Judge OKs Fake Checkpoints (CO)


PDA






AZTOY
August 15, 2003, 03:41 PM
Judge OKs Fake Checkpoints in Search for Illegal Drugs

Friday, August 15, 2003

DENVER — Colorado police can set up fake checkpoints in hopes of sniffing out illegal drugs, an appeals court ruled in a case where camouflage-clad officers spied on fans during a bluegrass festival in 2000

Thursday's ruling, which reversed an earlier finding, was based on a federal appeals court decision last year in a similar case in Oklahoma.

Police at the Telluride festival had posted signs along the road saying, "Narcotics checkpoint, one mile ahead" and "Narcotics canine ahead." Officers wearing camouflage hid on a hill and watched for any people who turned around or appeared to toss drugs out of their windows after seeing the signs.

After Stephen Corbin Roth, 60, was pulled over for littering, police found a marijuana pipe and mushrooms while searching his car.

The appeals court said that while drug checkpoints are illegal — because motorists are stopped at random and without reasonable suspicion of committing a crime — the discovery of the pipe gave the officers probable cause to stop Roth's vehicle.

Roth's lawyer said he planned to appeal.

Sheriff Jerry Martin said his department conducted four fake checkpoint operations before suspending them because of the lawsuit. The operation will probably be reinstated, he said.

"We didn't dream it would be that effective. I'm telling you, they tossed stuff out of there that you couldn't believe," Martin said.

In the Oklahoma case, Mack Flynn saw checkpoint warning signs in Muskogee County, quickly got off the interstate and dropped a large sack by the roadside. The 10th Circuit agreed with his lawyers that checkpoints are illegal but ultimately ruled against him because there really weren't any checkpoints.

"The posting of signs to create a ruse does not constitute illegal police activity," that court said.

http://www.foxnews.com.edgesuite.net/story/0,2933,94859,00.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Judge OKs Fake Checkpoints (CO)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jeeper
August 15, 2003, 03:43 PM
WHether I think it is OK or not is up in the air. It is very humorous though.

buzz_knox
August 15, 2003, 03:45 PM
I don't like the idea of busting people b/c they turned around (assuming that the turns are legal) but if they are openly disposing of evidence of a crime and/or littering, go for it.

Mike Irwin
August 15, 2003, 03:46 PM
Hum....

This one bothers me...

geekWithA.45
August 15, 2003, 04:21 PM
One of the few and most effective tools that remain to LEO is the use of lies and deception.

This is a real problem that has lead directly to the erosion of respect for LEO.

Furthermore, it's an outright shame that most folks don't know what their rights are, or how to effectively use them.

Sigh.

Carlos
August 15, 2003, 04:50 PM
Agreed. I hate back-handed tactics such as this.

It just keeps getting better, huh? :banghead: :banghead:

Atticus
August 15, 2003, 05:43 PM
And "We the People" were somehow served by this? A 60 year old Bluegrass fan is headed home to smoke his dope...but is instead tricked into littering. Okaaaay. If the guy isn't driving while intoxicated...I simply don't give a flip.

Morgan
August 15, 2003, 05:49 PM
I find it very humorous, and vaguely disturbing. Even people who know that such a checkpoint is illegal know that there are probably departments out there who would do it anyway. On the other hand, society has determined that certain substances are illegal, and the cops were very imaginitive in dealing with the problem of such substances entering an area where they knew it would be commonplace. Thinking outside the box.

Cops don't have any rules against lying or misrepresenting - it is sometimes very useful in an investigation to claim you know something...

As an aside, since when do you get to search someone's car when citing for littering? Amazing how often permission is given, but the story doesn't detail.

Coltdriver
August 15, 2003, 06:34 PM
Your tax dollars, hard at waste.

Why are these ninja wanna be's not out scouring the national forests of Colorado for illegal drug operations where thousands of acres have been co opted by the drug cartels so they can grow locally and not deal with smuggling?

I would have to suggest that it would be hard and dangerous work.

Unlike popping an old hippie for his hash pipe:D

TarpleyG
August 15, 2003, 07:39 PM
As much as I would be tempted to go through the checkpoint just to say "No, you can't search my vehicle!" I would most likely just turn around. This scenario would have put in the same situation either way.

GT

benewton
August 15, 2003, 08:07 PM
Ah, let me try to get this straight...

The "legel" OFFICIALS put up a sign stating that there's a "DRUG CHECKPOINT" ahead. But there isn't, it's a lie, for whatever purposes. But then too, it's legal for "them" to lie, so I guess that doesn't count.

Then again, they do DUI checkpoints, without notice, as far as signs go, all the time. And I'm required to stop, without charge to them for the time they've cost for a no probable cause stop...

Then, too, sometimes they post signs saying no CCW, and ignoring that one could get me "apprehended". (Note: I do have a chance, though, since maybe they'd just "confiscate" the USPc without further "charges").

So, me, the poor civilian, is supposed to realize just which signs are real, legal, and binding on my activities, and which are fake and can be ignored?

And just how am I supposed to do that, realtime, since that, for one reason or another, is how I have to live my life?

Lie to a LEO and you've problems in detail, he lies to you, well, in that case all's fair...

There is a reason many of us have zero faith in LE, or, now that I think about it, in the "law" itself.

jimpeel
August 15, 2003, 08:20 PM
So if someone gets out of their car and holds up a sign that states that the other sign is a fake is that okay? After all, under the ruling, the sign was okay because there really weren't any checkpoints so wouldn't alerting the driving public to that fact also be legal?

Also, isn't there a law that makes it illegal to place false signage upon any roadway with the intent to confuse or trick the motoring public? Wouldn't such a sign also be considered litter and within the purvue of every citizen to clean up their community by removing same?

sm
August 15, 2003, 08:31 PM
Not comfortable with this at all.

Many years ago a sheriff used old junk cars on blocks painted to resemble sheriff cars, with a "straw" sheriff to get speeders to slow down, he'd change locations from time to time. Now that was just a smart use of resources, getting people to think...no rights stepped on.

This article on the other hand is nudging my rights before getting stomped on...not comfortable at all.

Always respected the moonshiners against the "revenuers". something to be said about rear wheel drive, stout engines and suspensions...back roads are kinda nice for change...history is a good tool...oh, black shows up at night...cobalt blue does not on a moonless night...people wondered why I opted for the black-out package...no chrome...;)

gunmetal grey, olive green...never black--never

Standing Wolf
August 15, 2003, 10:36 PM
We don't need no stinkin' Fourth Amendment!

Denko
August 16, 2003, 01:19 AM
We are sorry sir,we just don't have the manpower to respond to every 911 call as soon as we would like.

MeekandMild
August 16, 2003, 01:29 AM
I tell you, since I took my new job up here in God's Country I have a very low general opinion of the 'kosher' war on drugs as generally applied.

We see about 15 druggies a week who come in to our facility in various stages of disarray and need for detox. They tell stories about unbelievably easy access to drugs and minimal sucess by the police in stopping them.

In three counties here there are dozens of drug arrests per week but I suspect that is from the dumbest 1% of a population of thousands of druggies. The general rule is the cops bust them, they get off on probation and they are "good" for a number of months then go back to their usual behavior. YAWN.

All I can say is GOOD FOR THESE COPS!! If you've ever seen a druggie screaming at the top of their lungs, defecating on the floor and ready to hang themselves if given the chance you can appreciate my perspective. (From my experiance druggies have a VERY high suicide rate.)

My 2 cents worth.

Marko Kloos
August 16, 2003, 01:57 AM
Meekandmild,

alcohol kills far more people in a year than all the illegal drugs combined, both directly and via DUI. We all know what alcohol does to a person when they "overdose", and I've seen plenty of defecating or vomiting drunks and alcoholics suffering from violent withdrawal.

So, the question is, why be inconsistent? Why make one intoxicant illegal and crack down on it with the full night of the state, and leave the demonstrably more dangerous one legal?

We tried Prohibition. Not only did it not work, but it also brought us organized crime and NFA '34.

We tried banning drugs. Not only did it not work, it brught us drug cartels and GCA68, as well as AWB89 and AWB94. Why insist on relearning the lessons of Prohibition all over again?

I don't care whether my neighbor destroys himself with heroin or vodka. It makes no difference to me. Neither you nor me nor the State can stop him if he has his mind set to it. Why waste literally hundreds of billions of tax dollars, and infringe on the civil rights of all non-users, just to try and keep a few Darwin cases from annihilating themselves?

standingbear
August 16, 2003, 12:13 PM
what bothers me is the deceptive practices here.what if it were a rock consert and after seeing the sign,just to avoid a hassle,someone turned around and headed home or remembered they forgot something at the gas station 5 miles back.would this make them automatically guilty of having narcotics in their car?what if they were stopped down the road for suspicion later based on turning around and nothing was found..kinda like changing the speed limit on a rural highway for a few days to get speeders(it was done not far from here- the municipality had to pay back all the fines and the violations removed).im sure it soured alot of peoples image of what leo stands for.its no wonder people feel the way they do.

Atticus
August 16, 2003, 07:37 PM
"We see about 15 druggies a week who come in to our facility in various stages of disarray and need for detox. They tell stories about unbelievably easy access to drugs and minimal sucess by the police in stopping them. "

Well...let's throw another 10 billion dollars at it then. People who want to alter their reality will do so with homemade hooch, PAM in a can, glue, a cactus, a mushroom, electricity, ...whatever. It is pointless to fight this war on some drugs. Deal with the mental problems as they arise.

Ian
August 16, 2003, 07:53 PM
I haven't ever used narcotics, and I don't intend to start any time soon. I have nothing illegal in my car. However, I would still pull a u-turn if I knew a checkpoint was up ahead. I just don't like the idea of being stopped at a random checkpoint. The 4th Amendment is a Good Thing.

All the more reason to move to a small town that doesn't have enough cops to pull this nonsense in the first place...

Zundfolge
August 16, 2003, 08:29 PM
These "fake" checkpoints are not as much of a violation of our rights as the real ones, but this is one of those police actions that ultimately works against them.

There are more and more generaly "law abiding" folk who are begining to see our Law Enforcement Officers as the enemies of freedom and not to be trusted any more then we trust other street thugs.

This kind of dishonesty is eroding the relationship between Peace Officers and the community they serve. And in the long run this will make police work more difficult and more cops die needlessly.

Just look at the cop bashing threads that pop up here on THR ... I'd say that as a group us THRers are probably more pro-cop then the average citizen and even here there are many of us (myself included) who don't trust cops.


How much good will in the community is every "druggie" they bust with a little baggie of pot going to cost them with such tactics?

Tamara
August 16, 2003, 09:06 PM
I kind of like the idea of what the cops did. Again it goes back to what I was saying in another thread. Let them pull me over. They aint gonna find no guns because I don't have guns any more.

Are you forgetting the fact that illegal guns are illegal? Do you want those same shooters or dealers pushing that crap off in your neighborhood? More power to the police for busting losers like those!

I remember the cops sent out "Sweepstakes Winner" notices to a bunch of losers who were "wanted" on various charges. When the idiots showed up to collect their winnings they were promptly handcuffed and led away! LMFAO!

To those who break the law intentionaly I say screw 'em!


Always good to know who's on my side. ;)

Bruce H
August 16, 2003, 09:18 PM
Sonebody should kick that judge right in the brass ones. Tell him it was a fake kick, then do it again.

rock jock
August 16, 2003, 10:58 PM
I kind of like the idea of what the cops did. Again it goes back to what I was saying in another thread. Let them pull me over. They aint gonna find no guns because I don't have guns any more.
Flawed argument. If you are going to address the unconstitutional basis for random searches, go right ahead. But trying to equivocate guns with drugs makes your point moot. One is a necessary element of freedom and is protected by the Constitution; the other is not.

MeekandMild
August 16, 2003, 10:58 PM
I don't care whether my neighbor destroys himself with heroin or vodka. It makes no difference to me. Really? :rolleyes: I wonder if you'd think differently if your neighbor had a meth lab?

hammer4nc
August 16, 2003, 11:08 PM
An interesting sidelight: Telluride, CO is in San Miguel County, whose sheriff Bill Masters is billed as "America's only Libertarian Sheriff". He has been a vocal opponent of the war on drugs. He has opposed the activities of the 22nd Judicial drug Task Force, who sponsored this shining example of law enforcement creativity.

Telluride has several festivals throughout the year, which bring a steady stream of tourists from all over. I'm sure less affluent towns and counties in that region fish from that stream wherever possible; including law enforcement. Follow the money.

The local leo's seem to take great delight in deceiving the public by posting false signs, and watching people's reactions. I wonder if they employ this modern form of situational ethics when it comes time to testify (testilie?) in court? The ends justify the means, right Vic?

Atticus
August 16, 2003, 11:08 PM
"Are you forgetting the fact that illegal drugs are illegal?"

I wish I could. In my opinion they shouldn't be. People sniff glue also. Should we lock up all model airplane builders, or should we treat people who feel the need to sniff glue?

"Do you want those same users or dealers pushing that crap off in your neighborhood?"

These people weren't dealers.. most likely.

However, to answer your question: Dealers would have a tough time making a living in my neighborhood. People in my hood have jobs, obligations, responsibilities, goals, bills, kids, etc. I'm sure that some of them abuse drugs though..and particularly alcohol, because I see them scoring that bad!ss Budweiser light and Stoli vodka stuff from the local "dealer" nearly every Friday night. Amazingly enough, they make a decision NOT to be drug addicts, all by themselves.

Tamara
August 17, 2003, 01:34 AM
One is a necessary element of freedom and is protected by the Constitution; the other is not.

...and congress has the authority to ban neither. (Don't believe me? Check Article 1, Sec. 8, then ask yourself why a constitutional amendment was needed to ban alcohol. ;) )

Art Eatman
August 17, 2003, 01:50 PM
Why, Tam! It's merely because Congress hadn't yet figured out all the wonderful uses of the Commerce Clause!

Count me as one who believes the way we're dealing with "the drug problem" as totally wrong, okay? I'm personally uninterested in drugs, but the religious fervor to enforce Draconian laws and punishment strikes me as not only counter-productive but overly expensive.

That said, we do have laws in place. Part of our deal for an arrest is "Probable Cause". It is reasonable to believe that if one avoids a publicized checkpoint by making a U-turn, he had some cause to do so.

The legal issue is whether or not LEOs can set up any sort of check point. Previous court decisions have held that so long as ALL vehicles are stopped, and not just random ones, the checkpoint is legal.

I'm stuck with what the laws say and with what the courts have decided. I don't have the money to challenge "dumbness" all the way to the Supreme Court, nor lobby Congress to do things My Way.

Ya gotta halfway feel sory for Congresscritters: A dope-smoking reporter will write an article about a pro-NORML Congressman implying the guy is in bed with narcotrafficantes...

Georgia LEOs did a similar fake-checkpoint deal on an Interstate. Those who made a U-turn weren't busted for suspected dope; they were busted for an illegal U-turn across the median. After that, it was "in plain view". arrests...

Art

Don Gwinn
August 17, 2003, 02:29 PM
If you watch Reefer Madness, the original drug-war propaganda film, there's a telling moment. The principal of the high school being destroyed by the evil scourge of Marihuana is haranguing the local FBI guy and asking why "you government men" aren't doing something about the Reefer Madness. The man responds:

"I quite agree with you, sir. But do you realize that Marihuana is not like other forms of dope? It grows wild in every state in the Union. There is, therefore, almost no interstate commerce in the stuff and our hands are thus tied."

How far we have fallen since the time when the most blatant drug war propagandists still felt compelled to acknowledge that simple truth.

telomerase
August 17, 2003, 02:42 PM
>trying to equivocate (sic) guns with drugs makes your point moot. One is a necessary element of freedom and is protected by the Constitution; the other is not.

Yes, yes, only your rights are important, not the "other guy's" :)

Look, I've never used any illegal drugs, so this is definitely an "other guy" issue for me too. But when alcohol Prohibition was tried, they went through the Constitutional process and at least got a vote on it. Drug Prohibition was just instituted by fiat with no Constitutional authority at all. Unless you believe in the Divine Right of Bureaucrats, this has to concern us a bit... and whether or not we use illegal drugs, we all get sick. FDA restrictions on doctor's options hit all of us, and are equally un-Constitutional.

telomerase
August 17, 2003, 02:50 PM
>I wonder if you'd think differently if your neighbor had a meth lab?

Why would your neighbor have a meth lab if there were no Drug Prohibition? Does your neighbor have an aspirin lab? Do you really not see the economics here, or are you just jerking the Jeffersonian's chains? (It's working :) )

At least Americans in the 1930s figured out the connection between Prohibition and gang warfare (though not in time to stop the momentum that brought us the first Federal gun control law). Perhaps we're not quite as bright today?

Sorry, I'm getting cranky here. I try to get the recommended daily dose of red wine, I really do (I read the recent cardiac disease study in the NEJM) ... but I just hate the taste. I'm afraid my teetotalism makes me unsociable and prone to absenteeism, violence, and disease.

Quartus
August 17, 2003, 03:12 PM
There are more and more generaly "law abiding" folk who are begining to see our Law Enforcement Officers as the enemies of freedom and not to be trusted any more then we trust other street thugs.

This kind of dishonesty is eroding the relationship between Peace Officers and the community they serve. And in the long run this will make police work more difficult and more cops die needlessly.


The question of the legality or not of drugs aside, Zundfolge's comments nicely sum up something that should concern EVERYBODY.

Lone_Gunman
August 17, 2003, 03:31 PM
How long would a tactic like this be effective before people learn it is just fake, and keep on driving?

kentucky bucky
August 17, 2003, 09:19 PM
I love it when a court finds in favor of Law Enforcement. I hope they bust more drug sucking scum. I love to go to bluegrass festivals, and I don't want a bunch of drugged-out morons around me or my family. Don't have dope, and you won't have anything to worry about. SIMPLE!!! It's real easy for me to pass sobriety check points, what do you guys have to worry about???? What would you be throwing out of your car window??:rolleyes:

Orthonym
August 18, 2003, 01:34 AM
Pro-Cop Judges=Pro-Perjury Judges, IMNSHO!:fire:

Zak Smith
August 18, 2003, 01:39 AM
kentucky bucky,

It's real easy for me to pass sobriety check points, what do you guys have to worry about???? What would you be throwing out of your car window??

Well, for example, let's say I'm coming home to Colorado from our family fun-shoot in Wisconsin and my driving route happens to take me through some locale (I dunno, Illinois maybe?) with some restrictive gun laws and the cop who "checks" my car is scared of the 15 handguns and 5 "evil black rifles" I've got in the back in cases. It's kind of hard to keep everything out of "plain" sight when you've got 20 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo in the rear of your SUV. By the way, the FOPA '86 is supposed to protect me in this case. Mind you, this is purely hypothetical.

If I know there's a roadblock/checkpoint/whatever, I sure as hell am going to try to avoid it. And I'm neither breaking the law nor doing anything immoral. To say otherwise is to say, "Well, since you don't have anything you hide..."

-z

Erik
August 18, 2003, 02:38 AM
Good for the cops.

Good for the judge.

---

"So if someone gets out of their car and holds up a sign that states that the other sign is a fake is that okay?"

Nope. You could be cited for... :uhoh: Oh shoot, I cannot remember of hand, but it is the smame charge which can apply to folks who flash their lights to warn of a speed trap ahead. Interference? :uhoh:

gunsmith
August 18, 2003, 05:18 AM
and must be dealt with harshly!
I am not surprised that those hippies
were "littering under the influence"
next they will be littering in your neighborhood!

leave your weed at home till it's legal.
but pleaseDO NOT LITTER! :neener:

kentucky bucky
August 20, 2003, 06:51 PM
So.....With that reasoning a pro criminal judge = pro truth??? I see, The cops are all bad and lie to convict people all the time. I've head this from nearly every convict that I've had contact with so it must be true.:rolleyes:

hammer4nc
August 20, 2003, 07:42 PM
bucky,

Your logic is flawed. Orthonym's statement can be generalized to read: biased (pro-cop) judges = pro-perjury judges. Two logical extensions are biased (pro-criminal) judges = pro-perjury judges; unbiased (neither pro-criminal nor pro-cop) judges = pro-truth judges. Your next statement:
I see, The cops are all bad and lie to convict people all the time. I've head this from nearly every convict that I've had contact with so it must be true. Reveals more about the writer than as a survey of "convicts'" opinions, if it was meant to educate us? (not). Of course, you're entitled to YOUR opinion, too :neener:

kentucky bucky
August 21, 2003, 09:49 PM
He didn't say "biased", he said "pro-cop" , And thank God there are judges that aren't poisoned by "PC" and still respect law enforcement. Wouldn't it be a shame if a judge ruled on the side of the greater good of society instead of protecting criminals rights. Sounds like some of you need more real life experience with a few convicts to bring you down to reality. It also sounds as if some of you guys have another equation such as....POLICE=CONSPIRACY or how about POLICE=OPPRESSION???:neener:

Chris Rhines
August 21, 2003, 10:07 PM
Gun control and drug prohibition have the same moral justification - that an individual cannot be trusted with the control of his own body. You cannot consistently support one and oppose the other.

- Chris

kentucky bucky
August 21, 2003, 10:22 PM
Comparing Gun Ownership to Drug Addiction is preposterous. Addicts don't just hurt their "own body" they hurt "everybody", including their family and my family, if they choose to drive DUI. If someone kicks in your back door while you are gone, and ransacks your house, it's VERY likely that the punk is looking for drug money. That's the way it is where I come from. Maybe the addicts where you come from are outstanding citizens just wanting to live in harmonious freedom. :barf: Illegal drugs are a scurge...PERIOD.

HOW LAME!!!

Chris Rhines
August 21, 2003, 10:34 PM
Heh. Funny.

Comparing Gun Control to Drug Addiction is preposterous. You're absolutely right, that is preposterous. It's also not even close to what I said. I compared gun control to drug prohibition. The two are morally identical.

Addicts don't just hurt their "own body" they hurt "everybody", including their family and my family, if they choose to drive DUI. Suppose I were to fire up a big, fat doobie right now, sitting here in my den, in the privacy of my own home. How am I hurting you? Be specific, please.

As for driving under the influence, if a person can drive safely under the influence of narcotics, alcohol, Ny-Quil, or what have you, then it is no business of yours (or of mine, or of the state's.) If a person drives unsafely, regardless of what drug they are on, they should be prosecuted for Reckless Endangerment (or more, if they damage another person or their property.)

If someone kicks in your back door while you are gone, and ransacks your house, it's VERY likely that the punk is looking for drug money. See the above. I don't care why a criminal kicks in my back door; he's no more or less a thief if he's looking for drug money or money to upgrade to Windows XP.

Not much of a debate.

- Chris

hammer4nc
August 21, 2003, 10:39 PM
bucky,

So far you've praised (biased) pro-cop judges. Do you realize you've also exposed one of the (numerous) failures of the current war on drugs? If someone kicks in your back door while you are gone, and ransacks your house, it's VERY likely that the punk is looking for drug money.

To whit: prohibition inflates the price of banned drugs many orders of magnitude, thus promoting theivery to support the habit.

The ends justify the means, don't let logic get in the way...;)

Darrin
August 21, 2003, 11:16 PM
Isn't a lie the same as someone whom bears, "false witness?"

Wasn't there something in the 10 Commandments agaist bearing false witness?

Oh, wait, the 10 Commandments don't mean anything anymore, I forgot. Perhaps we should do away with the "laws" that are streamed from the 10 Commandments. Murder, Adultry, Stealing, etc....

This fake checkpoint thing smells worse than my cat's litterbox when I've been away for the weekend.

jimpeel
August 22, 2003, 12:08 AM
The lesson to be learned here is to never carry more drugs with you than you can comfortably eat between the time the reds come on and the cop gets to the door.

Justin
August 22, 2003, 12:15 AM
One must wonder what would happen if, upon seeing the checkpoint signs, you were to dump copious amounts of bleached flour out of the window of your car...

Erik
August 22, 2003, 01:44 AM
Represenbting a substance as a drug is a crime in many, many places.

:D

dustind
August 22, 2003, 04:59 PM
There is also littering, I was thinking of doing that too, until I remembered littering.

kentucky bucky
August 22, 2003, 06:08 PM
Last night I was PWT ( posting while tired) I was wrestling with the kids and didn't notice the mistake. I meant to say "COMPARING GUN OWNERSHIP AND DRUG ADDICTION ARE PREPOSTEROUS" Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

seeker_two
August 22, 2003, 06:14 PM
Addicts don't just hurt their "own body" they hurt "everybody", including their family and my family, if they choose to drive DUI. If someone kicks in your back door while you are gone, and ransacks your house, it's VERY likely that the punk is looking for drug money.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make DUI and burglary illegal, whatever the reason for its commission? :scrutiny:

I'm against drugs. I've never used an illegal drug, and I've seen what happens to many who are addicted to them. I've also seen what happens to people addicted to "legal" things like alcohol, gambling, the Internet, etc. Addiction is not pretty--no matter WHAT the substance.

Violations of people's rights are not pretty either. When you start passing laws that allow searches & seizures of personal property contrary to the Constitution, then what use is that Constitution? And, if the Constitution (including the Second Amendment) is made irrelevant, then we're back to King George and square one--therby making the last 227 years a waste of time.

I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet... :fire:

Whether drugs are legal or not, the gov't has a sacred responsibility to "uphold & defend the Constitution of the United States of America". That means they play by the rules and the rights--no matter what.

kentucky bucky
August 22, 2003, 10:18 PM
I've got an idea! Since several of you guys seem to think illegal drug use is a right just like gun rights, and I'ts harmless, why don't you all get together some day and exercise both rights at the same time?? Go to a range and share a bong, doobie, hash, and any other equal opportunity drug of choice and go shooting??? We can't leave out any chemical substance, we don't want to tread on anybody's right to ingest what ever he or she wants. Why you could even have a shoot with classes for the various drug users,i.e. combat course for Oxycontin addicts, or trap shoot for speed heads ( I guess we would have to "crank" up the clay's speed a little) Pot heads could shoot a little, eat a snack, roll one with one hand shoot with the other, the combinations are endless. If you smoke dope could you remember what target to shoot? Would it matter? How well would the safety rules be followed?


The question is, would YOU want to be on the range with these people?

The myth of the lone doper sitting at home not hurting a soul is just that......a myth.:banghead:

Orthonym
August 22, 2003, 10:34 PM
EVERY time I've been accosted by the local pigs (the POLITE term for them) in this town they have lied, to my face, contrary to the observable, objective facts in front of their eyes!:fire: I really don't believe cops (in general) are honest, and sometimes I even doubt they're the same species as the rest of us!

Oh, as to "testilying" ; I first heard the phrase "I can't recall" not from Hitlary's lips, but from my own Mom's when I was a little kid back in the 50's. SHE WAS QUOTING A COP TESTIFYING IN COURT when she was on the jury.(They didn't believe him; juries were smarter back then) Fortunately, the poor defendant was acquitted; unfortunately, the cop didn't go to prison for years and years!

Atticus
August 22, 2003, 10:48 PM
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

"The U.S. federal government will spend over 19.2 billion dollars at a rate of about $609 per second on the War on Drugs this year."

Here's one of the reasons I think the War on Some Drugs is seriously off track.

Dope smoking banjo players don't seem to be a high priority to me, but then, I'm not a "two martini lunch" politician.

Darrin
August 23, 2003, 02:02 AM
Ky Bucky,

Would you agree that the reason antis are who they are because of their own ignorance about guns? Ok, good. Let's move along.

You are ignorant about drugs. I speak from experience. (I wasn't always the angel I am now...) In my life, I've done almost every drug you can think of. How did it hurt me and my friends/family? Let's see:

1. Finished a 5 year degree in 3 years. (3.4 GPA)
2. Was teaching college at the age of 21.
3. Established myself very well in the telecommunications industry in Middle TN by age 23.

For the record, I'm currently 28.

I don't do drugs now. Why? For starters, it's expensive. Also, it's hard to pass drug screens when on drugs.

The point I'm making is; drugs don't screw up people's lives. People screw up people's lives. Just like how guns don't kill, people kill.

Can you drop your sarcasm now?


edit to add: Years ago, I did go to public range while stoned. Want to know what happened? My best groups ever.

Unless you speak from personal experience, keep it to yourself.

Sergeant Bob
August 23, 2003, 02:33 AM
kentucky bucky
C.O.?

kentucky bucky
August 24, 2003, 03:05 PM
I can see this could go on forever, so go get drugged up, but just stay away from me and my family.:neener:

Darrin
August 24, 2003, 05:33 PM
:rolleyes:


edit to add: It's all facts and opinions. It's mearly an opinion to think that smoking a joint will suddenly make you stupid.

That's no different than how antis think holding a gun will make you kill.


Facts, my brotha, facts. If indeed your employment is "LE related," I hope you look at facts, not opinions.

Intune
August 24, 2003, 06:28 PM
Yuck, I just had a vision of someone naked, fondling their freshly greased weapon, piles of empty PBR cans strewn about, screeching maniacally “COME AND GET SOME YOU DIRTY HIPPIES!” As the opening credits of Reefer Madness begin their six thousandth flicker across the shag carpeting, tendrils of light briefly illuminate the pistol on the coffee table… ;):evil:



Whoa, dude, this is some good (gasp) stuff.

clubsoda22
August 24, 2003, 08:34 PM
they allways watch for turn arounds. Personally, i like to turn around 6-10 times. It confuses the **** out of them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Judge OKs Fake Checkpoints (CO)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!