What the hell Kansas?

[Alps]

As for alcohol, there is a big difference between drinking alcoholic beverages and using drugs. The whole purpose of using drugs is to get wasted. That's not the case with alcohol.

Is it?  What is a slight buzz other than a mild form of being wasted?  How is that different from someone who has refined taste in cannabis and enjoys having a small amount at the end of a tough day at work?  That's a distinction without a difference in my mind.

The sole purpose of smoking marijuana is to become intoxicated.

That is as true as the statement, "The sole purpose of drinking alcohol is to become intoxicated."

[corco]

Personally, I'd say the argument that people don't smoke marijuana for the high is as ridiculous as the argument that the reason alcohol should be legal and pot shouldn't is because people like alcohol for the taste.

From a purely practical standpoint, you can't go regulating substances based on people's motives for using the substance- that's an insanely slippery slope- you have to regulate it based on the effects of the substance, and in that case there's just no reason for pot to be illegal while alcohol is legal.

[hbelkins]

As for alcohol, there is a big difference between drinking alcoholic beverages and using drugs. The whole purpose of using drugs is to get wasted. That's not the case with alcohol.

Is it?  What is a slight buzz other than a mild form of being wasted?  How is that different from someone who has refined taste in cannabis and enjoys having a small amount at the end of a tough day at work?  That's a distinction without a difference in my mind.

The sole purpose of smoking marijuana is to become intoxicated.

That is as true as the statement, "The sole purpose of drinking alcohol is to become intoxicated."

At this point, I have to ask, at the risk of being warned -- what?

Unless you want to waive the use of pot for medical reasons.

At which case I must further refine the statement. The sole purpose of recreational marijuana use is to become intoxicated.

Intoxication is NOT the sole purpose for drinking alcohol. Someone who drinks one beer with their meal, say at a roadgeek meet, isn't drinking the beer for purposes of intoxication.

[bugo]

Worse yet, many drug convictions come with mandatory sentencing, replacing the wisdom of veteran judges with grandstanding politicians looking to score points in the next election.

In lots of states, Kentucky included, judges are elected officials and they have to be responsive to the public's wishes or they lose the next election.

And because the system is racist

That's really funny. Were you trying to tell a joke?

doing something 2 of the last 3 Presidents have all done

FIFY. There were lots of allegations that Bush 43 used coke, but no one ever proved them, and no one ever came forward to admit that they had done drugs with W or seen him do drugs. And in our "15 minutes of fame" society, anyone who had ever witnessed this would definitely have come forward to tell the world. W admits that he abused alcohol but has never admitted doing coke.

He never denied doing it either.

You can tell Bush is a cokehead just by the way he acts.  It makes sense considering so many boneheaded decisions he made during his "presidency". 
Post Merge: July 11, 2013, 08:54:17 PM

As for alcohol, there is a big difference between drinking alcoholic beverages and using drugs. The whole purpose of using drugs is to get wasted. That's not the case with alcohol.

Um, alcohol IS a drug.  And the sole purpose of drinking alcohol is for a head change.  I don't know anybody who drinks it for the taste.
Post Merge: July 11, 2013, 08:54:21 PM

The sole purpose of smoking marijuana is to become intoxicated.

That's bullshit, Hayes, and you know it.  There are dozens of medical uses for cannabis.  Migraine is one disease that cannabis helps greatly.  Glaucoma, pain, depression, headaches, you name it. 

Don't you believe in a creator deity that created everything?  Are you saying he fucked up when he made cannabis?  What if this god put cannabis on earth for us to use as a medicine, and the government agents who try to eradicate it are doing Satan's work?  I don't believe in any of that, but it fits within your belief system.
Post Merge: July 11, 2013, 08:54:24 PM

As for alcohol, there is a big difference between drinking alcoholic beverages and using drugs. The whole purpose of using drugs is to get wasted. That's not the case with alcohol.

Is it?  What is a slight buzz other than a mild form of being wasted?  How is that different from someone who has refined taste in cannabis and enjoys having a small amount at the end of a tough day at work?  That's a distinction without a difference in my mind.

OK, change the word "wasted" to "intoxicated," which would categorically include your word "buzzed." Some people enjoy beer and wine, and even bourbon, for the taste and not for any intoxicating effects. The sole purpose of smoking marijuana is to become intoxicated.

Name one person who enjoys the taste of alcohol.  I certainly don't, even though a good beer is OK every now and then.

[NE2]

Medical marijuana denial!

[US71]

As for alcohol, there is a big difference between drinking alcoholic beverages and using drugs. The whole purpose of using drugs is to get wasted. That's not the case with alcohol.

Is it?  What is a slight buzz other than a mild form of being wasted?  How is that different from someone who has refined taste in cannabis and enjoys having a small amount at the end of a tough day at work?  That's a distinction without a difference in my mind.

OK, change the word "wasted" to "intoxicated," which would categorically include your word "buzzed." Some people enjoy beer and wine, and even bourbon, for the taste and not for any intoxicating effects. The sole purpose of smoking marijuana is to become intoxicated.

Name one person who enjoys the taste of alcohol.  I certainly don't, even though a good beer is OK every now and then.

Ever tried mead? 

[kphoger]

As for alcohol, there is a big difference between drinking alcoholic beverages and using drugs. The whole purpose of using drugs is to get wasted. That's not the case with alcohol.

Um, alcohol IS a drug.  And the sole purpose of drinking alcohol is for a head change.  I don't know anybody who drinks it for the taste.

I drink wine for the taste, and I enjoy learning about the varieties and differences.  I enjoy having wine with my friends, and none of us ever drinks more than two glasses at a time.  The very few times I've had more than that I regretted, so I cap it at two.  And, have you been to a wine tasting?  They spit it out.  Kind of hard to get intoxicated that way.

I have childhood memories of my dad, who is a pastor, having a glass of cognac or mezcal in between Christmas Eve services to keep his voice going after so much singing, speaking, and chanting.  It had nothing to with the buzz.

And, for what it's worth, caffeine is a drug, and the only reason people consume it is for a head change.  But there's a line to be drawn somewhere between coffee and heroin, and you know it.  Marijuana might fall on one side or the other of that line, I admit, but there's still a line to be drawn.

Don't you believe in a creator deity that created everything?  Are you saying he fucked up when he made cannabis?  What if this god put cannabis on earth for us to use as a medicine, and the government agents who try to eradicate it are doing Satan's work?  I don't believe in any of that, but it fits within your belief system.

Wait a minute.  What?  God created the suicide tree, but I wouldn't recommend it for human consumption.  But that's neither here nor there, since nobody is advocating the extinction of the genus.  Weird...

From a purely practical standpoint, you can't go regulating substances based on people's motives for using the substance- that's an insanely slippery slope- you have to regulate it based on the effects of the substance, and in that case there's just no reason for pot to be illegal while alcohol is legal.

Now here is a reasonable argument!  All the talk of motives in using drugs and alcohol is really tedious, and ignores the fact that there are plenty of other drugs out there which really can't be used in any way except to get wasted.  As I said, put marijuana on the other side of the line, and you're right back where you started, with something else.  But the issue up for real debate (IMO) is whether or not marijuana is just like alcohol in its temperate use.  And.....haven't we had that discussion elsewhere on these boards?

[J N Winkler]

And, for what it's worth, caffeine is a drug, and the only reason people consume it is for a head change.

Not necessarily.  Caffeine would be consumed in refined form, as a tablet, only by those seeking an alteration in mental state.  But there are many people (myself included) who are connoisseurs of coffee and for which the caffeine is only one part of the total picture.

There is also the philosophical question of whether pursuing an altered mental state is in itself bad.  Isn't this why people used to take mescaline (which, as far as I know, is not particularly addictive)?

[Takumi]

I find marijuana to be overrated. I get the same effect from not getting enough sleep, which is pretty much all the time.

[NE2]

I find marijuana to be overrated. I get the same effect from not getting enough sleep, which is pretty much all the time.

I feel exactly the same, except with alcohol.

[Avalanchez71]

Never touched the stuff.

[Duke87]

From a purely practical standpoint, you can't go regulating substances based on people's motives for using the substance- that's an insanely slippery slope- you have to regulate it based on the effects of the substance, and in that case there's just no reason for pot to be illegal while alcohol is legal.

The only reason alcohol is legal while marijuana is not is because alcohol was too popular for a ban to be effective.

Some illegal drugs are really dangerous, and some are not. The important difference between illegal drugs and things like alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine isn't danger, it's societal acceptance: drinking alcohol is perceived as cool, but smoking marijuana is perceived as making you a lowlife drug addict. And the way we are taught about drugs in school perpetuates this, as those classes are designed purely to scare us into staying clean, not to objectively teach us about drugs. There are lots of important details that health classes omit because they are not consistent with the agenda of the school boards that set them up. For example: marijuana does not create physical dependance and it is perfectly possible to use it recreationally on occasion without being an addict and having it destroy your life the way an addiction does. The ramifications of being caught using marijuana by the police or by an employer are arguably more damaging to one's life than the ramifications of using the drug in and of itself.

[agentsteel53]

There is also the philosophical question of whether pursuing an altered mental state is in itself bad.

I see no problem with it.  certainly there are benefits to moderation, but to universally label it as "bad" is quite limiting.*  it's a life experience, just like anything else.  is clinching counties bad?  they both carry a probability of diminishing your lifespan, the quality thereof, or the certainty that you will keep others out of harm, and I think it's up to every human being to weigh those risks and rewards.

for me, the line drawn starts at "okay, I'm not harming anyone" (not gonna drink and drive, etc) and as for the implications to my own health, I've long ago decided that if I lose ~2-4 years at the end of my life, which I think is what the actuarial tables say with regard to my mind-altering habits, then that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make in exchange for the experiences and enjoyments gained.

* it's important to acknowledge that JNW has made no such label here - I just quoted him to form a point of reference by which to start my argument.

[Scott5114]

The ramifications of being caught using marijuana by the police or by an employer are arguably more damaging to one's life than the ramifications of using the drug in and of itself.

The only reason most employers care about use of the drug (outside of work, of course) is because their insurance companies incentivize them to do so (through discounts, or through refusal to cover you unless you implement an anti-drug policy/drug-testing program).

[The High Plains Traveler]

The ramifications of being caught using marijuana by the police or by an employer are arguably more damaging to one's life than the ramifications of using the drug in and of itself.

The only reason most employers care about use of the drug (outside of work, of course) is because their insurance companies incentivize them to do so (through discounts, or through refusal to cover you unless you implement an anti-drug policy/drug-testing program).

You might be onto something, Scott. My employer has employees who are DOT-regulated (drive CMVs, not to mention sticking their hands into high voltage lines, an activity not regulated by DOT) and thus has to have a random drug testing program. They instituted a pilot program a couple of years ago to expand this to other employees who do not drive CMVs nor stick their hands into high voltage lines. I had an interesting discussion during the program rollout that indicated that, although Colorado was a state where medical marijuana (MMJ) was legal, any employee found with THC in the blood was screwed. If we had a MMJ card, that was the time to self-report, get employer-paid counseling, and not be subject to dismissal should the random bottle appear on the desk.

By the way, I saw no correlation between the THC levels in the tests and any recognized levels associated with impairment. It was only this year that Colorado passed a "stoned while driving" level for THC, as a result of legalization of marijuana last election.

I don't see any nexus with MMJ use and a person who sits in an office. If job performance is impaired for whatever reason, then the employee has to deal with that; but if what an employee does after leaving the office has no measurable impact on job performance, then it's not the employer's business.

[Duke87]

The ramifications of being caught using marijuana by the police or by an employer are arguably more damaging to one's life than the ramifications of using the drug in and of itself.

The only reason most employers care about use of the drug (outside of work, of course) is because their insurance companies incentivize them to do so (through discounts, or through refusal to cover you unless you implement an anti-drug policy/drug-testing program).

Which, when you consider the negative health impacts of drug use, makes some sense. It costs more to cover users than non-users.

Of course, this policy is selectively applied to illegal drugs. Tobacco is very destructive to your health, moreso than many banned substances, but no insurance company demands employers prohibit its use as a condition of coverage, they merely factor it into everyone's rates and move on. Back again to the question of societal acceptance...

[Scott5114]

I think it's not so much health insurance that does this, it's more a workers comp insurance thing. You wouldn't want a heroin addict driving a forklift, for instance. But because marijuana is illegal in most places it gets rolled into the same basket as the other illegal drugs.

Were it not for such things, I imagine most employers would dispense with drug testing. It's expensive and resource-intensive to administer, and if it leads to performance problems you can just fire based on those, rather than trying to establish the root cause.

[hbelkins]

Of course, this policy is selectively applied to illegal drugs. Tobacco is very destructive to your health, moreso than many banned substances, but no insurance company demands employers prohibit its use as a condition of coverage, they merely factor it into everyone's rates and move on. Back again to the question of societal acceptance...

My employer now charges different rates for tobacco users (not just smokers, but chewers/dippers as well) and non-users.

[cpzilliacus]

BTW, the spelling is marijuana, with a "j".  Marihuana hasn't been used as a spelling in decades.

I believe the stupid federal law still says "marihuana."

I use the "h" to express my dislike of that law, even though I despise the greasy smell of marihuana as much as anyone on this Earth.

[agentsteel53]

I use the "h" to express my dislike of that law, even though I despise the greasy smell of marihuana as much as anyone on this Earth.

I don't mind it.  in fact, I find it quite pleasant.  I stay out of a cloud of secondhand tobacco smoke, but will not be bothered - and thus, will not shift my location - if I am downwind of secondhand marijuana smoke.

[jwolfer]

The war on drugs has caused far more harm than all of the illegal drugs it's trying to 'protect' us from.  It destroys families and creates more people with no other recourse but to sell drugs in a vicious self-sustaining cycle.  It is a misguided attempt to treat a medical problem as if it's a law enforcement problem.  Total and complete failure.  Getting stopped by redneck pigs for unrelated bullshit is only the tip of iceberg that is America's stupid, stupid drug war.

My mother-in-law just got out of prison yesterday for selling/possessing/trafficking drugs, and a bunch of us are going to Branson this weekend for a big family party for her.  She's been in the drug scene since my wife was a little child, but had given us the impression she was past that part of her life.  But, really, she had just become better at keeping it hidden from everyone.  Getting busted for selling meth and going to prison for a few years was, in our opinion, the best thing that could have happened to her.  She was damaging her own life, damaging the lives of those she sold to, and setting a bad example for her two youngest sisters–the older of which has been following in her footsteps in all the wrong ways for several years now.

I'm personally glad there was a system in place to arrest her, stop her in her tracks, keep her forcibly clean and away from it all, scare her enough to make her stop selling, and provide education on how to keep her life from sliding back down that hill again in the future.  I'm also very glad that my wife and youngest sister-in-law have seen the destruction caused by drugs throughout their early lives and have wanted nothing to do with it.

Now, I'm up to a debate on where exactly the line should be drawn between "OK" and "not OK" (caffeine, for example, is an addictive central nervous system stimulant, yet few people are pushing for its abolition), but you won't hear me badmouthing the "drug war" (whatever that is, exactly) in general–because the fight against drugs has helped my family.

Crystal Meth became popular because of the crackdown on Cocaine and crack.  People could get the ingredients from the hardware store and sudafed.  Alcohol is legal now so there are not a bunch of bootleggers or rumrunners anymore.  The prohibition of alcohol gave rise to gangland murders, the mafia etc.  Addiction is a horrible thing and it doesnt matter whether the substance is legal or not.  My wife and I have 2 family members struggling with addiction and both substances are legal.  One is alcohol and the other is prescrition pain-killers, anti-anxiety pills all legally prescribed. 

The war on drugs has drecreased our rights.  One of the things that pisses me off the most is people who say "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't care if I am stopped and searched at random"

Say you have a classic car that you sell to someone out of state to a collector and you agree to bring the car to him and then rent a car to drive home and he pays you in cash... lets say $10,000... no luggage, alone and with a one way car rental agreement... see how long it takes Johnny Law to confiscate the cash as drug money, even with a valid bill of sale.  Lots of cases like this.  its no business of the police why you have cash if your only crime is a minor traffic offense or a tail light out

[hbelkins]

I don't mind it.  in fact, I find it quite pleasant.  I stay out of a cloud of secondhand tobacco smoke, but will not be bothered - and thus, will not shift my location - if I am downwind of secondhand marijuana smoke.

The smell of it gives me a splitting headache. That's one reason why years ago I quit going to rock concerts or anyplace else where I might have to smell it. I hate tobacco smoke, but it usually just makes my clothes and hair stink. It doesn't make me feel like my head is about to blow apart the way dope smoke does.

Oh, it should be noted that I had no incidents on my trip to Kansas, and the deputy sheriff who pulled me over because I passed him not knowing it was a police vehicle was very pleasant and friendly.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

I do not consent to warrant-less searches.  This is not a police state.  You do not have to give up your rights.  However, with the drug dog detecting, that is enough for probable cause to search.  The Carlton County situation on the other is not.  I would politely refuse and then ask to be one my way.

Legally, yes, the dog trumps all. Ethically, however, the drug dog 'indicating' actually isn't probable cause.  You can train a dog to do just about anything.  Training it to always 'indicate' at a traffic stop is not terribly far-fetched, and under current laws, gives the police an incredibly powerful tool to force a search any time they like.  I have never been asked for permission to search, but I would never consent, and I would confront them about my above point if they threatened me with the dog.

[agentsteel53]

Legally, yes, the dog trumps all. Ethically, however, the drug dog 'indicating' actually isn't probable cause.  You can train a dog to do just about anything.  Training it to always 'indicate' at a traffic stop is not terribly far-fetched, and under current laws, gives the police an incredibly powerful tool to force a search any time they like.  I have never been asked for permission to search, but I would never consent, and I would confront them about my above point if they threatened me with the dog.

ethically, no, but at a traffic stop in Brookings, SD I was informed explicitly before the dog arrived that "under South Dakota law, the dog indicating will give us probable cause to search your vehicle". 

of course the fucking thing indicated.  what police jurisdiction wouldn't train their dog to indicate either if it sniffs drugs, or if the handler twiddles his thumbs just so.

[Avalanchez71]

I do not consent to warrant-less searches.  This is not a police state.  You do not have to give up your rights.  However, with the drug dog detecting, that is enough for probable cause to search.  The Carlton County situation on the other is not.  I would politely refuse and then ask to be one my way.

Legally, yes, the dog trumps all. Ethically, however, the drug dog 'indicating' actually isn't probable cause.  You can train a dog to do just about anything.  Training it to always 'indicate' at a traffic stop is not terribly far-fetched, and under current laws, gives the police an incredibly powerful tool to force a search any time they like.  I have never been asked for permission to search, but I would never consent, and I would confront them about my above point if they threatened me with the dog.

DRUG DOG CASE
Florida v. Harris
United States Supreme Court
Feb. 19, 2013

Officer Wheetley pulled over respondent Harris for a routine traffic stop. Observing Harris's nervousness and an open beer can, Wheetley sought consent to search Harris's truck. When Harris refused, Wheetley executed a sniff test with his trained narcotics dog, Aldo. The dog alerted at the driver's-side door handle, leading Wheetley to conclude that he had probable cause for a search. That search turned up nothing Aldo was trained to detect, but did reveal pseudoephedrine and other ingredients for manufacturing methamphetamine. Harris was arrested and charged with illegal possession of those ingredients. In a subsequent stop while Harris was out on bail, Aldo again alerted on Harris's truck but nothing of interest was found. At a suppression hearing, Wheetley testified about his and Aldo's extensive training in drug detection. Harris's attorney did not contest the quality of that training, focusing instead on Aldo's certification and performance in the field, particularly in the two stops of Harris's truck. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed. It held that a wide array of evidence was always necessary to establish probable cause, including field-performance records showing how many times the dog has falsely alerted. If an officer like Wheetley failed to keep such records, he could never have probable cause to think the dog a reliable indicator of drugs.

In testing whether an officer has probable cause to conduct a search, all that is required is the kind of "fair probability"  on which "reasonable and prudent [people] act."  To evaluate whether the State has met this practical and common-sensical standard, this Court has consistently looked to the totality of the circumstances and rejected rigid rules, bright-line tests, and mechanistic inquiries.

The Florida Supreme Court flouted this established approach by creating a strict evidentiary checklist to assess a drug-detection dog's reliability. Requiring the State to introduce comprehensive documentation of the dog's prior hits and misses in the field, and holding that absent field records will preclude a finding of probable cause no matter how much other proof the State offers, is the antithesis of a totality-of-the-circumstances approach. This is made worse by the State Supreme Court's treatment of field-performance records as the evidentiary gold standard when, in fact, such data may not capture a dog's false negatives or may markedly overstate a dog's false positives. Such inaccuracies do not taint records of a dog's performance in standard training and certification settings, making that performance a better measure of a dog's reliability. Field records may sometimes be relevant, but the court should evaluate all the evidence, and should not
prescribe an inflexible set of requirements.

Under the correct approach, a probable-cause hearing focusing on a dog's alert should proceed much like any other, with the court allowing the parties to make their best case and evaluating the totality of the circumstances. If the State has produced proof from controlled settings that a dog performs reliably in detecting drugs, and the defendant has not contested that showing, the court should find probable cause. But a defendant must have an opportunity to challenge such evidence of a dog's reliability, whether by cross-examining the testifying officer or by introducing his own fact or expert witnesses. The defendant may contest training or testing standards as flawed or too lax, or raise an issue regarding the particular alert. The court should then consider all the evidence and apply the usual test for probable cause–whether all the facts surrounding the alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime.

The record in this case amply supported the trial court's determination that Aldo's alert gave Wheetley probable cause to search the truck. The State introduced substantial evidence of Aldo's training and his proficiency in finding drugs. Harris declined to challenge any aspect of that training or testing in the trial court, and the Court does not consider such arguments when they are presented for this first time in this Court. Harris principally relied below on Wheetley's failure to find any substance that Aldo was trained to detect. That infers too much from the failure of a particular alert to lead to drugs, and did not rebut the State's evidence from recent training and testing.