Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Asshattery


Think the Left doesn't want to trample the Constitution, set it on fire, then urinate on it to put out the fire?

NYC threatens up to $250G in fines for using terms like
'illegal alien,' threatening to call ICE.

So the Progs don't like that language, it triggers them, offends them, what have you. So they want to fine people for using certain terms...

Can you say First Amendment you Progressive firetrucktards?

Nope?

Well, you can't say Second Amendment either, that we've gathered from your previous mewlings.

Anyhoo, I heard that opening bit of asshattery on the radio on the way to work Tuesday morning. Almost made my head explode. Almost.

I mentioned ranting yesterday, I kinda had a rant but decided not to go with it. The asshattery in NYC made me change my mind. So Sarge, what was the original rant you decided to forego, then do an about face on and rant about anyway?

Well...

Okay, so I was scanning YouTube for entertainment Sunday last and ran across a 15 minute clip of "Live PD," a show Beans has mentioned once or twice. This clip was from an episode in Florida, and, begging Beans pardon, I couldn't resist. I mean come on, Florida Man, it's a thing...
(Source)
The first clip is mildly amusing, some old coot (with the obligatory pony tail made from his lank, graying hair, and a doo-rag to top it off, not to mention a Hawaiian shirt) was apparently trying to run over somebody with his pickup truck out in the swamps somewhere. The most amusing bit is that as he's led off in handcuffs, unlit cigarette dangling from his lips, he asks one of the cops to light his cigarette. Yup, they told him no.

So that one was okay, it was the second clip which set me off.

It's night, the po-po have a "vehicle" pulled over (for fire truck's sake call it an effing car) at the "location" (really?) and have two suspects in custody. Okay, they have two college age females down in Florida for spring break. Okay, college kids, they might be drinking, they might be toking. So the cops are checking things out.

Do they perform a field sobriety check? Nope, one of the officers says there's a distinct smell of marijuana hovering about the ladies. So of course, Fido the dope dog has to be summoned because, ya know, "marijuana bad!" (Okay, not a fan these days, but I was young once, I'm not saying I did, not saying I didn't, but as a fan of some alcoholic beverages and not of others, I understand "different strokes for different folks.")

Anyhoo, Fido "alerts" on the "vehicle," so now the po-po have "probable cause" to perform what I consider to be a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It was a traffic stop (apparently, the clip wasn't clear on that, hey, it's television, not theater), the ladies didn't appear intoxicated but the highly trained LEO detected the smell of pot.

I'm here to tell ya there Barney Fife, there are perfumes which smell a lot like pot, only stronger, DAMHIK this. So based on your olfactory capabilities that's enough to bring Fido out and have him sniff the car. He alerts (a very subtle alert from what I saw) and presto, "probable cause!"

The younger of the two females has a small bag of Mary Jane in her purse. The cops act like they've just taken down a Mexican cartel! And, heaven forfend, the young lady has a revolver in her purse, loaded.

One cop immediately begins to explain how "because of the loaded pistol, we now have a felony." Yup, 19-year old college kid with a wee bag of pot is facing serious jail time because some lawmaker decided that guns and drugs don't mix. Well, no they don't. No doubt the law was created in order to put away serious gang-bangers moving mass quantities of weed and cocaine. All while heavily armed. Not to dissuade the po-po mind you, but to dissuade rival gangs.

Perhaps a good idea but you get unintended consequences when your uniformed law enforcement types get woodies over busting a 19-year kid with weed and a firearm. Hoorah! Another druggie bites the dust.

NOT!

Jeebers, slap on the wrist, confiscate the weed and send her home to Alabama. A felony! You gotta be excrementing me.

When "law enforcement" takes great joy in enforcing stupid drug and gun laws we have a problem America.

Ich habe nur Befehle befolgt, wasn't a good defense in 1945, it isn't now.

I note that there are some cop shops who have put their idiot politicians on notice that unconstitutional laws will NOT be enforced. The next step is to arrest the politicos who violate their oaths in passing such laws.

Such shite really winds me up.

What say you?





106 comments:

  1. "The next step is to arrest the politicos who violate their oaths in passing such laws", I like that idea. Of course we know that will never happen but it's still a most excellent idea!!!.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This sort of behavior by the cops is how I ended up the spokesperson for unlimited open carry and became an "idiot".

    Every time we give the cops discretion about something we seem to end up with a hunt for a felony charge and someone in cuffs.

    The Dowsing Dog is my favorite tactic.

    Wanna bet if conceal carry without was a $25 civil fine there'd have been no impetus to search the car and their effects?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlimited open carry is one of those inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator, not some effing suit sitting in an office somewhere, elected or unelected.

      "Dowsing Dog" - I like that and it's an apt description.

      In many municipalities law enforcement has become a revenue generation tool, they serve those who would be our masters, not the people.

      It feels bleak.

      Delete
    2. Angus is my hero, kinda my 2A rant-daddy. He got my already active mind going overboard.

      And, yes, Constitutional Carry, as some states call it, has yet to be a problem in the states where it's allowed. Only in FireTrucktard leftist poop-holes within righteous-leaning states. And even then, only usually amongst supposedly 2A supporting gun bloggers and gun writers and the NRA. Who have a proven history of tossing our 'allowances' away in order to protect some other 'allowance' that will be tossed away the next time in order to protect another 'allowance.'

      I know Angus and I have struck a nerve with them because they have resulted in childish name callings and insults, while we say things like..

      Is it a right? Yes! Then...
      Is it allowed? Yes! Then...
      Do you have a personal problem with the right and allowance? Yes! Then...
      Get over it. It's a right and it's allowed at that time and place.

      And this gets certain people to say the most amazing things... Kinda like what Angus said, makes them channel their inner Moms Demand Whatever...

      On the other hand, Borepatch is cool about it. He's stayed the adult and respectfully disagrees, which is totally cool with me. He is the sensible voice in the room. Unfortunately we've passed being sensible about some things.

      Delete
  3. In this country of 331 million people, not every American knows the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or believes in them. Unfortunately this includes those in law enforcement. Talking to someone in that profession lines are being drawn there. Ya Sarge, "just following orders" is a poor excuse, very poor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're in law enforcement and don't know the Constitution, you're in the wrong line of work.

      Delete
    2. How about if you're a citizen, whether in Law Enforcement, Politics, or a groundskeeper, and you don't know the Constitution, you're in the wrong country.

      Delete
    3. Too bad that don't teach that stuff in school anymore...

      Delete
    4. They're too busy not teaching to teach anything anymore...

      Delete
    5. Not all schools are bad, that's another myth the Meejah is trying to foist upon us. Many colleges are not teaching, that's true, they're indoctrinating. Lower level education still works, in most areas of the US. I have teacher friends and four grandkids in school. They are learning much the same way I did.

      Delete
  4. Well, since you asked...

    Yes, the smell of weed does give reasonable suspicion that it might be in the car. No, I don’t think legalizing weed is a good idea. Since it was legalized in Colorado, 34% of their traffic fatalities involving substance-impaired driving have been for weed alone.

    And, here in MI, legalization has made proving impaired driving with weed all that much harder. And, yes, we are seeing a spike in such things too.

    And, although I’m a strong 2A supporter, I also believe that a 19-year-old with a gun and no Concealed Pistol License can be a problem. YMMV.

    My guess is that, although she was “arrested for a felony”, the prosecutor will likely reduce it to a misdemeanor. And there may very well be some intangibles that didn’t make it into the TV show...like maybe her prior record or some such.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, like I said, television doesn't provide all the details. If you're a strong 2A supporter, the need to have a CPL seems out of character. Requiring a license is infringing, full stop.

      But 19-year olds with pot and pistol are a bit scary, the only way to make 'em scarier is to give 'em a badge.

      I can see that legalizing pot in Colorado hasn't worked out very well. What are the DWI stats for alcohol vs. pot vs. other drugs. Making pot criminal has not worked, the "War on Drugs" is yet another massive failure for which we, as taxpayers, have had to pay for.

      I see your points MaxDamage, there are no simple answers.

      Delete
    2. Possession of a gun while in possession of a mind-altering substance is a Fed level crime. Rarely prosecuted, like so many other 'gun' laws, but states that have the matching law tend to use it.

      Why? It's not because of the old dude who tokes once in a while, but because so many inner-city youths are carrying and are doping. The criminals are actually screwing it up for everyone else. Imagine that!

      Delete
    3. It's why we can't have nice things.

      Delete
    4. Never understood the reasoning behind charging a drug dealer for killing another drug dealer. Always thought it was a good idea.

      Now shoot an innocent in commission of whacking a dealer? Hammer time, like in crucify. And I know how to do it right... There's this whole tuck the feet up under the person so they can't stand on their... Well, yeah, I tend to go overboard...

      (But I know how to do it. And how to channel my inner Vlad. Hmmm. A forest of dope dealers and carriers and users along the southern border. Hmmmm.. Got that nice tall fence in some places... No, Beans, bad Beans, BAD BAD BAD Beans!)

      Delete
    5. Killing won't solve that problem. Murder is, after all, against the law. Doesn't matter who you killed. The problem is always that the innocents get caught in the cross fire.

      Delete
    6. Max! Ain't heerd from you in the proverbial month of Sundays (and then some!) Glaaad to see you around town!
      Come out from the bunker more often--or do you stay a moving tgt? :) Was just thinking of you the other day while at Lex's old site. Happy to see we're both alive & kickin'. (Although there are times my wife wants to reconsider that state of affairs :) )

      Delete
  5. Shortly after Colorado "legalized" pot, traveling in adjacent states became a hassle. Going across Kansas, I was stopped three times. In each case, the trooper wanted to "check my car" for drugs. One stop was for my turn signal only blinking twice, not three times, before I changed lanes.

    For the record, the last time I smoked Devil Weed was the night Nixon won the Presidential election.

    Is it possible for a police person to smell what they want to smell? Has any defense attorney ever insisted the testifying officer have their sense of smell tested?

    I've stated many times in my blog I have the greatest respect for peace officers, and damn little respect for "Cops".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have never understood the difference between a peace officer and a police officer, i.e. "cop."

      That being said, some agencies are better than others. Here in New England the state police seem pretty professional and highly trained. Some of the local LEOs have uniforms and a badge and gun. Not as well trained is my point.

      As to "Is it possible for a police person to smell what they want to smell? Has any defense attorney ever insisted the testifying officer have their sense of smell tested?" - spot on!

      Delete
    2. There has been, with 'national standards' and too much PC bullscat, a loss of Law Enforcement Officers and an increase in Badged Orcs.

      And I used to work for a PD, so I saw it happening. Young officers coming in not knowing all the laws and not being taught cognitive thinking, and a huge lack of Constitution understanding. Most of this I blame on many much more time spent doing PC diversity and kumbaya classes rather than actual law classes, and the ones doing best in PC and Kumbaya getting promoted quicker, while lawful cops are shunted and punished.

      It sucks. It's (insert conspiracy music, everyone dons their tinfoil hat) almost like the prog leaders have planned it this way...

      Delete
    3. Oh yeah, it's part of the plan.

      Delete
    4. "the ones doing best in PC and Kumbaya getting promoted quicker, while lawful cops are shunted and punished." There's something to that, Beans. As the father of a thirty-plus year law enforcement officer (Sergeant, San José CA PD; now fraud squad for Santa Clara County), I can firmly state that the best and bravest stay on the line or in the fray somehow and the kumbaya singers move on up to rule. My son wouldn't touch the notion of taking the LT test. He explained it to me one evening over an IPA of some kind (or two). So many stupid decisions, so much wasted money, so many illegal felons thumbing their noses at the police force. Sad.

      Delete
    5. Yes. Lots of good cops out there. But too many shiny eyed camp guards and PC police for me. And those are the ones rising into leadership positions and teaching positions and thus the process increases, like a plague.

      Delete
    6. As to the 'can Cop or dog actually smell that' test? Yes. Yes they can be tested. And, yes, trust me, personal experience, I can smell someone who smoked a doobie and not taken a bath, used mouthwash and changed their clothes, up to 4 hours after they sparked one up.

      Crack? You can smell that nasty oily smell oozing out of a crack user's skin for 24 hours.

      Same thing with meth. There's a smell that the body exudes after meth use. And, frankly, it's revolting. And a person will smell like that for hours, if not days.

      What always surprises me is the drug users who have used the stuff for so long that they can't smell it. Like tobacco smokers, they can't smell the smell of the products raw or used, anymore. While non-users or ex-users react to it like a vampire reacting to garlic pizza with extra garlic and a side of garlic topped by garlic.

      Like, well, you can smell someone on cancer drugs. Can't smell the cancer, mostly, but you can smell the cancer drugs...

      Delete
    7. The movie Super Troopers springs to mind. What some film people thought of New England's finest state police force.

      Delete
    8. Beans the 1st - Depends on where you live I suspect.

      Delete
    9. Beans the 2nd - Yes, you can smell it on a person. Just like you can smell alcohol on a person.

      Driving impaired? Throw the book at them. Having a firearm in one's possession should NEVER BE AGAINST THE LAW.

      Ever.

      Which was my point.

      Delete
    10. Cap'n - The film was hysterical, I really enjoyed it. Was it meant to accurately portray the Vermont State Police? I think not.

      Delete
    11. I actually liked "Beerfest" more. Same whacky guys...

      Delete
  6. Fortunately, living in a small town in a less densely populated makes it easier to actually know the Peace Officers around here. A few of them are former students of mine. None of them are nuclear engineers, but most are hard working with good judgement and a decent streak of ethics running through them. And their job isn't just traffic stops and jaywalking. There's a country about a hundred miles south of here that seems to export large amounts of pharmaceuticals (if you know what I mean, and I know you do), so the paper has lots of articles about busts. One of my student's husband was on the Police force. Stopped a guy late one evening, got shot and darn near died. So, I have sympathy for them and expectations of professionalism in their actions.

    However, I don't believe that to be true everywhere. The Dallas police officer convicted of murder recently. From what I read, that's a good conviction. I could be wrong. Borepatch posted a few days ago a horror story about a lady in a rock and a hard place. Convicted of a drug possession charge, no ability to carry a weapon. An intruder breaks in to her house, the Police aren't gonna arrive in time, she shoots him with her husband's weapon. Not guilty of murder (good call) but guilty of using a handgun. Oh, please, put me on that jury! Not guilty, within 5 seconds of the door closing. As Borepatch stated, and I translated, either the police protect you or you protect you. The government doesn't get to deny both. And jury nullification of the government's attempt to strip this woman's inalienable right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" seems to be the best way to inform the District Attorney not to do that ever again. Other means are available which might not be as pleasant.

    Things are coming to a tipping point. Reaping what they have sown is coming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We have found the enemy, and he is us" or something like that.

      Delete
    2. I would also like to be on that woman's jury - or maybe her defense team. Mas Ayoob teaches about the 'doctrine of competing harms', which basically says you are allowed to break a law when obeying it would lead to greater harm. The example he uses is a driver having the cross a double yellow line (which is against the law) in order to avoid an oncoming vehicle. In this lady's case, obeying the law (not using for the gun) would have resulted in mucj greater harm than breaking the law.

      As far as a difference between peace officer and law enforcement officer, I've always looked at it as the former keeping the peace, including using well developed discretion in enforcing the laws, vs. a LEO being focused more on punishing people who break the law, any law.

      Delete
    3. Tom - the police don't punish anybody, they arrest the offenders. It's up to the government to actually prosecute and punish.

      Delete
    4. Police arrest and charge offenders. Prosecutors are the ones that screw up everything in pursuit of political goals...

      Delete
    5. Uh...I’m an Assistant Prosecutor and I respectfully take exception to that. I and my compatriots do our best to do the right thing. It’s our overarching priority no matter the situation, at least in our office.

      Just sayin...

      Delete
    6. Not all prosecutors Rick. We shouldn't tar the good ones with the same brush we use on the bad ones.

      Delete
  7. As some commenters to a recent post of mine said about a different perp, burn the city, enslave the population, and sow the fields with salt. Dura lex, sed lex.

    Me, I don't understand that *at* *all* but what do I know. No doubt we can win the War On Drugs if we just do it again only harder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're in agreement on the complete lack of success in the so-called War on Drugs.

      Delete
    2. Maybe if we actually treated it like a war, rather than a social issue. Seriously. Lay waste to the growing fields. POW camps in the middle of nowhere run like old-school southern prison farms, out in the middle of nowhere, for offenders, both pushing and using.

      But... nooooo. We enact huge amounts of laws, powerful laws, and then bend over backwards to not use these laws. And thus the 'war' continues. Nyet. Do or not do, there is no lazy arsed middle ground where social work (which doesn't work, 40 years shows 'treatment' and 'compassion' to be useless) should be used.

      Same with terrorism. Either it's a war or it's not. Don't use the military to enforce the policing...

      Delete
    3. Concur. It's all part of the "we need to show people that we're doing something."

      Even if it's completely ineffective.

      Delete
    4. I'd encourage capital punishment for high level dealers. With rapid due process.

      Delete
    5. I'm not sure that would even work. High level drug dealers are like the hydra, cut off one head, three more pop out.

      Delete
    6. It's a combined target approach. Get the drug creators, get the drug suppliers, get the street level dealers and most especially hammer the dumbasses who do the drugs.

      I'm all for offering the following to any drug dealer or user. Either take all the drugs you are caught with right now in one massive dose and no EMS support for you, or 20 years to life, hard labor, on a prison farm, in the west, on old abandoned military bases. One or the other. No more treatment, because treatment doesn't work.

      Every ex-doper I've ever met got off the stuff by themselves. Without treatment program, even the ones that served their time and didn't come back to the drugs (a startling small amount, most come out and go right back on drugs.)

      Again, treat it as an actual war. Take prisoners, place POWs in a POW camp, far far away.

      Delete
    7. Or death. Death works for me.

      Hanging some of these dealers and users up in the neighborhoods where they come from, with a sign around their necks, works for me.

      Delete
    8. Beans the 1st - What do you think the government has been doing for the past 50 years? Ignoring the drug problem. That solution does not work.

      Delete
    9. Beans the 2nd - So you're okay with abandoning those neighborhoods to the law. Hanging people, as you suggest, will sign the death warrant of anyone not from that neighborhood entering that neighborhood.

      Start killing people? Might as well start setting up camps, where we can concentrate the offenders.

      Slippery slope that.

      Delete
    10. No. Hang people who distribute deadly chemicals. Hang the idiots who keep using the deadly chemicals.

      And, it is just death fantasy. No, we won't set up camps.

      Just... dang it. These turdballs have really thrashed society.

      Delete
    11. And the whole "hang 'em high" thing wouldn't work anyway.

      Delete
    12. "Every ex-doper I've ever met got off the stuff by themselves."

      That's because, ultimately, the person has to WANT to quit taking drugs. It's essential. It's true of any drug from booze to heroin.

      But even that might not be enough. Plopping them right back into a situation where they say, "I remember why I started taking drugs now," after getting them weaned off their favorite substance virtually guarantees a relapse.

      Delete
    13. You have the right of it Angus. To beat addiction the addict has to want it. Put 'em back where it started and it's hard to not get hooked all over again.

      Cigarettes were my addiction, I didn't quit until I wanted to quit. Was months before I could go into a bar and not get the urge to light up.

      Delete
  8. But, there are few enforced laws, about bad cops. Only recently laws on emegration to the us. Until the 90's, my driver's licence was my us Id in Mexico and canada.and I traveled to both anytime I wanted, no special permits, or hassle. What changed?
    The only passport I needed was overseas. Or orders, with stamps. What changed? The gwot? And laws to deamonize. And fear radio, please change the channel to music, it's better for your mind and soul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Terrorism changed everything.

      Delete
    2. In reality, we should have required passports all along. Seriously. We are just now realizing how very bad Mexico has been all along, since day 1 dealing with the US. And too many of our citizens have stupidly and blindly wandered into that constantly failed state, totally unaware of how much danger they were in.

      Like Murphy's travel into Mexico with one of his bar girls, a clueless leftist babe-in-the-woods. She would have been dead or trafficked if Murphy hadn't been there, and she wouldn't or couldn't see what he was trying to show her.

      Clueless and Stupid. Mexico has always been the wrong place for starry-eyed gringos.

      Delete
    3. And Canadians are just evil.

      Delete
    4. Terrorism changed almost nothing about getting across the borders with Canada and Mexico except for US Citizens. The illegals still come in their hundreds of thousands and remain. How many of them are terrorist? Only God knows until they strike at us again.

      Delete
    5. Beans the 1st - Mexico has not been "bad all along," that's fairly recent. As to everybody having a passport, do we have to start showing our papers when traveling outside of our own state? Why not?

      Delete
    6. Beans the 2nd - One hopes you are kidding with this one.

      Delete
    7. Cap'n - I disagree. Terrorism changed everything. Our politicians' feckless attempts to "do something" are the problem.

      Delete
    8. Well, if states that don't follow the RealID laws, denizens of those states will be required to use passports to use air travel.

      As to Mexico, they have periodic periods of overcorruptness. Just the levels of corruptness we're seeing now are much higher than ever seen before.

      And, Canadians? Oh, soooo very evil. Making us think they're polite and quiet people, but like cats there is much more behind their eyes... Oh so very much more going on....

      Delete
    9. I am descended from Canadians.

      And we're watching...

      Delete
    10. I am descended from Canadians, too.

      And, see? You proved my point!

      Delete
    11. But were they French-Canadians? Mine were.

      Delete
    12. As were one branch if mine that came south to the Big Woods of Wisconsin in 1830. Searching for a better crime? Descendants ended up in the Sand Hills of Nebraska , then later descendants decided western Montana was altogether nicer. Still is, but the darned Californians are doing their best to change that.

      Delete
    13. Sigh. "searching for a better clime". Danged auto-correct. Though you never can tell with Canadians. Especially Quebecois.

      Delete
  9. there is no situation that can't be made worse by calling the cops

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When seconds count, the cops are minutes away...

      Delete
    2. They usually get there in time to investigate, not to prevent.

      Delete
    3. Yup. Cleanup on Aisles 1, 2 and 3...

      And then the Evidence Destruction Teams, known as Firefighters and EMTs, come and destroy the scene.

      Whole lotta hatred between the cops and firedogs, lemme tell you.

      Delete
    4. Is Florida really that bad? That isn't the case in most places I'm familiar with.

      Delete
    5. No, it's a national thing. For the most part both agencies get along, just when there's a juicy crime scene, either the firefighters or emts will pollute the scene with either water or all the med stuff. Everywhere.

      Not so much from beat cops, but detectives and investigators, there is a subtle dislike. Everywhere. And firefighters and EMTs feel roughly the same way, backwards. "Those darned detectives aren't letting us do our jobs!"

      Part of the issue is that cities pit the police unions and firefighter unions against each other during contract negotiation times. Seriously. Much anger and hatred thanks to that.

      Delete
    6. Not seeing that except in the Progtard shiteholes.

      Delete
  10. Sometimes they get there just in time to get shot at. I know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That happens too, I think I'll look at the other side of the equation tomorrow.

      Delete
  11. And then there’s *this* horror, to punch me in the gut some

    https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-windsor-locks-bradley-international-airport-plane-crash-20191002-jfkph65krrfhxlrlb3eehksdiu-story.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've already ranted and raved and explained about the unconstitutionality of any gun law.

    So we'll delve into the Devil's Lettuce instead.

    Are there actual proven medicinal aspects of Mary Jane? Yes. Caveat. Only CBD, shown to help appetite and reduce pain in situations where nothing else works. Weird pain where nothing else, opiates or anti-seizure meds or any other drug? Okay, sometimes works. Not puking while on Chemo or Rad therapy, or end stage of cancers? Okay, often CBD works there. But CBD is no magical cure-all, even though it's being pushed as the new modern Snake Oil Cureall product of the 21st Century!!! WEEEEEEEE!!! No. Works for some, not for others.

    THC, on the other hand, does nothing but mess up brain chemistry and makes one high. High THC levels actually interfere with CBD doing it's job. Shown to, in longterm use, to impair the development of younger than 19yoa people's brains. Shown in large longterm use to even effect the developed brain. Only reason for THC to exist at the levels found in modern pot is because hoomans bred super THC levels... Hmm.

    What's the best and safest way to take medicinal pot (high CBD, low THC) without hurting anything else? Orally. Edibles, or by pill or whatever. Settles the stomach, hits the whole body overall so that nerve pain there that is linked to other nerve pains that one doesn't feel because of that one there... Also can be rubbed on like Aspercream.

    Soooo, what do most 'medicinal marijuana' want? High THC, and to smoke it! (Simultaneous, whole nation Facepalm...)

    Yeah, shot down medical pot in 4-5 paragraphs, didn't I?

    Funny, Marinol has been available since the 70's and has been shown to be relatively inexpensive (compared to medical pot) and very useful for treating cancer induced pain and upset stomach and loss of appetite due to barfing.

    So what do the medical potheads say about Marinol? It's not ORGANIC, like med pot is.

    Hard check. Most organic pot is fed a steady diet of liquid crap. Mostly untreated (by heating, cooking till 160 degrees or so) crap that in a lot of places in foreign lands is human crap. Yay. Let's smoke someone's ass worms!!!!

    Or, well, it's not really 'organic' (God, I hate that word. Rant on Organic coming soon) Instead that pot, indoor or outdoor grown, is fed steady levels of various chemicals that would get any 'non-organic' farm shut down by at least 20 Fed agencies. And indoor grows are fed high levels of CO2 to mature the plants quickly... Oh, but it's for the Children.... Please. All one has to do is see the horror shows that one can find in California's forests from illegal grow ops. Or Hawaii, or any other state where wilderness grows exist.

    Or they say... Big Pharma did it, so we don't know what's in it. Like your Hindu Kush Whamma Jamma Mango Pumpkin Spice med pot? What exactly did they do to your organic free range pot to make it do that?

    And, well, THC. In 1995, the average THC was already about 10 times the level of what 70's dudes and dudettes smoked. And most of those dudes and dudettes back in the past were just smoking the leaves. Nowadays? Leaves are pressed to make THC oil because everyone is smoking the buds. Some growers just discard the leaves...

    So, modern non-CBD high, but incredibly THC high costs about as much, from illegal sources now as the leaves back then did. But now you're entering Hashish levels of THC.

    And what does this have to do with what OAFS was talking about? Well, that one bud in a plastic container or even a mason jar with the lid on tight or even a vacuum-sealed bag smells so strongly that that one bud can be smelled outside of a car, if the car is closed up and warm. That's how strong modern smoking pot is. And as it smells strong, it screws up strong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now do alcohol, or cigarettes,

      What we've been doing in the Drug War doesn't work.

      Let me repeat that - IT. DOES. NOT. WORK.

      So we just keep doing that?

      Delete


  13. So, yeah, on LivePD we've seen officers following cars and the officers can smell the pot smell from the car they are following.

    Or, well, dufus neighbor can spark up a joint and you can smell it coming from their closed-up apartment or house.

    Screw it. I'm tired of it all. Good dog, good boy. Good officers for scaring the poop out of two dumb-butt college babes, who will, after coming down from a pot high that would make Snoop Dog envious, suddenly realize they were 'raped' and some guys' lives are screwed forever. Or they get into a wreck and kill someone else. Or they fall off the balcony of the hotel because they're high or they commit crimes for money for drugs or crimes because stupidity because drugs. And, of course, they're not guilty because they're stupid college guuuuurls and they're innocent because the drugs made them do it or some other bullscat excuse.

    No. Every driver test I've taken has asked a 'Are you currently on stuffs that will fruck you up? If so, NO!!!!'

    So... Good officers. May have saved the stupid guuurls' lives, or someone else's, by bringing Doggie in and finding 'oh, it's only a small amount of pot' amounts of pot.

    Gee, it's only one bullet I fired into my boyfriend. Gee, I only hit him with a 10oz hammer. Gee...

    Drugs bad, m'kay?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now do alcohol.

      You missed the entire point.

      Delete
    2. No, I didn't miss the point. I personally think that drunk drivers should be treated as 1st degree murderers if they kill someone since they took all the steps to get into a car drunk and drive drunk knowing they're drunk and knowing the way drinking affects, well, drunks, and then they go kill someone? Can anyone say Prior intent, etc, all the requirements for 1st Degree murder.

      The classic liberal in me says, "Yeah, whatevs, keep it at home, don't harm kiddies, don't let it take over your life."

      The right wing bastige in me says, "Hang them all, blights upon society all."

      Somewhere in between is potentially the right answer. Somewhere.

      As to the war on drugs, yes, we are not warring correctly. Which we should. Seriously. Let's get more warrish and less copish with suppliers and growers and dealers and users.

      And, quite frankly, 100 years of going easy on drunks and 50 years of going easy on druggies, treating both as an illness and a social issue, rather than as a moral crime against society that they are, then that will contribute in a feedback loop to the increase in drunks and druggies.

      Like the use of Narcan on illegal drug users. It's use hasn't stopped or slowed people taking drugs, now they assume that cops, friends, EMTs, ambulances, and ERs will have unlimited amounts, so chasing that high or low to OD levels is more okay than ever, because the normals will save them. Um... that's not how it's supposed to work. Used to be, before Narcan, if one survived an OD, well, then they learned that that was bad. Now? All we're telling them is "It's okay to OD because we'll save you."

      Seen on tv someone od on railroad tracks. Lose their legs. Get treated. Sue the railroad and the emergency services for not saving them and their legs, and then OD again, and again.

      One episode of LivePD, one guy OD'd and was revived 4 times in 1 week.

      These people aren't learning. They're past learning.

      We've had, since the 1830's, embraced the concept of 'prisons and the legal system as rehabilitation.' Almost 200 years worth of, "Well, we're not doing it right this time, let's try..." Kinda like... Socialism. Oh, we're not doing it correctly now, but we'll try it one more time..."

      When does the cycle stop? How much has the rehab cycle cost us as a nation both financially, emotionally and physically?

      Something needs to be done. Mayhaps harsh treatment once one shows the inability to frickin learn from one's mistakes needs to be taken, and taken publicly. Public shame used to work, then we in the 1830's turned it into private rehab, far away from the public. That doesn't work.

      I don't know if my way would work. But all the other rehab and social programs have shown for over 50, 100, 200 years not to work.

      The only druggies and drunks I know who are rehabbed are those that did it to themselves, mostly by themselves, not following the industry (which it is, a full blown service industry) of professional rehab. Usually after picking themselves up out of the gutter, or in one case, after killing three people including his daughter. People who have been fully involved in drugs or booze or cigs who have gone "WTF? I need to quit now." Those people, who have truly quit addiction have done it by themselves, using some inner strength that seems to be missing in other people.

      Dunno what the answer is. Treating it as a social program and using the rehab industry doesn't seem to be working.

      Delete
    3. The whole point was "hey, gun, so now it's a felony."

      Point to make on your comment here, is that alcoholism and drug addiction are a disease. One which can be avoided by not partaking.

      Delete
  14. You seem to have forgotten to mention about the original post, the cops will, naturally, legally steal the car they found those two coeds in because 'war on drugs'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, asset forfeiture/seizure would be another good topic for a ranting post. As would imminent domain solely to increase the tax base - as in seizing private property and giving it to developers to get more tax revenue - that's just evil!

      Delete
    2. Cap'n - Yes, there is that possibility. However that would be rather radical as the amount of pot seized would definitely be for personal use. We're not talking two gang-bangers transporting quantities for sale, armed to the teeth.

      Delete
    3. Tom - Remember, always remember, the job of politicians is to stay in office. Period. Full stop. That takes money, so asset forfeiture and eminent domain. Neither of those things are determined by the police, but by our elected officials.

      Delete
    4. From what I’ve seen over the years any amount of an illegal drug is enough to see the forfeit of the car, boat or plane. They can do it with houses too. The cops also steal all the cash people have if they ‘intuit’ that it’s drug money and good luck ever getting any of it back. Oh, and they don’t even have to file charges. They just steal it.

      Delete
  15. If the 19yo chick was carrying concealed she is supposed to tell the cop when she is stopped that she is armed. Cops are a lot like other folks and get grumpy when surprised by an unexpected gun. And yes, pot and guns, or booze and a gun are a bad mix. So don't do it. And yes, Borepatch's lady, if she had been convicted of a felony, she is not supposed to have a gun nor is anyone else who lives with her!!! Right or wrong THAT is the law. And I agree, I would greatly enjoy being on that jury and saying slap on the wrist, don't be stupid again!! Shoot that bastard so there is only one story to confuse the judge with instead of two. If you pull out your gun, it had better be because your life is threatened, which means you are defending yours or someone else's life...and if more folks shot to kill instead of wound...there might be a lot fewer gang bangers running around. Folks might be a bit more respectful. Stranger things have happened.

    And I am with Beans. If it is supposed to be a punishment...then PUNISH them!!! However, I would grant 1 dose of Narcan to the fool that OD'ed, but one is all ya get. If you insist on doing it again, you are on your own. If you can't learn from nearly dying, then your gene pool is waaay too shallow, and we do not need you polluting ours. B-Bye. Because, again Beans is right, you can lead every horse in the world to water, but you can not make him drink...until he wants to. So, offer a 1x deal at rehab, and if ya blow it, you are on your own. And yes, bring back the death penalty. Without the 40 years worth of appeals. 2 years max, and then carry out the sentence and move along. That alone would lower the prison population.

    Climbing off the grumpy old lady rant box...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was supposed to be a pro-2A post, not a pro-pot post. The gun was in the lady's purse, not on her. And since when are we required to inform the police that we're armed? That right there is infringement. Stepping down off the rabid-Constitutional soap box now.

      ;)

      Delete
  16. Really late to the party once again, but I'll share two thoughts.

    That young girl was caught between a rock and a hard place- the rock is that cop's department, and the hard place is federal funds. More drug convictions means more federal grants and funding. So the cop turns a stupid kid into a felon, while bigger criminals get off or are never caught. Easy pickings.

    I like Arizona's approach to the 2A. Easy to get a license to own and carry- it was written by James Madison 230 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get a license? Print out a copy of the Constitution. Requiring a license is unconstitutional, it's infringing upon a right. Do we need a license to speak our minds? To go to church? To write our elected representatives and take them to task for being stupid?

      Infringement is infringement no matter how much lipstick the pig is wearing.

      Delete
  17. As one who owes a debt of gratitude to two Boston police officers who, instead of arresting me and ruining my life, took the nickel begs of grass I was selling and opened them and dumped them down a nearby sewer, I find it excruciating that officers still have to make such choices - and, more so, that some seem to relish it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two good cops right there. It's the ones who enjoy being the arbiters of a person's fate that I can't stand.

      Delete
  18. Still late to the party. IMO the frippery of detail doesn't matter a whit. The important stuff lies down at the bedrock of a person's existence. Is a person believe they are actually free and at liberty to live life as they choose, so long as they don't kill/rape/maim/steal from others? Or has a person abdicated all responsibility and become a piece of property, owned and operated by whoever controls the reins of power in the state? By far the majority of little-a americans will say, "yeah, like there's a choice." As for the oinkers, I have more than a few friends who are cops. I appreciate the situation they are in vis-a-vis their ultimate behavior when some president or kongrass bans the 2A or any other part of the Constitution. What they say today is not what they will actually do. Ten percent are terrible cops and will remain terrible cops. Ten percent will not violate their principles and will therefore quit, which is not the same as refusing to carry out unconstitutional orders. Eighty percent will say, "it's the law, and I disagree, but it's the law, and I got a family to feed and a mortgage to pay, so come along quietly or we'll shoot you in the face." Remember that only a third of the founding population initiated and fought the revolution. The rest were free riders so far as the principles of Liberty are concerned; they loved the windfall benefit but had no skin in the game and would have happily continued living under crazy chuck. In the near future the 2A may be the tripwire that sets off another bloodbath. Only the very whacked out want that to happen, but events unfold as they will, not as we want them to.

    ReplyDelete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.