It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Court Rules Burning Pot Smell Does Not Justify Police Entry

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
\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.

You should know that the V A S T majority of people in jail/prison for pot ARE NOT THE DEALERS.

Every minute, every dollar, every cop wasted on busting someone for pot is a minute, dollar and cop not being used to find an abducted child, a murder, a rapist, a serial killer.

My area has had a serial killer on the lose for something like 20 years.

Sure would be nice if we could free up a few THOUSAND cops to go and catch that person.

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
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.

Not admiting use here but from my experience meth doesn't really smell at all when smoked. If it does it's usually a mild kinda sweet smell, not like chemical at all...
JM is wrong...

(most ppl don't smoke it anyway)

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:50 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
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.

Not admiting use here but from my experience meth doesn't really smell at all when smoked. If it does it's usually a mild kinda sweet smell, not like chemical at all...
JM is wrong...

(most ppl don't smoke it anyway)

I was talking about the lab smell. Not the smell of meth itself.

posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 12:36 AM

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
I was talking about the lab smell. Not the smell of meth itself.

Oh so what did this mean then in answer to 'does meth smell when smoked'?

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
Similar but not a strong.

posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 12:47 AM

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn

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

This is not true. At least not in the state I live in.

So as a cop how do you justify busting medical marijuana users in California, or other states, when the majority voted for it, with prop 215.

Does this not fly in the face of democracy? Does this not violate people rights? How do you feel busting someone who uses marijuana to help them with their medical problems? Do you just justify it by saying 'it's the law', or do you have a conscience and think for yourself? Do you think it's right that EVERY law, however ridiculous, has to be enforced because 'it's the law'?

Just curious because as a cop you are forced to agree with ALL laws and enforce them, right? This leaves no room for your own thoughts to develop beyond what you have volunteered to except without question, right? Because if you did disagree with, say busting people for trying to relieve their medical problems, how could you be a cop and still sleep at night?

(BTW you know when you arrest someone for pot you're not enforcing a law to protect the population, you are just doing the dirty work of the pharmaceutical industry)

[edit on 17/3/2007 by ANOK]

posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:30 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn

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

Does this not fly in the face of democracy? Does this not violate people rights? How do you feel busting someone who uses marijuana to help them with their medical problems?

I never ran into a situation where someone was using it for a medical purpose, if I did run into someone that was sick and needed it for their health I would have let them off.

Just curious because as a cop you are forced to agree with ALL laws and enforce them, right? This leaves no room for your own thoughts to develop beyond what you have volunteered to except without question, right?

Thats not right there is a thing called police discrestion. I have let people off on other things before.


posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 02:26 PM
I like this new addition its a good one. So now cops can only enter if they see the smoking device and what not. *SNIP* All of this though is retarded in the first place; marijuana was only banned so people could get rich. The government wasnt able to tax it so they banned the most precious plant we have. Its so useful in so many #ing ways. *SNIP* Over 25,000 different uses for marijuana. Another reason it was banned was due to cotton and tabacco crops. Hemp is easily the better cotton and after a marijuana crop the soil is left so nice unlike the cotton crop that leaves the soil disgusting in which they have to plant soy beans or something to revive the crop for the next planting. Anyways... there was no reason for ganja to be made illegal and if it wasnt that would cut back on some of the drug war fought here every #ing day. Just think, a harmless plant that grew wild well before we came along, and also grew just fine with our forefathers and first couple of presidents who smoked it themselves. It doesn't make sense why its illegal other then the fact that people are #ing greedy which has stood true as long as currency has been in play.

Anyways, sorry for ranting. Blaze on. :].

Mod Edit: Discussion of illegal activities such as drug use, drug paraphernalia are strictly forbidden.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 02:30 PM
Ohhh yeah! And you have rights and can enforce them. Cops are sly and swine and know how to use there words wisely so they make you think you have to comply with what they are saying. More than likely you don't. Know your rights. Heres a sweet video that shows you your rights on police encounters. Its a goody, thats why I was really happy with the new addition of swine not being able to enter a house only due to smelling it. Thats so good.

Here it is. :]. Enjoy and enforce your rights.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by twopintsofbooze]

posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:02 PM
Absolutely right, police should spend their time doing better "serve & protect" duties.
What about incense sticks, medical users, cops with a bad sense of smell who can't tell the difference etc etc.

posted on May, 25 2007 @ 08:00 PM
I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with saying okay if you have reasonable grounds, go and get a search warrant.

On the other hand here in New Zealand we have gotten a way around that and created special legislation called the Misuse of Drugs act which gives Police special powers of search for drugs and license to search upon reasonable suspicion without a warrant.

Subsequently however they still have to prove that they had reasonable grounds, but don't have to get a warrant first. It seems to work but like any police powers is also subject to abuse.

What it does mean is that If Police stop a vehicle acting suspiciously they don't need a warrant to inspect the trunk.

posted on May, 30 2007 @ 11:33 AM
Shots don't seem to grasp the nature of a Free nation where the scope of government is to be limited particularly when it comes to the Rights of the People to be free from Unreasonable searches and seizures and to be free to live as they see fit only to be constrained by the Rights of others. So unless you are a fan of the Nazi style police states this should be good news

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by enjoies05
Well duh, why would a house that smells like marijuana have marijuana in it?

Hmmm...How many people actually realize that burning ragweed smells just like burning pot? Lots of farmers burn ragweed in their fields, but I also kind of wonder if any of them have been arrested for it?

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
It's a step in the right direction. The United States really need to ease up on it's draconian Marijuana laws.

True. Especially considering that pot can be cross-bred to reduce THC to a virtually non-existent level...Researchers have been dragged into court for experimenting with the hemp itself for producing viable construction materials with it! It's the draconian treatment of the plant itself that should be de-criminalized, because the existing laws make no difference between the plant & the specific active chemical in it. The hemp can grow to huge size in a lot less time than it takes a tree to grow & the fibrous structure makes quite a good substitute for wood & much more easily shaped for specific uses! What's the point of busting into a commercial application for the hemp when there's so little THC that, if burned, an elephant would die of smoke inhalation beore it could even catch the slightest buzz?
A few medical precedents have already been mentioned--Here's another: Smoking pot has had some beneficial effects on the treatment of glaucoma...It seems that the "bloodshot eyes" effect reduces overall blood pressure in those vessels.

Originally posted by shots
Why should a home be any different then a car? I do believe one state supreme court already ruled that is was legal for police to search cars if they suspected possession based on what the officers smelled.

I'd have no argument there...After all, it should be treated the same as "driving while intoxicated."

Originally posted by shots
That will not change the fact we have laws that make its use illegal,, that you have to live with. Where and why those laws were enacted is not relevant simply because the laws are now in place and have to be enforced.

Okay, go tell president Bush that one of his Constitutional duties is to "faithfully execute" the immigration laws as they stand right now & see what kind of response you get! So instead of performing his duty, he decides to push Congress to change laws that he won't have to bother enforcing...A real good example of "political thinking" as it concerns laws, isn't it?

This is why we have to be certain that the government doesn't break their Oaths to the Constitution...It's the only real defense we have against draconian laws being legislated in the first place. Besides, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (second only to the Laws of Nature as set forth by the Creator) & there is no legislation that can trump the Constitution! Each time the Government violates the Constitution (& especially the Bill of Rights), it becomes another attack on the People of the Nation & therefore is Treason.

Originally posted by LostSailor

Originally posted by shots
Where and why those laws were enacted is not relevant simply because the laws are now in place and have to be enforced.

No... They don't. There are thousands of laws in the U.S. that aren't enforced.

Heh! Take for example that in Mississippi, it's illegal to plow a cotton field with the aid of an elephant...In New Jersey, it's illegal for a jackass to sleep in a bathub...How many other laws in place today are really just as rediculous as these? And why haven't they been repealed? The Government will probably put out a feeble excuse, like, "It would be too wasteful of time & money to legislate the repeals." In fact, it is a feeble excuse that they've used!

Originally posted by rocknroll
And I disagree, it's not a hallucinogen. I think it's in it's own class. No other chemical produces the same mellow. euphoric feeling on this planet. It's not a hard drug at all.

I'm not 100% certain, but I think the term is, "soporific." I'm not even sure I spelled it right...

Originally posted by Shoktek
This ruling is surprising, but I think a good one.

Yep...I can hear the cops right now, saying, "Damn...That "due process" clause is getting in the way again."

Originally posted by nazgarn
This has prolly been stated before - but if they are SMOKING the marijuana then there are technically disposing of it?!

Yeah, but in the most enjoyable way possible...

Actually, I would tend to think that the definition of "disposal" would be a concerted effort to get rid of all of it at once, not a little at a time.

Originally posted by souls
edit=for the record, girls do get naked and run around like that when they smoke in real life.

When & where is your next pot party?

Originally posted by Shoktek
The founding fathers didn't realize though that laws would be changed and altered in any way possible in the future in order to take these rights away.

Yes, they did...More than delegating which Branches would be authorized with certain Powers, they also established very strict limits on those Powers on both State & Federal levels. Also in the Constitution is this very specific clause in the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Also note in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In brief, in order to make them repeal unjust laws, we simply Petition for Redress of Grievance. This means that: We write the petition in order to specify our grievance & we are rightfully entitled to a response (answer) & a solution (the redress). Regardless of any other legislation, any time the Government (or any of its agencies) violates any part of Constitutional writ, the Constitution takes precedence...This is how the People can make certain that all other such Rights are enforced. This is arguably the single most important Right (to Petition) that the current Government abuses most often.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Somebody care to answer these questions? Remember, this topic is not about pot!
Q1: You roll your own cigarettes. A cop stops you for a traffic violation and sees a stub in your ashtray. It looks just like a roach.
Probable cause?
Q2: My point is, you're taking away one of the 5 senses as a discovery mechanism.
What's next, taking away sight, because not everybody has 20-20 vision?

If it was indeed a roach, then it can be confiscated & it's admissable evidence in court...A smell is not.

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
...they should not be able to base their actions on "evidence" that cannot be reproduced on demand and the recognition of which is highly subjective.

Yep...Highly subjective & easily misidentified. Then there's the fact that the "evidence" cannot be reproduced in court; After all, the defendant does have the legal right to confront all evidence & witnesses against him. But in the case jsobecky mentions, the main difference is that this involves being out in public & potentially driving while under the influence...That's still a far cry from having your home invaded because of nothing more than a smell.

Originally posted by Matt_Mulder
Waow, the U.S. are going easy on drugs...haha. Keep aware, cause someday they'll send cops to check if your cooking is not too burnt !

No, we're not getting easy on drugs, we're getting harsh in defending our Rights...Big distinction there & (supposedly) the main point of this thread.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Yeah shots,
To me it looks like people can pick and choose which statistics they believe and disbelieve. And both sides seem to be doing the same thing.

Yeah, the Government itself is notorious for this...And that's why we must stand up for our Rights.

Originally posted by Lexion
The Admin, if I'm not mistaken, has a responsibility to report these claims
to the proper authorities, and make the IP addresses known.

Well, not always...Even though I've not admitted to anything of the sort anywhere on ATS at any time (& I've been a registered member since almost the first days of ATS), my ISP automatically changes my IP address every time I log on. There's nothing I can do about that even if I wanted to, so at least I can't be accused of intentionally jinking my IP to avoid tracing!
Continued below...

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:57 AM
Concluded from above

Originally posted by Frank Black
I disagree.......if my pursuit of my happiness includes something that does not infringe upon your rights it is no buisness of the authorities to tell me what to do with my body. What you are implying is the equivalent to saying that the cops can arrest me for treating my body poorly.

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
I am sorry if you view me as a bad guy, but in the academy they teach you that allot of times you are protecting others from themselves, its part of the job.

Then next comes the day when cops start busting down doors because they smell fatty meat cooking on the stove...As soon as fatty meat becomes outlawed, nobody'll be able to have a 4th of July BBQ anymore.

"Protecting me from myself" sounds like a poor excuse for violating the 4th Amendment...So where should the line be drawn? If the court makes a judgment in favor of the Constitution above any other law, then the line is drawn right there. Just like Frank says, I wouldn't consider James to be a bad guy, just misdirected by his bosses. I'd aim my countersuits against those who try to make laws that violate the Constitution.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
A government that criminalizes good citizens for no damn reason is corrupt to the core, and quite clearly afraid of the very people who empower the system.

A good example of this is how the Patriot Act was approved by a Congress that didn't even read it first! IMO, all members of Congress that voted in favor of this heinous 300+ page piece of trash should have been charged with Treason. And every day that passes without repealing it should add even more names to the court docket.

Originally posted by jsobecky
And what's with this "Remember guys" crap? I was there long before you were, pal. I grew up in the 60/70's, and loved every minute of it. So don't make any assumptions. You know nothing about me.

So, that makes you about my age, I'd reckon...

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
Would apply this if the officer was there for another reason like serving a warrant or checking a complaint.

This is merely adding something else to the situation. If you already have a warrant (even if it's totally unrelated to pot-possession), then "due process" is already completed (for the conditions stated in the warrant)...If you're checking out a valid complaint, then that's probably cause or reasonable suspicion already established. If either of these situations were not related in any way to the pot-smell when you arrive on the scene, you would be justified in serving your original purpose & could then radio in with your own evidence to see about a different warrant for the pot. But to confiscate the pot without due process & no other justifiable reason, is what the real meat of this issue is about. In short, if the smell is the only thing you have to go on, then the court (that made this a 4th Amendment ruling) wouldn't accept it.

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
The departments there need to learn to use the "blanket party system" that helps fix corrupt cops.

Even the American Military has outlawed that practice...Serious injury & death resulted in too many cases. At the very least, assault charges can be levied. Yes, I'm a veteran & that was told to the whole company on Day 1 in boot camp...This was in 1986.

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

And who gave you the authority to overrule a duly appointed judge deciding in favor of a Citizen Right specified in the Constitution? Remind me to never vote for you in any election whatsoever.

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:07 PM
So many ignorant of history and truth. Cannabis is illegal not because any studies were done that showed any reason to make it illegal. It was a political/corporate con job. There is a vast reference work on this so I will not go into details. Note that the only really valid comment before the rigged vote was taken that did all this was from the head of the Americam Medical Assoc., who lambasted the senators with fact after fact proving that none of the lies about cannabis'/hemp's alleged harms had any validity whatsoever.

Cannabis was used extensively in medicines before the Harrison Act; and the only reason it was made illegal was to discourage competition to the forestry ( paper ) industries ( Hearst yellow journalism influence), the petrochemical concerns, which were coming out with Rayon and Dacron, oil based fabrics; Hemp, easy to grow and super efficient, was the enemy of oil, and that was its doom. Also the growing Pharma giants. Racist and outrageous cliams were standard as Harry Anslinger, married into a powerful family in politics, used the plant as a scare tactic to support and legitimize his new agency: the Narcotis Bureau, forerunner of the DEA.

Facts, science, history, medicine, truth, all these meant nothing compared to corporate buying power in Congress and the hysterical and complacent media, which trumpeted the lies without shame. Just because there is a law, does not mean that the law deserves respect.

Some common claims made by the US Govt at the time: Weed makes Mexicans crazy..marijuana makes Negroes seek after white women..and to walk on a white mans shadow..and to look white people in the eye..turns people into raving killers, insanity after the first try...etc.

Is this the basis of your moral high ground for defending this law? Laws like this, based on the foulest lies and sickening perversions of truth ever seen in relation to medicine and commerce. Modern Pharma would come up with substitutes for hemp; not as effective but what the heck!! Had to make the stockholders happy! Paper( trees) could be inefficiently grown by huge conglomerates like always, who needs a better fiber when we have the system in our pocket already?

So before I accept that ' it's the law after all ' as a reason to modify behavior I want to see valid and compelling proof that the law is in the best interests of the people before I give it much credence.

Why should the people be deprived of a useful, medicinal and innocuous plant because of proven corruption in the entire process of illegality? It is not debatable; it is a fact beyond dispute that over 30 million American have used cannabis and not one death or injury has ever been doumented from the ingestion of same. Crying " But its against the law " is a weak and pathetic stand to take against all of the empirical evidence.

So what? The law once said that Rosa Parks had to ride in the back of the bus; I suppose you would tell her that it is just tough " It is the law "??
Bad laws deserve no obedience from the peole; since the politicians are too bought off to effect change, we must by our sheer numbers and refusal to bend make the law meaningless; Massive disobediance usually means a change in the rules, and quick. If every pot smoker, even casual ones, marched on Washington, it would be the biggest rally in history, perhaps in world history.

And if each one blew some smoke toward the Capitol and Congress buildings, we just might see some common sense and compassionate laws be enacted, and the bad ones that makes no sense be repealed. Of course that is a ' pipe dream ' but laws that are held in contempt are better off gone; they undermine the respect for the rule of law in general and demean the belief in Justice, real Justice.

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 09:21 PM
Oh, and JamesMcMahn: The public cannot just depend on COP discretion in deciding what to allow. If one cop can decide to give a break, then another can just haul a sick and dying patient to jail while he swills his flask of whiskey on the way to the jail, right?

Cops should have almost NO discretion about filing charges because they will almost ALWAYS decide on a course of action that does not serve the interest of the citizen, but rather the aims of the police; higher arrest rates, more kudos from peers, etc.

I am SO glad that this decision was made; now maybe the cops will not be able to put their jackboots thru as many doors when they think they smell something that might not be tobacco. More power for cops mean more abuses of the people, always.

The home has more expectations of privacy than does a car on the road; the home gets the highest forms of protection from entry by the forces of government and rightfully so. Cops would love more than anything to be able to kick in any door at any time for any reason. Trust us, they say. Sorry, I do not trust them at all and there are a lot of dead innocent victims of police misconduct to scream out from the grave : DO NOT TRUST THE POLICE !! Ever!! ". I will listen to them before some cop that is most likely a serial felony perjurera anyway. Norm Stamper, former chief of the Seattle police, believe that 99% of all cops have committed felony perjury to make a case stick. No doubt he is right.

Habitual liars make bad people to trust. Never ever trust the cops; just give them the bare minimum and call an attorney. Sue if rights are violated. Teach others. Stand up to the bullies.

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 09:30 PM

Originally posted by shots

This ruling could be a set back for law enforcement agencies around the US. Up until now police were allowed under probable cause to search vehicles, now drug dealers and users will be able to get away. It is s shame.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yaaaa! Draconian laws are recognized for what they are. It is a real shame that overzealous law officers cannot use the smell of marijuana to persecute harmless pot smokers. Go after real criminals for a change.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:34 PM
burning pot simply by the smell cannont be proven, I mean what are you going to do bottle the smell?
all noses are different.
i agree, with the agreement they simply need more than just a smell.

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:16 PM

Originally posted by enjoies05
Well duh, why would a house that smells like marijuana have marijuana in it?

Actually there are many herbs that smell exactly like marijuana when they are burned. Mugwort for one. I use it all the time for acupuncture treatments on myself.

Moxibustion Used in Accupunture

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by tsloan
It's not an issue any more in Utah...? Problem solved

As a resident of Utardia I assure you it's still a problem here; behind meth, pedophilia, and polygamy.


posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 09:50 AM

Originally posted by enjoies05
Well duh, why would a house that smells like marijuana have marijuana in it?

they do have incense that put off that aroma.

It shouldn't be a problem for law enforcement ... now they can get to the real crimes, like finding people who rape, molest, murder, steal ... you know ... crimes with actual victims.

Although, hating people you can't understand is bigotry, and, since you don't understand them, you seem to hate them for no cause. Pot is legal medically in several countries, and on some state levels.

Go ahead, push your agenda. Why not, it isn't like our prison systems are full ... it isn't like there are any violent crimes that need to be solved ... it isn't like there are any kids that are missing.

Feel free to waste citizens' money busting people for doing something in the privacy of their own home that neither hurts nor involves anyone else.

There was a reason why the prohibition on alcohol didn't last, it was silly. People have that choice ... but I am sure you would have been right there calling the police on those who ended up getting those laws taken back off the books.

Sometimes you have to realize, let people be. Let them make their own choices. Stop trying to decide what is right for everyone in their own homes because you have a superiority complex.

What would you have done to the people who created the country you love, who grew hemp (marijuana)? Would you hate them too? Would you have supported British rule over you because you don't like a plant?

I don't smoke pot, but I think people should be free to do so. It is a matter of choice and freedom to do something to relax when they get home from a stressful job ... some relax with a glass of wine, some like to smoke a bit. In the end, it is the same. Allow the people flipping your burger a chance to get away from it all. Lord knows you wouldn't empty the grease traps and scrub the floors for minimum wage ... Or, have you been on your high-horse so long you forgotten (or maybe never known) what it was like to be on the bottom with no opportunity to climb any higher?

Get over it, please. Life is too short for such controlling nonsense.

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in