Getting Busted for Pot Can Cost Your Right to Vote...and more

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Skitch Patterson wrote:

you know who else subscribes to the "no man can tell me what to do" theory?

Dick Cheney.

So do a lot of people. You seem to know it all...let's hear your wisdom. Don't point your finger sideways to the next guy and say lookie oooo.

The spotlight is all on you dude.

You hopped on your horse and compared me to a 6 year old. I want to see you back it up, and actually make some sense.

....let me get some popcorn and a pillow first.

Skitch Patterson

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So do a lot of people. You seem to know it all...let's hear your wisdom. Don't point your finger sideways to the next guy and say lookie oooo.

The spotlight is all on you dude.

You hopped on your horse and compared me to a 6 year old. I want to see you back it up, and actually make some sense.

....let me get some popcorn and a pillow first.

Im bored, so I'll bite.

But simply put... No One man is above another. I didnt debate that. However, society elected officials that created the laws. It could be argued that by extension society has made the laws.. so you arent listening to one man when you obey the law- you are obeying society. Do you obey society? If not, what stops you from killing? stops you from raping? stops you from running red lights in front of a cop- even if there is no danger to others? We all obey others- society and individuals- all through our life... to say "No Man has the right to tell me what to do"- is, like i said, equivalent to an angry 6 year old... Its real nice to say.. but guess what that 6 year old does in the end? Takes their bath and goes to bed.... or they have to accept the consequences set forth by the person they arent going to listen to---- the same thing if you run a red light in front of a cop.

Skitch Patterson

Drowned Out wrote:

That was me
Sure, swerving at one in the morning, check them for sure. They're probably drunk. If all you did that evening was smoke, you're probably sleeping.

Exactly. Check them. If all the cop has a reasonable expectation to believe was that i had been drinking (i hadnt been) , i take a breathalyzer and he sends me on my way. If he thought i may have been under the influence of marijuana- as an illegal substance, he needs probable cause to give me a urine or blood test- as a legal substance, all he has to do is think its possible to subject me to a test.

Drowned Out wrote:

You're not replying to the double standard aspect of this. All 70% broke a federal law...and you don't want to hunt them down like the criminals that they are. Why not? There are too many! It's impossible. So it's a selective double standard....that's not cool when it comes to law, no?

Show me where in this thread i have taken a hard line stance on hunting down pot smokers? Ive said i have no problem with it being legal- if they are able to sort out the instant test aspect of it. I dont advocate hunting down any non violent criminal... but i also have no problem with subjecting them to the law if you do catch them. Double standard? I guess in some respects, but as it pertains to the next section...

Drowned Out wrote:

First - I have a hard time believing you would just accept the consequences...you'd probably be pleading your case to the cop, that you NEVER do this, etc...Then, if you were just passing someone elses joint and still got charged, I bet you'd think the cop was an asshole for busting a bunch of you for half a joint (and you'd be right). then you'd probably fight it with every penny you had available...if you had lots of pennies, you'd get off. If you didn't, you would have a criminal record and a lot of headaches to deal with for years. Or maybe you'd just say, "hey...it's the law and I'm going to accept the consequences". I don't know you, maybe you would...but most occasional smokers wouldn't react the way you say you would, and rightfully so.

Whining to try and get out of the ticket is an entirely different thing than complaining about it after the fact. Trying to get out of it is just practical (financially, etc)... complaining about the injustice of it is where i have a problem. When i got my minor in possesion ticket (alcohol) i didnt blame the cops or the laws existance... i blamed my idiot friend who back talked the cops. When i got pulled over for speeding a year ago, I didnt blame the cop or bitch after the fact because i chose to go 10 mph over the speed limit. I stretch the law all the time.. and when i get caught, i get pissed at myself more than anything for getting caught.

Drowned Out wrote:

Not the point. You should be getting busted for being dumb. Not for carrying some dried up plant in your pocket.

Just like seeing drunk folks, being high makes folks act pretty dumb too. In most cases, they arent getting caught just because they are high- they are getting caught because they are doing something dumb.. which ultimately was their choice. If i smoked pot, i could light up in may bar room at home and not even have the slightest worry about getting busted- just like when i was 19 i had no problem getting drunk in my moms driveway.

Drowned Out wrote:

This drives me nuts. How does the supply chain work? Someone HAS to have more than that at some point up the ladder, right? Eliminate them and NO ONE can get weed (funny thought). Again, impossible.
People demonize pot dealers and growers to the point that even smokers believe it! I always hear people talking about how stupid their dealers and growers are, what fuckin hypocrites! Don't smoke it if you think your dealer is an idiot...or grow your own. But don't sit there smoking a joint calling some weed-only dealer stupid for selling it to you! It's risk and reward... thanks to prohibition, the risk is high, and so is the price. It's hugely lucrative if treated like a business. Which, in most cases only organized crime have the 'nads and connections to pull off.

Highly lucrative is the thing here. Just like legitimate businesses, they are being compensated for the risk they take... and they are totally aware of the consequences that go along with it... I cant speak too much for how dumb or not they are, or the hypocrisy of the people that smoke and bitch about their dealers at the same time... but yes, that does sound pretty funny.

Drowned Out wrote:

This was the question:
What is more irresponsible, locking up half a million non-violent people at a cost of $5 Billion a year, or making a couple hundred people a year have to waste a couple hours?
Sounds like you're saying you'd keep those 500,000 in jail, and keep locking up more, even if it was one person inconvenienced, until they found a better road side test? wow...harsh.
So your concern over this test, and your need to address the issue, trumps the concerns of half a million inmates, and how many million lives affected by
criminal records?

Yes, i am saying that. Those half a million people knew the consequences of what they were doing when they did it. A person who has nothing to do with it shouldnt have to suffer in anyway just to "get them out" or anything like that.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Im bored, so I'll bite.

But simply put... No One man is above another. I didnt debate that. However, society elected officials that created the laws. It could be argued that by extension society has made the laws.. so you arent listening to one man when you obey the law- you are obeying society. Do you obey society? If not, what stops you from killing? stops you from raping? stops you from running red lights in front of a cop- even if there is no danger to others? We all obey others- society and individuals- all through our life... to say "No Man has the right to tell me what to do"- is, like i said, equivalent to an angry 6 year old... Its real nice to say.. but guess what that 6 year old does in the end? Takes their bath and goes to bed.... or they have to accept the consequences set forth by the person they arent going to listen to---- the same thing if you run a red light in front of a cop.

Why not just say you think marijuana should be outlawed and you're biased against "potheads" because that is your stance.

You're using every which direction to compare apples to oranges. Murder is like weed...rape is like weed.

yeah...okie. Just say you're biased, and out of touch on the subject and most everyone will agree with you..

Skitch Patterson

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Why not just say you think marijuana should be outlawed and you're biased against "potheads" because that is your stance.

You're using every which direction to compare apples to oranges. Murder is like weed...rape is like weed.

yeah...okie. Just say you're biased, and out of touch on the subject and most everyone will agree with you..

ha!

So did you just select posts to read? I have made it clear i have no problem with weed being legalized, with the exception of testing issues. If they clear up that one issue, i am totally okay with its legalization.

and i never said rape and murder were like weed. you said you dont have to listen to anyone.. i said that sounds like a 6 year old... and showed why.. you do listen to people everyday of your life either because you agree with what they say, or because you dont want to deal with the consequences of doing... like the insolent 6 year old.

and if you really want to take the time to take your head out of your... opinion for a moment, you would see that a large portion of the thread is a legitimate discussion on the matter, not personal attacks (you're biased and out of touch) or childish comments.

Abookamongstthemany

If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Skitch Patterson wrote:

ha!

So did you just select posts to read? I have made it clear i have no problem with weed being legalized, with the exception of testing issues. If they clear up that one issue, i am totally okay with its legalization.

and i never said rape and murder were like weed. you said you dont have to listen to anyone.. i said that sounds like a 6 year old... and showed why.. you do listen to people everyday of your life either because you agree with what they say, or because you dont want to deal with the consequences of doing... like the insolent 6 year old.

and if you really want to take the time to take your head out of your... opinion for a moment, you would see that a large portion of the thread is a legitimate discussion on the matter, not personal attacks (you're biased and out of touch) or childish comments.

Wow you have a thin skin. The topic is herb and the law, not rape and murder and the law and whatever else and the law. I sad no man is above me with this, as I started the thread, and you disagreed and compared me to a 6year old (a few times now) using all different examples that are not related to weed and the law. gmab already....whatever...

Skitch Patterson

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Wow you have a thin skin. The topic is herb and the law, not rape and murder and the law and whatever else and the law. I sad no man is above me with this, as I started the thread, and you disagreed and compared me to a 6year old (a few times now) using all different examples that are not related to weed and the law. gmab already....whatever...

Oh, i apologize. I didnt realize your sentence was actually "No man has the right to tell me to do- in regards to weed specifically"

i thought you were speaking a more general term based on your incomplete sentence.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Oh, i apologize. I didnt realize your sentence was actually "No man has the right to tell me to do- in regards to weed specifically"

i thought you were speaking a more general term based on your incomplete sentence.

Oh Jesus that would be insane. I agree with you then. twas a miscommunication.

Drowned Out

CANNABIS :
OUR POSITION FOR A CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY

REPORT OF THE SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL DRUGS

(probably the most comprehensive study of marijuana ever)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/repfinalvol1-e.htm#TABLE%20OF%20CONTENTS
===================================================================================================================

Chapter 8 examines a ton of studies on driving impairment in relation to cannabis. The conclusion of this chapter is exactly what skitch is saying, that a better, immediate testing method needs to be developed, and a lot more study needs to be done on the effects of cannabis on drivers.
HOWEVER....
Taking this into account, this is the overall conclusion of the senate committee:
===================================================================================================================
Amendment to the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)
(Production and sale of cannabis for non therapeutic purposes)

A. General aims of the bill

· To reduce the injurious effects of the criminalization of the use and possession of cannabis and its derivatives;

· To permit persons over the age of 16 to procure cannabis and its derivatives at duly licensed distribution centres; and

· To recognize that cannabis and its derivatives are psychoactive substances that may present risks to physical and mental health and, to this end, to regulate the use and trade of these substances in order to prevent at-risk use and excessive use.

B. Licence to distribute

Amend the Act to create a criminal exemption scheme to the criminal offences provided in the CDSA with respect to the distribution of cannabis. A Canadian resident could obtain a licence to distribute cannabis. The resident must undertake not to distribute to persons under the age of 16; must never have been sentenced for a criminal offence, with the exception of offences related to the possession of cannabis, for which an amnesty will be declared; and must agree to procure cannabis only from duly licensed producers. In addition, in accordance with the potential limits imposed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, licensed distributors shall not display products explicitly and shall not advertise in any manner.

C. Licence to produce

Amend the Act to create a criminal exemption scheme to the criminal offences provided in the CDSA with respect to the production of cannabis. A Canadian resident could obtain a licence to produce cannabis. The resident must undertake to only sell to duly licensed distributors; to sell only marihuana and hashish with a THC content of 13% or less; to limit production to the quantity specified in the licence; to take the measures needed to ensure the security of production sites; to keep detailed records of quantities produced, crops, levels of THC concentration and production conditions; and to submit to departmental inspections. No person charged with and sentenced for criminal offences, with the exception of the possession of cannabis, for which an amnesty will be declared, shall be granted a licence. No person or legal entity, directly or indirectly associated with the production, manufacture, promotion, marketing or other activity connected with tobacco products and derivatives shall be granted a licence. In accordance with the potential limits imposed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, cannabis products and their derivatives shall not be advertised in any manner.

D. Production for personal use

Amend the Act to create a criminal exemption scheme to the criminal offences provided in the CDSA in order to permit the personal production of cannabis so long as it is not sold for consideration or exchange in kind or other and not advertised or promoted in any other way. In addition, quantities shall be limited to ensure production is truly for personal consumption.

====================================================================================================================

Everything I've read about driving high confirms what every smoker knows. It affects everyone differently, but it appears to only seriously impairs you for the first hour. However, this serious impairment, in most users, is still below the level of impairment of a .08 alcohol test. Between 1-3 hours, the impairment drops extremely quickly, after 3 hours there is almost zero effect.


I don't understand how the driving argument stands up against all of the other negative aspects of the war on drugs. Responsible or not, the importance of the driving test does not outweigh the importance of drug law reform.

Drowned Out

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau

me likey

Drowned Out

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Show me where in this thread i have taken a hard line stance on hunting down pot smokers?

You misread what I wrote...I asked why you don't want to hunt down pot smokers...just wondering why you have no problem with some people getting busted, but not others....why people just get off, while others deserve what they get because they knew the consequence. If that's the case, do you think the punishment is comparable with other federal laws you wouldn't bother tracking people down for?

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Whining to try and get out of the ticket is an entirely different thing than complaining about it after the fact. Trying to get out of it is just practical (financially, etc)... complaining about the injustice of it is where i have a problem. When i got my minor in possesion ticket (alcohol) i didnt blame the cops or the laws existance... i blamed my idiot friend who back talked the cops. When i got pulled over for speeding a year ago, I didnt blame the cop or bitch after the fact because i chose to go 10 mph over the speed limit. I stretch the law all the time.. and when i get caught, i get pissed at myself more than anything for getting caught.

You are comparing either somewhat dangerous or reckless behaviours to an act that, in itself, is not dangerous to anyone but the person involved.

And your "getting out of it is practical" argument doesn't hold much water...so the law should be changed....but we can't change it until we get do more research...so I'll accept the consequences if I get caught...but I'll try to get out of them because it's practical? What other federal law could you say that about with a straight face, or without looking like an unremoresful ass?

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Just like seeing drunk folks, being high makes folks act pretty dumb too. In most cases, they arent getting caught just because they are high- they are getting caught because they are doing something dumb.. which ultimately was their choice. If i smoked pot, i could light up in may bar room at home and not even have the slightest worry about getting busted- just like when i was 19 i had no problem getting drunk in my moms driveway. .

I know a lot of people that act absolutely no differntly when they're high...maybe a little more soft-spoken, introspective....a little more generous with smiles...but really no difference. And they've been caught...not for doing anything stupid...wrong place, wrong time or just transporting their personal.
What if you were smoking a joint in your bar room and there was some sort of emergency...and this is the cop that showed up?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=252813&highlight=seizure

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Yes, i am saying that. Those half a million people knew the consequences of what they were doing when they did it. A person who has nothing to do with it shouldnt have to suffer in anyway just to "get them out" or anything like that.

Look, I agree that there needs to be a better test. And I agree that until there is one, it is an issue. I also have issues with blood testing randomly. But this "suffering" does not compare to the suffering of the people affected by the laws. Not even close.

hodge

hey let's make a plant from the earth illegal that makes people a little more introspective or aware, but hey, let's let people get drunk and commit acts of violence. woot!


what a joke