Break out the Bongs...

gonzojournals said:
No, it should not be illegal, but neither should a man make promises that he cannot keep....marijuana isn't going anywhere unless there is Congressional support as well, and even then many of the states may still illegalise it.
Click to expand...

Just because the president de-priortizes marijuania prosections doesn't mean it's legal.
 
I mean, think about it. There are many laws on the books that are no longer seriously enforced. It's not the governer legislating, he has the right to set priorities.
 
gonzojournals said:
And can just as easily lull people into a false sense of security and then have them arrested--- setting up a system of non-enforcement while the laws remain on the books only allows for favouritism.
Click to expand...

You were earlier arguing that he didn't have the right to set enforcement priorities. Now you say that he should prioritize it to a ridiculous extent so that there is no favoritism. You should do what you can. Non-enforcement is an improvement.
 
gonzojournals said:
No, it should not be illegal, but neither should a man make promises that he cannot keep....marijuana isn't going anywhere unless there is Congressional support as well, and even then many of the states may still illegalise it.
Click to expand...

It's already illegal in every single state. Before the controlled substances act, that was actually how the federal government made a de-facto federal ban. The "marijunia tax act" required people to go and get a stamp for their marijuania - since marijunia was illegal in all states, this would be sued as evidence to prosecute them. The supreme court struck this down as a requirement for self-incrimination, and that's whenever the controlled substances act came into effect.
 
I am 95% certain that some states still use the Pot Tax. I believe having unstamped marijuana is an offense comparable to lying on your tax return, but it's an easy way to initiate an IRS audit.
 
Yeah it says that just under half of all US states still have the marijuana tax stamp law on the books. States use the stamp laws to impose tax evasion penalties on dealers.

Some places it's only a misdemeanor; some places (like Minnesota) punish up to seven years in jail and a $14,000 fine, plus the related drug charges they face.

http://www.herbalsmokecafe.com/marijuana-tax-stamps.html
 
Watermark said:
I mean, think about it. There are many laws on the books that are no longer seriously enforced. It's not the governer legislating, he has the right to set priorities.
Click to expand...

No they don't. it is not up to a cop or a governer to pick and choose what laws are to be inforced. It is suppose up to the courts to determine if a law was broken. We have so many damn laws today (gives law makers something to do--to feel important), that are so intertwined, people who are not to decide whch are to be inforced, and which will be, have taken over.

"A country of law---if we choose to inforce it for any interest we see fit"---is the law of the land today. And today, many laws are made that are not ikn the best interest of a free people--in fact, many are unconstitutional and solely developed to extort money from people. Like the "Michigan drivers responsibiliyt fee", which is double jepordy at the state level, and a fine at the local level.
 
Last edited:
theMAJORITY said:
No they don't. it is not up to a cop or a governer to pick and choose what laws are to be inforced. It is suppose up to the courts to determine if a law was broken. We have so many damn laws today (gives law makers something to do--to feel important), that are so intertwined, people who are not to decide whch are to be inforced, and which will be, have taken over.

"A country of law---if we choose to inforce it for any interest we see fit"---is the law of the land today. And today, many laws are made that are not ikn the best interest of a free people--in fact, many are unconstitutional and solely developed to extort money from people. Like the "Michigan drivers responsibiliyt fee", which is double jepordy at the state level, and a fine at the local level.
Click to expand...

It's very much up to a cop as to what laws are enforced. Police departments and legislatures absolutely hate it :D
 
Diuretic said:
It's very much up to a cop as to what laws are enforced. Police departments and legislatures absolutely hate it :D
Click to expand...

I know they have descression, and can use it when there is no quota to meet (lol). But what if some one insisted to a officer that a person be arrested that clearly broke a law---may be even a fellony. Does that officer have the right to throw that case out before it gets to a judge or jury? I don't think so, if the victim insists on action. But if there is no instance by the victim, I guess the officer can use his or her descression---and should.
 
Last edited:
For the way you stated it..............

theMAJORITY said:
I know they have descression, and can use it when there is no quota to meet (lol). But what if some one insisted to a officer that a person be arrested that clearly broke a law---may be even a fellony. Does that officer have the right to throw that case out before it gets to a judge or jury? I don't think so, if the victim insists on action. But if there is no instance by the victim, I guess the officer can use his or her descression---and should.
Click to expand...


If the law was a misdeameanor it must be committed in the presence of the officer...otherwise a citizens arrest must be made by the complaining party! In this case the officer must process the arrest report...If a felony is committed in the presence of the officer he/she under law is obligated to make the arrest...if not in his presence he/she must take and process the report thru proper channels...discretion for misdeameanors are at the officers own discretion!(except where a citizens arrest is made):)
 
It is also up to the discretion of the DA whether or not to prosecute except in a small minority of cases.
 
theMAJORITY said:
I know they have descression, and can use it when there is no quota to meet (lol). But what if some one insisted to a officer that a person be arrested that clearly broke a law---may be even a fellony. Does that officer have the right to throw that case out before it gets to a judge or jury? I don't think so, if the victim insists on action. But if there is no instance by the victim, I guess the officer can use his or her descression---and should.
Click to expand...

Nope, the common law (which has been updated in many jurisdictions to put in statutory provisions) recognises the crime of "nonfeasance" and a cop who should have done something but didn't would be pinched.
 
Battleborne said:
If the law was a misdeameanor it must be committed in the presence of the officer...otherwise a citizens arrest must be made by the complaining party! In this case the officer must process the arrest report...If a felony is committed in the presence of the officer he/she under law is obligated to make the arrest...if not in his presence he/she must take and process the report thru proper channels...discretion for misdeameanors are at the officers own discretion!(except where a citizens arrest is made):)
Click to expand...

Check this out BB - power of arrest in my state:

SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1953 - SECT 75

75—Power of arrest

A police officer, without any warrant other than this Act, at any hour of the day or night, may apprehend any person whom the officer finds committing, or has reasonable cause to suspect of having committed, or being about to commit, an offence.
Click to expand...

"An offence" means any offence, simple, misdemeanour or minor/major indictable (we don't have felonies any longer).
 
Diuretic said:
Nope, the common law (which has been updated in many jurisdictions to put in statutory provisions) recognises the crime of "nonfeasance" and a cop who should have done something but didn't would be pinched.
Click to expand...

Who decides feasability, and how can the officer get pinched if there is no record of the kid having a joint (for example). Lets say a 45 year old adult gets pulled over for a traffic violation. The license plate was run during the pull over, and information of the plate owner is on the cops lap top. He has a misdomenor from 15 years back for a very minor thing--but other than that, he is a productive member of society. Holds a job, may be owns a business, and pays taxes. The cop decides to do a search (many times with no probable cause--that has happend to me several times--sorry if you don't agree), and he finds a bag with a small amount of pot in it. The driver looks and acts sober, and passes the drunk olympics with flying colors. Are you telling em the officer can not use his decression, make the owner of the pot dump it in the dirt, and crush it? There is no record that the adult had the little bit of weed. Even if the adult was allowed to leave, and got into a accident--the officer still could not be held accoutable, because there was no record. Now, police cars have recording equiptment, but from what I understand from a officer in lower Michigan, whne I requested a copy of the recording of a stop I was in for a minor traffic offense, they are not always recording. I was told there was no tape of my personal stop by the department of Berrian County in Michigan. Unless I was lied to, there are times when there is no recording of a stop, as far as what is found during a search. That makes the statute unenforceable, which may work out in the officers interest---not sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top