|
Wouldn't the precedent that applies to basically everything else be that smelling weed WOULD be cause to allow for a warrant? Obviously just taking their word for it that they smelled something is basically allowing them to search any car for any reason, but following the proper channel and going for a warrant seems much less abuse-able.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Wouldn't the precedent that applies to basically everything else be that smelling weed WOULD be cause to allow for a warrant? Obviously just taking their word for it that they smelled something is basically allowing them to search any car for any reason, but following the proper channel and going for a warrant seems much less abuse-able. each time plain view or plain smell doctrine is used to justify a search, the court considers whether to take the officer at his or her word that something illegal was seen or smelled at a subsequent suppression hearing. Powercrazy posted:I guess Stop and Frisk as long as the cops "smell weed" or the suspect "looks shady" is fine. Cool. Good to know. this is just another reason that if you transport drugs in a car you are a stupid motherfucker and will go to jail. don't do it, idiots!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:not a warrant, but a search. plain view doctrine is an exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement. as a practical matter, a cop isn't able to go through the warrant process to search someone he stops on the street. The issue is that applied to marijuana, plain view doctrine is clearly broken since it gives cops "probable cause" 100% of the time, which means that 4th amendment rights are suspended entirely when it comes to searching for marijuana. Sure, if they search for pot and find something else it might get thrown out, but even if you think pot should be illegal you can find it troubling to allow that cops have the right to search for marijuana with no verifiable probable cause.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
Not to mention the use of drug dogs that are literally no more accurate than a coin flip - when their handlers aren't causing them to bark with "tells." The degree to which 4th Amendment rights have been suspended in the pursuit of the misguided drug war is infuriating. SCOTUS has created so many loopholes that for all intents and purposes there is no protection whatsoever from unreasonable searches and seizures, either in the car or on the street, and sometimes even in the home. Apparently the government's interest in preventing black kids from smoking pot is so compelling that it justifies a judicial nullification of the search and seizure clause.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:The issue is that applied to marijuana, plain view doctrine is clearly broken since it gives cops "probable cause" 100% of the time, which means that 4th amendment rights are suspended entirely when it comes to searching for marijuana. Sure, if they search for pot and find something else it might get thrown out, but even if you think pot should be illegal you can find it troubling to allow that cops have the right to search for marijuana with no verifiable probable cause. Nitpicks aside, it is unfortunate that searches allegedly for pot that find something else are most often deemed valid. The primary issue with plain smell as applied to marijuana is that in a suppression hearing where the smell of marijuana smoke was the justification for a search that discovered something aside from marijuana will most likely be upheld based on the allegation that the cop smelled the smoke, conducted a search, found no marijuana but did discover an illegal gun, but jeez, wouldn't you know it, I guess the defendant must have done smoked all that marijuana I smelled before they were pulled over! however, a cop claiming he or she smells "fresh" packaged marijuana and finds exactly that (or exactly that and more) in a search is constitutionally sound in my view. then again, this is why nobody would let me become a judge. cops lie all the drat time, but plain view is integral to enforcing laws that actually need to be enforced. getting rid of plain view entirely due to marijuana-related abuses by dishonest cops (i.e. cops) is simply not possible. curtailing these abuses through legalization and hopefully making cops less dishonest as well as focused on actual dangerous illegal behavior is possibly my favorite unintended consequence of legal weed paying dividends for civil society. now if we can only stop cops from tricking or intimidating people into giving "consent" to vehicle searches. of course, with CO's legal limit for impaired driving so hosed, its likely that a cop looking to search a car could just test the driver for THC, which the driver could fail if he or she was actually impaired at the time or not, and then conduct a vehicle inventory search once the vehicle is impounded. it's a narrower and more difficult way for cops to abuse the system, but still possible. in conclusion, don't keep anything illegal in your car, ever. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Not to mention the use of drug dogs that are literally no more accurate than a coin flip - when their handlers aren't causing them to bark with "tells." The degree to which 4th Amendment rights have been suspended in the pursuit of the misguided drug war is infuriating. SCOTUS has created so many loopholes that for all intents and purposes there is no protection whatsoever from unreasonable searches and seizures, either in the car or on the street, and sometimes even in the home. Apparently the government's interest in preventing black kids from smoking pot is so compelling that it justifies a judicial nullification of the search and seizure clause.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
"Plain view." If you don't understand the myriad of ways in which sense of smell and sense of sight are different I'll start with the most basic. Smells can linger on your person for minutes to hours after the source of the smell is encountered. Smell is temporally not the same as sight and does not work in remotely the same way. Edit- I'll give you another because I think it's a funny one. You can't always tell where smells are coming from. A cop won't mistake the gun in my car for the gun in the hands of the homeless person on the other side. If you think you always know where a smell is coming from stand in a crowded elevator and tell me who farted. TenementFunster posted:and finds exactly that (or exactly that and more) in a search is constitutionally sound in my view. Results based constitutionality is wrong legally and also theoretically. If every search that finds something is constitutional and every search that doesn't is not, but you are free to go citizen we found nothing no need to challenge our search in court, then there's Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
okay those are a lot of good opinions I guess but about ninety years of criminal procedure says otherwise. aside from that, great post!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:okay those are a lot of good opinions I guess but about ninety years of criminal procedure says otherwise. aside from that, great post! I'm not allowed to find the current procedure illogical because of precedent? Sorry I didn't realize you were an expert on jurisprudence and not also just a guy on the internet giving his opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
don't be too embarrassed! you're not the first to make that mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Yeah, the "I smell pot" free search for rotten police officers being a thing of the past is one of the best outcomes from legalization. It still needs more restrictions in the states where pot remains illegal, though. Comparing it to plain view searches is a joke. An officer can't come up empty-handed from a plain view search, because at a minimum, they have the item which initiated the search in the first place. Sure, a cop could conduct an illegal search, find something, and declare it was in plain view after the fact, but a cop has to actually commit an overtly illegal offense to take that path. This is very much unlike smell-based searches. I also think we need laws mandating that searches predicated upon smells need to be logged before they're conducted, and then updated after the search is conducted with the result, and for purposes of the stats, an indication of marijuana smell without turning up marijuana is marked a negative even if non-weed contraband is discovered. Keep information about who was searched too, age, race, and sex information for the driver and all passengers. This would be both for K9 sniffs and "I smell pot"-based searches. If you had solid data like that, it would likely show what I think most informed people suspect, that the justification for the searches is pseudoscientific bullshit and more often than not actually based on either, at best, a very mistaken officer or, at worst, a crooked cop who knows he can search and invoke the unchallengeable magic words to justify a course of action he had no legal right to take. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:An officer can't come up empty-handed from a plain view search I haven't done too much criminal practice, but the impression that I get is American police departments have a policy of "I'm gonna do this search regardless of a flimsy legal justification and if you don't like it then I'll see you at the suppression hearing, criminal." There just isn't any disincentive aside from wasting some junior DA's time. Even if the state loses the suppression hearing, civil suits against the department/officer don't go anywhere due to a lack of quantifiable damages so cops don't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
So on PBS Newshour the other day, the acting surgeon general was on to talk about the 40th anniversary of the SG report on cigarette smoke, and the host threw him a viewer question about "what is the government going to do to protect my children from second-hand marijuana smoke?" He said that it's a serious concern and claimed that like cigarettes, pot is addictive. Is there a peer-reviewed study anywhere that backs that up or is he just lying to the public?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:man have I got bad news for you An actual plain view search cannot turn up empty handed. Plain view is predicated upon contraband being in plain view, so the item is seized and a search is conducted based on the presence of the item just seized. If there is no contraband seized from a plain view search, then there was no contraband in plain view to justify the search in the first place. But you are correct about the gross attitude of law enforcement. A way to improve the search records bill would be to require a record for any search of any kind, which means that the false positives show up in a trackable format. Right now when any such invalid search turns up nothing, the targets are let go and unlikely to lodge a complaint through official channels, and the whole incident is forgotten. And if you want to make the law even better, you include consent searches in this and require verifiable evidence that the driver knowingly waived their rights by consenting (signing a form explaining their rights, dash cam recording of the officer informing the driver and receiving verbal consent). EDIT: Of course, most LE unions would flip their poo poo over this. Giving people a clearer look at who is being searched and how often those searches are often fruitless would hurt their ability to have judges simply trust the cop because there is no evidence-based record indicating how often the officer is wrong beyond previously excluded searches. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:man have I got bad news for you Dunno how true this is, I've been in plenty of situations where I refused being searched, even when a police officer said they smelled something and then they don't pursue it. Its probably something that varies based on department, individual cop, area you live in and the color of your skin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
JohnnySavs posted:He said that it's a serious concern and claimed that like cigarettes, pot is addictive. Is there a peer-reviewed study anywhere that backs that up quote:or is he just lying to the public? Yes. I assume he meant physiological addiction. drat near anything can be psychologically addictive, including cannabis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
I can think of twenty dozen reasons why a valid plain view search would not result in the discovery of actual contraband. this occurs most often when what reasonably appears to be contraband isn't actually. I like the idea of an actual consent waiver, but honestly cops will find a way to beat that too. just look at how many people talk to the cops after being mirandized. consent is a loving joke and should be done away with as a warrant exception but won't ever because it's easy money to the cops. Reason posted:Dunno how true this is, I've been in plenty of situations where I refused being searched, even when a police officer said they smelled something and then they don't pursue it. Its probably something that varies based on department, individual cop, area you live in and the color of your skin. cops won't push plain smell to justify a search typically unless they think it is worth their time, i.e. an SUV that reeks of a shitload of weight but the driver is too cool to consent and they can't get a drug dog to the scene in time. plain smell is typically a last resort move. TenementFunster fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
"I smell pot, can I search you" is intimidation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:"I smell pot, can I search you" is intimidation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Could you clarify how that is even remotely true? You should invest in a shift key. It increases readability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
mdemone posted:No. I don't understand what you're saying. You agree that cannabis can cause dependence, but claim someone is lying for saying the same thing. I'll certainly agree that most marijuana smokers are not addicted, but just like with alcohol some people can become dependent. Anecdotally, I have an acquaintance who cannot smoke it because she very quickly regresses to using constantly and becomes depressed for several weeks after stopping. As for peer reviewed literature, which you dismiss out of hand, consider W.M. Compton, B.F. Grant, J.D. Colliver, M.D. Glantz, F.S. Stinson Prevalence of marijuana use disorders in the United States JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 291 (17) (2004), pp. 2114–2121, which states that ~36% of chronic (no pun) users meet the diagnostic criteria for dependence. Cannabis dependence is in the DSM IV at 304.30. The argument should be, some people can't handle the drug just like alcohol so that's no reason to ban it. In a free country people should be able to make up their own mind as long as they don't endanger anyone else (like our policy with alcohol). When you go around saying no study has ever found evidence for cannabis dependence, you just sound like you don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, because doctors, scientists, and health officials don't speak in such generalities they prefer to say things like "we are not aware of conclusive evidence that marijuana causes dependence." Secondly, because even a cursory review of the literature would turn up results. I spent more time typing this than I did on my lit search.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Could you clarify how that is even remotely true? Are you being willfully obtuse here? Yes police officers use the fact that they are seen as intimidating to get people to give up their rights willfully. This is surprising to absolutely no one. They are deliberately exploiting a flaw in human reasoning where we over-prioritize short-term survival over long-term good in the presence of an authority figure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I don't understand what you're saying. You agree that cannabis can cause dependence, but claim someone is lying for saying the same thing. "Dependent" and "Addictive" are two different things. Claiming marijuana is addicting or addictive is a flat out lie, because the definition of addictive substances includes "has physical withdrawal symptoms when you stop taking it" in the definition and marijuana has no physical withdrawal symptoms. So the claim that marijuana is addictive is a lie. Particularly claiming that they're as addictive as cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"Dependent" and "Addictive" are two different things. Claiming marijuana is addicting or addictive is a flat out lie, because the definition of addictive substances includes "has physical withdrawal symptoms when you stop taking it" in the definition and marijuana has no physical withdrawal symptoms. Whose definition? I like this one (I guess you're just nitpicking based on APA definitions?): DSM IV posted:
You can certainly be addicted to marijuana by that definition. Just like alcohol, nicotine and other legal substances, you just won't qualify under bullet 2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Are we really white knighting "I smell pot" as probable cause? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:I can think of twenty dozen reasons why a valid plain view search would not result in the discovery of actual contraband. this occurs What other scenarios can there be? Off the top of my head, I can only figure "Officer thinks the item in view is contraband item X when it isn't" or "Officer thinks item X in plain view is contraband but it isn't". quote:I like the idea of an actual consent waiver, but honestly cops will find a way to beat that too. just look at how many people talk to the cops after being mirandized. consent is a loving joke and should be done away with as a warrant exception but won't ever because it's easy money to the cops. It has actually reduced consent searches when implemented though. I remember reading something about Austin, TX to this effect. They kept numbers and data about consent searches, and the city enacted a rule requiring a consent waiver to be part of the rule for consent searches. The first year that the waiver requirement was in place, consent searches dropped by half or two-thirds. This was some time ago, though, so maybe those numbers have gone back up, but I do remember there was a significant drop in the first year of the waivers. I'd do this research to try to find what I read right now but I'm on a phone where it would be tricky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Whose definition? I like this one (I guess you're just nitpicking based on APA definitions?): I was speaking of physical addiction and you linked to the DSM IV's definition.  DSM stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Pot isn't addictive, full stop. Words have meanings, you can't suddenly claim that addictive means something else. If you want to claim that weed makes its users psychologically dependent on it, I won't stop you, but addictive has a very specific definition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Thanks for pinch-hitting for me there, WampaLord.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I was speaking of physical addiction and you linked to the DSM IV's definition. Unfortunately that definition does not seem to be in use by publishing professionals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=addiction First hit: Exercise rehabilitation for smartphone addiction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Unfortunately that definition does not seem to be in use by publishing professionals.  They're using the word wrong.I don't give a gently caress, so long as they're not medical publishing professionals. It's not my job to be grammar police of the whole world, but I can at least clear up FUD about marijuana here on SA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
What if that guy had claimed that "gambling is more addictive than cigarettes"? That rings a bit weird, and for the exact same reason. No physiological withdrawal symptoms have ever been recorded for cannabis; apparently my earlier flippant post was obfuscatory, for which I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Everything would be simple and better if they just legalized all drugs for private, personal use. 1. The government could make and sell the drugs for hundreds of billions and also make sure people are getting clean substances. 2. It is legal for personal use as long as you are not endangering another person. If you are cooking/smoking meth in a house with a child, or selling to young children, etc., then that is clearly not ok. 3. Make DUI laws for drugs way harsher than the current DUI laws for alcohol or drugs. 4. You could also make it where you have to get a license to get the drugs, and if you get in trouble they just take it away. People that want to do pcp or heroine and kill themselves will do it whether the drug is legal or illegal, and the government could make so much money (even the pharma companies could make money). TenementFunster posted:this is just another reason that if you transport drugs in a car you are a stupid motherfucker and will go to jail. don't do it, idiots!! It is stupid when people transport drugs while they are high, drunk, running stop signs, etc. Those are the people that get caught. TenementFunster posted:
Well they tend to retire dogs that do not have a high success rate, since that just wastes the officers time. But sure, there are lots of times when a dog may alert by accident. You also have to think about it the other way, dogs sometimes don't smell the drug. Either way, you know you are doing something illegal and it sucks to get caught if you do. Hate the laws, not the people who do their job serving them. goodness fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
So what y'all are saying is no one disagrees with each other about how the world works but still think it is worthwhile to make many posts arguing about definitions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I was speaking of physical addiction and you linked to the DSM IV's definition. Yeah, but without a source you're just making up those meanings. I'll agree words have meanings, but then we need to define things and we kind of need to agree on definitions before we can go forwards. You're say addicting means it causes physical withdrawal symptoms. Ok, I don't think that's how most health professionals define it, nor the person you called a liar, but even if we accept your definition, how do you define physical? Does decreased synaptic norepinepherine or a down regulation of DA1 receptor expression count? If not, why not? KernelSlanders fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:...how do you define physical? Does decreased synaptic norepinepherine or a down regulation of DA1 receptor expression count? If so, then doesn't every instance of "psychologically dependent" become "physically addictive"? I mean if that's what you want to say then I take your point, but that so completely dilutes the concept of addiction that the category stops being useful. Which may actually be what is happening, semantically, in the literature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
mdemone posted:If so, then doesn't every instance of "psychologically dependent" become "physically addictive"? Exactly, that's why to my knowledge the field has been moving away from attempting to make such a distinction. "Dependence" is a behavioral phenotype. If you want to say whether a drug causes "withdrawal" symptoms that's fine too, but "withdrawal" is carefully defined in the DSM for each drug that has a withdrawal code. Alcohol and cocaine do; cannabis and phencyclidine do not. However, it's important to note that a drug not having chronic withdrawal symptoms does not mean it can't cause dependence. I am also not aware of any evidence that the consequences of dependence to drugs that do not have a code for withdrawal symptoms are less detrimental other than, of course, the lack of withdrawal symptoms. edit: Also, there is some controversy in the literature over whether there should in fact be a recognized cannabis withdrawal syndrome. KernelSlanders fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Anyway back to legal weed chat... Some new stores are opening that weren't open on the 1st and the long lines seem to have subsided. I visited a quiet shop on the north end of town and their prices were down to $45 to $55 an eighth after taxes depending on quality. When I was there I only waited behind one other person to be served and about 6 or 7 other people showed up shortly later, all being from out of state. Here is one of the better reports on retail marijuana implementation in Colorado. It's a little outdated and I hadn't seen it before, but it goes in to more details about the high tech tracking system used and credits that system with the Fed's hands-off approach in CO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmEkugfOT-c Also, for the lawyers, how will this play out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYdCZ-D0GY4 A high end sushi restaraunt is pairing food dishes with certain strains of pot. I thought part of A64 was that no marijuana could be consumed in any business? Also, will I ever see cannabis-infused or brewed beers? NathanScottPhillips fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
There is definitely some cannabis beer in Amsterdam, one of those drinking around world shows tried it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
If some stores are indeed already lowering prices to compete, inside of a month after legalization, that's an excellent sign for price discovery. Hopefully more than one place is giving that a try at the moment. Man, a really great book could come out of all this if someone decides to make an honest economic study of market forces arising from legalization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
mdemone posted:If some stores are indeed already lowering prices to compete, inside of a month after legalization, that's an excellent sign for price discovery. Hopefully more than one place is giving that a try at the moment. It'd be really great for the layperson, too, since it involves economic forces happening in real time with an issue of great import for the millennial generation. Great way to introduce young minds to economics!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/248e922c-7a0c-11e3-a3e6-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2qJOLGRs8 Mark Kleiman, quoting this so y'all don't have to register. quote:While the debate about legalisation of cannabis is endlessly fascinating, it obscures the vital question of how to manage legal availability. Maybe it's my residual libertarianism flaring up but Kleiman's particular brand of centrism on this topic gets under my skin. His attachment to street prices is mystifying, his state production monopoly fetish is unrealistic (does it have any precedent here?), and the "nudge" self-quota he proposes is ineffectual unless you assume your problem user has no friends, no personal grows, no friends with personal grows, etc. I sometimes wonder how much of this is posturing and how much of it is genuine on his part. I mean, these sorts of half-measures would be good ideas for hard drugs like opiates where the damage is actually comparable to alcohol, but with cannabis I honestly don't see why the price floor shouldn't sink down to near coffee/tea levels, because that's about where the actual harms are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:37
|
|
