View Full Version : Rules Will Be Inforced At The Place
Ziodfu,
The current president was asked about legalization as a way to help the economy. He just laughed it off.
I already told you, your unsupported claim, the burden of proof is on you. don't be so lazy and do your own work. Simple concept.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=why+is+marijuana+illegal&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
That was real hard, wasn't it? There's even one about your precious illuminati:D
And specifically from this source-
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/tp/Why-is-Marijuana-Illegal.htm
5. It was once associated with oppressed ethnic groups.
The intense anti-marijuana movement of the 1930s dovetailed nicely with the intense anti-Chicano movement of the 1930s. Marijuana was associated with Mexican Americans, and a ban on marijuana was seen as a way of discouraging Mexican-American subcultures from developing.
Today, thanks in large part to the very public popularity of marijuana among whites during the 1960s and 1970s, marijuana is no longer seen as what one might call an ethnic drug--but the groundwork for the anti-marijuana movement was laid down at a time when marijuana was seen as an encroachment on the U.S. majority-white culture.
Ziodfu,
The current president was asked about legalization as a way to help the economy. He just laughed it off.
He's in no position to be laughing about any new source of revenue.
Last time I checked, possession of marijuana was both a federal and, in most states, a state crime.
Got a problem with that? Call your state and congressional representatives. Until then, I'm quite pleased the law is being enforced.
Last time I checked, possession of marijuana was both a federal and, in most states, a state crime.
Got a problem with that? Call your state and congressional representatives. Until then, I'm quite pleased the law is being enforced.
***********
randyg45
04-12-2009, 15:09
Police dogs used randomly in a hostel is not cool. If its come to that, better to shut the place down.
How about just leaving your drugs ouside the hostel? Or quitting? or I call LEO for you?
And I just lost any shred of credibility that I might have had ell oh ell!
He's in no position to be laughing about any new source of revenue.
But he did.
But he did.
What do you want me to do about it? I'd debate him if I could but we're not allowed to get close to our King.
Ziodfu,
The current president was asked about legalization as a way to help the economy. He just laughed it off.
Laughing it off tells me nothing.
Presidents don't make laws Congress does. A better question would have been a bill comes to your desk for the legalization, would you sign it?
He's in no position to be laughing about any new source of revenue.
Google is great.
http://economics.about.com/b/2009/03/26/obama-thinks-legalizing-marijuana-would-not-help-the-economy-economists-disagree.htm
phishpapond
04-12-2009, 15:29
Hikers should follow the posted rules but I think what The Place did was illegal unless the hiker was smoking weed on the property. The police have no right to randomly search you even if a dog barks at you.
Laughing it off tells me nothing.
Presidents don't make laws Congress does. A better question would have been a bill comes to your desk for the legalization, would you sign it?
http://economics.about.com/b/2009/03/26/obama-thinks-legalizing-marijuana-would-not-help-the-economy-economists-disagree.htm
randyg45
04-12-2009, 15:30
You just won the thread. I wouldn't carry weed anyway but I certainly won't be visiting any places that randomly search your stuff.
I wouldn't either.
Of course, that hasn't been done at The Place.
ShakeyLeggs
04-12-2009, 15:34
Folks this horse is long dead. Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree it happened and will most likely happen again. All have been warned and if you decide to ignore the warning then you must suffer the consequences. All the conversation does not change the fact that the dog was brought in and will most likely be brought in again. I have yet to meet anyone who can change the past but if you disagree then you can change the future. It can be changed many ways either by working to change the laws or start policing ourselves. If you know someone who is going to disregard the warning do whatever is necessary to discourage them.
Time to shut this thread down the horse is dead.
http://economics.about.com/b/2009/03/26/obama-thinks-legalizing-marijuana-would-not-help-the-economy-economists-disagree.htm
Yeah, he doesn't support it as a means of spurring the economy. It still doesn't answer the question if it came to his desk, if he sign or veto it.
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-ticker-producer-alexander-mooney/)
(CNN) — In a statement that's sure to disappoint many of those who submitted questions to President Obama's virtual town hall meeting, the president made clear Thursday he does not support legalizing marijuana as a means to spur economic growth.
"I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation," Obama said off-handedly at the town hall. "I don't know what that says about the online audience."
"The answer is no, I do not think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," Obama said to laughter from the town hall participants.
Embedded video from CNN Video (http://www.cnn.com/video)
Some of the most popular questions submitted to WhiteHouse.gov in several policy areas were pot-related. Among the top questions was one sent in by a user named
"Green Machine":
"Will you consider decriminalizing the recreational/medical use of marijuana(hemp) so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and a multi-billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"
Attorney General Eric Holder said last week federal agents will seek criminal charges against marijuana users only when both state and U.S. laws are violated, a shift from the Bush administration's policy. The decision would effectively end raids on registered medical marijuana providers in the handful of states that have moved to legalize the drug's use for medicinal purposes.\
Your lack of comprehension is your problem, not mine.
mindless prattling... betcha you have a degree in clueless
I have yet to meet anyone who can change the past but if you disagree then you can change the future. It can be changed many ways either by working to change the laws or start policing ourselves. If you know someone who is going to disregard the warning do whatever is necessary to discourage them.
I agree. You will not change the law with the current congress and administration. Just use some common sense and respect others.
Yeah, he doesn't support it as a means of spurring the economy. It still doesn't answer the question if it came to his desk, if he sign or veto it.
Sly, think about it. If he wanted to legalize this would be the perfect excuse.
randyg45
04-12-2009, 15:43
when it comes to freedom, you take the bad with the good.
When it comes to staying at The Place, you have to take the rules- and the law- seriously. Or suffer the consequences.
Sly, think about it. If he wanted to legalize this would be the perfect excuse.
He doesn't make the laws only signs or vetos them. I wouln't be surprised if it were legalized or decriminalized during his tenure. I added a quote from the CNN article.
He doesn't make the laws only signs or vetos them. I wouln't be surprised if it were legalized or decriminalized during his tenure. I added a quote from the CNN article.
Keep on hoping for the change "YOU" can believe in. It means whatever the listener defines in their mind.
He doesn't make the laws only signs or vetos them. I wouln't be surprised if it were legalized or decriminalized during his tenure. I added a quote from the CNN article.
I hope you are right and we can get some revenue from the dopers.
Another compelling argument.. almost as good as, "you don't get it and never will." You're a goddamned scholar.
And Today is Easter.
TJ aka Teej
04-12-2009, 15:56
The Companion says 'absolutely no drinking' and 'no alcohol allowed on property', regarding The Place. You'd have to be stoned to know that and still think pot would be OK.
saimyoji
04-12-2009, 16:03
They also say no alcohol. Perhaps they need dogs to sniff out Jim Beam?
TOW and LW already do that. Did you miss where that bojangles kid and two others were busted just the other day? And wolf has stated here on WB about kickin' people out for drinking on multiple occasions. He's not discriminating.
I hope you are right and we can get some revenue from the dopers.
Yeah, since there's anywhere between 25-60 million users in the US that a good chunk of change. ($40 billion to $100 billion in new revenue)
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/03/legalize_mariju.html
Pedaling Fool
04-12-2009, 16:22
Whine, whine, whine...Everyone here is just a bunch of blowhards. If your really worried about your rights then stop blabbing and put your words to action -- do something about it. Why don't you'll become modern day revolutionaries and create your own country, nah...just keep up your mindless bitchin (http://www.rense.com/general68/secede.htm)
Obviously I was being sarcastic in creating a new country, but not about the blabbing. If you'll are really offended by this action why don't you stop talking and take some action?
I don't really care about this issue, so I don't know what action, but maybe something along the lines of a boycott of Trail Days or something. As I see it this is just another example of people bitching and venting steam, but other than that nothing will change.
but maybe something along the lines of a boycott of Trail Days or something.
Boycott Trail Days?
Why?
Is the Canine Unit going to be trolling for pot smokers?
MintakaCat
04-12-2009, 16:26
Yeah, since there's anywhere between 25-60 million users in the US that a good chunk of change. ($40 billion to $100 billion in new revenue)
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/03/legalize_mariju.html
I was kinda on your side until I read the "Con" part of the article you posted. I never thought of the cost of making marijuana legal. Thanks, now I'm against it. :)
This is the bestest Easter Parade ever.
I'll say, 15 pages!!! Smoke all you want, job security for me.
blah blah blah blah blah. I have nothing interesting to say
I've responded to almost all comments in my direction. It would seem as if you some of you have a hard on for either prattling or me. I know I'm good looking and all but you're making me uncomfortable.
I was kinda on your side until I read the "Con" part of the article you posted. I never thought of the cost of making marijuana legal. Thanks, now I'm against it. :)
You need to read the comments. That guy was FOS.
And Today is Easter.
So? I don't believe in zombies and I ever came across one I would bash it's skull in with a crowbar.
MintakaCat
04-12-2009, 16:49
You need to read the comments. That guy was FOS.
Oh I did. But I guess my point was the cost factor was something I never thought about. That was an interesting point that I have never heard before.
reddenbacher
04-12-2009, 16:49
i dont have a problem with pot.if you feel you have to smoke every second go to the pct.this was about property rights.these people dont care what you do,off their property.take it elsware.pot heads used to have manners what happened?it must be the meth making them so angery.alittle self control goes a long way.these god fearing people feed you ,give you a dry place to shower and sleep but some cant give them the small faver of a few rules.sleep in the ditch from now on.
i dont have a problem with pot.if you feel you have to smoke every second go to the pct.this was about property rights.these people dont care what you do,off their property.take it elsware.pot heads used to have manners what happened?it must be the meth making them so angery.alittle self control goes a long way.these god fearing people feed you ,give you a dry place to shower and sleep but some cant give them the small faver of a few rules.sleep in the ditch from now on.
Manners? They're searching people's backpacks indiscriminately. That's bad manners.
You need to read the comments. That guy was FOS.
So you feel that anyone with a different opinion is FOS? Others may disagree.
It's not like their searching for something legal.
Jim Adams
04-12-2009, 16:57
I'll say, 15 pages!!! Smoke all you want, job security for me.
Profiling?....UMMMMMMMM...are you a dealer?:D
This has certainly been an interesting thread!
I have been to every Trail Days except 2 since 1990. I have stayed at the Place AND DONATED EVERY TIME. I have camped by the river. I have camped in Billville. I have camped in the campground. I have had a GREAT time EVERYTIME that I was there.
I feel that The Place has the right to post regulations that they believe in and also the right to inforce them however I am against the loss of personal freedoms in this country. I feel that the church has the right to let the police walk through and if they see or smell weed then have probable cause to search and or remove that individual from the propery but I don't think that searching a person or their pack because a dog hits on them when they are not using on the premisis and just carrying though town and back to the trail.
They have several ballfields in town...according to the national news maybe they need to start using a steroid sniffing dog at the entrances to the ballparks as this seems to be one of the major problems in America at this time....ball players using steroids.
Another thought....a dog that sniffs out illegal stealth campers as they enter town....I would really like to see the opinions of this group then!!!!!!:banana
geek
TOW and LW already do that. Did you miss where that bojangles kid and two others were busted just the other day? And wolf has stated here on WB about kickin' people out for drinking on multiple occasions. He's not discriminating.
Yeah, I missed it, I was hiking.
I'd be fine with the Places rules if they were no drinking or smoking pot on the property. I'm OK with LW or TOW, or whoever the caretaker is, kicking out people drinking and smoking. What I'm not fine with is bringing dogs in to find weed (or booze) that's safely tucked away in someone's pack. I find it excessive and don't think it will necessarily correct any problems. But hey, if that's what they want to do, that's their decision.
Bulldawg
04-12-2009, 16:58
Yes it's against the rules and the law but the problem there is it's singling out hikers with pot who may have no intention of smoking on the property. In the meantime, drinking and smoking goes on.
I feel certain that if the biker riders, etc. were causing an issue, they'd sniff them right up too!!
Send a mail drop to Damascus PO, stop, pick it up, hike on through. Perfect plan. Avoid Damascus entirely for the month of May.
Guess if this is the future of what hiking the AT holds, it's time to move further west with my plans. Has nothing to do with pot or drinking, everything to do with being a suspect and subject to search for no reason. Especially in a town that openly promotes the same behaviors when it's profitable for them.
Off to Easter dinner now. Have a good holiday.
Just a point of clarification, Sly. It's not singling out hikers with pot, who may or may not have any intention of smoking on the property.
It is subjecting all hikers, even those who don't carry drugs, to the fallible nose of a German Shepard.
I ain't got any problem with a dog sniffing me up. If ya ain't got anything to hide, whats the problem? Don't break the frigging law and you don't have to worry about the dog. Big deal??
It's not like their searching for something legal.
That's not the point. The point is that backpackers are being searched because of the actions of a few for something that is the least of this country's problems.
As Ben Franklin said-
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Manners? They're searching people's backpacks indiscriminately. That's bad manners.
Are you so thick headed that you don't see the facts? They are searching peoples backpacks AFTER a trained dog has ALERTED on that backpack, indicating the presence of an illegal substance, hardly indiscriminate. The dog sniffing the pack IS NOT a search anymore than passing through a metal detector in the airport is a search. If the metal detector goes off, a nice man from the TSA asks you to step out of line...then the search comes.
This isn't really a difficult concept, I don't understand the conceptual issue. :D
saimyoji
04-12-2009, 17:05
That's not the point. The point is that backpackers are being searched because of the actions of a few for something that is the least of this country's problems.
As Ben Franklin said-
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
when you are on private property you do not retain the liberties you imply in your post. out on the street, yes, but not in a place that clearly has rules posted. to retain the liberties you cheris, simply leave the place. :)
I ain't got any problem with a dog sniffing me up. If ya ain't got anything to hide, whats the problem? Don't break the frigging law and you don't have to worry about the dog. Big deal??
That's what people said about the previous and current administrations approach to electronic surveillance. While that falls directly under the 4th amendment, the Place's new policy is against the spirit of it. They have the right to have dogs, from what I gather from precedent. I just don't think it's necessary when the area apparently has much bigger problems. The Place will not be getting my donation when I thru unless they reverse field on this one. Some say I'm a liberal, some say I'm a Libertarian. I say I just want to be left alone.
when you are on private property you do not retain the liberties you imply in your post. out on the street, yes, but not in a place that clearly has rules posted. to retain the liberties you cheris, simply leave the place. :)
I already said they have the right to do this, I just don't agree with it.
Are you so thick headed that you don't see the facts? They are searching peoples backpacks AFTER a trained dog has ALERTED on that backpack, indicating the presence of an illegal substance, hardly indiscriminate. The dog sniffing the pack IS NOT a search anymore than passing through a metal detector in the airport is a search. If the metal detector goes off, a nice man from the TSA asks you to step out of line...then the search comes.
This isn't really a difficult concept, I don't understand the conceptual issue. :D
I see the facts in that they used an expensive, well trained officer(dog) to find a small amount in a backpacker's stuff in a manner that I think is unconstitutional even though that view point has been upheld. I think it's a slippery slope and the next thing is cameras.
****, I'm prattling again.... I have to work on that:)
Bulldawg
04-12-2009, 17:18
you claim you're not a doper and you admit you've never been to damascus and you probably don't hike much so why are your panties wadded up so tight? lose the anger. find your center :cool:
I think he just needs to go take a hike.:rolleyes:
He doesn't make the laws only signs or vetos them. I wouln't be surprised if it were legalized or decriminalized during his tenure. I added a quote from the CNN article.
Yeah, since there's anywhere between 25-60 million users in the US that a good chunk of change. ($40 billion to $100 billion in new revenue)
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/03/legalize_mariju.html
Sly, somehow I feel like if they legalized it and taxed it, you'd still not be happy.:rolleyes:
I say I just want to be left alone.
Well skip the AT and go do the PCT then. Because you WILL NOT be alone on the AT!!
Homer&Marje
04-12-2009, 17:19
The new administration isn't any better than the old one. Both show a lack of respect for the 4th Amendment and privacy.
I'm on the side of.....the people being respectful....keeping it in their packs.
Unfortunately your referring to article 16 I believe of the 4th amendment in which we protect the right of Intrusion into ones own seclusion. Unfortunately it does not apply to your pack inside of a public establishment. On their grounds outside in your tent....you might have an argument.
The Old Fhart
04-12-2009, 17:20
Zoidfu-"I already said they have the right to do this, I just don't agree with it."So it isn't illegal, it isn't unconstitutional, they aren't profiling, you quote some irrelevant dribble about the history of pot, and you've never been to The Place, yet you are the expert on the situation.
Do you live under a bridge? :-?
So it isn't illegal, it isn't unconstitutional, they aren't profiling...
Hey, maybe they should bring the dogs in the church during Sunday service. With the number of smokers out there they may catch someone. I wonder what the parishioners would think?
I see the facts in that they used an expensive, well trained officer(dog) to find a small amount in a backpacker's stuff in a manner that I think is unconstitutional even though that view point has been upheld. I think it's a slippery slope and the next thing is cameras.
Or they use an cheap (but "certified") dog that may not be correct 100% of the time. Not blaming the dog, a backpack which has absorbed food, chemical, and wild animal smells must be a bit challenging.
No matter. Once a great dog or an OK dog gets excited, the officer will act on probable cause. Doesn't matter if it holds in court, we aren't talking about Pablo Escobar. And it most certainly doesn't matter if there really is good reason to do a search.
If drugs are found, the officer makes the arrest. If no drugs are found, he will assert that his infallible animal was reacting to a trace amount of drug residue. There won't be any arrest, but you won't get an apology either.
Basically an innocent person subjected to that kind of violation is without recourse.
It just not right.
I see the facts in that they used an expensive, well trained officer(dog) to find a small amount in a backpacker's stuff in a manner that I think is unconstitutional even though that view point has been upheld. I think it's a slippery slope and the next thing is cameras.
I don't think the next thing is cameras, I think that is at least partially already here. Zoidfu, I understand your concerns, and in many ways agree about the erosion of our freedoms.
In THIS INSTANCE however, I don't think anyone has the moral freedom to do something on someone's private property that they have expressly asked us not to do. As for the comparisons between ETOH and pot at The Place, unless I'm mistaken it isn't illegal to possess ETOH in that city, but no amount of pot is legal. Thus the owners of the establishment are only asking that we don't infringe on their right to keep illegal items from their property. Only individuals who have broken the law, and by extension the trust of their hosts, will be directly effected by the K9 sniffing around.
I'm out, but I hope everyone has a great Easter!!!
Hey, maybe they should bring the dogs in the church during Sunday service. With the number of smokers out there they may catch someone. I wonder what the parishioners would think?
Has there been a problem among that population with breaking the rules?
So it isn't illegal, it isn't unconstitutional, they aren't profiling, you quote some irrelevant dribble about the history of pot, and you've never been to The Place, yet you are the expert on the situation.
Do you live under a bridge? :-?
Yeah, and I'll eat your children:rolleyes:
I'm concerned about the nanny state this country is becoming. And yes, it is profiling, I never said it was racial profiling.
And the history of pot was brought into this when someone asked why potheads are getting pissy. They have every reason to be when the laws are based on racism(which is fact, whether you want to buy it or not) and it's blatant hypocrisy when alcohol is worse in every way.
And do I need to be a cop to have an opinion on crime? Do I need to be a politician if I have an opinion on how this country is run?
Jim Adams
04-12-2009, 17:29
Hey, maybe they should bring the dogs in the church during Sunday service. With the number of smokers out there they may catch someone. I wonder what the parishioners would think?
'shine is illegal but I'll bet those doors would be closed to the dog if it sniffed 'shine residue.:D
geek
In THIS INSTANCE however, I don't think anyone has the moral freedom to do something on someone's private property that they have expressly asked us not to do. As for the comparisons between ETOH and pot at The Place, unless I'm mistaken it isn't illegal to possess ETOH in that city, but no amount of pot is legal. Thus the owners of the establishment are only asking that we don't infringe on their right to keep illegal items from their property. Only individuals who have broken the law, and by extension the trust of their hosts, will be directly effected by the K9 sniffing around.
And that's the crux of this. Is it more important to keep people from keeping pot in their packs or is it more important to respect privacy? Obviously, I fall on the side of privacy.
Has there been a problem among that population with breaking the rules?
There have been serious drug problems within the Damascus PD.
Perhaps that's why the got the dog in the first place.
Homer&Marje
04-12-2009, 17:31
Zoidfu. I have read more of your posts...and believe me I'm on your side...for the most part.
But you've misinterpreted the 4th amendment. I used my right of Intrusion into ones own Seclusion to avoid cleaning out the interior of my car because my employer didn't want it in his parking lot, with a lot of "crap" inside.
I work 3 jobs...and me and the wife share a car. It's not clean, it's always cluttered. It's not full to the rim of trash....but it's cluttered.
The 4th amendment protected me because my car is my property and the employer agreed to hire me based on my skill level, availability, and reliable transportation. Which gave him no right to judge the contents of the interior of my property of which I needed to park in his lot to facilitate me being employed at his establishment.
Weed is illegal in VA, in Damascus it's illegal, and at The Place it's unwanted and now unwarranted to bring it there, or partake in it there.
Deal with it. Walk on. Happy trails are further down the road for you, go through Damascus and deal with it.
Don't trample on some of the good things our constitution brings us.
Manners? They're searching people's backpacks indiscriminately. That's bad manners.Since we don't have a firsthand account of what happened, you can't say that.
Has there been a problem among that population with breaking the rules?
Not sure. I doubt the pot smokers at the hostel are a big problem. I know lots of pot smokers and except for the fact it's illegal, I've never know them to be a problem. Have you? Maybe after they're not sweeping after dropping a bunch of crumbs. Leaving their snicker wrappers behind.
Sly, somehow I feel like if they legalized it and taxed it, you'd still not be happy.:rolleyes:
Well, you'd be wrong on two accounts. I'm not unhappy now, why would I be if they legalized it?
Deal with it. Walk on. Happy trails are further down the road for you, go through Damascus and deal with it.
Don't trample on some of the good things our constitution brings us.
I've never claimed that I wanted to do anything but walk on.
I'm not trampling on it, if anything I put too much confidence in it.
Since we don't have a firsthand account of what happened, you can't say that.
Correct, I'm just going off of what was supplied and I'm trying to beef up my post count:banana
Rockhound
04-12-2009, 17:47
Simple solution to this. If you happen to be in the 25% to 50% of hikers who partake do not stay at the Place and spread the word to others. You are not wanted there. Do not stay there. If you choose to stay there anyway just know you are forfeiting your rights when you enter the door.
randyg45
04-12-2009, 17:47
Often I find potheads to be more sympathetic, giving, and thoughtful than your average Joe...
Except where it comes to the law or the hosts rules, right?
Bulldawg
04-12-2009, 17:49
Well, you'd be wrong on two accounts. I'm not unhappy now, why would I be if they legalized it?
You wouldn't be happy with the taxes placed on it.
randyg45
04-12-2009, 17:55
Put up a sign that says:
"Warning - Police and Drug sniffing dogs patrol regularly"
who would bother going in at all?
druggies - no
people who think this means there is a problem - no
people who don't want to be hassled - no
people who think this a good idea - yes, but what percent is that??
Wouldn't bother me at all. My CCW is good in Va......
The Old Fhart
04-12-2009, 17:57
Zoidfu-"Correct, I'm just going off of what was supplied and I'm trying to beef up my post count:banana"
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6083&d=1239573249 :banana
randyg45
04-12-2009, 17:59
"By checking hikers. I thought that was pretty obvious."
No, zoid they are not "profiling hikers". They are checking those who CHOOSE to stay on their property. Geez, even SCOTUS could see the difference
You wouldn't be happy with the taxes placed on it.
Wrong again. I rather see my money go to entrepreneurs and the government, then the possibility of it going to cartels. Hopefully, they'll also allow you to grow your own for personal use.
MintakaCat
04-12-2009, 18:04
Wrong again. I rather see my money go to entrepreneurs and the government, then the possibility of it going to cartels. Hopefully, they'll also allow you to grow your own for personal use.
then or than? :confused:
ShakeyLeggs
04-12-2009, 18:04
Guys they are not repeat not searching packs. They are not opening packs and going through the contents unless the dog alerts on the pack.
Answer me this; Is marijuana under current law legal or illegal? We all know the answer and we all are obligated to obey the law. If you choose to not obey the law then you have to be willing to suffer the consequences. That is a personal choice. You choose to either obey or disobey. The law does not care if you agree with it or not it is the law.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
Wouldn't bother me at all. My CCW is good in Va......
It's not good in Sears stores as it's posted. Now say you need something from the store, but you're backpacking and have no place to put it. Would you enter regardless of the sign to do your business knowing full well you won't be using your gun? Try to be honest
randyg45
04-12-2009, 18:12
Yeah, since there's anywhere between 25-60 million users in the US that a good chunk of change. ($40 billion to $100 billion in new revenue)
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/03/legalize_mariju.html
I don't don't know who is smoking too much of what, but taking 60 million users and $4o billion in revenues, I come up with $666 per user IN TAXES.
Pretty expensive stuff.
Of course, lost productivity might go MUCH higher than thos figures.
Drugs and guns...always seem to come together at some point!
I don't don't know who is smoking too much of what, but taking 60 million users and $4o billion in revenues, I come up with $666 per user IN TAXES.
Pretty expensive stuff.
Of course, lost productivity might go MUCH higher than thos figures.
666 = The Devil!!! :)
randyg45
04-12-2009, 18:18
I just don't think it's necessary
The owners do.
Guess whose opinion counts?
Lone Wolf
04-12-2009, 18:19
w t f is so dang wonderful about smokin' dope that you dopers are willing to carry it and smoke it all the time and risk gettin' busted? how much is an oz. of that crap? i'm gonna start smokin' and risk everything cuz it must be awesome stuff. let's get baked! :banana
MintakaCat
04-12-2009, 18:20
I don't don't know who is smoking too much of what, but taking 60 million users and $4o billion in revenues, I come up with $666 per user IN TAXES.
Pretty expensive stuff.
Of course, lost productivity might go MUCH higher than thos figures.
I'm still trying to figure out what amount goes to the cartel that sly was talking about. How does the cartel get that from the government?
I come up with $666 per user IN TAXES.
What do you think a two pack a day cigarette smoker spends in taxes? Forget the Feds, some state taxes are more than that!
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html
randyg45
04-12-2009, 18:22
I think it's a slippery slope and the next thing is cameras.
Guards once demanded my cell phone, so they could check it for a camera, before I was allowed onto a certain high-tech manufacturing facility in Utah. They confiscated it until my business there was done.
The Place has the exact same right, your paranoia notwithstanding.
Guys they are not repeat not searching packs. They are not opening packs and going through the contents unless the dog alerts on the pack.
You have a lot of confidence in the Damascus police force's dog.
Why?
Because L. Wolf said it was cool?
I say,take those dogs into that church that owns this hostel, or is that hostile ?...sniff out the wife beaters,child molesters,pedophiles,etc. I bet they would out-number the people enjoying a little of mother nature.
You know who you are...
Duh!
I haven't read all posts so i apologize if this point has already been brought up (and beaten to death). It is possible due to the reported history of the use (and presence) of an illegal substance, the proprietors are worried (or have been warned) that they might be skirting with "constructive possession of a controlled substance". It is apparent the place has knowledge of the controlled substance on their property (They need not have actual knowledge, inferred knowledge is enough.) The bigger question is whether the place has the ability to maintain dominion and control (the other necessary element). There are also other related provisions that are in play here. Without detailing them, in short, property owners have a responsibility to ensure that illegal activity (including possession of a controlled substance) is not occurring on their property. My guess is they are covering their butts.
randyg45
04-12-2009, 18:37
It's not good in Sears stores as it's posted. Now say you need something from the store, but you're backpacking and have no place to put it. Would you enter regardless of the sign to do your business knowing full well you won't be using your gun? Try to be honest
Was I warned they use explosives-sniffing dogs? If so, I'd very probably stay away. Even if not I'd have to REALLY need something from Sears. There are times I, like everyone else, take my chances.
CCWs are also excluded at my local mall, but if you're caught they just ask you to leave. One of the guards came up to me several years ago and said: "Randy, don't you usually carry that trick .45 you shoot at the matches?" "Yes, I do" sez I. He asked if I had it with me, and I (sorta reluctantly) admitted I did. "Good", he said, "Do you mind watching me while I tell those four guys coming out of... (I forget the store)... to leave? Something about them makes me nervous." :):)
Guards once demanded my cell phone, so they could check it for a camera, before I was allowed onto a certain high-tech manufacturing facility in Utah. They confiscated it until my business there was done.
The Place has the exact same right, your paranoia notwithstanding.
I'm guessing you were dealing with something that required security clearance... Is The Place a safe house or something.
randyg45
04-12-2009, 18:41
What do you think a two pack a day cigarette smoker spends in taxes? Forget the Feds, some state taxes are more than that!
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html
Don't know. Don't care. Wish they'd make them illegal too.
I just want to say this, the law here in Damascus does not give a damn if anyone smokes pot and the Methodist church does not care either. But what the methodist church does care about is if it is being done on their property that they offer as a cheap service to the hiking community and they have a right to say no to anyone at The Place with alcohol or illegal drugs. They also have a right to enforce that rule by any means possible.
well what i think is your right but dont be a hippocrite communist,ky
randyg45
04-12-2009, 18:44
I haven't read all posts so i apologize if this point has already been brought up (and beaten to death). It is possible due to the reported history of the use (and presence) of an illegal substance, the proprietors are worried (or have been warned) that they might be skirting with "constructive possession of a controlled substance". It is apparent the place has knowledge of the controlled substance on their property (They need not have actual knowledge, inferred knowledge is enough.) The bigger question is whether the place has the ability to maintain dominion and control (the other necessary element). There are also other related provisions that are in play here. Without detailing them, in short, property owners have a responsibility to ensure that illegal activity (including possession of a controlled substance) is not occurring on their property. My guess is they are covering their butts.
The idea of general liability issues also occurred to me- but idea devolves from the notion of responsibility, and talking about responsibility to dopers is like mud-wrestling a pig :banana
w t f is so dang wonderful about smokin' dope that you dopers are willing to carry it and smoke it all the time and risk gettin' busted? how much is an oz. of that crap? i'm gonna start smokin' and risk everything cuz it must be awesome stuff. let's get baked! :banana
Just curious, what do doctors recommend for drinking or smoking after the operation you had? I know they say you shouldn't for some period of time but do they tell you that it's ok to at least drink again at some point?
Not trying to start ****, just curious.
Don't know. Don't care. Wish they'd make them illegal too.
Why is that?
w t f is so dang wonderful about smokin' dope that you dopers are willing to carry it and smoke it all the time and risk gettin' busted? how much is an oz. of that crap? i'm gonna start smokin' and risk everything cuz it must be awesome stuff. let's get baked! :banana
Sorry LW, you may be missing the point. It's not so much about smoken weed as it is about spoiled little brats being pissed off that anyone would dare to question thier right to disregard and disrespect anyone they want, anytime they want and wherever they want. To weak and lazy to resolve a problem with thier wits or cunning, they have learned to just whine and snivel to get what they want. Some times that does not mix well in the adult world.
le loupe
04-12-2009, 18:50
Guys they are not repeat not searching packs. They are not opening packs and going through the contents unless the dog alerts on the pack.
Answer me this; Is marijuana under current law legal or illegal? We all know the answer and we all are obligated to obey the law. If you choose to not obey the law then you have to be willing to suffer the consequences. That is a personal choice. You choose to either obey or disobey. The law does not care if you agree with it or not it is the law.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
It is illegal to do random searches, even for an illegal drug.
http://www.progress.org/drc44.htm
some states have allowed drug dogs to sniff during traffic stops, however this is the result of a valid police stop, not random patrols.
Further an overnight guest has the right to privacy.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=495&invol=91
It could reasonably be asserted that any private establishment could require their guests to obey all laws, that does not abrogate a guest rights.
This not a public place, either. Lets not get confused. The public may be welcome but it is not public property.
A dog cant sniff me without cause anymore than a cop can put his hands in my pockets. Its only a matter of time before a hiker with weed and lots of money files a lawsuit for a violation of there rights.
That doesnt mean weed should be legal- but no one should be subject to random, warrantless intrusion by government.
Lone Wolf
04-12-2009, 18:51
Just curious, what do doctors recommend for drinking or smoking after the operation you had? I know they say you shouldn't for some period of time but do they tell you that it's ok to at least drink again at some point?
Not trying to start ****, just curious.
i've never smoked. i drink 2 to 3 bers a day sometimes not at all. doc said that was fine
you're not curious at all. you are trying to start ****. lousy try kid
randyg45
04-12-2009, 18:52
I'm guessing you were dealing with something that required security clearance... Is The Place a safe house or something.
Nope. Just a government contractor with a desire to prevent industrial espionage.
After we loaded my trailer I asked the guy what I was carrying. He was probably lying when he told me the fuel delivery system for the space shuttle, but who knows? The facility consisted of small, heavily bermed buildings, usually further isolated from each other by the small rolling hills that comprised the expansive property. They clearly dealt with stuff that could go "bang", but I didn't carry explosives out of there (that generally requires team drivers with special training btw).
Anyway, no, just a private property situation.
YoungMoose
04-12-2009, 18:53
I think that people who bring pot while hiking are people who are aholes who dont deserve to be respected. therefore they should get caught and get arrested. I dont agree with the people who think that the place should be closed down becuase of some pot heads who have no life. I THink that there will always be people who are pot heads. it wont change. But i think that the people who do get caught Should be made example of. Come on its not hard to follow simple rules. Its also common sense
i've never smoked. i drink 2 to 3 bers a day sometimes not at all. doc said that was fine
you're not curious at all. you are trying to start ****. lousy try kid
how about lets get a beer wolf,hipo
randyg45
04-12-2009, 18:55
Making cigarettes illegal would reduce the chances of my grandchildren dying of lung cancer.
And I could buy a used semi without having to get rid of the stink.
Good Grief Larry! Look what you started. :D
Don't know. Don't care. Wish they'd make them illegal too.
Why not just use your god given right not to do either and acept when other people do as long it's not in your face?
Why not just use your god given right not to do either and acept when other people do as long it's not in your face?
Best post yet !:)
It is illegal to do random searches, even for an illegal drug.
http://www.progress.org/drc44.htm
some states have allowed drug dogs to sniff during traffic stops, however this is the result of a valid police stop, not random patrols.
Further an overnight guest has the right to privacy.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=495&invol=91
It could reasonably be asserted that any private establishment could require their guests to obey all laws, that does not abrogate a guest rights.
This not a public place, either. Lets not get confused. The public may be welcome but it is not public property.
A dog cant sniff me without cause anymore than a cop can put his hands in my pockets. Its only a matter of time before a hiker with weed and lots of money files a lawsuit for a violation of there rights.
That doesnt mean weed should be legal- but no one should be subject to random, warrantless intrusion by government.
Than you! Finally, an intelligent post on the law rather than clueless whining that has nothing to do with the law...
I wonder if a guest's rights are different in a private residence, as quoted in the second case, than a pay for stay place like a motel/hotel. a hostel may be another matter depending on how the law views the hostel.
Making cigarettes illegal would reduce the chances of my grandchildren dying of lung cancer.
And I could buy a used semi without having to get rid of the stink.
It might make a difference, and it might not.
Prohibition doesn't have a very good track record, and the whole purpose of this thread being here is because people are doing something that prohibition didn't prevent from happening.
I think that people who bring pot while hiking are people who are aholes who dont deserve to be respected. therefore they should get caught and get arrested.
Yeah well there are 4 states along the AT that have decriminalized pot and you live in one of them!
Making cigarettes illegal would reduce the chances of my grandchildren dying of lung cancer.
Yeah and closing all the McDonald's would help prevent them from becoming obese. (if they're not already)
le loupe
04-12-2009, 19:09
Than you! Finally, an intelligent post on the law rather than clueless whining that has nothing to do with the law...
I wonder if a guest's rights are different in a private residence, as quoted in the second case, than a pay for stay place like a motel/hotel. a hostel may be another matter depending on how the law views the hostel.
just references - find your own links
• Hotel rooms - occupied rooms are treated as residences [Elliot, 274
App. 73, 616 SE2d 844 (2005)]; overnight guest of registered guest has
expectation also [Snider, 292 App. 180, 663 SE2d 805 (2008)], but
defendant must make showing [Smith, 284 Ga. 17, 663 SE2d 142
(2008) (more than subjective intent)];
Why not just use your god given right not to do either and acept when other people do as long it's not in your face?
Maybe I'm offended by other people smoking in my presence. Or, more importantly for me anyway, they are creating a huge burden on society with their chosen habit. I KNOW I am opening a can of worms here and it's a different subject entirely, but if you are truly curious why smoking should be illegal, PM me and I'd be more than happy to explain why, as a paramedic for more than 20 years, I can show how it is detrimental to all of us.
just references - find your own links
• Hotel rooms - occupied rooms are treated as residences [Elliot, 274
App. 73, 616 SE2d 844 (2005)]; overnight guest of registered guest has
expectation also [Snider, 292 App. 180, 663 SE2d 805 (2008)], but
defendant must make showing [Smith, 284 Ga. 17, 663 SE2d 142
(2008) (more than subjective intent)];
yes, my understanding is that private rooms are treated as residences, but what about public areas say the lobby of a hotel or the gathering room or shared bunk room in a hostel?
MintakaCat
04-12-2009, 19:12
Than you! Finally, an intelligent post on the law rather than clueless whining that has nothing to do with the law...
I wonder if a guest's rights are different in a private residence, as quoted in the second case, than a pay for stay place like a motel/hotel. a hostel may be another matter depending on how the law views the hostel.
The second case also states the police entered without seeking permission. If you read it closely it doesn't match what this thread is about.
Why not just use your god given right not to do either and acept when other people do as long it's not in your face?
The problem is that it is too often in other people's face(s).
Well, this is falling apart quickly.
le loupe
04-12-2009, 19:27
The second case also states the police entered without seeking permission. If you read it closely it doesn't match what this thread is about.
Its exactly what this thread is about, as subsequent references indicate. I have a right to privacy. As a guest at a hostel/paying hotel/my friends house, the police do not have MY PERMISSION, regardless of what permission my roomate or the owner gives. If I am present I can deny a warrantless search.
The rights of the hostel, in this case, are limited once they accept me as a guest.
Well, this is falling apart quickly.
Not quickly enough.
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 19:29
Sorry LW, you may be missing the point. It's not so much about smoken weed as it is about spoiled little brats being pissed off that anyone would dare to question thier right to disregard and disrespect anyone they want, anytime they want and wherever they want. To weak and lazy to resolve a problem with thier wits or cunning, they have learned to just whine and snivel to get what they want. Some times that does not mix well in the adult world.
It seems you may be missing the point:rolleyes:
randyg45
04-12-2009, 19:30
Why not just use your god given right not to do either and acept when other people do as long it's not in your face?
The ENTIRE doper point of view here is that they have the right to do it in my face- and in the face of my minor daughter, should she be with me- in The Place. Should that happen, there would at the very least be words, followed by a change in behavior.
If I didn't just make a phone call first.
Keeping it outta my face sounds like a perfectly excellent idea.
YoungMoose
04-12-2009, 19:32
Well, this is falling apart quickly.lol agreed:eek::rolleyes:
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 19:33
boobs. . . .
MintakaCat
04-12-2009, 19:33
As a guest at a hostel/paying hotel/my friends house, the police do not have MY PERMISSION, regardless of what permission my roomate or the owner gives. If I am present I can deny a warrantless search.
Counselor, you can deny anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up in court. My point is that your case reference is weak, thats all. Not trying to get your goat, just that case doesn't match the subject of the thread.
But hey, it was fun reading.
YoungMoose
04-12-2009, 19:34
Yeah well there are 4 states along the AT that have decriminalized pot and you live in one of them!i dont care if i live in one. People should still be looked down on if they use pot. And only 4 out of 51 states. Thats why i hate ny.
randyg45
04-12-2009, 19:35
Its exactly what this thread is about, as subsequent references indicate. I have a right to privacy. As a guest at a hostel/paying hotel/my friends house, the police do not have MY PERMISSION, regardless of what permission my roomate or the owner gives. If I am present I can deny a warrantless search.
The rights of the hostel, in this case, are limited once they accept me as a guest.
Le Loupe, I certainly hope all the dopers in Damascus have the opportunity to make this argument to the canine officer in Damascus. :welcome
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 19:36
i dont care if i live in one. People should still be looked down on if they use pot. And only 4 out of 51 states. Thats why i hate ny.
haha, use pot:rolleyes:
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 19:37
Le Loupe, I certainly hope all the dopers in Damascus have the opportunity to make this argument to the canine officer in Damascus. :welcome
No that is inncorrect, its private property and they reserve the right to do whatever they want on their property!
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 19:38
Its exactly what this thread is about, as subsequent references indicate. I have a right to privacy. As a guest at a hostel/paying hotel/my friends house, the police do not have MY PERMISSION, regardless of what permission my roomate or the owner gives. If I am present I can deny a warrantless search.
The rights of the hostel, in this case, are limited once they accept me as a guest.
This is the quote i meant to use
le loupe
04-12-2009, 19:39
Counselor, you can deny anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up in court. My point is that your case reference is weak, thats all. Not trying to get your goat, just that case doesn't match the subject of the thread.
But hey, it was fun reading.
You're totally off base.
just as you can say anything doesnt apply.
I have supplied you with enough case law refernce to keep you reading for the next several minutes and to prove no one can give permission to search "my home" where ever it may be.
Not saying I can't be arrested, spend a few days in jail and go to court. The search however would be illegal.
No that is inncorrect, its private property and they reserve the right to do whatever they want on their property!
Can your landlord come into your apartment and look in your top desk drawer?
Or authorize the police to come in and check out your kitchen?
Of course not.
Think.
This is America.
Still.
it's private property. they don't want it there. what is so friggin hard to understand? you smoke? go somewhere else.
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 19:42
Its also the same situation that the idiots that think leaving The pLace and going down the Creeper to burn is ok. You cannot smoke at The PLace and respect that. If you are not going to respect that, respect the fact that you may get busted and that is not an invasion of privacy
le loupe
04-12-2009, 19:42
No that is inncorrect, its private property and they reserve the right to do whatever they want on their property!
Read the case of Elliott vs State (florida, I think)
Even tho the officer;
was called by the hotelier,
could smell burning marijuana
could see a pipe when the door was opened
found weed on the way to the bathroom.
He was not permitted to enter the hotel room or make the warrantless search.
That case acknowledges the Hotelier right to refuse service/kick that person out, but again, it does not abrogate my right to privacy.
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 19:43
Can your landlord come into your apartment and look in your top desk drawer?
Or authorize the police to come in and check out your kitchen?
Of course not.
Think.
This is America.
Still.
If you are renting from someone, they can send the police in yes, I know because it has happened to me before.
le loupe
04-12-2009, 19:44
it's private property. they don't want it there. what is so friggin hard to understand? you smoke? go somewhere else.
exactly!
just don't expect anyone/everyone to be happy about police intrusion
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 19:44
Read the case of Elliott vs State (florida, I think)
Even tho the officer;
was called by the hotelier,
could smell burning marijuana
could see a pipe when the door was opened
found weed on the way to the bathroom.
He was not permitted to enter the hotel room or make the warrantless search.
That case acknowledges the Hotelier right to refuse service/kick that person out, but again, it does not abrogate my right to privacy.
Things are a little different in Virginia
le loupe
04-12-2009, 19:44
If you are renting from someone, they can send the police in yes, I know because it has happened to me before.
someone else can give permission if you are not there.
But if you are home, with your gear, etc. you can deny the landlords permission for access.
i dont care if i live in one. People should still be looked down on if they use pot. And only 4 out of 51 states. Thats why i hate ny.
51 states? You should hate NY because of their school system! I said 4 states along the AT have decriminalized pot. There's more and some have legalized it for medicinal purposes. Being so young you have time to come out of the dark ages. Best of luck.
le loupe
04-12-2009, 19:46
Its also the same situation that the idiots that think leaving The pLace and going down the Creeper to burn is ok. You cannot smoke at The PLace and respect that. If you are not going to respect that, respect the fact that you may get busted and that is not an invasion of privacy
true! no exception taken
Rockhound
04-12-2009, 19:46
Lumping all "dopers" into the category of those who would cause problems at hostels and disrespect others by smoking in shelters etc... is a bit narrow minded or uninformed. Doctors smoke pot. Lawyers smoke pot. Teachers smoke pot. Yes so to slackers and trouble makers. To say all pot smokers are the same is just like saying everyone who drinks is the same. There are social drinkers and those that will drink on rare occasions and there are drunks.
le loupe
04-12-2009, 19:46
Things are a little different in Virginia
These are the cases upon which the US Supreme court findings are based
It seems you may be missing the point:rolleyes:
No I'm not. I like weed. I like tunafish too. If either one makes you uncomfortable I'll try not to subject you to them. If you say you don't want tunafish in your house, I'm ok with that. I won't bring the tunafish to your house, or I just won't come to your house. Why can't people just respect each other? The danged church is helping out hikers. They have made some simple request because they were catching flak from the community. Why is your imagined right to smoke weed more important than thier right to do good deeds and run a hostel operation the way they want?
MintakaCat
04-12-2009, 19:51
You're totally off base.
just as you can say anything doesnt apply.
I have supplied you with enough case law refernce to keep you reading for the next several minutes and to prove no one can give permission to search "my home" where ever it may be.
Not saying I can't be arrested, spend a few days in jail and go to court. The search however would be illegal.
Counselor, the term "where ever it may be" as you referenced was not referenced in the case that you provided. The court ruled that for the circumstances outlined in the case it was illegal for entry by the police. The court didn't rule with wording stating: "where ever it may be", or did I miss that?
randyg45
04-12-2009, 19:51
Loupy, none of your references was to a hotel or other establishment that had a sign posted saying: We reserve the right to search this property with drug dogs".
Case closed.
Lumping all "dopers" into the category of those who would cause problems at hostels and disrespect others by smoking in shelters etc... is a bit narrow minded or uninformed.
Yup, so is the name calling by that side. Who are the real dopes? :-?
i dont care if i live in one. People should still be looked down on if they use pot. And only 4 out of 51 states. Thats why i hate ny.
51 states? you certainly should not smoke pot.
Loupy, none of your references was to a hotel or other establishment that had a sign posted saying: We reserve the right to search this property with drug dogs".
Case closed.
Ha, did someone run over to the Place and post that? I don't think so. I'd give the church credit if they did.
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 19:53
Really Big Boobs. . . . .
If you are renting from someone, they can send the police in yes, I know because it has happened to me before.
someone else can give permission if you are not there.
But if you are home, with your gear, etc. you can deny the landlords permission for access.
I got it.
If the police want to search a suspect's apartment or hotel room, they need only wait until that suspect leaves and then get an OK from the landlord.
Seems odd.
If that's the case, I guess The Place (or the caretaker) can give the police permission to search a hiker's stuff so long as that hiker is away at the supermarket.
Seems stranger still, though.
exactly!
just don't expect anyone/everyone to be happy about police intrusion
don't care if they're not happy. they can do what they want on their own property.
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 19:56
i dont care if i live in one. People should still be looked down on if they use pot. And only 4 out of 51 States. Thats why i hate ny.
Maybe your efforts would be better spent paying attention in class there Einstein. . .
Loupy, none of your references was to a hotel or other establishment that had a sign posted saying: We reserve the right to search this property with drug dogs".
Case closed.
If I had to wager, I'd bet on the Supreme Court saying it's not a right, over a sign saying it is and that it's reserved. Anyone can make a sign. :p
Not that I'm advocating people smoking/posessing grass somewhere they shouldn't be.
i dont care if i live in one. People should still be looked down on if they use pot. And only 4 out of 51 states. Thats why i hate ny.
You are a little ahead of some folks. They have not made Wahington, D.C. a state yet.
vonfrick
04-12-2009, 20:03
You are a little ahead of some folks. They have not made Wahington, D.C. a state yet.
silly me. i thought he was referring to puerto rico :o:confused:
ShakeyLeggs
04-12-2009, 20:04
If I remember right there are no doors on the rooms and the door is not locked to enter the facility.
Therefore your expectation of privacy goes out the door
silly me. i thought he was referring to puerto rico :o:confused:
retard. it's the virgin islands.
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 20:07
mmmmmmm. . . nothin like a sunday evening talkin about weed. . . . sweeeeet. . . . brb. . .:sun
vonfrick
04-12-2009, 20:07
retard. it's the virgin islands.
oooooh, i forgot about that place since i'm not allowed to visit there anymore
silly me. i thought he was referring to puerto rico :o:confused:
That would be my guess. Afterall, it's the District of Columbia and the capital of the United States, I don't think it can become a state.
Why does American Somoa always get left out?
catfishrivers
04-12-2009, 20:09
The 51st state is the altered state.
oooooh, i forgot about that place since i'm not allowed to visit there anymore
Just have your marriage annulled and start over. :p
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 20:12
Just have your marriage annulled and start over. :p
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing017.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing017.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)
oooooh, i forgot about that place since i'm not allowed to visit there anymore
yeah, that happened to me with mexico.
vonfrick
04-12-2009, 20:13
yeah, that happened to me with mexico.
no retard. what i meant was they don't let us hos visit the virgin islands:rolleyes:
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 20:13
yeah, that happened to me with mexico.
Just what does one have to do to get kicked out of Mexico???
no retard. what i meant was they don't let us hos visit the virgin islands:rolleyes:
ooooh. that. my bad.
Just what does one have to do to get kicked out of Mexico???
i wasn't exactly so much kicked out as, say, invited not to come back.
vonfrick
04-12-2009, 20:16
Just what does one have to do to get kicked out of Mexico???
yeah kanga, don't leave us hangin here...this thraed is starting to show some promise
jose cuervo is not my friend and the voices that told me to throw the rock were not my friend either. i do remember a large party building with lots of balconies.
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 20:18
i wasn't exactly so much kicked out as, say, invited not to come back.
Sounds like you had a great time!!!:sun:sun
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 20:18
jose cuervo is not my friend and the voices that told me to throw the rock were not my friend either. i do remember a large party building with lots of balconies.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing017.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing017.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)
Sounds like you had a great time!!!:sun:sun
it was after the sunburn went away. the sunburn started the whole sorry fight. stupid sunburn.
vonfrick
04-12-2009, 20:19
jose cuervo is not my friend and the voices that told me to throw the rock were not my friend either. i do remember a large party building with lots of balconies.
wait so you got kicked out of a hotel, but not the whole damn country right??? if so you are more awesome than possible:banana:banana
wait so you got kicked out of a hotel, but not the whole damn country right??? if so you are more awesome than possible:banana:banana
no, the hotel was fine. if only i'd just stayed there.
does a portion of the country count? i could maybe still go to tijuana.
vonfrick
04-12-2009, 20:22
no, the hotel was fine. if only i'd just stayed there.
does a portion of the country count? i could maybe still go to tijuana?
isn't that where you hid the bodies?? probably not wise.
isn't that where you hid the bodies?? probably not wise.
what bodies?
vonfrick
04-12-2009, 20:25
what bodies?
nevermind :cool:
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 20:25
what bodies?
Nice save. . . :)
le loupe
04-12-2009, 20:29
Loupy, none of your references was to a hotel or other establishment that had a sign posted saying: We reserve the right to search this property with drug dogs".
Case closed.
Does a sign saying "we reserve the right to censor you conversation or your journal entry on this property" make it so?
I don't smoke weed, nor do i want it smoked in my presence or that of my daughter. But I hate the over-reaching intrusion of big brother more...
vonfrick
04-12-2009, 20:30
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-music037.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)
i know nothing.
Honey, you don't have to know anything. You're still loved. ;)
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 20:33
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-music037.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)
Hmmmmm. . . . .
Took the afternoon off to go visit mom, get a bike ride in, and this thread's gone viral...
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 20:34
Took the afternoon off to go visit mom and get a ride in, and this thread's gone viral...
Dude, you might wanna reword that post. . .
Took the afternoon off to go visit mom and get a ride in, and this thread's gone viral...
Slow trail, gear question day. Good time to let off some steam.
Took the afternoon off to go visit mom, get a bike ride in, and this thread's gone viral...
Dude, you might wanna reword that post. . .
Warragh..you got some kinda nasty imagination:eek:
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 20:46
Just what does one have to do to get kicked out of Mexico???
Im thinkin if you dont drink or you rememeber where you got the tattoo on your bum:p
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 20:48
Haha, Wakapak just farted
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 20:50
Haha, Wakapak just farted
:D:p. . . she's funny. . .:sun
Haha, Wakapak just farted
no, i snorted, get it right!! :p
wolfpack_law
04-12-2009, 20:52
I think that it is worth noting that a stay at the place is for a recommended donation, not for a fee or fare. Therefore, the permissive search of the place seems more in line with search and seizures provisions of the 4th amendment. However, I think that all backpacker's would agree that they have a heightened reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to their packs. That being said, a random "sniff search" of a person's pack seems a little unfair regardless of the posted rules. It's a shame that a few people spoil things for many sensible hikers that happen to have a few supplies in their packs.
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 20:54
I think that it is worth noting that a stay at the place is for a recommended donation, not for a fee or fare. Therefore, the permissive search of the place seems more in line with search and seizures provisions of the 4th amendment. However, I think that all backpacker's would agree that they have a heightened reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to their packs. That being said, a random "sniff search" of a person's pack seems a little unfair regardless of the posted rules. It's a shame that a few people spoil things for many sensible hikers that happen to have a few supplies in their packs.
Kinda what i was trying to get at. Nicely worded
But back to what i said, no Wak farted. She is using "snorted" as a cover up:banana I win!
Doughnut
04-12-2009, 20:57
Right so they go for the easy score using dogs to do their work on a couple hapless hikers. More time for donuts.
Hey Now let's not get personal,
DoughNut
vonfrick
04-12-2009, 21:04
Haha, Wakapak just farted
no, i snorted, get it right!! :p
Kinda what i was trying to get at. Nicely worded
But back to what i said, no Wak farted. She is using "snorted" as a cover up:banana I win!
when's the wedding?
Lone Wolf
04-12-2009, 21:04
I got it.
If the police want to search a suspect's apartment or hotel room, they need only wait until that suspect leaves and then get an OK from the landlord.
Seems odd.
If that's the case, I guess The Place (or the caretaker) can give the police permission to search a hiker's stuff so long as that hiker is away at the supermarket.
Seems stranger still, though.
then take your inquisitive ass to damascus and get to the bottom of it and report back :rolleyes:
Maybe I'm offended by other people smoking in my presence. Or, more importantly for me anyway, they are creating a huge burden on society with their chosen habit. I KNOW I am opening a can of worms here and it's a different subject entirely, but if you are truly curious why smoking should be illegal, PM me and I'd be more than happy to explain why, as a paramedic for more than 20 years, I can show how it is detrimental to all of us.
BS,nice try. You are full of S*** !
I think that people who bring pot while hiking are people who are aholes who dont deserve to be respected. therefore they should get caught and get arrested. I dont agree with the people who think that the place should be closed down becuase of some pot heads who have no life. I THink that there will always be people who are pot heads. it wont change. But i think that the people who do get caught Should be made example of. Come on its not hard to follow simple rules. Its also common sense
This reminds me of your other mindless posts...like yesterday when you called people *stupid*, *dumb*... get a grip kid. Like I said before,parental guidance is in order.:rolleyes:
when's the wedding?
end of April next year
and i really did snort...this time....:p
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 21:11
BS,nice try. You are full of S*** !
Yeah, certainly it's much much more dangerous than the very legal alcohol. . . ;):)
The ENTIRE doper point of view here is that they have the right to do it in my face- and in the face of my minor daughter, should she be with me- in The Place.
We're talking about dog searches not openly smoking on Place property. Even it were legalized the Place could and most likely would ban smoking. They probably already do with cigarettes, at least inside.
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 21:15
end of April next year
and i really did snort...this time....:p
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-signs140.gif
Yeah, certainly it's much much more dangerous than the very legal alcohol. . . ;):)
Hey wait a minute,I gotta get a beer...:rolleyes:
Only 3 more and I gotta get to bed.
Gotta be to work by 5,get up,brush my teeth and roll one. Only way to deal with all the jerks out there.:D
Lone Wolf
04-12-2009, 21:16
We're talking about dog searches not openly smoking on Place property. Even it were legalized the Place could and most likely would ban smoking. They probably already do with cigarettes, at least inside.
butts are banned on the property too. hikers have proved they can't keep from trashing the yard with them.
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 21:18
Hey wait a minute,I gotta get a beer...:rolleyes:
Only 3 more and I gotta get to bed.
Gotta be to work by 5,get up,brush my teeth and roll one. Only way to deal with all the jerks out there.:D
See, if you keep a tight schedule - it all works out! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/wootrock.gif
butts are banned on the property too. hikers have proved they can't keep from trashing the yard with them.
Can you chew?
butts are banned on the property too. hikers have proved they can't keep from trashing the yard with them.
There's all kinds of all idiots. Most hikers I know that smoke at least field strip their butts and dispose of them properly. Is it OK on the street? It's not so far away.
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 21:19
Can you chew?
Chewing cigarette butts has been shown to cause cancer. . .
Chewing cigarette butts has been shown to cause cancer. . .
Dip then?
...
Lone Wolf
04-12-2009, 21:22
Can you chew?
yeah. i still gots teeth
butts are banned on the property too.
LW is just being polite.
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 21:27
Dip then?
...
Very difficult if you feel like rolling one. . . doesn't burn well. . .
But if you're gonna try - peach or apple skoal. . .
It's not like their searching for something legal.
This is the real tragedy of the bush administration and our times. They have convinced the younger generation (and a lot of the older generation) that illegal searches and violations of our basic rights are ok.
Most of us are not denying that the Place can and should prohibit alcohol and pot use. Many are not arguing that pot should be legal. But if it's use is as prevalent and open as some claim, there should be absolutely no problem catching and prosecuting those who are actually doing it. There is no need to assume that every hiker is suspect and subject them to an illegal search by dogs.
It was suggested that anyone opposed to this policy is a pot head - not true. It was also said to just stay away - that is what I plan to do. I do not wish to patronize a place that assumes I'm guilty upon entering.
It is sad, I've supported The Place in the past, even when not staying there, It's a let down now that I can no longer feel welcome there.
Chaco Taco
04-12-2009, 21:35
Dip then?
...
When i dip you dip we dip
RITBlake
04-12-2009, 22:08
It is subjecting all hikers, even those who don't carry drugs, to the fallible nose of a German Shepard.
Wahhh, the dog's not pissing on your pack. Takes the dog 3 or 4 seconds to get a positive/negative read.
If someone reports a problem to the police they have an obligation to take some action. The town of Damascus has chosen this method, sounds good to me. Seems to be pretty effective. Got people talking. If nothing else a great scare tactic.
Bottom line, if you choose to poses an illegal substance in a town, then you choose to run the risk of getting arrested for it. If you act like a douche in a hostel you deserve to get kicked out.
Holy *****t!! I just realized that I wasted about 20 minutes of my life and only made it to page 9! Going to bed now... :rolleyes:
warraghiyagey
04-12-2009, 22:20
Holy *****t!! I just realized that I wasted about 20 minutes of my life and only made it to page 9! Going to bed now... :rolleyes:
You didn't miss anything. . . just people in love with their opinions. . .
superman
04-12-2009, 22:35
This is about the annual parade of fools. Those who have hiked multiple times have talked about this many times. Not all hikers are a-holes but every year has some. One of my personal favorites was the hiker who used a preacher’s computer and accessed porno sites. That was that church hostile with all the mosquitoes just before you get to it. I was in the bunch that came in next. The good church folks were downright pissed. I don't know what happened after I left but they were considering closing the place to hikers. From the beginning to the end of the AT, there are those who seem to think they have a right to screw up, guarantied by the constitution or god himself.
come party here, doesn't translate into bring your illegal drugs here. duh!
Yes it does, in today's society - duh!
Unfortunately, it seems that the word illegal doesn't mean that much to too many people until they are on the receiving end. Thieves don't much like getting things stolen from them.
Illegal is illegal.
Want respect?
Act respectably.
Duh.
and duh! you have it folks... anyone up for a hike?
Nah! No fun.;)
Actually, I'll be on the trail later this week. Is it still legal to brew your own coffee? :p
le loupe
04-12-2009, 23:25
Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.
Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. 'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm
Nah! No fun.;)
Actually, I'll be on the trail later this week. Is it still legal to brew your own coffee? :p
depends on the bean.
where ya hiking now?
depends on the bean.
where ya hiking now?
Nooo Yawk!
Jim Adams
04-13-2009, 00:30
Maybe I'm offended by other people smoking in my presence. Or, more importantly for me anyway, they are creating a huge burden on society with their chosen habit. I KNOW I am opening a can of worms here and it's a different subject entirely, but if you are truly curious why smoking should be illegal, PM me and I'd be more than happy to explain why, as a paramedic for more than 20 years, I can show how it is detrimental to all of us.
I've been a paramedic for 33 years and quit smoking 5 years ago this month. I totally understand why you feel the way that you do BUT those are YOUR feelings and YOUR feelings in this case take away personal freedom! This is America...you have no right to tell someone else that they can't smoke.
geek
CrumbSnatcher
04-13-2009, 00:49
happy easter!!!
Last year a coworker and I shared a shelter with a doper that liked to hike to get away from "the law". He kept talking about the crew that was there the night before and how much weed they had. I was puzzled as to why he was at the same shelter again so I had to ask. He explained that he had walked several miles in the WRONG direction before realizing it and had to turn back before dark. We didnt have the heart to tell he just spent the night with two Cops. This threads been great but I'm done.
Jim Adams
04-13-2009, 01:16
no, i snorted, get it right!! :p
WHISKEY?:eek:
geek
Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.
Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. 'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm
Interesting... but in Ill. vs. Caballes the SCOTUS ruling reads that the Court held that conducting a dog sniff would not change a traffic stop that was lawful when it began and was otherwise executed in a reasonable manner into an unlawful search, unless the manner in which the dog sniff itself was conducted infringed the citizen’s constitutionally protected interest in privacy. Specifically the court stated: “A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Why would that change when you're in, say, a hostel?
i've never smoked. i drink 2 to 3 bers a day sometimes not at all. doc said that was fine
you're not curious at all. you are trying to start ****. lousy try kid
Sure I was:rolleyes:. Why so defensive? Are you still pissed that I called you an alcoholic before? I said I was freakin' sorry. And you'll know when I'm trying to start ****.
Honestly, I was just wondering when and if you could start drinking again(didn't know if you smoked or not) after a heart operation like that.
So, when does your heightened sensitivity go away?;)