home

Police Return Pot to Smoker

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:12:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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


    • Display: Sort:
    Police Return Pot to Smoker | 60 comments (60 topical)
    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 understan