The ultimate facepalm moment. Like...I don't have words.

[Hammer St. James]

This thread's title is quite appropriate.

[CamaroSkooter]

Yup, smoking an illegal substance outside of a POLICE STATION definately deserves a

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Hammer St. James

This link holds some surprising information about post-legalization traffic fatalities. http://www.alternet.org/drugs/153264...l_car_crashes/

Of course, you can't believe everything you read on the nets. It does give a starting point for possible cross reference.

I think that's pretty interesting. Although I'm not sure if I buy "legalizing pot led to less drinking which in turn led to less fatalities" as a direct relation. I would like to see more types of that study however. I mean, if it can be proven that's REALLY what happens... well I might shift my view a little more.

The thing that sucks about studies like that, is they don't take into account other factors either. How much safer cars are now compared to 1990 (which I assure you contributes to reduced fatalities). I would have preferred them to make that connection to "accidents" to be honest. Drinking/driving is taken much more seriously now also. More DUI checkpoints, more education etc.

The other thing I don't like about studies, is that you can never tell what the opinion is of the people conducting the study, or the people wanting to participate. And this works on both sides, which is why I also don't believe weed is a "gateway drug" either, regardless of studies that have suggested it is, nor do I believe the "madness" stories that were talked about earlier. But those allegedly had "studies" to support them. That's all I'm saying. You don't have to lie on a study to get it to support your stance. You just have to choose which information you include, and be selective about the information you gather.

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

What the study doesn't say is who can get a medical marijuana prescription in that research. I would tend to believe that the majority of the people getting medical marijuana prescriptions are over the age of 30 (this is a random guess) and maybe even older than that. You know, people who are responsible enough to know when they're high versus when they're too drunk to drive.

I personally know some friends in college, that got medical marijuana prescriptions for "migraines" that they admit they don't actually have. They say they hear to do this from others who do the same thing, because those migraines are almost impossible to prove. You have to be having one at the time for the doctor to know. How many people do this? I'm not sure. Maybe it's very few. Maybe it's a lot. I don't know, but it does happen.

[Hammer St. James]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Yup, smoking an illegal substance outside of a POLICE STATION definately deserves a

The op did not produce evidence to that statement. Nowhere in in any of his posts did he state that the users where on government property while consuming. If you care to revisit his initial posting he states that they left the building for 20 minutes. Who is to say that they didn't drive to the gas station and blaze one on the road?

When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME. Remove preconception and prejudice from reasoning, view situations as they plainly exist, consider facts as they stand, investigate and cross reference to validate or disprove.

[Steve Dallas]

Many years ago when I was in my 20's, I used marijuana quite regularly...and that included driving.

When I wasn't high, I was speeding...and got numerous tickets for things like negligent & reckless driving because of my speed, even going to jail a couple of times.

When I was high, never ever got into an accident, and never went more than 1-3 mph over the speed limit. Never got a ticket in that condition.

I would never ever drive while high now. This does not prove anything either way. I guess what I'm trying to point out here is that smoking pot doesn't turn you into a raging maniac nor does it totally destroy your reflexes.

Heck, random thought here. You get all types of people who get drivers licences. When I was in drivers ed, one of the kids learning with me was so utterly uncoordinated that he would turn the wheel left on a right hand bend and cross the centerline on a regular basis. He got his license...and I would have been scared to drive anywhere near him.

Ya'll know my stance on drunk driving. I think my biggest concern there is that when yo do drink and kill or injure someone, you need to go to jail for a much longer time. I occasionally hear the argument "I can hold my liquor" or "it doesn't affect me the way it does other people"...and to some extent that can be true. .08 doesn't always effect people the same way.

Same goes for pot. It effects different people different ways. Heck, some people can use a cell phone safely in a car where others will totally lose focus on the road and be a danger. There are so many grey areas these days as far as texting, using the car radio, talking to passengers, pressing a button on your nav system. All of these are distractions and some people can deal with this a LOT better than others.

So what is the common theme between all of the above actions where they are being unsafe to other drivers? It's something that is observable and can be acted upon by a cop. Weaving, driving erratically, speeding, not signalling, and of course....getting into an accident can all result from any of the above actions, whether or not drugs are involved. Maybe we also need to make those "Warning signs" and the accidents themselves more painful in penalties, regardless of if we ever add marijuana to the mix.

I'm far less worried about people driving around stoned than I am about kids these days texting while driving or the continued lack of really making drunk driving penalties have any teeth to them. And enforcement of texting and other distracted driving infractions is also a joke. No teeth to the laws, really.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

I'm far less worried about people driving around stoned than I am about kids these days texting while driving or the continued lack of really making drunk driving penalties have any teeth to them. And enforcement of texting and other distracted driving infractions is also a joke. No teeth to the laws, really.

I'm really less worried about drunk drivers than texters in a way. At least the person who is drunk is looking at the road (unless they are drunk AND texting, which would be.... just awesome). So I would agree with you a little bit. But I believe the drunk is incapacitated the entire drive, while the texter is for short periods. Both are dangerous. Someone who is high might be less incapacitated than the drunk, and even the texter, but is still incapacitated at some level. But like you said earlier in your post, alcohol affects people differently. Someone at .05 might be "ok, and someone else might be worthless. That's why they have "wet reckless". Same goes to weed. Will one drag of pot make someone as bad a person that just got wrecked at a bar? I highly doubt it. But "how drunk" matters just as much as "how high" in my opinion. And like you alluded to, tolerance plays a big factor. The fact is, that pot still alters your mental state. So it's adding another variable to the problem. But ultimately I'm not debating which one is worse. I'm just debating you can prove one and not the other, so making it legal compounds the problem. If even ONE person in the entire country caused an accident because they were high after buying some pot at the gas station or whatever, the problem has been made worse, would you agree? And I know you already agree that the enforcement on the things that are already illegal to do while driving need to be stepped up.

I do agree with the enforcement of laws. Every time I step out on my balcony, I will see someone drive by that is looking right at their phone. If I was a cop, I would stand on that sidewalk everyday and just ticket. I could fun the entire state at the rate I see them go by .

I do find it odd that the only thing we seem to be discussing is the results of it's effect on driving. I'd be curious to know too... Lots (not all) smokers are used to smoking weed that's been "doctored" with another drug. If it were to be legal, do you think they would buy the legal stuff, and then doctor it illegally? Not a trick question, just curious.

[TurboTA]

Originally Posted by AdamZ

Pulling out the case law. I love it. For a terry frisk (or as you said terry pat) I can only frisk for weapons for my safety so if I felt a baggy in their pocket or anything I could only ask him what it is. He can say a bag of candy and that would be the end of it. Even if I was sure it was dope. Unless I saw him put it there then it's forbidden territory.

You are right with probable cause and reasonable belief. I need probably cause to search a vehicle. Even with reasonable belief I can not search anything. I can however frisk for weapons just for my safety with just reasonable belief.

Have you heard of the "plain feel" doctrine? If the item in the pocket is immediately recognized as weed, crack etc due to you extensive experience, you can seize it. It can't be manipulated, squeezed etc, it has to be immediately apparent.

Back to the original post. What exactly did you charge them with? Admitting to smoking weed previously? Did they ever hand you over the weed or did you just charge them because you "knew" they smoked it at some point prior to coming back into the office? Either you are leaving out some facts or you made a bad arrest.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by TurboTA

Back to the original post. What exactly did you charge them with? Admitting to smoking weed previously? Did they ever hand you over the weed or did you just charge them because you "knew" they smoked it at some point prior to coming back into the office? Either you are leaving out some facts or you made a bad arrest.

He said they admitted to smoking weed, he asked them to hand it over and they did, and he gave them tickets for minor misdemeanor drug possession. I don't know how it works in all states, but it seems that ticket varies from state to state. In Wisconsin, it varies by county. Unless it has changed, all counties there give misdemeanor except for one, which still gives a felony charge.

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by kalimus

I do find it odd that the only thing we seem to be discussing is the results of it's effect on driving. I'd be curious to know too... Lots (not all) smokers are used to smoking weed that's been "doctored" with another drug. If it were to be legal, do you think they would buy the legal stuff, and then doctor it illegally? Not a trick question, just curious.

First, I've never knowingly smoked pot that has been doctored...nor would I ever seek it out. Do people do it? I'm sure...but they probably do those other drugs anyways.

Once I bought some pot that had to have been laced with something when I was in High School. All 4 of us that had done it ended up with very visible symptoms such as sweating, and very vivid hallucinations. Not like you would ever get smoking pot by itself. We were drug tested, and opiates as well as marijuana were found.

I'd rather have it legalized so that you could buy marijuana cigarettes just the same way you do tobacco. With dispensaries now and possible legalization, you get quality of product which would be far more important than what someone does after they buy it.

There are ways to mix pills with alcohol...people are going to do it with legal and illegal drugs.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by Hammer St. James

The op did not produce evidence to that statement. Nowhere in in any of his posts did he state that the users where on government property while consuming. If you care to revisit his initial posting he states that they left the building for 20 minutes. Who is to say that they didn't drive to the gas station and blaze one on the road?

When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME. Remove preconception and prejudice from reasoning, view situations as they plainly exist, consider facts as they stand, investigate and cross reference to validate or disprove.

Well, technically, if they were not inside the police station, then they were indeed outside the police station. I never mentioned how far outside the police station

Who's the ass now?

[upflying]

Originally Posted by AdamZ

Wow...how stupid are people?

The problem is you now stubbed 3 folks who have access to the police department. In exchange for giving them citations, they will
will take a leak on your desk.

[TurboTA]

Originally Posted by kalimus

He said they admitted to smoking weed, he asked them to hand it over and they did, and he gave them tickets for minor misdemeanor drug possession. I don't know how it works in all states, but it seems that ticket varies from state to state. In Wisconsin, it varies by county. Unless it has changed, all counties there give misdemeanor except for one, which still gives a felony charge.

I could be wrong but I don't recall seeing where they actually handed over the weed.

[AdamZ]

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by AdamZ

'

Minor misdemeanor drug possession. I told them to bring me the weed which they did. So I had the evidence.

Originally Posted by TurboTA

I could be wrong but I don't recall seeing where they actually handed over the weed.

There. Was on page two

[Hammer St. James]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Well, technically, if they were not inside the police station, then they were indeed outside the police station. I never mentioned how far outside the police station

Who's the ass now?

You will always be the ass.

[AdamZ]

Originally Posted by TurboTA

Have you heard of the "plain feel" doctrine? If the item in the pocket is immediately recognized as weed, crack etc due to you extensive experience, you can seize it. It can't be manipulated, squeezed etc, it has to be immediately apparent.

I've never heard that. That's definitely not what I learned in the academy. We are only allowed to frisk for weapons.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by Hammer St. James

You will always be the ass.

You do realize the mods deleted your post the first time for a reason, right?