|
ErichZahn posted:Is this a legalistic argument or are you really that much of a dick? What are you trying to imply?
|
# ? Apr 4, 2013 00:59 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 06:31 |
|
size1one posted:It an illegal search when cops lie about smelling weed too but that doesn't stop them. It's still near zero risk to fish for arrests this way when weed is legal. Even if there is more chance that people will get charges dropped, not all will. I don't see any reason the practice will stop. As far as I know there is no penalty whatsoever regardless of what they do if they just claim they smelled weed or get a dog to mark. They can literally kick your door down, find nothing, and go 'Lol Oops well you flushed it before we could find it but we know ' and then leave you to fix your doorframe and whatever else they destroyed while searching. Last I checked this was the case and I doubt it has changed.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2013 01:01 |
|
Warchicken posted:As far as I know there is no penalty whatsoever regardless of what they do if they just claim they smelled weed or get a dog to mark. They can literally kick your door down, find nothing, and go 'Lol Oops well you flushed it before we could find it but we know ' and then leave you to fix your doorframe and whatever else they destroyed while searching. This and other things you are alluding to are the more horrifying consequences suffered by victims of the drug war, and are not fixed by 64, but this is a first step towards ending them. When marijuana is treated like alcohol, these things may go away (they will still be treated by law enforcement as indicators of other criminal wrongdoings for a while). That will just take time. ErichZahn posted:Is this a legalistic argument or are you really that much of a dick? I have no idea how "legalistic" his argument is, but he is probably trying to point out that many prescription substances can impair your ability to drive, and that impairment is enough to at least ticket you for endangering other drivers. Inspector Hound fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Apr 4, 2013 |
# ? Apr 4, 2013 01:39 |
|
size1one posted:It an illegal search when cops lie about smelling weed too but that doesn't stop them. It's still near zero risk to fish for arrests this way when weed is legal. Even if there is more chance that people will get charges dropped, not all will. I don't see any reason the practice will stop. Because if weed is legal then saying "I smell pot" isn't a valid excuse to search property? Sure, cops lie about it now but the lie is impossible to prove so whatever evidence they get in the search will be admissible in court but, post legalization, what are they going to do, be all like "I smell a perfectly legal substance!" and toss your poo poo? Why? Whatever they find would be immediately thrown out of court if "smelled marijuana" is listed as probable cause. I'm not saying they wouldn't try to find another excuse, but pot specifically has been the go-to for cops who want to do blind fishing expeditions and taking that away would make it harder.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:07 |
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Because if weed is legal then saying "I smell pot" isn't a valid excuse to search property? Sure, cops lie about it now but the lie is impossible to prove so whatever evidence they get in the search will be admissible in court but, post legalization, what are they going to do, be all like "I smell a perfectly legal substance!" and toss your poo poo? Why? Whatever they find would be immediately thrown out of court if "smelled marijuana" is listed as probable cause. I'm not saying they wouldn't try to find another excuse, but pot specifically has been the go-to for cops who want to do blind fishing expeditions and taking that away would make it harder. Federal law.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:30 |
|
Warchicken posted:Federal law. Yes, it would still be a concern if you were pulled over by the FBI, sure.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:35 |
|
Warchicken posted:Federal law. Except the cops in WA(and maybe Colorado) have already said they won't use the smell of pot as reasonable cause. http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/11/09/marijwhatnow-a-guide-to-legal-marijuana-use-in-seattle/ quote:What happens if I get pulled over and I’m sober, but an officer or his K9 buddy smells the ounce of Super Skunk I’ve got in my trunk? Mrit fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Apr 4, 2013 |
# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:37 |
|
What's with this? http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/ I was under the impression that the majority of Republicans were all 'states rights' advocates.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2013 20:34 |
|
57% is still fairly high, especially when you look at how many Republicans think it should be illegal.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2013 20:38 |
|
KingEup posted:What's with this? The majority of republicans are all 'gently caress liberals and anything they like', and literally have no other guiding principal of any kind.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2013 22:08 |
|
Warchicken posted:The majority of republicans are all 'gently caress liberals and anything they like', and literally have no other guiding principal of any kind. Speaking of which: quote:The GOP's Drug-Testing Dragnet Look at the way this cocksucker celebrates interfering with peoples bodily fluids all so he can gently caress them over to line his own pockets. KingEup fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Apr 6, 2013 |
# ? Apr 5, 2013 23:10 |
|
Interesting problem that medical marijuana dispensaries in Washington State are having: banks won't let them deposit their cash proceeds in accounts, because the physical paper cash absorbs odors, and thus smells like pot. This potentially leaves the banks open to Federal charges of money laundering and/or accepting money from an illegal business. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Big-dilemma-Banks-wont-take-money-that-smells-like-marijuana-201712241.html
|
# ? Apr 6, 2013 02:48 |
|
quote:Davis knows that first hand. He's had his business checking, and credit card accounts shut down once the banks found out he runs a West Seattle medical marijuana access point. Banks don't anything to do with pot. I don't really see how the odor of marijuana comes into it. Banks don't want to be associated with businesses that are illegal under federal law. edit: I guess it makes it so you can't hide where the money comes from, but if it's a business account you'd have to tell them in the first place, right?
|
# ? Apr 6, 2013 02:51 |
|
Sounds like they really need to do some money laundering.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2013 03:43 |
|
Xandu posted:I don't really see how the odor of marijuana comes into it. Banks don't want to be associated with businesses that are illegal under federal law. I could see your point. But apparently it is actually the physical odor of the money. Personally, I don't see why they don't either wash it, and/or deposit via ATM. Then all the money will smell like pot, and banks may not be able to narrow it down. But apparently this is becoming a big deal, to the point where dispensaries in Seattle fear being targets of thieves because they have to store their cash onsite. I wonder if a dispensary could go credit only. And here's another news story on it: http://www.king5.com/news/local/Pot-industry-struggles-banks-business-problems-201727341.html Qu Appelle fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Apr 6, 2013 |
# ? Apr 6, 2013 06:48 |
|
KingEup posted:Speaking of which: Is this dude related to the DuPont family/chemical company? Because that would make sense if he was born and bred in that environment (they are somewhat responsible for cannabis prohibition in the first place.)
|
# ? Apr 6, 2013 14:49 |
|
quote:BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The Idaho Court of Appeals has overturned the conviction of a Boise man for driving under the influence of marijuana, a rare reversal for a kind of case legal experts say is typically settled by the science of blood testing. This is rather delightful news given the proclivity of this thread to discuss driver impairment. Another contender for worst anti-legalisation op-ed: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/article_4b7ffc76-5cab-5569-a101-fbdba63e2c14.html KingEup fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Apr 9, 2013 |
# ? Apr 9, 2013 08:17 |
|
KingEup posted:Another contender for worst anti-legalisation op-ed: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/article_4b7ffc76-5cab-5569-a101-fbdba63e2c14.html Nice! His "argument" seems to be that cannabis should not be legalized or decriminalized because tobacco companies obscured information regarding their product and cannabis will be done the same way.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2013 20:40 |
|
Stormfang1502 posted:Nice! His "argument" seems to be that cannabis should not be legalized or decriminalized because tobacco companies obscured information regarding their product and cannabis will be done the same way. 'We've made sure the tobacco industry is poorly regulated, and we'll make sure cannabis is too, so it should stay illegal!' Wrap it up, libtards, you've been bested in the arena of intellectual discourse by this giant of reason and logic.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2013 21:04 |
|
KingEup posted:This is rather delightful news given the proclivity of this thread to discuss driver impairment. In the sense of "Once pandora's box is open, we're never going to be able to close it again", I kind of get and agree with his argument. Once a powerful lobby exists it'll be an uphill battle at best to try to keep it under control. The problem is that Marijuana is already everywhere, even in schools and prisons, and aside from "is illegal", it's completely loving unregulated right now. Even the kind of weak regulatory bodies that control cigarettes in the United States still keep the product to certain standards and make sure it's not being adulterated or sold to kids. The people who are against legalization seem to have this fingers-in-the-ears mentality, where Marijuana is only used by a small, extreme, but very loud minority of people and that as long as we keep it illegal, we keep it "off the streets". They have a mental image of a "pot head", a grungy hippy that works at a head shop if he works at all. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Apr 10, 2013 |
# ? Apr 10, 2013 21:14 |
|
Mirthless posted:In the sense of "Once pandora's box is open, we're never going to be able to close it again", I kind of get and agree with his argument. Once a powerful lobby exists it'll be an uphill battle at best to try to keep it under control. A powerful industry already exists. This industry has no qualms about beheading their competitors and recruiting child soldiers.
|
# ? Apr 11, 2013 00:24 |
|
KingEup posted:A powerful industry already exists. This industry has no qualms about beheading their competitors and recruiting child soldiers. Yeah, no, I understand that. From the viewpoint of someone who seems to think that making something illegal makes it inaccessible, it's a worthwhile argument - we allowed tobacco to be legal when we didn't understand it, and now a powerful lobby stands behind it keeping legislation from regulating it any further. The problem is, making something illegal doesn't make it inaccessible, or even hard to get. Instead, we get a black market behind it that the government is powerless to stop, and they protect their investment not through lobbying, but through wholesale murder. At the end of the day, people are still getting pot. At this point, the only way we're going to get any kind of regulation is through legalization. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Apr 11, 2013 |
# ? Apr 11, 2013 00:35 |
|
New research about cannabis' potential use as cancer treatment: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=7235037&page=1 quote:WEDNESDAY, April 1 (HealthDay News) -- New research out of Spain suggests that THC -- the active ingredient in marijuana -- appears to prompt the death of brain cancer cells. Also, looks like it's a greenlight for stoned skiing hopefully by the '14 spring season! Gonna be funny watching a bunch of lowlanders come to 10,000 ft and get stoned out of their gourds. http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20130410/NEWS/130409867/1078&ParentProfile=1055 quote:BRECKENRIDGE - Summit County Commissioners decided unanimously Tuesday not to ‘opt out' of Amendment 64's legalization of recreational marijuana use and sales, citing the overwhelming support for the measure among local voters in November. In Summit County, the measure won with a landslide 77 percent of the vote.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2013 19:31 |
|
Warchicken posted:The majority of republicans are all 'gently caress liberals and anything they like', and literally have no other guiding principal of any kind. More like Neo-Conservatives, which are just as bad as Neo-Liberals. A large amount of Independents who vote Republican don't give a poo poo about drug laws. They believe its a waste of government resources, along with being pointless. A good chunk of them believe that it should be legal,regulated, and taxed. Edit: This isn't a uncommon train of thought. Independents who actually believe in the small government, less regulation, helping the free market grow, ideals that the republicans are supposed to stand up for. Drug law reform is part of that. So is Equal rights, Marriage equality, Reproductive rights.Less government intrusion into your life. Neo-conservatism combined with the fundamentalist christian-right are the ones who turned the Republican party into a lot of the poo poo-fest it is today. goku im piss fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Apr 13, 2013 |
# ? Apr 13, 2013 10:48 |
|
goku im piss posted:More like Neo-Conservatives, which are just as bad as Neo-Liberals. I don't really see what neoconservatism has to do with belief in the efficacy of drug laws. The popular modern definition of neoconservative deals almost exclusively with aggressive foreign policy and saber-rattling. Modern neoconservatives tend to also be neoliberals, by the by. Plenty of non-neocons have an apprehensive view on drugs and the two ideas really do not intersect when dealing with domestic drug policy.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2013 15:24 |
|
Police Chief admits to driving whilst stoned out of his mind: http://gawker.com/5994598/ohio-police-accidentally-chief-eats-daughters-weed+cake-goes-insane
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 01:03 |
|
KingEup posted:Police Chief admits to driving whilst stoned out of his mind: Breaking: Ohio Police Chief 1/40th As Bad As Lex Luthor Seriously though why in the world would you wake up and eat your daughter's whole cake? Maybe he had a few slices the night before too?
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 01:05 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Breaking: Ohio Police Chief 1/40th As Bad As Lex Luthor I suspect he ate a piece for breakfast, took a shower and got dressed, and then suddenly he was taken by a sudden, and strange hunger.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 03:32 |
|
So the congressional research service has weighed in on the preemption thing:quote:In Section 708 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. §903), Congress specifically articulated the degree to which federal law was to preempt state controlled substances laws. This express preemption61
|
# ? Apr 16, 2013 21:02 |
|
So if my layman's reading of that is correct, states can legalize and tax if they want (so long as they themselves aren't breaking Federal law), with the caveat that there's of course no protection for individuals from Federal prosecution. Well, that pretty much clears the way for taxing, at least. I'm pretty sure states used to issue tax stamps for banned substances (some still do), and the only difference would be that they have taken their possession/sale laws off the books for these substances.
|
# ? Apr 16, 2013 21:16 |
|
Owns: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_23039897/boulder-approves-pot-use-adults-private-property quote:Adults will be able to smoke marijuana on private property in Boulder, even if their neighbors are able to see them, and people younger than 21 caught with pot will be treated like underage drinkers.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2013 17:02 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:So if my layman's reading of that is correct, states can legalize and tax if they want (so long as they themselves aren't breaking Federal law), with the caveat that there's of course no protection for individuals from Federal prosecution. quote:...No such property interest may be forfeited under any provision of law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense. Usable marijuana and paraphernalia used to administer marijuana that was seized by any law enforcement office shall be returned immediately upon a determination by the district attorney in whose county the property was seized, or the district attorney’s designee, that the person from whom the marijuana or paraphernalia used to administer marijuana was seized is entitled to the protections contained in ORS 475.300 to 475.346. It's not easy to come up with a scheme of regulation for the production, sale, and distribution of something people are going to consume without at some point saying "go do thus and such thing".
|
# ? Apr 17, 2013 17:51 |
|
eviltastic posted:It's not easy to come up with a scheme of regulation for the production, sale, and distribution of something people are going to consume without at some point saying "go do thus and such thing". And on that note WSLCB has sent out its announcement that license rule drafting has begun, as well as a timeline update. They are dragging their heels a little less than I thought, since they've decided to take all input and amendment requests from stakeholders BEFORE they file. quote:Dear I-502 Stakeholders, If you want a chance to have some input on Washington's licensing scheme for marijuana (and you live there or pay taxes there), now is the time to sign up.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2013 18:43 |
|
eviltastic posted:This can get tricky because a lot of the state legalization isn't just about not prosecuting people. We'd also like to have a coherent regulatory scheme, and that often involves telling some official to take an affirmative action. For example, the Oregon law involving medical marijuana contains this provision: Would it really be that hard to set things up so that the people responsible for enforcing the regulations don't have to actually handle marijuana at any point?
|
# ? Apr 18, 2013 19:56 |
|
Longanimitas posted:Synthetics are awful, even if they can be fun. One of legalization's many benefits will be the elimination of poo poo like "spice." That's just not true, though, since you can't get or keep many jobs if you have smoked marijuana within a month or so (or three months with a hair test), regardless of legality.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2013 20:09 |
|
Radbot posted:That's just not true, though, since you can't get or keep many jobs if you have smoked marijuana within a month or so (or three months with a hair test), regardless of legality.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2013 20:25 |
|
Vermont just decriminalized. I've posted a link to this site before, but here's a good example of their coverage: http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/2013/04/17/legislative-update-marijuana-bills-advancing-in-maryland-nevada-ny-other-states/
|
# ? Apr 18, 2013 21:06 |
|
Radbot posted:That's just not true, though, since you can't get or keep many jobs if you have smoked marijuana within a month or so (or three months with a hair test), regardless of legality. Probably safer to just go nuts on LSD and mushrooms than spice. gently caress that synthetic poo poo.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2013 21:28 |
|
redshirt posted:Vermont just decriminalized. I don't see the mention of Vermont on that page.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2013 21:40 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 06:31 |
|
hepatizon posted:I don't see the mention of Vermont on that page. Oops! Bad info on my part! It passed the VT house, and is onto the Senate. Here: http://www.vnews.com/news/state/region/5680839-95/vermont-house-approves-marijuana-decriminalization
|
# ? Apr 18, 2013 21:48 |