It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by shots
queenannie38 it is obvious you are pro pot sobeit.
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.
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.
"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.
The enforcement of marijuana consumption is a waste of crucial manpower and money.
Originally posted by khunmoon
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.
Originally posted by 11Bravo
I feel it is crucial for Americans, ney, for HUMANS, to realize that rights arent 'given' to us by any piece of paper.
They are spelled out in the 4th ammendment, but even without that piece of paper you would still have the right to be secure in your home/person.
I am not being a stickler, but it is clear to me after reading some posts on here that some people have no idea what rights are or where they really come from.
Originally posted by Lexion
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
Originally posted by 11Bravo
Shots, no offence intended, but your stance is anti-american.
Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.
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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I'd bet that if this went before the SCOTUS, they would rule for the cops.
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?
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?
Originally posted by 11Bravo
I meant nothing personal to shots, its just that I have very firm beliefs on personal freedoms.
I hate seatbelt laws as well, and consider supporters of such laws 'unamerican'.
To me America means freedom, where I should be able to do whatever I want as long as I dont hurt others.
Im not hurting anybody by not wearing my seatbelt, and Im not hurting anyone sitting in my home smoking pot.
Again, I dont mean that Shots is not a good American, just that his view is contrary to the freedom America is suppose to stand for.
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?
Originally posted by Lexion
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.
Originally posted by Shoktek
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?
Yes, because surely the police can do some real police work, get some real evidence, and build a real case on the REAL bad guys, which doesn't need to rely on something as flimsy as one person's capability for sniffing out drugs. The right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure is very serious, and we don't need cops to have the ABILITY to go into our homes if they decide they want to. It is easy for them to do this by claiming that they smell drugs. It is quite another thing entirely to hear someone screaming, hear a gunshot, suspicious activity reports, etc. That's because all of these things can be corroborated by other witnesses, as opposed to just made up on the spot by one police officer.
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.