Posted on 12/14/2012 6:49:59 AM PST by John W
President Obama says recreational users of marijuana in states that have legalized the substance should not be a "top priority" of federal law enforcement officials prosecuting the war on drugs.
"We've got bigger fish to fry," Obama said of pot users in Colorado and Washington during an exclusive interview with ABC News' Barbara Walters.
"It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal," he said, invoking the same approach taken toward users of medicinal marijuana in 18 states where it's legal.
More of Barbara Walters' exclusive first joint, post-election interview with President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama airs tonight on "20/20" at 10 p.m. ET on ABC stations.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
That's the textbook definition of a "strawman argument". You might be doing that too, but it's not something that contributes to civil discourse, so I thing we're still covered.
Hey, you should be happy the most liberal states are legalizing. It’s a LIBERAL idealogy thing. And if hussein wants to go easy on potheads, you’d vote for 3rd term for him too.
I'd be happier if all states - and the feds - did.
It’s a LIBERAL idealogy thing.
Opposite - individual freedom is a conservative thing.
And if hussein wants to go easy on potheads, you’d vote for 3rd term for him too.
Nope, I vote only for consistently pro-freedom candidates - which is why for the past few election cycles neither major party has gotten my presidential vote.
See my tagline. I engage libertarians almost on a daily basis. “Strawman argument”? Not even. I read their arguments for legalizing drugs, pornography, abortion, gay marriages and worse almost on a daily basis. Here at Free Republic.
As for me? I’m finding it humorous that throwing a little liberal logic in the mix here is hitting too close to home for many libertarians.
They never are, according to the people making them. Even when they know better.
What made you decide we need more of that?
I understand the point you are making I just have never seen anyone put smoking marijuana on the same level as taking joy in watching children being raped.
First you get stonned ~ to do that you have the substance in your possession. Then you catch a plane. Odds are good you are still stoned and still have the substance in your possession.
Your judgment will be impaired so you will probably not notice in your travels that Virginia is not part of Colorado.
Possession gets you busted.
prev | next § 18.2-266. Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (v) while such person has a blood concentration of any of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than: (a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood, (b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood, (c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or (d) 0.1 milligrams of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v).
For the purposes of this article, the term "motor vehicle" includes mopeds, while operated on the public highways of this Commonwealth
So, the dog is there, on his chain, with his handler ~ just standing there and you walk by and the dog alerts.
The Supreme Court says that's all the cops need to subject you to a slightly more thorough examination.
Virginia has been in business since the Treaty of London (1604) which gives us 408 years to figure out how to write a statute making being stoned and on public right of way a crime ~ the specific statute was the one about operating motor vehicles ~ there are others that cover other events related to use.
BTW, only stoners would imagine Virginia had neglected to write a law about something.
Unless you had in your possession only enough to get stoned, for instance, one modest joint - in which case you arrive in Virginia not in possession ... and you have yet to supply a Virginia statute that makes it illegal to simply be stoned (as opposed to being stoned AND operating a motor vehicle).
I’m not your defense counsel but the first thing he’s going to say is ‘of course you knew this stuff was illegal in Virginia’ and you’ll say something dumb like ‘i didn’t have none of that on me’ and he’ll say ‘the dog alerted ~ don’t lie to your lawyer’
I’m not your defense counsel but the first thing he’s going to say is ‘of course you knew this stuff was illegal in Virginia’
What stuff? The client smoked it all in CO.
and you’ll say something dumb like ‘i didn’t have none of that on me’ and he’ll say ‘the dog alerted ~ don’t lie to your lawyer’
As a lawyer, he'll know that while a drug dog alert is probable cause for a search, it is not in itself evidence of possession.
http://medvinlaw.com/alexandria-virginia-state-federal-criminal-defense-lawyer-attorney-law-firm/virginia-drug-laws-penalties-defenses-charges-a-defense-lawyers-explanation-of-possession-and-distribution-laws-arrest/ ~ and you don’t want to ever get caught intoxicated (demonstrable by behavior) because they can stick you in a detox unit rather than arrest you.
Clue, they can, particularly when they have a dog with them that's trained to alert on the odor.
The Virginia law leaves it to the determination of the oficer ~ so, as it turns out, you're busted already ~ totally unprepared or what will really happen to you.
Clue, they can, particularly when they have a dog with them that's trained to alert on the odor.
The Virginia law leaves it to the determination of the oficer ~ so, as it turns out, you're busted already ~ totally unprepared or what will really happen to you.
Unlike you, I've made no claims, so I have nothing I need to search for.
I can only imagine you're in the crowd who don't realize that others can identify your being intoxicated when using marijuana.
Clue, they can, particularly when they have a dog with them that's trained to alert on the odor.
The Virginia law leaves it to the determination of the oficer ~ so, as it turns out, you're busted already ~ totally unprepared or what will really happen to you.
WHAT Virginia law leaves WHAT to the determination of the oficer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.