Understanding that ‘social acceptability, and ‘religious opinion’ are not rights…merely opinions:

1) “What right does ‘Joe Six-Pack’ have that ‘Tony the Toker’ doesn’t?”

Assuming they could answer that I’d follow-up with:

2) “Do you agree with religious rehabbers that alcohol drug abuse is considered 2 standard drinks per day or a total of 6 per week?”

NASCAR nation might want to know this answer too! Or is ignorance bliss?

0  0

My question was ‘My dear friend Dr David Busch, a board certified pathologist who worked at Walter Reed Hospital died of leukemia in 2002. In his last two years he found relief from the pain only from marijuana, and somehow I think he knew what was medicine and what was not. I’d like to know if you’re going to support Barney Frank’s bill HR 2835 which will protect patients from the government meddling with their medical decisions?’ She actually took the question which shocked me. She proceeded to give a 500 word non-answer, noting that Mr. Frank’s bill would only protect patients in states with medical laws, and then went on to babble about how Maryland had ‘protected’ patients from the threat of jail with the lame ass state medical law. Even so, I think I’ll follow up today with a written thank you note. Not that I’m really grateful, just to help imprint the conversation in her mind.

So it was great to actually live out the fantasy, and hope it raised her awareness a little bit. Does it count more because she called me rather than vice versa?

Anyway, I picked Obama above, so I really want to know why I got dinner with my Congress critter. I think there’s a glitch in your software Pete.

0  0

That could be arranged. After all, I love to eat, and I love to talk about drug policy.

0  0

Of course, if Tommy came to dinner, methinks ‘The entire local police force’ would be joining us at some point in time…

0  0

I chose a supreme court justice since that is where policy is made and they do have a job to at least try to explain what they are doing although the interstate commerce explanation in Raich is a little thin…

0  0

0  0

Now to cleanse post meat feast some kind of pomegranate flavored desert or possibly pomegranate juice would be apropos?

(Hope I’m getting my mythology right! LOL)

@daksya, Souder would be an okay guy to try and educate. I tried to get my dad to broach the subject with him one on one, but Souder would just change the subject. And no, he doesn’t believe that the word “every” in the bible applies to all seeds and plants as some are clearly placed here after the fact by Satan! LOL

Seriously though, all of these choices could lead to great discussions if they were truely open to discussion.

0  0

If one just wants to learn basic 4th Amendment law, I’d suggest getting a hornbook on the subject. However, there’s really no point in learning about it when you’re talking about drugs because the Constitution simply doesn’t apply. Can the government do something? If drugs are involved, the answer is always YES. That’s really all you need to know. If you’re talking about cases involving rape, murder, or even terrorism, then things get more complicated because the Constitution does apply to those types of cases.

0  0

You familiar with the term “shepherdizing?” If not, grab a little book that explains it. It’s the method taught in Law School to bring all your case law together. Really makes things easier. Once you understand it, then it’s off to your local County Law Library.

0  0

I know I’m not justice Stevens, and I also think Caballes is a horrible decision, but if it means anything I can tell you exactly what Stevens would say (and IAAL for whatever that’s worth). He’d say your rights under the Fourth Amendment only protect you from unreasonable searches, not erroneous ones (and he’d be correct). Just because the search doesn’t turn up any contraband (or whatever the cops contend they are trying to find) doesn’t mean it is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. To say an erroneous search is unreasonable is problematic in two respects – (1) you only know it’s erroneous after the fact, and (2) it’s not true, as a perfectly reasonable search can turn up no evidence because, for example, the suspect destroyed the evidence the moment he saw the police coming to his house through the window. The converse is also true – plenty of searches that DO turn up evidence are unreasonable and subject to a motion to suppress. So whatever factors make a search reasonable or unreasonable, it can’t depend on the success of the search.

With respect to Caballes, I would contend that the use of a dog with a known error rate who is just trying to please his master and get a treat – without more – makes such a search per se unreasonable. Especially when done without probable cause.

The word “reasonable” in the Fourth Amendment has been used to surgically dissect all the protections that amendment was intended to provide. People – even the best judges – can’t separate the acts of the state from the problem the state is trying to prevent. The crime is unreasonable so everything the state does to stop the crime is thus reasonable, they think. Better to destroy the Constitution than let a criminal go free….

Anyway, it’s nice to see other people accept the fact that there is a drug exception to the Constitution (not only the bill of rights).

0  0