*Honey, isn't it a nice night to light up the sky?*
Posted on 03/20/2013 6:13:34 PM PDT by Daffynition
SEATTLE -- The passage of I-502 made things difficult enough for the humans tasked with creating and enforcing the laws for legal marijuana. Now, try explaining the difference between "personal use" and "intent to sell" or the gray area between state and federal law to a dog.
That's why many law-enforcement agencies around the state, including the Seattle Police Department and Washington State Patrol, will no longer be training their drug-sniffing dogs to alert for marijuana.
“Moving forward, it makes most sense not to train dogs to alert to marijuana as that would likely lead to unwarranted investigatory detentions of people who are not breaking any law," said Alison Holcomb, author of I-502 and drug policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys sent out a memo advising the state's law-enforcement agencies that narcotics dogs are no longer required to be trained to alert for marijuana in December. And, marijuana was removed from the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission's Canine Performance Standards test in January.
(Excerpt) Read more at katu.com ...
*Honey, isn't it a nice night to light up the sky?*
>>as that would likely lead to unwarranted investigatory detentions of people who are not breaking any law,<<
Since when did this stop cops from illegal search and seizures? ...or being at the wrong house?
OK got it, what ever goes , then goes, no rule of law then
How will you react when, say, Texas ignores a new federal gun law?
Available research shows that the first effect of marijuana on driving is to make the driver more careful in order to compensate for their impairment, which is not (for wahtever reason) the case with drinkers. And crime went down when the mind-altering drug alcohol was legalized; there's no reason to expect it to go up here.
So how stoned would someone get on one ounce? Would you get arrested for smoking one ounce of the new marijuana, but with the old-time stuff you could smoke two ounces?
It was never possible to smoke an ounce of marijuana worthy of the name (as opposed to ripoff ditchweed) in a single session; an ounce has always been good for several dozen joints, the more typical unit of consumption. And if the weed is more potent, one will smoke less to get the desired effect - just as a beer drinker who switches to liquor lowers his volume consumption.
What a mess, so many ways this can be done wrong.
Hard to do worse than the War on Marijuana, which only hyperinflated marijuana profits and channeled those profits into criminal hands. Our alcohol regulations may not be perfect, but they beat the Hell out of Prohibition.
I expect to be shouted down over this but how would they know how much ‘stronger’ it is? There were many strengths and varieties 35 years ago when I was in school.
Also nobody smokes a whole ounce in one sitting, it is a waste after you catch a buzz. Anything after that is wasted and you can not overdose on it!
Questions for LEOs / dog trainers: How much does it cost to train a dog? Can they be re-trained? Are they always ‘on-duty’ to alert for anything they’re trained to smell?
Just asking so please no flamings...
then I;ll cross that bridge when it happens but I won’t hold my breath.
You state you;re not a liberal-tarian, LOL
any kind of marriage, make all drugs legal like heroin,LSD
Nah you’re not in tune with the occupy radcial left there LOL
OK got it, what ever goes , then goes, no rule of law then
How will you react when, say, Texas ignores a new federal gun law?
then I;ll cross that bridge when it happens
You can't predict how you'll react? I can predict how I'll react to states ignoring any unconstitutional federal law, be it gun or drug: "You go!"
You state you;re not a liberal-tarian, LOL
any kind of marriage,
I'm opposed to that.
make all drugs legal like heroin,LSD
Nah you’re not in tune with the occupy radcial left there LOL
Unlike Occupy, I'm against ALL utopian big-government programs - including the futile and counterproductive War on Drugs.
The point was the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of enforcement of laws, which delegitimizes the government. Less and less reason to abide by laws. ANY laws. Whether it’s a state ignoring federal drug laws, or a doper who illegally lights up in a public park, or another guy who comes by and bashes the doper’s skull in.
As a Texan, I would obviously tell the federal government to go to hell regarding any new federal gun laws. Same with Obamacare. Same with EPA regulations. Considering the pathetic direction of the country, I’m within inches of becoming a big supporter of secession. But it’s not just due to federal overreach, but also to say good riddance to worthless, degenerate states that legitimize fag marriage and legalize dope.
As a Texan, I would obviously tell the federal government to go to hell regarding any new federal gun laws. Same with Obamacare. Same with EPA regulations.
I'm afraid I can't see how to reconcile your first paragraph with your second.
I was at a 4th of July celebration out in the country and the host pulled out some relatively small fireworks. Every piece that was lit went straight up like it was supposed to except one.
I was sitting near the pool with my youngest son on my lap and this one firework came right at me and hit me in the neck, missed my son's eyes by about four inches.
It put a damper on the party, to say the least. And, I had a disgusting "hickie" on my neck for about two months.
Well, in a way, it’s two (or even three) separate topics that got meshed together. You’ve assumed I’m standing up for federal drug laws. My only real defense of them isn’t so much of a ‘defense’ as a statement of reality that enforcement of laws (immigration, health care, sanctuary cities, etc.) has become so arbitrary and capricious that it has delegitimized government and making all laws relatively moot. It ushers in a scenario in which there is moral justification for vigilanteism. If the target of such vigilanteism by a town’s citizenry is dope, so be it. I wouldn’t lift a finger to help any dopehead. If the target of vigilanteism is to confiscate guns, I’d fight them. To the death.
What's the moral justification for vigilanteism against dope?
Dope peddlers. Dope is illegal where I live.
What's the moral justification for vigilanteism against dope?
Dope peddlers. Dope is illegal where I live.
Yet if guns were illegal where you live, you'd resist the vigilanteism.
Yes, because gun owners make good neighbors.
Dopeheads are degenerate human filth that degrade a community.
Some are - as are some alkies. But for both mind-altering drugs, many users just want to live and let live.
Indeed, more questions than answers on this question. Besides the idiocy of making a substance that’s illegal to sell according to Fed law legal in a couple of states. AT this point, no one seems to know enough about anything.
How can it possibly turn out well?
You describe normal users and drinkers. Trouble is, many are addicted to alcohol and other drugs and would not lower volume of consumption. I have no problem with people using any of this stuff...I do have a problem with people getting hooked, which too often ends costing taxpayers a bundle in medical care.
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.