes on tobacco it is ok) to kill myself smoking a cigarette and just watched two girls get out of a car stumbling and watched the driver get out to give one of them a hug and miss and then stumble back into car and take off..you know...the usual after friday night social drinking event that happens Saturday morning. Do you know what designated driver means to half the people leaving the bar to most people I ask around here...the one person who has to risk the dui tonight.

Again why are you talking about families...your subjecting a stat to another stat that has not been looked at or been mentioned. One's relation to another means nothing and tying up families into the argument means nothing. That is what I am trying to say. We are talking about out of how many asked how many said X ...there was no option in any cannabis polls for family relations or names...so again this just seems to have tactic other than to get at what the problem really is. That being that prosecuting people for using cannabis has no purpose other than to force ones way upon another which by definition is not freedom.

Again I want it legal for medical use....that's what MY person wants. but as a practice in my mind cannabis should be completely decriminalized however for now I will take the avenue that's already in motion as you don't fight a war on many fronts and expect to win.

I said 85% agrees cannabis should decriminalized...The part about 85% smoking was me talking based on what I see and was stated possibly being conjecture however the point is 85% of people want it legal and more than half of those want it completely decriminalized.

Who is looking to "start problems?" I'm simply reading what you're writing and doing the same as anyone else here in trying to understand what it's supposed to mean. So assuming we take five families of two parents, according to you (the 85% representation), almost 9 of 10 adult parents smoke marijuana and only 1 family in 13 is "marijuana free."

What does "drink socially" mean? Let's take the adult example - that 2 of every 3 adults might agree to have a glass of wine? It's not illegal. But according to your data, more people as a percentage in your state are breaking the law by smoking marijuana than may engage in legal, social drinking. That assumes that no more than 15% of people in your state are legally taking marijuana as a necessary medicine for some ailment which marijuana allegedly treats.

How come you don't specify families when talking about alcohol? You also seem to think that most or all of the poeple who go to the bar leave in a car with a sober person driving which is what I would say being very selective and or an example of wearing blinders. To me you seem to be preempting or hinting at family issues cased by cannabis use where you present alcohol in a totally innocent light maybe because you think or are trying to imply that there is acceptable use laws and that even a fraction of people actually follow them.

I will also say the person who was awarded as father of the year for my local area is dying, has MS, started a business to leave his wife and kids, and smokes everyday...you wouldn't even know it. I hardly doubt you are going to try and tell me that you can't recognize someone who has been drinking.

 

[TheLaw]

Socially...is exactly what it states...I legally went outside a few minutes ago (because as long as I pay taxes on tobacco it is ok) to kill myself smoking a cigarette and just watched two girls get out of a car stumbling and watched the driver get out to give one of them a hug and miss and then stumble back into car and take off..you know...the usual after friday night social drinking event that happens Saturday morning. Do you know what designated driver means to half the people leaving the bar to most people I ask around here...the one person who has to risk the dui tonight.

I usually don't care what people do alone in their own home so long as it doesn't affect others. But when someone drives after using any substance that is known to be influencing one's reflexes or abilities of perception, be it alcohol, marijuana or other drug, I'm concerned. What many of these usually share is the same insistence that they are under control, that they know their own limits and that I should share the risk on the road they take with their own bodies. Personally I prefer not to share that risk.

Again why are you talking about families...your subjecting a stat to another stat that has not been looked at or been mentioned. One's relation to another means nothing and tying up families into the argument means nothing. That is what I am trying to say. We are talking about out of how many asked how many said X

You said "The reason 85% of my state supports legalizing is because 85% of my state smokes." That's 17 out of every 20 people. How about you explain to us what it means?

 

[EQnoble]

What many of these usually share is the same insistence that they are under control, that they know their own limits and that I should share the risk on the road they take with their own bodies. Personally I prefer not to share that risk.

That's what I was saying before, cannabis is not like alcohol. You don't blackout when smoking as a self defence against your own actions because it is not a poison, once again you also assume that smoking changes your abilities such as alcohol does. I would also assume that you believe some fact you watched in reefer madness. How many people do you know can learn to and successfully make an addon when they are drunk with no previous experiance... I ask because surely if I was not able to control my mind and body I would not have been able to do the same after using cannabis that whole day.

Go head buddy you want to stop people from smoking and driving...slow down then...because the potheads are lagging behind safely as most are hyper-aware of the road while your sober Johney and Sally are flying at 25 to thirty miles an hour over regulated speed (which is supposed to be a crime here, reckless endangerment) and on their iphone text messaging and talking (which is illegal here also) but since 'everyone' is moving that fast they don't do anything. Using your phone while driving is more dangerous than smoking while driving.

I prefer someone who acts like they represent the law to actually know a thing or two. But again what did I expect your like 90% of other lawyers...you will castrate me for smoking without knowing any about marijuana except what you were told and obviously believe...when at the same token you would probably represent a murderer if it paid you well enough.

You said "The reason 85% of my state supports legalizing is because 85% of my state smokes." That's 17 out of every 20 people. How about you explain to us what it means?

You do realize I am done with you at this point right? If you don't know what conjecture is you shouldn't have the name the Law. You proved your purpose already.

I said 85% agrees cannabis should decriminalized...The part about 85% smoking was me talking based on what I see and was stated possibly being conjecture however the point is 85% of people want it legal and more than half of those want it completely decriminalized.

con·jec·ture

[kuh

n-jek-cher]
To conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

 

[TheLaw]

Go head buddy you want to stop people from smoking and driving...slow down then...because the potheads are lagging behind safely as most are hyper-aware of the road...

I was unaware of this.

I prefer someone who acts like they represent the law to actually know a thing or two. But again what did I expect your like 90% of other lawyers...

No need to get nasty and make personal comments as if they were fact. Let's continue with a friendly tone... I didn't state anything personal about you nor did I mention any law whatsoever. My perspective only had to do with the influence of any drug or substance upon the reflexes while driving. I'm not a fan of even people taking cold medicine that makes you drowsy. Just my opinion, that's all.

I said 85% agrees cannabis should decriminalized...The part about 85% smoking was me talking based on what I see and was stated possibly being conjecture however the point is 85% of people want it legal and more than half of those want it completely decriminalized.
con·jec·ture [kuh

n-jek-cher]
To conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

Got it. The 85% was based upon conjecture and possibly what you see around you in your state. This thread has helped me greater appreciate the issue concerning making cannabis more accessible. I'll now move onto other things.

 

[EQnoble]

I was unaware of this.

No need to get nasty and personal, let's continue with a friendly tone... I didn't state anything personal about you nor did I mention any law whatsoever. My perspective only had to do with the influence of any drug or substance upon the reflexes while driving. I'm not a fan of even people taking cold medicine that makes you drowsy. Just my opinion, that's all.

Got it. The 85% was based upon conjecture and possibly what you see around you in your state. This thread has helped me greater appreciate the issue concerning making cannabis more accessible. I'll now move onto other things.

Marijuana is always available...everywhere..in every country. It is a plant that grows just about everywhere. I am talking about not having to group pot with drug dealers. Unless it is legal you give drug dealer (purveyors for profit) another thing to market. Having it be legal means people don't need to leave anywhere because they don't have to leave their house because they are scared of getting their property seized.

You assumed that I would go for a ride and drive and put people in danger by smoking and driving...if you knew me personally you would not say that as you would know that I wish harm upon none even those who have caused me suffering. To say that I am putting people in danger is assuming that cannabis makes any user using it unable to control themselves and make judgements...which is VERY wrong and then on top of that you also infer that it is a inherit risk and that I am willing to risk harming someone else to not be in pain myself. How do you know cannabis impairs? Do you have anything factual from actual use examples? I have over 200,000 miles logged driving while smoking without an accident as proof (you let me know if you want to see the car cameras) and I have been hit 6 times by sober people deciding my rear bumper is a solid place to attach their front end to.

Let's not make believe your postings about pot we're to find anything out...if you wanted to know about it you should run a study or ask questions...making statements will not help you come up with a solution all it will do will prompt a response especially if your claims are unfounded.

And to be clear 85% is how many want it legal BASED ON A POLL...conjecture is me saying 85% smokes...they might not...they just might not believe some propaganda against a plant.

Stop with your end post one liners and your insinuations please...I have had to do this in court, and you will be the one to make me out to be a criminal for smoking pot. This topic is so far over your head you may as well call it a garage door.

Getting nasty is not only calling someone out...you can be getting nasty by simply egging someone on with no real intention to learn anything..you have not exposed your opinion to change at all so to act like you wanted a genuine answer and not the one that fits your understanding that you started in this thread with is a complete lie. If I kick a dog and it bites me I guess I can say it is a violent species too I guess by your logic.
And by the way this thread did nothing for you...your opinion was the same and you only saw and heard what you wanted.

You should know more about which you are trying to take away from all. Point Blank Period.

 

[Martyn]

surely its only houses with possible drugs they will be doing this too? if anything its doing good.. who in there right mind would say no to a police officer from searching there house - unless they had something to hide?

 

[EQnoble]

How do you feel about a strip search if you have nothing to hide....you can't leave the decision to enter a home on a person's whims...those change easily with just a change of mood. Laws are not supposed to work that way.

Saying that I don't mind someone looking around my home if I am doing nothing wrong is circular logic which works to gain unlawful access to my home. It is a privacy issue. Innocent until proven guilty can not apply if I have to prove I am innocent before being formally accused of anything.

 

[TheLaw]

You assumed that I would go for a ride and drive and put people in danger by smoking and driving...if you knew me personally you would not say that as you would know that I wish harm upon none even those who have caused me suffering. To say that I am putting people in danger is assuming that cannabis makes any user using it unable to control themselves and make judgements...which is VERY wrong and then on top of that you also infer that it is a inherit risk and that I am willing to risk harming someone else to not be in pain myself. How do you know cannabis impairs? Do you have anything factual from actual use examples? I have over 200,000 miles logged driving while smoking without an accident as proof (you let me know if you want to see the car cameras) and I have been hit 6 times by sober people deciding my rear bumper is a solid place to attach their front end to.

Let's not make believe your postings about pot we're to find anything out...if you wanted to know about it you should run a study or ask questions...making statements will not help you come up with a solution all it will do will prompt a response especially if your claims are unfounded...

Stop with your end post one liners and your insinuations please...I have had to do this in court, and you will be the one to make me out to be a criminal for smoking pot. This topic is so far over your head you may as well call it a garage door.

Getting nasty is not only calling someone out...you can be getting nasty by simply egging someone on with no real intention to learn anything..you have not exposed your opinion to change at all so to act like you wanted a genuine answer and not the one that fits your understanding that you started in this thread with is a complete lie. If I kick a a dog and it bites me I guess I can say it is a violent species too I guess by your logic.
And by the way this thread did nothing for you...your opinion was the same and you only saw and heard what you wanted.

(1) There is absolutely no reason to get nasty or insult anyone. When I said the conversation should be kept civil, I meant it.

(2) Obviously you do not and cannot know exactly what I'm thinking. I do think that it is not a good idea to smoke cannabis and drive, that's all. Some people feel the way that I do and some feel the way you do and let's chalk that up to a difference of opinion, okay? Let's just say that I'm concerned about all the other people - other than yourself - who smoke cannabis, may be more susceptible to its effects on their motor skills than yourself and haven't performed any tests to ensure that they are safe drivers after smoking.

I hope we're good to go here and thanks for the conversation.

 

[EQnoble]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9d8_1188900563

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[mcrider]

If people were really concerned about intoxicated/distracted drivers then cell phone use while driving would be illegal in all 50 states and parking lots would be banned at bars....the whole driving while stoned is just a red herring. California has an estimated 1.1 million medical marijuana users meanwhile deaths on the roadway have been on the decline.....go figure.

 

[jadmperry]

surely its only houses with possible drugs they will be doing this too? if anything its doing good.. who in there right mind would say no to a police officer from searching there house - unless they had something to hide?

Me (though from your post, this assumes I am in my right mind). I would not let police in just because they want to search. The Constitution limits the governments ability to harass and search without probable cause. If I had something to hide I would not let the police in voluntarily. Same thing if I didn't have anything to hide. By holding the police to the standards required by the law, I would be protecting not only my own rights, but other's rights, too.