Court Rules Burning Pot Smell Does Not Justify Police Entry

JM,
Doesn't a meth lab smell different than the smell of smoked meth? I've never actually smelled either, but I'm sure a meth lab has a symphony of smells from all of the different chemicals used.

Neither can the sense of hearing, such as a scream or a gunshot. Should those be disallowed as reasons for investigation?


I'll bet you a buck that I win.

Gotcha. And you're not necessarily an anti-American communist.



The debate may be, because you cannot see the larger picture, but the issue is not.






The judge was wrong, and so are you. It isn't the first time, nor will it be the last.

This is about the casual consumption of a class C drug versus the production of a class A drug. These are legally, and practically very different things. That is why the judges made the decision. Not to hinder investigations. And this ruling won't hinder investigations. If there is evidence of large scale distribution of marijuana, then that evidence needs to be presented, and not just stumbled upon because an officer thought he smelled weed.

But then again,

"If you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to worry about"

Right?

When you have that many different chemical smells coming from and RV what else could it be. Plus the smells were similar to meth houses we had raided before.

Now, JM, would that same smell be perceived if someone were just smoking meth? Again, I've never done it myself, or cooked it in a lab, so I'm really curious.

Similar but not a strong.

I was wondering what you meant exactly.

JM

I meant that it wasn't the first time that a judge, or that particular member, was wrong.

I pray this ruling doesnt extend to meth in the future. You can smell a meth house by driving by sometimes.

Simply put, the casual consumption of a class C drug vs the production of a class A drug are very different matters, and are judged very differently in a court of law. Since marijuana is the only class C drug that produces an odor when consumed it is unique in this type of enforcement. There are enough differences that this ruling cannot be used as precedent for other situations.

If we were saying that the smell of burning pot could lead to finding the production of marijuana in quantity, it would be a fallacy because it produces a very different smell when grown than when it is consumed. I might buy that not allowing smell to be a factor when investigating a grow room or house may be a hinderance in getting the job done, but as for casual consumption, I thought cops had better things to do than bust a guy for a few grams of pot.

And Jso....

I'll admit that I've been wrong before, but not this time. If you want cops to waste their time every time they catch a subtle whiff of herb, then by all means. But remember, doing that wouldn't allow for much time hunting down the big bad terrorists, or anti-americans now would it.

No, and all those fascists would also get away with murder, wouldn't they, Ras?

what?

I completely agree. It's circular logic and undebatable. I would much rather see violent criminals being handled than people in the privacy of their own home being arrested for toking at home. Sad state of affairs.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

Couldn't have said it better myself P.

I have never busted someones house just for pot. I have always been there for another reason like a noise complaint or to serve a warrant.

I agree - don't go easy on them.

The drug war only cost about $35 billion a year. In case you forgot what that looks like :

$35,000,000,000

And the US prisons only have something like +500,000 people locked up for drugs.

It's a good thing too. I'd hate to see that $35 billion and all that prison space and police time go to something like rapist, murders, child molesters and other violent criminals.

FOR THE CHILDREN.

And golly jee, just like the war on terror I bet we can win us this one !

It'd be a stupid idea to make pot legal and then tax it so the US could make an extra billion or three a year INSTEAD of losing money.

Then we could do something dumb like use that money to catch other criminals and stuff.

And marijuana is so dangerous - people die from it all the time (total OD deaths from pot : 0). Not to mention all the diseases marijuana causes. Heart failure, cancer, etc ... oh wait - that's tobacco.

Anytime I've been unfortunate enough to be in the bad company of people who smoke a plant which can yield 4x a much useful fiber as trees I've always noticed how stupid they are, fighting and being loud and causing trouble. Not to mention ALL of the freeway accidents and domestic violence. Oh wait - thats alcohol, the all American past time.

Thinking hurts.
Make.It.Stop.

Yes it would, you would have potheads staying high all the time, they would be growing their own so it would be a little hard for the government to tax it anyway.

Obviously this won't be the case. It's legal to make your own beer but only about 1% of the people do it.

But even if every single "pot head" as you put it did grow their own marijuana the country would still see a net monetary gain due to revenue not being spent on enforcing the current marijuana laws.

Details details.

Perhaps you are aware that there is a HUGE collection of politicians, judges (including federal), lawyers and presidents WORLDWIDE who all agree that marijuana should be decriminalized.

But anyways - let's keep locking up those blasted dope smokers. Murder and rape isn't that big a deal anyhow.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by NoobieDoobieDo]

The group that supports dicriminalization is very much in the minority.

We do lock up every Murderer, Rapist, and Drug dealer we can. It take a while to get evience on rape and murders cases.