home

Police Return Pot to Smoker

In a first for Denver, police have returned marijuana to a smoker - with an apology. The man had a permit for medical use of marijuana. Moral of the story: If you have a permit, keep it with you all the time.

< Blakely and Booker Articles and Advice | Supreme Court Ruling Could Limit Three Strikes Laws >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:19:20 AM EST
    I always liked Denver...

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:19:38 AM EST
    I must say I'm surprised. It's reassuring to know there are some good cops with a sense of decency. I know it's legal to possess medical mj in CO know, but the cops still could have gave the guy a hard time. I'm glad they didn't.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:22:59 AM EST
    know s/b now...sorry

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    it came back a few grams short

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#5)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    Of course these were not federal police.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 11:02:19 AM EST
    Good point pig, the feds would never show compassion.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 11:55:01 AM EST
    Kdog, It's not an issue of compassion, it's an issue of law. Right or wrong, it's against federal law, don't you get that?

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:04:14 PM EST
    That's right Patrick, I don't get it. Never have, never will. My conscience is my guide, not the law, right or wrong. Legislators are not infallible. When they pass a bad law, I consider it the patriotic duty of every American, including law enforcement, to disobey said law.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#9)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:19:24 PM EST
    Define bad law? Apparently we should all be guided my your moral compass then eh? That's a tad egotistical.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:20:42 PM EST
    Patrick, the fact is that this nation is composed of States...which originally agreed to form, first a confederacy (no, not that one; I refer to the Articles of Confederation) and then a loose federation. The Founders, being very wise men indeed, knew from harsh experience what overcentralization of power does to civil rights and liberties in general. They delineated what the rights of the individual, the State and the Federal government shall be...and more specifically, what they would not be. That the Federal government has been allowed over the decades to slowly subsume the powers of the sovereign States unto itself has proven the Founders correct in their original mistrust of that overcentralization. And the drug laws are perfect examples of how that process in action; it was a twisting of the original meaning of the Commerce Clause that led to the first Federal drug laws. The Colorado police evidently know the extent of their legal responsibilities according to their State's constitution...and they know they are not Federal officers. They did the right thing. They are employees of the State in which they reside and serve the citizens of the State they receive their pay from. And the State law says the man can have his meds back. If the Feds want to step in and try to take them, they'll have to do their own dirty work instead of farm it out to the local cops. Because the local cops are not, repeat, not federal officers. Not without proper deputizing. And if that happens, the citizens of the State they reside in have every right to demand their pay back for the time of that deputization; they are either State or Federal employees; they cannot be both when the Feds are seeking to strip a citizen of a State of his rights or property.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#11)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:23:26 PM EST
    Gee thanks Nemo, I wasn't aware of that. Or wait, perhaps you missed the point of this conversation, and it was my response to K-dog's statement that the fed would never show compassion. Not that the marijuana shouldn't have been given back. But you get on with your bad self.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    No, each by our own moral compass. If your conscience tells you to arrest the sick for their choice of medicine, so be it, but expect resistance. "Just doin my job" is not a valid excuse in my opinion. Get another job that doesn't involve arresting sick people and seizing their assets. I believe most Americans support allowing the sick to use mj (if not anyone who wants to), if it takes mass civil disobedience to wake up the feds, so be it.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:37:26 PM EST
    And if you want a perfect example of a morally bad law, just recall that written into the Constitution is a refernce that slaves are counted for census purposes as being only 3/5ths human. Many who helped escaped slaves risked almost as much as those slaves did. They were lawbreakers, plain and simple. But they were morally right to do so. Many times proposals to change the slave laws through the system were made, and continually stymied. It took a civil war to end that travesty. While I was in the military, I had the Laws of War and the Geneva Convention pounded into me; the Nuremberg Defense of "I was only following orders" was not allowed and that both as a member of the military of this country as well as a citizen, I had a right to question an immoral order. To fail to do so leads to Abu Ghraib and terrible crimes and the shame that goes with them. By your reasoning, 'the law is the law'...even when it's immoral. And if an immoral law is someday applied to you, I hope that you are equally certain of your own need to be punished as you are of the need to punish others...because the law says to.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#14)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    Kdog, So if my conscience tells me it's OK to murder, rape, kill, that's OK in your world? I disagree. The standards are set by society using codified laws. Right now the majority of those laws make marijuana illegal. In Colorado it's legal in certain cicumstances. The cops shouldn't have taken it in the first place and should return it. But only becuase that's the law, not because they felt sorry for the guy or felt like "Messing" with him in the first place.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#15)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:43:42 PM EST
    Nemo, Nice try, following an unlawful order is not the same thing as following a lawfully enacted law.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    patrick, murdering, raping, assaulting ALL directly physically harm another human being. if you haven't the free american mind to discern the difference between that and archaic, pointless marijuana laws...then we strongly disagree and should just move on. but, i must say, you've always seemed a fairly level-headed chap, so it surprises me to see you falling back on the murder/rape analogy. it doesn't hold water in this case. one has to look at the specifics of each issue, and on the marijuana issue the specifics don't lead to an analogy of murder/rape. they lead to analogies of alcohol, prescription drug promotion and proliferation, cigarettes, junkfood, etc. peace, my fellow free american.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#17)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:14:27 PM EST
    Dadler, I do see the difference, I just don't sit still when people attack the police because they are following the law. There's plenty the police do to deserve legitimate criticism, why add to it, unless you have an axe to grind.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    patrick, police in a genuinely free country have a much tougher job than those in tyrannies. because they must HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN. most do. too many don't. which is why a cop will let you get away with speeding now and then. even though it's illegal. but not for pot. oh no. don't you see the idiocy? and at some point, who is better to point out what a waste of time it is then those putting their asses on the line to uphold this silly prohibition. whatever. just my ornery two cents.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#19)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:32:36 PM EST
    Dadler, I have to disagree. I've know hundreds of people who've gotten hundreds or breaks for many different reasons. Some call it playing favorites, somme call it corruption, some call it above the law if I don't write a cop a speeding ticket, but I choose to call it discretion. If I think my contact with you (Traffic stop) is going to have the desired effect (Compliance with the law) then it should be up to me what level of enforcement I take, within reason of course. people get all kinds of breaks for all kinds of violations, including marijuana. I've said in here in the past that I'm not opposed to legitimate medical use. I just don't care that much. I don't support, and probabaly will never support, total legalization, or the claim of medical marijuana as a ruse for use, for reasons which I have outlined here ad nauseum. I know you do, and that's fine. When you get enough support to change the law, and I realize that might happen, the good for you. I just hope that my worst fears aren't realized if it is legalized.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#20)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:33:38 PM EST
    "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." —Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "Right or wrong, it's against federal law, don't you get that?" - Patrick Hey, who you gonna believe.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#21)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:36:52 PM EST
    Scar, I think the majority agreed that discrimination based on the color of a persons' skin was unjust. I don't believe the majority agree that the current state of marijuana laws is unjust. Once again, it's just your opinion that the laws are unjust. Yes others agree with you, but if your movement is so strong, why not just have the laws changed?

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    Patrick, consider that the Founders were criminals according to the Crown; many met horrible deaths at the hends of the British because the Brits didn't consider them 'prisoners of war'. Were they wrong to rebel? With your continual defense of 'the law is the law' as a standard, it's fair to suggest that you would have happily locked them up and thrown away the key had you been in King George the 3rd's pay. Every thinking person must someday face the inevitable choice between what a law demands and what their conscience as human beings requires. The Founders met that choice, made it, and many died as a result. A choice every generation has made and paid a terrible price for since then. If you find this uncomfortable, then you must examine your own conscience and ask what about this troubles you so much. Using poor means of rationalizing such as wilfully conflating murder with smoking pot is hardly an answer to the core matter. It's a cheap rhetorical trick unworthy of anyone with a mind. But it's SOP for anyone who finds their position in an honest debate untenable. Only the deliberately obtuse would try to use that as a justification, given what's been said here. You can do much better than that.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    patrick, the way you say your "worst fears are realized" worries me. how on earth can you not simply understand that prohibiting pot is no different than prohibiting booze, which was an abject failure. and by no different i am assuming you can just these two unique substances on their own. don't bring up heroin or crack or crank, the comparison is like aspirin to ecstasy.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:19:04 PM EST
    that should be "judge" these two substances, not "just". i suck.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#26)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    Nemo, I can't compare murder/rape to smoking pot, but you can compare it to tyranny and slavery? LMAO. But in your own words, But it's SOP for anyone who finds their position in an honest debate untenable. Only the deliberately obtuse would try to use that as a justification, given what's been said here. You can do much better than that. Dadler, This society is all about entitlements. It's never anyone's fault. The re-legalization of alcohol caused the associated costs to skyrocket. Legalizing marijuana because alcohol (an arguably more dangerous substance) in legal is also a hollow argument, IMO. I believe there are people out there who do not use marijuana simply because it is illegal. Once it's legal they will use it. They will drive while high, they will take risks they normally wouldn't. Some will be responsible users some will not. The argument of, punish those who drive while high, holds no water with me either. That's a nice sentiment to provide the family of a fatal car crash eh? There are many more reasons I don't support it, and I have done the research. Suffice it to say we are of different minds.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    Nemo So far, you have invoked the Geneva Convention, the Emancipation, and our Founding Fathers Rebellion from the Crown in your Crusade to legalize pot. If only MLK or George Washington could see you now, cheaping their monumental struggle in your quest to get legally high. Shameful. I think Patrick made his stance pretty clear. He has a legal obligation to enforce laws legally enacted. If you guys can get pot legalized, I'm sure he will be more than willing to enforce your legal right to smoke a doob.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:47:26 PM EST
    Patrick beat me too it

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:47:58 PM EST
    'to' it lol

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 03:56:02 PM EST
    I just hope that my worst fears aren't realized if it is legalized.
    don't be scared, you've just been feed rhetoric, bad science, and statistics (we know about statistics), your worst fears will not materialize, and pre-emption has not, nor will it ever work. having that up close and personal view daily, it wears on you.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 03:56:35 PM EST
    patrick, why is nyquil legal then? i don't understand your selective prohibition of a substance that millions of responsible people use every day. people driving high is a different matter. like people driving drunk. i just don't buy your argument to any degree. it seems just a wasteful, discriminatory form of denial. i guess we have no common ground on this issue beyond abuse is bad and no one should drive impaired on anything. i guess that's enough for now. peace.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 04:01:17 PM EST
    'Sameful'? I'll tell you what's 'shameful', 'Shameful' is what happens when a formerly free people allow yokes to be put around their necks and be harnessed to the plow of a police state. 'Shameful' is when you allow those same rights and liberties the Founders and every generation that has fought to protect since then to be stripped away from you without protest by some bureaucrat whose mouth is full of sweet words of reason but who is also readying a truncheon and a whip if you happen to disagree. What's even more shameful is when you aid and abet that by supporting policies that history shows leads to tyranny. "All for your own good", of course; that's always the excuse rendered. Make no mistake: this is only peripherally about drugs. The real core matter is ultimately how free are you to live according to the principles laid down by those Founders. I submit that based upon some of the reactions I have received so far, the rot has gone deep into the body politic when those who have pretenses of understanding those core elements of freedom castigate those who remind them of them. I can just hear some snorting at my use of the word 'freedom'; in their warped understanding, they equate it with 'license'. Another sign of rot when one of the most important words we have is denigrated so. 'License' is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the responsible use of the sovereign franchise of citizenship which is both our right and our duty to protect...from all comers. Like the Oath many of us swore that said: ...all enemies foreign and domestic. Most tyrannies are home-grown. And they almost all start for ostensibly beneficent reasons. The War on Drugs is another such ostensibly 'beneficent' program...that has resulted in horrendous damage to the very people it was supposed to serve. It is being used by police forces to steal what they want; in the case of Donald Scott, the raid on his home that ended with his death turned up no drugs, but the raid was mainly, as proven in the investigation afterwards, to have been conducted on the basis of how much loot the cops expected to get in forfeiture from his estate. That is 'shameful': an innocent man killed for his property...by minions of the state that lusted for what they couldn't legitimately lay claim to otherwise. And what is even more shameful is that there are those here would would dare try to rationalize that murder. Do not deign to lecture me on what is shameful; those who have the most reason to feel shame for what they have allowed to happen to this country 'for our own good' have themselves much to atone for.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 05:17:42 PM EST
    nemo...bravo

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 06:23:44 PM EST
    people out there who do not use marijuana simply because it is illegal. Once it's legal they will use it. They will drive while high Ain't buying it. I don't smoke it now ONLY because it is illegal. If it were legal I would smoke it every weekend. But why do you think I would suddenly start doing so illegally, like while driving? Those who illegally smoke it now while driving probably will continue to do so.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 09:14:09 AM EST
    My, how quiet it's gotten... C'mon, all you prohibitionists! No snappy comebacks? No breezy justifications for state-sponsored murder of innocent citizens for material gain? Here's your chance to claim the moral high ground once more; let's hear how this 'protects the citizens' (nice job, killing innocents) and 'saves the children' (tell that the parents of 12 year old Alberto Sepulveda, shot in the back while laying face down at point blank range by a shotgun wielding DrugWarrior in a raid in which no drugs were found). If all you DrugWarriors are so accepting of such 'collateral damage', then perhaps you'd like to skip the roulette wheel of probability and place your own children on the sacrificial altar of your precious DrugWar right now. They might wind up there eventually...thanks to your hearty support of this madness.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    When it comes to drugwar murder, I'm reminded of the hardworking grandmother, Alberta Spruill of NYC, who was sound asleep until an NYPD goon squad threw a flash grenade into her apartment, and literally scared that poor woman to death (heart attack). They were looking for drugs. Collateral damage is too kind, murder is the only apt description.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 12:06:08 PM EST
    I don't know anyhting about you laws or morals or 'founding fathers' in america but what I do know is this; when a corrupt government throws together a patchwork of lies just to raid, pillage and plunder as they please. Just to have as they say a 'beneficial effect' on the public it seems to me prohibitionists have just been brainwashed and propagandized by your 'great state' meaning no offence, and its pitiful president, no offence yet again.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 12:09:41 PM EST
    stand up for what you believe in whatever it may be but for me it'll be the 'beneficial weed'

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    Nemo. I usually decline a response to hystrionics, but since you are begging the issue, I will make an exception; if only for entertainment value. Your entire rant is hyperbole. Calling the WOD state-sponsored murder of innocent citizens for material gain is ridiculous, since we both know that if the suspect is not caught with drugs, no "material" (be it drugs, money or assets) will be confiscated. As to those killed accidentally; it is a shame, but we know it happens all the time. It happens on the playground, on the highway, and yes; even in the WOD. Since you have such a concern for state-sponsored murder of innocent citizens for material gain, I wonder what your opinion of Abortion is? Do you support the murder of millions of innocent babies on-demand? Because if you did, that would put a hole in your "concern for innocent citizens" arguement large enough to drive a truck through. If only the Founding Fathers could see you now... Good luck claiming the moral high ground. I just don't see it happening.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#41)
    by Patrick on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 01:20:53 PM EST
    Nemo, Apparently you've confused my ignoring your comments with some sort of acquiescence. That would be a mistake on your part. The founding fathers never intended there to be absolute freedom and there can never be absolute freedom within any society. So take your canned speech back to wherever you got it. If its premis was true you'd already be smoking weed. Your schtick is old and worn out.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#42)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    “The founding fathers never intended there to be absolute freedom and there can never be absolute freedom within any society.” Well, if they didn’t they were fools; you more so for deferring opinion to a bunch of guys long dead. There can be near absolute freedom; it seems so intractable simply because government has become so invasive. You have an interest in the behavior of folks, behavior that wouldn’t otherwise concern you, because your tax dollars are used to subsidize folks in unfortunate situations that are most certainly exacerbated by the behaviors you find repugnant. I understand you object to someone getting high and causing car accidents; fine, make the punishment so burdensome that no one would dare. I understand you object to subsidizing healthcare for folks who’s drug use directly impacts their health; fine, no tax dollars for junky healthcare, or even better no tax dollars for anyone’s healthcare. So you object to paying unemployment to folks who lost their jobs due to drug use; I’m sure you have the idea by now.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 04:36:29 PM EST
    Patrick, I expect a servant of the very forces that are slowly stripping us of our rights to make the kind of statement you did. As the old saying goes, "Whose bread I eat, his song I sing." The Founders meant that ultimately, all rights devolve to the individual except when they explicitly determined some powers (not all Patrick, just some) were necessary for the operation of a government...a government intent upon preserving those rights. And if a government forgot that? They made it quite clear that that government may and should be replaced with one that does remember. They were 'revolutionaries' after all. Read both the Federalist Papers and the Ant-Federalist Papers and you'll begin to understand exactly what they were trying to do. Or you can just keeping making statements that betray your own ignorance of the subject. I can't help it if my reminding you of these facts cause you pain. I told you before that you should examine just why they do; you'll find the answers in your own mind and heart if you try...but you might not like to do so. Such self-examination is often painful, as it tends to uncover some very uncomfortable things about one's beliefs. But I will not leave to suit you, Mr. Public Servant. I've as much right to be here as you do...and I will fully exercise that right for as long as TL allows.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    It's not an issue of compassion, it's an issue of law. Right or wrong, it's against federal law, don't you get that? Oh brother. Government officials get all righteous and holy when they speak of their precious worshipful "Federal Law", don't they? As if the Federal Law were handed to them from God on the mountain. Come off of it. "Federal law" isn't carved in stone. Now, here's something cops and prosecutors don't want you to know about. Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction . . . if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong. -- Alexander Hamilton, 1804 So, yes. Next time you're in the jury box, screw the lying cops and evil laws: vote your conscience. Just like Alexander Hamilton said. During voir dire (the procedure where the government prosecuter attempts to kick out anyone with a brain or conscience -- anyone who won't follow the dictates of government), don't let on you know too much: don't let on you know that once on the jury, you are free to acquit, acquit no matter what the prosecutor or judge tells you to do. If government is prosecuting someone for a victimless crime like smoking pot, as a juror, you are free to acquit. Acquit those government prosecutes wrongly, like cannabis users. The traditional role of a jury is not only to judge whether or not a specific government rule has been broken or not. The jury also stands in judgement over the law itself. If a law is wrong, yet a person has clearly broken the unjust law, then the jury's duty is to acquit, even against the judge's instruction. This is both English common law as well as U.S. legal tradition. For more about voting your conscience on a jury in the U.S., see: FIJA.org

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 06:55:26 PM EST
    Nemo You have mistaken the ability to write long-winded rants predicated on nonsense as a sign of intelligence. I remind you that the rule around here is "quality, not quantity". I notice now that your arguement has "evolved" from GC - Emancipation - Founding Fathers to now - Asset Forfeiture Laws. If you have a problem with Asset Forfeiture Laws, then pursue legal recourse. Its relevance to the WOD is weak but seeing you reduced to such a petty arguement does make me smile ;-) And I note the conspicuous "No Comment" regarding your views on Abortion. Fine; I won't be expecting to hear any more "concern for innocent lives talk" from you. Finally, you said [of my last post] note there's not a single debate of my points, just ad hominem attacks I addressed both of your flimsy anecdotal "points". And please direct me to a single ad hominem attack I have made against you in my previous post. You are either mistaken, or you are a liar. You tell me which it is. Love ya babe ;) Patrick Well, if they didn’t they were fools; you more so for deferring opinion to a bunch of guys long dead. Your callous disregard for the principals our Country was founded on is noted. I remind you that you are indeed free to leave at any time, and caution you not to let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 07:25:57 PM EST
    Ooops - "Patrick" should be "Pig". Sorry Patrick

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    My dear Horse...as I pointed out to Patrick, I'll stay as long as TL lets me. Fortunately for me, you are not the determinant of that; she is. Get used to it. Since, despite my efforts it has continued to escape your notice, each one of the points I have raised is germane to the core matter of freedom which I have elaborated on...repeatedly. They form the background of all the rights that we once took as being written in stone - but have been eroded since then via creeping intrusion by a cental government. A central government that has accrued powers to itself the Founders never had any intention of giving it. The DrugWar is but one manifestation of that creeping intrusion. I can't make it any simpler than that. That same overweening central government has mandated abortion as legal when previously it was a matter of the States to decide. Do you understand now? Does it ring your chimes now? However one views the matter, the central government was only meant to be a loose federation designed to prevent warfare amongst the States and to protect the commonweal from outside interference. The States were meant to be the final arbiters of their own fates. If the voters of a particular State were to make a practice legal or illegal, they had the right to do so. And often did. Sometimes the results were humorous; sometimes deadly serious. The various State Supreme Courts would handle the matter of final adjudication of the constitutionality of any given case; the Feds acted as a last ditch, not the first. Not any more. And we all suffer as a result. That is at the core of my point...another position I made plain early on. I offer facts which are easily researched in depth; you continue to offer nothing but more vageries and ad hominem attacks. Your last remark about inviting me to leave shows me you have far less patience than I possess. And as I've demonstrated with all the time I've taken in carefully explaining my postings and responses, I have plenty of patience. (Offhanded salute) Be seeing ya...

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 08:20:56 PM EST
    Nemo Apparently you didn't get the memo. The citizens of this country have overwhelmingly said NO to drugs. Your misguided attempts to eqivocate getting high with Freeing the Slaves shows clearly just how misplaced your morality is. And you never apologized (for mistakenly claiming) or pointed me to where in my 2:01pm post I used an ad hominem attack against you. And I never invited you to leave. I clearly invited Pig to leave the country if he is dissatisfied with the basis on which it was founded. And I'm starting to think you're a bit dishonest. But I still love you for the beautiful creature you are, my fellow human being. ;-)

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#51)
    by Patrick on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 09:14:40 PM EST
    Blah blah blah blah.... Can't counter my points so try to discredit me with my job. As I've said numerous times in here, I'll get the same wage whether durgs are legal or not. There will still be police whether drugs are legal or not. There will still be crime whether drugs are legal or not. So what was your point again? Oh yeah, there wasn't one. As for asset forfeiture, it is separate from the criminal prosecution, however there has to be a showing in a court of law that the assest to be seized were used or obtained in the course of a crime. So there is still due process. Don't take my word for it, look up 11470 of the California Health and safety code.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 11:57:16 PM EST
    I have found this exchange of opinions very interesting and thoughtful. I just have one question for the horse with no name, when did the citizens "say no to drugs" The entire country is on drugs along with their children. Instead of parents taking some chamomile tea or something natural to relax, they are feeding themselves and their children strong drugs that have very serious side effects with no questions, no worries, complete faith that this little pill will help them feel less stressed about their childrens lack of attentiveness. If it is a plant put here by the Creator it isn't any good but if the men/people who create/test chemical substances say they are good, it's ok, Even though about half of all prescription drugs are pulled off of the shelf within the first 5 years of being introduced! This country's laws were designed and written with the precept that people would be self governing. I agree with nemo and kdog, we have very few freedoms left and we need to do more to save them. An entire country's people should not be punished for the crimes of the few by making yet another law! The more laws you have the more criminals there are apt to be, it seems to me since the gauntlet of laws is so staggering!Very few people these days live out their lives without any negative interactions with the police and security forces. This should not be. It is no wonder that the prisons are busting at the seams.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 01:22:00 AM EST
    Please don't call Patrick names. Name-calling isn't tolerated here. Also, while I don't agree with Patrick on just about anything, he has been reading TalkLeft since almost its beginning. He also takes the time to post his views. So please, diagree all you want but there is no reason to belittle him or engage in name-calling.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 01:24:10 AM EST
    Awww, looks like I ruffled some egos. Too bad. I note there's not a single debate of my points, just ad hominem attacks. Typical tactic of those incapable of defending their positions. But it won't help. Horse: First off, it's 'histrionics', not 'hystrionics'. Check your dictionary. There is no such word as 'hystrionics'. I used to make the same mistake, until somone corrected me. Secondly: If you think it's being histrionic to defend liberty in the face of encroachment upon it by The State, then I would suggest perhaps a clime more suited to your tastes...like Cuba. Or China. They have the same kind of attitude towards the freedom you are so willing to divest yourself and others of. Thirdly: You shake your head and say "It's a shame." about those wholly unecessary deaths. Yes it is, especially when it didn't have to happen. But you imply accident. The Sepulveda home invasion conducted by the polce was deliberate. Sepulveda was not playing in the street and the victim of random chance. His death was a direct result of the militarization of the police in condcuting a DrugWar against their own citizens. If you or a loved one are killed someday by a cop after he bashes down your door on the basis of a drunken, lying informant's word that you have drugs in the house (what happened with the Sepulveda case) I hope you face your end with equal equanimity and Christ-like forgiveness for their "oopsie- sorry to have raided the wrong house and killed you" 'mistake'. Fouthly: According to you, Horse: ...since we both know that if the suspect is not caught with drugs, no "material" (be it drugs, money or assets) will be confiscated. Horse, I was hoping someone would display such depth of ignorance as to make that kind of statement; did you think I didn't have the facts ready when I wrote what I did? According to the asset forfeiture laws of this country, you do not have to be convicted of a crime to have your property taken from you by The State (Isn't that right, Patrick? Tell me it isn't; it's how most police agencies like to get their money...and slip the leash of local control of those police agencies through budgetary means.) The onus is upon the (suddenly destitute) person to whom it originally belonged to prove the goods were not used in a crime. If you are wrongfully stolen from by the police in this manner, what chance do you have of getting your property back? (Remember: you're penniless; they took your bank account as well as your belongings) If you can't put up 10% of it's value as a deposit against sale, it is auctioned and no records of whom it was auctioned to are maintained by the police. You'll never get it back. Needless to say, this kind of unaccountability invites abuse. I invite you to educate yourself in the matter:Google Search String: Asset Forfeiture abuse for plenty of examples. Finally, I never laid claim to the moral high ground; it's always the faux moralists who do so. I don't have to be reminded I'm a sinner. But some people always think of themselves as being so sure of their moral rectitude that they believe they have the right to order the lives of others. I don't; I hold with Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that one of the most fundamental rights of all is simply to be "left alone". But DrugWarriors won't. Such people started this DrugWar, and many such support it. And because of this, we risk losing everything the Founders went through Hell for and all since then.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 01:27:15 AM EST
    we both know that if the suspect is not caught with drugs, no "material" (be it drugs, money or assets) will be confiscated. Oh. We know this, do we? Read about people "convicted of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana based on the offenses of a few of their customers, with whom they had no contact beyond selling equipment which is completely legal." [link skewed and deleted.] They were not "caught with drugs." Or read about, "Sam Zhadanov, who went to prison and lost his assets for manufacturing plastic vials that could be used as drug containers." [link skewed and deleted] He was not caught with drugs, and yet much "material" (money and assets) were certainly confiscated from him. Those are just two examples. We haven't scratched the surface. Even when people are caught with "drugs" (meaning, often, a joint) and have their homes, cars and businesses "lawfully" stolen, er, I mean, seized by government police, such laws have no place in a free country. They are more befitting a totalitarian form of government. (Since U.S. subjects seem to prefer totalitarianism in deed if not in word, most people in the U.S. will continue to lap it right up. They're saving the children from "drugs"!)

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 05:06:38 AM EST
    Horse: With regards to the equating of the Emancipation with getting high; I never did. You made that conflation. I posited that the attempts to change the slave laws through the legislatures and the courts failed time and again for political reasons. The crowning failure of those attempts was the Dred Scott decision which upheld the Constitutional claim that the immoral practice of slavery was legal, and that slaves were indeed only 60% human. I asked the question which neither you nor Patrick have yet to answer: when is it your moral obligation as both a citizen of this country and a human being to refuse to follow an immoral law? With regards to the drug laws of this country: are you aware of the circumstances behind their origins? If you research those origins, you find a shocking lack of scientific information backing them...and no end of racial bigotry and prejudice underpinning them. I invite you to go here and see for yourself what the promulgators of those laws thought about African-, Asian- and Hispanic Americans...and how they wished to use the drug laws to oppress without overt racism being challenged: NEGRO COCAINE "FIENDS" NEW SOUTHERN MENACE and a quote from this article at The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States : Basically, none of the white people in these states knew anything about marijuana, and I make a distinction between white people and Mexicans to reflect a distinction that any legislator in one of these states at the time would have made. And all you had to do to find out what motivated the marijuana laws in the Rocky mountain and southwestern states was to go to the legislative records themselves. Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona." Well, there it was, you didn't have to look another foot as you went from state to state right on the floor of the state legislature. And so what was the genesis for the early state marijuana laws in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern areas of this country? It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it. Like I said, no science, just bigotry and prejudice. If a law is based upon bigotry and prejudice, is it not immoral? And do we not, as citizens, have an obligation to overturn it? What does it say about us as a people if we fail to do so? In 1946 at Nuremburg we told the Nazis in the docket that 'following orders' is no excuse; if we follow an immoral order or law, does that not open us to a charge of hypocrisy?

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 06:32:08 AM EST
    Sorry, tried to type in the links myself instead of using the button: NEGRO COCAINE "FIENDS" NEW SOUTHERN MENACE and The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#56)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 08:50:25 AM EST
    “Your callous disregard for the principals our Country was founded on is noted. I remind you that you are indeed free to leave at any time, and caution you not to let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.” I’ll assume you unintentionally mischaracterized my position, or are otherwise unfamiliar with how I stand on many issues discussed here. I have great respect for the ideals that inspired the constitution, however, the authors were as fallible as you or I. Many of them owned slaves, passionately argued against equal suffrage for women, etc. The freedoms codified in the bill of rights were revolutionary for the time, but are now lacking, if not in spirit most definitely in interpretation. That is my position. As to the ‘America, love it or leave it’ garbage; that has got to be one of the most repugnant idioms of the knuckle dragging nationalists. I enjoy living in one of the freest countries in the world, unfortunately not so free that I don’t find myself at the mercy of the legislative whims of the average halfwit. To that end I continue to support organizations that oppose the kind of arbitrary restriction and the accompanied federal juggernaut that the Democrats and Republicans worked hand in hand to impose/build. Had it occurred to you that I could suggest the same? If you care so much for arbitrary restriction on liberty and blind nationalism there are a few dozen places that would suit you just fine; I propose the DPRK. Asinine, isn't it?

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    Nemo Regardless of the origin of the drug laws, I (and John Q. Public) do not find them immoral. This is where you and mainstream America part ways. If you honestly believe that 'getting high' is worthy of revolution, I encourage you to do what your misguided heart dictates you must. But I will not be standing shoulder to shoulder beside you in that effort. Pig Well, if they didn’t they were fools; you more so for deferring opinion to a bunch of guys long dead. Your quote speaks for itself. I'm quite sure that if John Hancock could hear you marginalizing and calling him a "fool", he'd show you the door himself. As far as "love it or leave it" - Might I suggest the Netherlands or Belgium, if you can stomach their bankrupt, entitlement, wellfare state. Its been fun. I'm sure to see you both on another thread. The last words, if you so desire, are yours.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#58)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    “As far as "love it or leave it" - Might I suggest the Netherlands or Belgium, if you can stomach their bankrupt, entitlement, wellfare state.” I couldn’t; I assume you didn’t read the previous post. The elephant in the room, the one you repeatedly ignore, is that the same ideology of the state as caretaker is used to justify bloated social programs and prohibition alike. Can you explain the difference? Doubtful. “Your quote speaks for itself. I'm quite sure that if John Hancock could hear you marginalizing and calling him a "fool", he'd show you the door himself.” I wonder where you would ever get this idea. Enshrined in the constitution, by his hand, are mechanisms providing for the very things you estimate he would have me expatriated for; you really are a fool!

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    An example of the "state" being in opposition of the public is Patrick's (obligatory in his mind) submission to the letter of the law and supposed duty bound obligation to ignore the intent. And yet, as if predjudice didn't exist, as if a multi-tiered enforcement system didn't exist, he proclaims (with all the innocence and naivete he can muster)
    I've know hundreds of people who've gotten hundreds or breaks for many different reasons. Some call it playing favorites, somme call it corruption, some call it above the law if I don't write a cop a speeding ticket, but I choose to call it discretion.
    You claim discretion with enforcement, Patrick and I claim discretion with compliance. How exactly are we different? Also, the truth is, that the less power we have and the more laws there are, the more powerful you become. And we all know power begets power. Nemo (bowing deeply) thanks for your time and insight - I agree with and support everything you said and found your links informative. Of course, having done a paper on drug legalization in college, I had seen a lot of the original source mat'l myself. For those too lazy or not caring enough to investigate, a selective quote from the 1914 article "Negro Cocaine "fiends" new Southern Menace explains the two-tiered enforcement system: Most of the negroes are poor, illiterate, and shiftless. If we include in this class the poor whites, who are on a par with the average negro in poverty, ignorance, and general lack of thrift, we may reckon the aggregate number as representing about one person in three in the entire population
    The simplest way to remove this added menace--it seems simple, theoretically, at least--would be to keep whisky out of the low-class negro's hands by legislating it out of existence as far as he is concerned.
    ...These laws do not, and were not intended to prevent the white man or the well-to-do negro getting his accustomed beverages through legitimate channels. They obliged him to forego the pleasure of leaning against a bar and "taking his drink perpendicularly," to be sure; but a large portion of the intelligent whites were ready to make this sacrifice if by doing so they could eliminate the drunken negro.


    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#60)
    by Patrick on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    You claim discretion with enforcement, Patrick and I claim discretion with compliance. How exactly are we different? Sometimes I wonder why I bother.... I'm lawfully given the right to use discretion, based on the spirit of the law, not the letter. California Penal Code Section 4. Besides, it is not humanly possible to enforce all violations of all laws all the time. So how do you get that I believe this? "An example of the "state" being in opposition of the public is Patrick's (obligatory in his mind) submission to the letter of the law and supposed duty bound obligation to ignore the intent." I think I already stated in this thread that the state cops should have given the marijuana back, but that federal cops couldn't. The letter and the spirit of that law are very clear. For federal officers to return a controlled substance without legal authority to do so would be tantamout to dealing no? Besides, spirit only works one way, not the other. I don't get to assume laws that are not written...Again see PC 4. As Horse did, I leave the last to you.

    Re: Police Return Pot to Smoker (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 04:21:34 PM EST
    mfox, where do you get the time to blather so endlessly?