|
 Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
 Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell  [Re: badchad]
#14473161 - 05/18/11 12:54 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badchad said:
Sounds to me that the cops may have had reasonable cause to enter the apartment in the first pace.
They performed a controlled, undercover buy, then followed the guy there.
which is why we have to fight harder to change the laws
|
Doc_T
Random Dude
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado 
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473173 - 05/18/11 12:56 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
badchad said:
Sounds to me that the cops may have had reasonable cause to enter the apartment in the first pace.
They performed a controlled, undercover buy, then followed the guy there.
which is why we have to fight harder to change the laws
Makes me proud to be an American, I tell you what.
For reals. Your vote is more powerful than bullets.
--------------------
You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?
|
 AntiEverything
im not a doctor
Registered: 07/07/06
Posts: 6,003
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473186 - 05/18/11 12:59 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
AntiEverything said:
that a "law is a law"- the arbitrary tautology that confirms and validates itself. that laws shouldnt be critiqued, instead just regulate and add more policy.
the law is defined, at least in the US
Quote:
common law practice and parliament make so much more sense. for one you can vote a no-confidence and re-vote for the entire parliament. the checks and balances system rests on the idea that our branches of government dont trust eachother, and can therefor never be solvent in their own right, only playing catchup and attempting to "check" the procedure (however arbitrary) of the other branches.
we have checks and balances in the US as well, 2 house of congress have to
approve and then the president has to sign, if he does not it would have
to go back before the house and be passed with a 2/3 majority to over rule
a presidential veto... the system works pretty well, of course then we
have the court systems that are also interpreting the laws all the way to
the supreme court and the juries that also have the ability to put the law
on trial
Quote:
i mean look at canada FFS, vancouver had LSD and MDMA perfectly legal just because of a critical re-definition of an established tort that allowed for their sale...even on the streets....even in front of the courthouse
except it's illegal in vancouver and all of canada, a temporary loophole
opened for a brief time doesnt mean that it's legal it simply gave relief
for a few people for a brief time
http://wikitravel.org/en/Vancouver#Cannabis
Quote:
A common belief is that marijuana is legal in British Columbia. That is a myth. Although Vancouver's police and the justice system tend to turn a blind eye to marijuana use, tourists should be advised that possessing any amount of marijuana is illegal in all of Canada without a government-issued medical exemption (the legality of possession is, however, currently under dispute by the Supreme Court).
http://cannabisnews.com/news/13/thread13458.shtml
Quote:
"There's no open buying and selling in Vancouver, yet unfortunately a lot of people come with that impression," said Scott Hearty at the B.C. Marijuana Party headquarters and bookstore, one of a dozen legal hemp-friendly businesses.
no clash.
i will answer the argument that drugs were not made absolutely legal in canada. this isn't really the intention of my argument. i was juxtaposing the common law practice with the procedural law practice....the fact remains that in vancouver, canada, for two years the sale and possession of LSD on streets were legal. the critical potential for law under this system is great, it allows for things like this to happen. american law dictates that this isn't even possible. and in order to change laws and definitions, you must pass more legislation. there was no law that passed that made it possible for the sale/possession of LSD, mdma, mushrooms and cannabis legal for 2 years, it was a critical redefinition of an established clause
that is only one reason why the american law system is faulty. the stuff about checks and balances i just threw in to bolster the idea that american government is whack.
--------------------
You are at once
both
the quiet
and
the confusion
of my heart.
-Franz Kafka
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Doc_T]
#14473192 - 05/18/11 01:01 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
that's why I try and encourage everyone to get out and vote in every
election, to vote their convictions, not for the tool the media parades
in front of us as the best candidate, every election I research the voting
records of those that have held office to see if they've voted for their
constituents even when it conflicts with their own beliefs. too many people
want to be apathetic, they want to believe their votes dont count
|
badchad
Mad Scientist
Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,379
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Doc_T]
#14473202 - 05/18/11 01:01 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Other interesting quips from the decision..
"It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law,’” we have often said, that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. But we have also recognized that this presumption
may be overcome in some circumstances because “[t]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is‘reasonableness."
Police officers may enter premises without a warrant when they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. See United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38, 42–43 (1976).And—what is relevant here—the need “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence” has long been recognized as a sufficient justification for a warrantless search. Brigham City, supra, at 403; see also Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103, 116, n. 6 (2006); Minnesota v. Olson, 495
U. S. 91, 100 (1990).3
--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.
Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.
...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.
Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
AntiEverything
im not a doctor
Registered: 07/07/06
Posts: 6,003
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473210 - 05/18/11 01:04 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
that's why I try and encourage everyone to get out and vote in every
election, to vote their convictions, not for the tool the media parades
in front of us as the best candidate, every election I research the voting
records of those that have held office to see if they've voted for their
constituents even when it conflicts with their own beliefs. too many people
want to be apathetic, they want to believe their votes dont count
the electoral college assures that our votes do not count. american procedural democracy is a tried and true failure. look to parliament for proof of this. they have a multi-party system and allow a vote of no confidence
we have 2 parties and no way to re-elect.
--------------------
You are at once
both
the quiet
and
the confusion
of my heart.
-Franz Kafka
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: AntiEverything]
#14473216 - 05/18/11 01:04 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AntiEverything said:
i was juxtaposing the common law practice with the procedural law practice
canada is under maritime law just as the US, common law requires for there
to be a victim in order for there to be a crime, maritime law allows for
offense which have no victims like the marijuana laws
Quote:
the fact remains that in vancouver, canada, for two years the sale and possession of LSD on streets were legal.
never once have I seen anything that actually backed that up, around 2003
there was a ruling that many pro cannabis supporters claim allowed for legal
possession but the actual news I read claimed otherwise
|
orison
mcfluffysugarnuts
Registered: 01/19/09
Posts: 5,476
Last seen: 9 hours, 34 minutes
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473220 - 05/18/11 01:05 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
my guns are always loaded, close to reach and I dont give a fuck anymore!!
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: AntiEverything]
#14473222 - 05/18/11 01:06 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AntiEverything said:
the electoral college assures that our votes do not count.
we elect the electoral college
|
AntiEverything
im not a doctor
Registered: 07/07/06
Posts: 6,003
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473226 - 05/18/11 01:07 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
AntiEverything said:
i was juxtaposing the common law practice with the procedural law practice
canada is under maritime law just as the US, common law requires for there
to be a victim in order for there to be a crime, maritime law allows for
offense which have no victims like the marijuana laws
Quote:
the fact remains that in vancouver, canada, for two years the sale and possession of LSD on streets were legal.
never once have I seen anything that actually backed that up, around 2003
there was a ruling that many pro cannabis supporters claim allowed for legal
possession but the actual news I read claimed otherwise
ok yeh, so you definately
a.) have no idea what you are talking about
and
b.) did not watch the video i posted showing a guy openly selling LSD in front of the court house
--------------------
You are at once
both
the quiet
and
the confusion
of my heart.
-Franz Kafka
|
AntiEverything
im not a doctor
Registered: 07/07/06
Posts: 6,003
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473237 - 05/18/11 01:09 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
AntiEverything said:
the electoral college assures that our votes do not count.
we elect the electoral college
exactly. the vote is not a true count of what the majority even wants. we just elect people who then elect the people that ultimately run the country. if that isn't marginalizing a vote, i dont know what is.
--------------------
You are at once
both
the quiet
and
the confusion
of my heart.
-Franz Kafka
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: AntiEverything]
#14473243 - 05/18/11 01:10 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AntiEverything said:
ok yeh, so you definately
a.) have no idea what you are talking about
and
b.) did not watch the video i posted showing a guy openly selling LSD in front of the court house
just because it's overlooked certainly doesnt mean it's legal
|
AntiEverything
im not a doctor
Registered: 07/07/06
Posts: 6,003
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473264 - 05/18/11 01:15 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
common law is the practice of colloquially restablishing laws and definitions based upon passed rulings
whereas the procedural law model focuses not on re-ordering laws or critiquing them, but simply the civil execution of policymaking
oh and yes it does. you apparently aren't sure what common law is
it wasn't as if the courts just granted LSD to be ok just for two years and no more. it was a loophole that they found in the law, making it perfectly legal. they had to change this precedent in order for it to become illegal again.
--------------------
You are at once
both
the quiet
and
the confusion
of my heart.
-Franz Kafka
|
djnoktirnal
Ponderer
Registered: 04/26/06
Posts: 195
Loc: the psychabyss
Last seen: 11 months, 19 days
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: citricacidx]
#14473300 - 05/18/11 01:24 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What happened to protecting human liberty? The ability to be free in our lives and actions as long as it doesn't encroach upon another's ability to be free in their life and actions?
--------------------
WWJDWWMD's?
What Would Jesus Do With Weapons of Mass Destruction?
  
|
The Inner Eye
Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 9 years, 5 days
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: djnoktirnal]
#14473339 - 05/18/11 01:33 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Two words
Nag Champa 
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: AntiEverything]
#14473466 - 05/18/11 01:59 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AntiEverything said:
common law is the practice of colloquially restablishing laws and definitions based upon passed rulings
which in the past had infact been crimes where there were victims, common law
had no precedent in which marijuana was illegal when those laws placing the
legal systems of both canada and the US under the admiralty
Quote:
it wasn't as if the courts just granted LSD to be ok just for two years and no more. it was a loophole that they found in the law, making it perfectly legal. they had to change this precedent in order for it to become illegal again.
as I've stated, I keep hearing it yet I have seen no evidence supporting it
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Kratom Extract 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds 
Bridgetown Botanicals
Edit 
Reply 
phlegmmaiden
ChopperDave
1 2 3 4 5 all )
Silven
YouEnjoyMyself
QuantumMeltdown
Delyrium