Is it really possible for a warrant to be issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act if a passing off-duty cop (on an evening jog say) smells or detects the aroma of pot? I mean, if he goes to the powers-that-be the next day and tells his tale, is that one single factor sufficient for a search warrant to be issued?
As I understand the law - yes.
The official 'reasons' given to the media by the Police for not raiding the Daktory was that they needed a) complaints of crimes being committed,
or b) direct evidence of a crimes being committed, such as smelling cannabis as they passed by. ("clouds of smoke billowing out" or something like that was the phrase I seem to remember them being quoted as saying).
Chris Fowlie was arrested by an officer claiming she could smell cannabis on him. He had a very small amount tightly sealed in a film cannister in his pocket. The case was thrown out in court, but she still had the power to invoke Section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (suspicion of drug offence being committed) to bust him.
Put it this way, I had my door kicked in by police in the early 90s
Well, people who grow a little weed at home (medical users, personal users, 'social' growers - to use the Law Commission's phrase) may well soon be seeing their doors kicked in AND guns pointed at them if the following comes into being:
"Police set to get easier access to guns"
Guns could be made more accessible to police amid concerns about the
growing number of officers being "ambushed".
The thing is though, five officers have been killed or wounded DURING "ROUTINE" POLICE RAIDS ON DOPE GROWING OPERATIONS.
And yet none have been hurt during raids on illegal alcohol breweries ...
It wasn't cannabis which caused that man in Chch to fire his weapon; but it was almost certainly due to the fact that he was involved in a highly serious criminal activity. One may conclude (given we've been told the cops could actually smell the stuff growing from outside) that it was a large (and therefore potentially commercial) operation.
I have all the sympathy in the world for the wounded police officers and their dog, but change the f--king law and eliminate the need for a black market. Eliminate the need for this type of violent behaviour.
NORML OP-ed in ChCh Press today:
Re: writing to newspapers: newspaper letter-columns require current addresses, email &/or 'phone number, your real name, and *do* check these things. If you are a fervent advocate of almost any quasi-legal/contentious position, so-determined by the almost-invariably rightwing owners of aforesaid newspaper, expect your details to be forwarded to 'other interested parties.'
I've been doing it for years vis. cannabis reform and no-one's ever knocked on my door as a result.
But not so much when one is misquoted or edited so much, an opposite interpretation is conveyed. This happened to someone I know so many times that he now wont write because of the editing. What the Herald did to me was trivial but still annoying.To use a name and then misquote is appalling in my mind. It felt like that for me anyhow.
I understand. It's happened to me as well.
I was discussing this with someone just the other day: it seems sometimes that letters are judiciously edited to take away their core point.
It was suggested that letters sent are monitered by those who wrote them and any patterns of unfair editing (ie. removal of vital fact) be reported.
One trick is to write a one liner. They stand a much better chance of being run and can't be edited. Make your point short and sweet.
Making any sort of point - that's the point.
I doubt it will get reprinted in its entirety, especially the bit where I told them to make all their reporters read Bad Science, but it felt extremely satisfying to lambast them as they deserved to be.
It DOES feel good, doesn't it?
Even better when they print it, but half the buzz is in the writing and sending off.
Stuff jogging as a way to get high.
Safe to say that's downright dishonest and hardly accidental. Who's writing the letter to the editor?
I nominate you Sacha. Your country needs you!
And this is why shit gets done ...!
All of you should write a letter. Surely, if you can write a post here you write a couple of sentences and email them off.
Waikato Times: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dom Post: email@example.com
Otago Daily Times: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tell the paper you don't believe their bullshit anymore. So long as you don't, they'll just keep churning it out.
I think it's wonderful that so many people posting here think that the current system of prohibition isn't working. Some of you make highly intelligent and very perceptive comments.
How many of you actually write a letter to the editor of your local paper saying those intelligent and perceptive things?
I've been a writer for NORML for many years now and it's bloody hard to get editorial staff interested in talking about law reform. The reason consistantly cited to me is "our readers aren't interested in that sort of thing".
I think that's bullshit, but there is also only a tiny handful of people (less than 5 that I know) in the entire country who make the simple effort to regularly write a 100-150 word letter to the paper talking about the failures of prohibition and the need for law reform.
If double or triple that number were to do so it would make a big impact on the way papers viewed the issue. Letters columns are often cited as the most widely read page in a newspaper; and I was told once that to an editor's or a politician's eyes, one letter equates to 1000 voters who share that view.
In other words, letters to the paper are very powerful. If you think the law needs changing, please tell an editor that!
Surely. But take into account that they were breaking some serious laws
I'm sorry ... what? Did you say 'serious laws'?
Growing a plant?
Selling baby plants?
Telling other people how to grow a plant well?
Selling dried pieces of a plant?
C'mon man, the laws being broken weren't serious. They're a complete joke!