What would your decision be....

<blockquote> I watch cops everyday and you know I think they got it down prety good they seem to know when someone is one drugs and it in amazing how good they are at it!!</blockquote><br>LOL. This is true. But if you legalized drugs and made laws regarding their use in public you would need a way of testing and proving that suspected offendersare under the influence. As Kitty said this can be done by giving a blood test back at the station. This works fine right now because the ratio of drug usersis relatively low to the number of sober people in the general population. But if you legalized drugs i have a feeling the number of users would go up and theneed for officers to have equipment to test for traces while in the field would go up. The police just wouldn't have the manpower to haul in everysuspected "stoned" person they pulled over for a blood test if illegal drugs became mainstream. Make sense now?<br>

Justin, we can't do blood draws, just a urine test and it still needs to be sent to a lab. we only have kits to test drugs that we find on a person. blooddraws have to be done by a nurse or doctor at a hospital.

Interesting successfull defence I heard on CBC Radio the other night. There was a suspect vehicle doing something that drew the attention of the police. Uponthe window of the suspect vehicle being rolled down, a plume of marijuana smoke rose to engulf the officers head. Reasonable grounds for a search? Let'slook closer. The officer obviously as you or I would have thought would have had reasonable grounds to execute a search of the car. The driver refused to grantpermission and so the officer believing he had reasonable grounds searched the car finding a quantity of pot and subsequently charged the driver withpossession. The person charged then hired a lawyer who presented the defence that the smoke was evidence of something that at that instant, was no longer inexistance and there was no visual evidence of contraban from the exterior of the car and there-by had no reasonable grounds on which to search the car! Thejudge found on the side of the defence and threw out the charge! True!!! <img height="20" src="http://mmb.maverick.to/images/smilies/hmmm.gif" width="20" alt="image"> Rob?!

well that judge must be smokin some good stuff himself because thats perfect probable cause......hope that judge gets the boot!!!!

They smoked the evidence. I agree with you, Rob, that judge doesn't belong on the bench.<br><br>Justin, I don't think that legalising marijuana would increase its use to that point. I think a lot more people would try it, but consider how many peoplehave quit smoking; they may be less likely to try it because of what they went through to quit smoking cigarettes. People know it's a mind-alteringsubstance. If they are going to abuse something mind altering, they're going to do it regardless of legality issues.<br><br>My mother has said before that she'd try it if it was legal. I've been tempted many times to get her a joint in hopes that it would mellow her out.Hell, maybe for Mother's Day I'll surprise her with a J and a big bag of Cheetos.

I don't know what Province or jurisdiction it was in, I didn't catch the first few sentences. But I'm sure it was in Ontario. Here's anothersuccessfull defence I read years ago. I believe it was the OPP here. 2 officers on a rural patrol encounter a suspect gentleman loading large amounts of greenvegetation into the trunk of his car. Upon closer inspection, freshly harvested marijuana was the subtance in question and the suspect subsequently chargedwith cultivation of a controlled substance. His successfull defence in court, he hadn't cultivated it but instead just came across it. The charge was forcultivation and no evidence was produced by police to support the charge. No reduced charge was imposed and the suspect walked! <img height="20" src="http://mmb.maverick.to/images/smilies/hmmm.gif" width="20" alt="image"><p><br></p>

now that i could see gettin tossed Andy. he should've been charged with possession or possibly trafficking depending upon the amount. if they were smart,and if he was arrested outside of his home or a building, they shouldve asked for a search warrant and could've found his grow.<br><br>Kitty...you must really like cheetos!!

I love Cheetos, but that was meant to be for my mother hehehe. I know she likes them too, but maybe I should include a bag of Fritos Scoops and some bean dip,and probably some candy too. Who knows what kinda cravings she'd get and I sure as hell don't wanna drive her to the 7-11 on a munchie run (lots ofcops hang out there anyway hehehe)

<img height="15" src="http://redlinesonlinemessageboard.yuku.com/domain/bypass/images/pacman.gif" width="15" alt="image">Really, one would never know if hewas telling the truth or not. I'd go 50/50 on that one. In Ontario there is and was a more severe backlog in the Provincial courts and largely due to minorand medium drug charges and a lotta petty related crime. Full and filling jails too related to the lesser offences, so the police have to get it right one shotand not tie up court time retrying smaller offences. If there is small consolation for police in some of these instances, it's at least that they'vetaken contraban off the street or recovered property even if no charges stick and result in conviction. It's a partial win, and the face of a new bad guyto remember for future reference.<img height="15" src="http://redlinesonlinemessageboard.yuku.com/domain/bypass/images/pacman.gif" width="15" alt="image"><p><br></p>

Kitty- Be careful if you go to 7/11! Lunatics are galavanting around these days robbing convenience stores with chainsaws. They must be anticipating the ban onfirearms. Bring yer bow and arrow!<br><br>BTW in reference to the legalization of drugs. Were we talking about just legalizing marijuana or all illegal drugs? Doesnt seem to make sense to want tolegalize pot exclusively considering more crime is linked to the illegal sale and manufacturing of other drugs. I thought the idea was to eliminate things likethis from the picture. Not just to cater to folks wanting to toke up without being thrown in the slammer (no offense to the Cheeto fans). Yeah hard drugs aredangerous but if you could take the dealers and financial links to crime away from the picture and institute strict laws on where you could use them and limitwhat you could do while under their influence. It would be more of a "your only hurting yourself" situation. I may be wrong in my thinking. Whoknows. Thoughts?<br>