how do i get my property back if the case was dismissed?

[CdwJava]

You call it the "Prop 215 idea", I call it THE LAW.

Okay then ... let me re-phrase, I disagree with the premise under which it was presented to the voters, and disagree with the idea that it is truly "medicine."

If the police started trying to comply with the law on this matter rather than continue to fight it because of personal biases, perhaps there would be less variance and frustration. It's hard to really feel sorry for the group which is the main cause of the frustration for the frustration they feel.

Have you actually READ the H&S sections related to this? And the myriad of conflicting case law that comes out on this subject? Some years we might get two or three legal updates from state and local counsel advising us of new changes in the law and recent case decisions with regards to 215 related law ... it was enough in some years to simply cause many agencies to throw up their hands and just ignore marijuana altogether as it was too much of a hassle. Not surprisingly most the counsel and the updates (from the AG's office included) ended with a caveat that they were not sure what the decision meant for local agencies and they would have to decide for themselves how to proceed.

It's so much of a hassle, in fact, that I suspect you would actually find a lot of support in law enforcement for the state to come to a conclusion one way or the other - legalize it, or criminalize it. This midway thing as it currently stands is ridiculous and frustrating. It is already the ONLY criminal offense in CA that must be destroyed after two years so it already has a special place in CA law.

You may not believe it, but the laws ARE confusing because they change more frequently than any other law in the state. You may not be aware of the level of confusion because you are not out there trying to enforce it. The terminology in the related H&S sections has changed a number of times and so have the definitions. Walk a few miles in the shoes of those of us who have to try and sort out today's version of the statutes or case law ... it's a befuddlement.

As I said, there is hope that the AG's guidelines will sort out some of the mess. But, ultimately, the feds WILL have to weigh in on the matter before that last hurdle can be cleared.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

Okay then ... let me re-phrase, I disagree with the premise under which it was presented to the voters, and disagree with the idea that it is truly "medicine."

This I accept. I think you're wrong--heck I *know* you're wrong, but we've had this fight before and there's no need for it here.

Sorry the laws are hard. Do taxes for people sometime.

 

[CdwJava]

This I accept. I think you're wrong--heck I *know* you're wrong, but we've had this fight before and there's no need for it here.

Funny how we can all "know" our positions are right.

Sorry the laws are hard. Do taxes for people sometime.

Taxes make my head hurt ... I pay a guy to do them and handle my investments - same guy for 15 years. Works for me.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

Funny how we can all "know" our positions are right.

If your position is that marijuana is not "medicine", I have studies and anecdodal evidence to show you are wrong. There really isn't a debate about the *fact* marijuana is a *drug* which has effects. The only debate is from some who claim there are better drugs for the effects. But, what is a "medicine". I'd love to have you define it in some way where your statement (about it not being a medicine) is not easily *proven* to be false. Stubborn is not knowledge.

Taxes make my head hurt ... I pay a guy to do them and handle my investments - same guy for 15 years. Works for me.

What is it the taxpayers pay you for?

 

[CdwJava]

If your position is that marijuana is not "medicine", I have studies and anecdodal evidence to show you are wrong.

And we'd go around in circles. Sorry, not going to travel that path.

What is it the taxpayers pay you for?

For oh so many things. Being a nice guy and a good cop, for one .. or is that, two?

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

And we'd go around in circles. Sorry, not going to travel that path.

As has been your answer in all times past. "Funny how we can all "know" our positions are right." implies a certain equivilance of the positions. It attempts to equate beliefs simply because two people have different beliefs and with a hearty tut-tut, and pat on the back equates belief with knowledge. Here, however, one is willing to discuss the matter and the other is not. If marijuana is a "medicine" or not would depend on how one defines the term. The answer, based on facts, is so obvious to me I allowed you to define the term knowing you could not come up with a non-conclusory (which references the drug specifically) definition where the end result is that it is not a medicine. Even with that enourmous advantage, you decline, again. Facts are stubborn things. I believe I know based on facts, I believe you know based on desires formulated from knowledge of outside issues. Hardly equivilant. (Count the number of spelling errors in that paragraph. Win a prize!)

For oh so many things. Being a nice guy and a good cop, for one .. or is that, two?

I would think being a good cop includes knowledge of the laws even when "the laws ARE confusing because they change more frequently than any other law in the state." You're the person paid to enforce them. Yet citizens who, in good faith try to follow the law, get arrested. Some police want to confiscate or not turn back their legal medicine (even though the law is clear) or cause further problems for the citizen by reporting them to the feds (a clear violation of the spirit of the law). When does the citizen get a break with the complexity of the law? Jobs are hard. Police are well paid and claim to be professionals. It angers me a bit when *they* complain the law is hard when, when suspects claim it, there is a smile, a click of the handcuffs and a throwaway line to "tell it to the judge".