Originally posted by shots
the fact is it is illegal in most of the world and should also be here.

#1 Why, exactly?

(I mean marijuana. Not incense.)

#2 WHY is marijuana illegal here - in the US?

(Do you KNOW?)

#3 Why should it be? Or not be?
#4 Where is it not illegal?
#5 What is the difference between there (legal) and here (illegal)?

PLEASE...do some homework before you answer my questions. And do not ignore these questions. I ask them not for myself. I know these answers.
They are not opinion answers, either - you can find facts for all but #1 and #3.
#1 is your opinion.
#3 will first be an opinion, too, but answer it again last, because it is also your conclusion (reasoned logical unprejudiced thinking) after answering #2-5.

Opinion = incomplete understanding

Opinions come from personal experience (walking only in your own shoes) - empathy (walking in the shoes of other people).

If the shoe fits, share it.
If it doesn't, then wear it.

Originally posted by shots
Sorry but I have to disagree. This is a step backwards as I see it. the fact is it is illegal in most of the world and should also be here. You can be arrested in many countries although some discourage police from arresting people. But that does not make it legal.

shots,

I respect your right to hold whatever opinion you see fit, but I want you to take a look at this post with me.

This statement in particular bothers me:
"The fact is that it is illegal in most of the world and should also be here."

Is it a "fact" that it "should" be illegal here? What, if I may ask, is the operative definition of "fact" in that statement?

I also take issue with your assertion that marijuana should be illegal in the US because, as you say, "you can be arrested [for pot use, i assume] in many countries". Precisely what quality of these foreign legislatures imparts them with such wisdom that America ought to adopt their policies without intense critical scrutiny?

One more thing, then I'm done, I promise.

Do you disagree that police have better things to do with their time than go after marijuana users? Note-- I said marijuana users, not producers or distributors.

I sincerely anticipate your response.

Ok, this is my view of the OP's points.
Can an odor be probable cause ? IMO, yes. They are trained to know the
smell of cannibas burning.
On another point. They smell it from your home.

Either they are at your front door for a reason ( I don't think the police
randomly walk up to private residences ), or the home in question has
a pound burning in the fire-place.

Using Occam's Razor, the former seems more valid.

So, if they are at your door for a reason, the odor more than justifies
probable cause.

Just my 2 cent,
Lex

Shots, no offence intended, but your stance is anti-american.
Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.
Victimless crimes are not only wrong, but they are communist in nature.
A football player can sacrifice his body for a paycheck but if a woman makes a living from her body we call her a whore and arrest her.

India had strict tax laws on salt, and it took Gandhi marching down to the water to get his FREE salt before the oppressive laws were repealed.

Prohabition caused a dramatic increase in violent crime as thugs moved in to capitalize on Americans right to drink.
Even the 'do-gooders' that were pro-prohabition (?) realized that it was a mistake.

America is about rights. Rights which we all have. Rights which were endowed upon us by our creator.
Its your body, and for anyone to tell you what you can or cannot do with your body is wrong.
My rights end where yours begin.
My rights cannot supercede your rights.
I have the right to do whatever I want in my own home, with my own body,
as long as I dont infringe upon anyone elses rights.
If I want to sit at home and smoke until I cant see straight, that is my right.
If I want to sit at home and drink until I cant walk straight, that is my right.

Im glad to see the SCOTUS make this decision.
Its atleast a small step in the right direction, considering all the privacy issues they have turned a blind eye to.

When I worked as a security gaurd in south Texas, we were informed on the rules of probable cause for searching. And what I was told, is the same thing as this ruling has said. The main reason you can't use smell as cause for searching is quite simple, smoke can and will drift if it's in an outdoor environment. If it smells like pot outside of something, if you have no visual indication that it is actually being emitted from the structure, there is no cause for search. There is also the point that has been brought up about incence, and because they make some that smellls like pot, smell cannot be the only vector as a cause for searching. Plus, an officer of the law may not even know what pot smells like, and how could they prove that they do.

A good decision by the court.

With the recent DC Second Amendment decision and this Fourth Amendment decision, the courts seem to be the only branch of government still willing to defend individual rights.

No wonder the religious right and other authoritarian special interests are out to purge the courts and limit their powers.

All those pesky "technicalities" like the Bill Of Rights are all that stand between us and their bootlicking police state wet dreams.


[edit on 3/10/07 by xmotex]

Again, this isn't about the legality of smoking cannabis.
It's about the ability to search a residence due to the odor of burning pot.

Please stay on topic.

Wait, you admitted that you're a "pothead".
You're not excused.

Lex

Edit to add : This was directed at Coven.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by Lexion]

This only affects Utah police. In order for it to apply to everyone, the US Supreme Court would need to rule that it applied to everyone. Under current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, there is little chance of that happening.

This subject relates directly to privacy and personal choice.
Although smoking pot is illegal, it should be enforced like our immigration laws.

This ruling does open doors that are distribing. If a law enforcement officer detects the odor of ether? This ruling can directly affect the ability of law enforcement to proceed in situations that are much more dangerous that someone smoking a joint.

This whole pot is dangerous wail is ridiculous, the cops brought it upon themselves by allowing a POT case to affect their ability to investigate and react in more important crimes, such as manufacturing.

I never thought I'd applaud Utah for aything besides good snow and skiing/snowboarding.

This is leverage and ammo for lawyers in court. This is a precident for other court cases...

This combined with the State vs. Ravin up here in Alaska over the whole "right to privacy" clause in our state Constitution pretty much garuntees that no DA is going to want to support an over-zealous cop that barges in w/out warrent

Up here under state law we can have up to 4 ounces for personal use inside a private residence...and ONLY inside the residence. Cops somtimes will however use "smell" as "probable cause" to gain entry and find evidence of illegal activity.

This is only one more layer of legal mumbo-jumbo to discourage the police from harrasing the peacefull pot smokers...focus on the crazy alchoholics and meth-heads...they do more damage than potsmokers. Jeeze...

Originally posted by queenannie38


#1 Why, exactly?


#2 WHY is marijuana illegal here - in the US?

(Do you KNOW?)

#3 Why should it be? Or not be?
#4 Where is it not illegal?
#5 What is the difference between there (legal) and here (illegal)?

answers

!. BECASUE THEY WROTE LAWS MAKING IT ILLEGAL
2. Same answer as 1

3 because it is bad for you. By that I mean it affects your senses and hinders a person judgment.

4 & 5 are not relevant because in this case we are talking only here. I for one do not care about other countries. You can if you want though

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by queenannie38


#1 Why, exactly?


#2 WHY is marijuana illegal here - in the US?

(Do you KNOW?)

#3 Why should it be? Or not be?
#4 Where is it not illegal?
#5 What is the difference between there (legal) and here (illegal)?

answers

!. BECASUE THEY WROTE LAWS MAKING IT ILLEGAL
2. Same answer as 1

3 because it is bad for you. By that I mean it affects your senses and hinders a person judgment.

4 & 5 are not relevant because in this case we are talking only here. I for one do not care about other countries. You can if you want though

You sir seem to be under the mindset that if "someone in goverment makes it a law...it must be followed unquestionably and be justified in it's inception"

Being brainwashed by the system to follow laws that were passed/sneaked by the general population under the guise of "dangers" and "threats" only show to many of us how truly ignorant you are.

Please, for a moment try and think about what it may be like to be a free-thinker, thinking for yourself and not with the simple-minded "herd mentality" that our US government hedges it's bets on.

.2

[edit on 10-3-2007 by MystikMushroom]

Originally posted by Lexion
So, if they are at your door for a reason, the odor more than justifies
probable cause.

BUT if it were not illegal...there would be NO probable cause for them to come in.
And if it were legal...stores would be selling not private individuals.
If it were legal...no one who is competent at work but free at home would be unemployed. Those that are not able to stay on top of things would be unemployed anyway because they would not be able to get to work.
Also...no one would be getting killed in the higher echelons of that dynasty.

That kind of killing only happens in organized crime. Which is a job for those involved. A violent dangerous job but a job nonetheless. Probably they would rather have a less stressful safer job. But they cannot because they have been marked as unemployable...why not just go all the way and be a gangster? At least that way your family and you can eat and have a place to live!!! Those that don't comprise a good portion of the homeless - both in shelters and on the street. On the street you don't live long -

Ordered crime.
Less crime = less need to organize = less killing



MAKES sense to me.

Do laws increase order?
LK around you!
The world grows more chaotic by the day - socially speaking!

Laws increase the probability of law breakers.
More law breakers = more 'criminals' = overcrowded prisons = incomplete homes

also overcrowded prisons = inefficient use of the citizen's contribution to state matters = more hunger, homelessness, and lack of adequate medical care



More UNcommon sense.

Originally posted by The Parallelogram

This statement in particular bothers me:
"The fact is that it is illegal in most of the world and should also be here."

Is it a "fact" that it "should" be illegal here? What, if I may ask, is the operative definition of "fact" in that statement?

Bad choice of wording on my part I should just said it is against the law here.

I also take issue with your assertion that marijuana should be illegal in the US because, as you say, "you can be arrested [for pot use, i assume] in many countries".

You can take issue with anything you want, I was just stating my opinion.

Do you disagree that police have better things to do with their time than go after marijuana users?

No the Police get paid to enforce the laws of our country and it is their sworn duty to arrest any offenders who break them.

May I also state that I am pro-decriminalization of marijuana not because it is somthing I enjoy doing--(it hurts my lungs!) but rather the principle of the issue makes sense to me.

I have known/seen many people throw their lives away drinking themselves to death and taking many of their friends and family with them.

I have also seen potheads that hold down good jobs and raise good natured kids and lead "moral lives".

I have seen and witnessed the demonization of a plant because the government dosen't have a stranglehold over the industry to make income...the liquor companies are heavily taxed -- whereas anyone can grow a plant and smoke it themselves.

Cannabis in and of itself IS a psychedelic. Mind you it is a mild one--it takes extreme doses and chronic use to influence and change a person's mindset--but traditionally psychedelics tend to make us question traditional values and systems of culture.

This is a threat to the major geo-political groups that hope we all remain asleap to their agendas (ala NWO/Bilderburgers) ...

This Utah court case represents the people fighting back against the Juggernaut of "the man/NWO"...preserving our rights to do what we like, as long as we hurt no one else in our own homes.

.2

[edit on 10-3-2007 by MystikMushroom]

I will also conceed that laws were made/passed for a reason--and to break them is wrong.

But laws that were passed before the people were educated enough to stop/intervene need to be re-examined.

Watch the movie "Reefer Madness". If you know anyone personally that smokes heavy doses of marijuana you will realize instantly that the government early on set upon the US people heavy propaganda to scare us all.

Laws are to be followed--but when laws are passed via flase pretenses and under false guises....

We must take action to protect our rights to doing what we like, when we like, as long as we hurt no one else but ourselves.

Yeah...

Logic...um, yeah I thought so.



[edit on 10-3-2007 by MystikMushroom]

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I will also conceed that laws were made/passed for a reason--and to break them is wrong.

Good now that you have established that breaking the law is wrong, you are left with no other argument. This is not about making laws it is about enforcing those we already have.