Court Rules Burning Pot Smell Does Not Justify Police Entry, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 29 times


reply posted on 10-3-2007 @ 08:02 PM by St Udio
Originally posted by souls
this is a good post. as for the topic at hand, it is a step in the right direction. as many here had pointed out, the smell of bud is not enough to justify search.

the smell can easily be mistaken with anything else.



and this incidental is just the tiny wedge needed for the police state to broaden and solidify more control over the population....

here's how, why,

the pivotal point is "the smell can easily be mistaken with anything else"

i think this will lead to electronic sensors to be the 'court approved' devices which will 'sniff' out the offenders location and even identify the substance,

and when a positive reading is signaled, the data gathered & monitored becomes 'evidence' ....and a 'search warrent' is immediately issued.!
[see how the trained cops and/or drug sniffing canines will no longer be a variable, nor will there any question that personally motivated agents initiated the 'Bust'... ]
... here again the masses are under the thumb of technology, and forced to accept these new 'dope sensor devices', just like we've accepted
Speed Radar & Electronic Voting machines...

a confusion is pointed out (pot smell?),
a solution is proposed (Sensors),
as the Police expand their scope then meth labs, bomb factories, brothels, bootleg whisky, cult meetings, will be natural targets of a new concerted searching
rather than finding out the perps of society by accident or chance,



in the long run & broader view, both freedom and liberty are reduced


reply posted on 10-3-2007 @ 09:37 PM by queenannie38
Originally posted by pesky george
My point is that the law is ridiculous. Our forefathers were all about personal choice and the ability to live our lives without government intrusion paramount.


Exactly. That is why THEY came HERE from another country. That is why they EMIGRATED here.

From The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


My opinions on illegal immigration regard it as an invasion.

Are you a native American, George? What IS your heritage? Were your forefathers here BEFORE 1492?

The enforcement of marijuana consumption is a waste of crucial manpower and money.


The enforcement of marijuana consumption? Or do you mean the enforcement of the law that declares hemp and its byproducts illegal?



reply posted on 10-3-2007 @ 10:09 PM by khunmoon
With no intent to take the thread off-topic I think the racial/social aspects the topic holds are important to the issue.

Even when the sensor technique, as outlined above by Udio, comes in use, they wouldn't applied it on any quarter of the town. But a future scenario could very likely be sniffer drones buzzing around on the other side of the track.

What I'm saying, like racial issues were a dominant factor in the original anti-drug legislation as they were pressed by the legendary and infamous drug-czar Harry J. Anslinger, social issues are now. You wouldn't want people to get the ability to actually THINK. Would be a hazard to social stability [sarcasm intended].

Somewhere I've read (probably on ATS) a reason to outlaw weed, was because "it gave the black man the ability to look straight into the eyes of white folks". Something like that. Ad they didn't like it.

For shots, have you ever heard of civilian disobedience? That's what changes law.

Only need one example, laws of racial segregation. They wouldn't have changed if it wasn't for people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King.

In the case of cannabis I think, whether you're a smoker or not, it is your civil duty to object those laws, because the herb itself is through millenniums sacred and revered for its --now scientifically proved-- medical properties.

And like queenannie points out, today not least for its environmental ones, as well.


reply posted on 10-3-2007 @ 10:53 PM by QuasiShaman


I think cops have bigger fish to fry than some harmless stoners in the privacy of their own home!!!!

I plead the 4th!

Big steps forward here in Minnesota too!


Medical marijuana bills introduced in the Minnesota Legislature
Last update: February 19, 2007
The Minnesota Legislature is back in session, and with your help we can make Minnesota the 12th state to protect sick and dying medical marijuana patients! Rep. Tom Huntley (DFL-Duluth) is leading a bipartisan coalition of 18 co-sponsors -- including former speaker of the House, Rep. Steve Sviggum (R-Kenyon) -- on H.F. 655, a bill that will allow seriously ill patients to use medical marijuana if their doctors recommend it. Sen. Steve Murphy (DFL-Red Wing) is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, S.F. 345, which also has bipartisan sponsorship.

On February 14, the Minnesota Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee -- in an overwhelming, bipartisan voice vote -- passed S.F. 345. It now heads to the Judiciary Committee. Committee hearings on H.F. 655 will be scheduled soon.

Media outlets across the state are already covering these medical marijuana bills, including the ABC affiliate in St. Paul/Minneapolis and the Minnesota News Network. Click here to read the press release about the introduction of H.F. 655 and S.F. 345. Then, check out the newspaper articles about the bills from the Winona Daily News and the Pioneer Press.

An excellent way to keep medical marijuana in the news is by writing a letter to the editor of your local papers. Please take a moment now to write a letter to the editor of your local papers in support of these medical marijuana bills. We've provided you some basic talking points that you can use in your letter, but a personally crafted letter is much more likely to get published. It's vital for state legislators to see examples of the widespread, statewide support this sensible legislation enjoys. Please click here to take action now.

After you've written a letter to the editor, please contact your state legislators to urge them to support these bills and to move quickly to pass them this session. For this legislation to move forward, you need to let your legislators know that you care about protecting sick and dying patients. Please click here to take action by writing your state legislators, asking them to end Minnesota's cruel policy of criminalizing the seriously ill.

If you are a medical professional, a law enforcement officer, or a patient who could benefit from the medical use of marijuana, please e-mail zane@mpp.org to find out more about what you can do to move this legislation forward.

A statewide poll conducted by Zogby International in February 2005 showed that Minnesotans support medical marijuana by a 2-1 margin. Last session, with the help of activists across the state, medical marijuana legislation moved through the Senate. The bipartisan medical marijuana bill passed four Senate committees before it died on the Minnesota Senate floor without a vote. The momentum is clearly in our favor. Please help maintain it by taking action today.

Thank you for supporting the Marijuana Policy Project. Please pass this information along to your friends and family in Minnesota, and then subscribe to our free legislative alert service if you haven't already done so.



reply posted on 11-3-2007 @ 12:10 AM by jsobecky
Originally posted by souls
Originally posted by jsobecky
I think that many here are confused about this case. It is not about pot. It is about the 4th Amendment.

Pot just happens to be the trigger in this case.

It could just as easily been about the distinctive smells given off from a meth lab.

Would you all be cheering it on so loudly in that case?


it's about a little of both. mainly the marijuana. believe me im not confused, i just look that way. the ruling is about specifically marijuana which is known to have an incorrect reputation and categorization. meth on the other hand, is different, you do get violent, you do kill people, you do declare wars (hitler). it is just a whole other category.

For you folks to understand, you need to appreciate the beauty of the Constitution, and the thinking of the men who wrote it.

They did not limit the 1st Amendment to what is "ink-printed or spoken". they said Freedom of Expression. That's because they knew they could not foresee the future.

They didn't limit the 2nd Amendment to "freedom to possess a cannon or musket loader". That's because they knew they could not predict what "arms" would look like in the future.

The same principle applies here. The 4th Amendment. Today it's the smell of pot, in your eyes. BUT that is not the issue!

I've seen a hundred of these types of threads on ATS, where pot is somehow involved. People immediately confuse the issue and start a "Let's legalize pot today!" sidetrack. And then all the same old stuff comes out about how it is less dangerous, how much money we could make by taxing it, etc., etc.

Very few people stick with the issue being discussed.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^