backtop


Print 106 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Mar 19 at 7:04 AM

Police charged GeoHot as if his THC chocolates were solid marijuana

Renowned hardware hacker and iDevice-jailbreaker extraordinaire George "GeoHot" Hotz, 22, has been arrested and booked for possessing marijuana.  

These days GeoHot is working at Facebook and is an active member of Facebook-sponsored "Chronic Dev Team", which works to "free your iPad and iPhone".   Travelling from home in Cali, GeoHot was cruising into Texas in the western-border town and census site of Sierra Blanca on his way to speak at the renowned entertainment and digital lifestyle festival South by Southwest, which is held every year in Austin, a city in central-Texas.

While the hot question on everyone's mind may be whether the famed hacker was "hot boxing", we may never know.

What is known is that the town's police, expecting the rush of festival participants driving in from California were screening all cars with drug sniffing dogs.  The dogs apparently became extra excited at GeoHot's car, and sure enough he had some of "the chronic" in his car -- enough to reportedly earn him a felony possession charge.

Taken downtown, he was booked at the station (likely he did not get the opportunity to test his IRL jailbreaking skills), and then released on $1,500 USD bond.

But GeoHot might be in good shape -- apparently the officer goofed.  He had approximately 1/4 oz. of marijuana and chocolate edibles equivalent to less than 1/8 oz.  However, the officers weighed the chocolate as if it was pure marijuana, hence how he received the felony possession.  This led the officers to then estimate the value of GeoHot's "special" chunky chocolate truffle at $800 USD, rather than the $15 USD he reportedly paid for it.

Note:
As a reader pointed out, nonsensical as it may be, this is actually how the Texas penal code works -- anything with a drug in it, is counted as a drug when waying for determination of a felony.  GeoHot is only fortunate he didn't have a couple more chocolates or he might be looking at a 3rd degree felony and some serious prison time. (The threshold for a 3rd degree felony is 1 oz.)

The whole incident casts in a whole new light GeoHot's surprisingly funny and solid "rap retort" to Sony Corp.'s (TYO:6758lawsuit against him for jailbreaking the PlayStation 3:


America is a rather funny nation where both of its last two presidents openly admitted to smoking marijuana, yet it remains an imprisonable felony in many regions to possess the potent plant.  While peer-reviewed studies published in medicine's most prestigious journals found marijuana to be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, it remains illegal in America.  In fact marijuana has been found to have mild beneficial effects.

Source: Above the Law



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/15/2012 11:08:13 AM , Rating: 4
How is stopping and searching every vehicle traveling through town using a K9 unit- with or without cause- a 'reasonable' search? But yeah, just another reason to avoid Texas and other bible belt police states.




RE: One does wonder...
By Invane on 3/15/2012 11:40:42 AM , Rating: 2
This was exactly my thought.


RE: One does wonder...
By kleinma on 3/15/2012 11:52:14 AM , Rating: 5
Because technically they are not violating your rights by having a drug dog outside your car sniffing around. However once the trained dog shows a hit on a vehicle, at that point, they have reasonable cause to conduct a search.

Of course the reality is that for the most part law enforcement can do whatever they want because it is the pot smuggling hippie hackers word against the police officer's... So who is the judge going to side with?


RE: One does wonder...
By vol7ron on 3/15/2012 6:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Also because they are not pulling over a person of their choosing. If it's a checkpoint it's fairly applied to all travelers, rather than singling out on race/age/sex/wealth.


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: One does wonder...
By avxo on 3/15/2012 9:58:43 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps you should invite a number of Judges to attend a class you teach, so you can pass on your legal expertise to them :)


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/15/2012 11:15:01 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps you should have your rights violated while Internet jackasses defend those responsible.


RE: One does wonder...
By Ringold on 3/16/2012 12:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
If this were illegal, then the common, almost nation-wide practice of DUI checkpoints would be illegal. If so, the Supreme Court would've long since ruled against it.

Therefore, you have no such right that defends you in this case, at least no right enshrined in the constitution.

The only difference is here that this town was pursuing this law with vigor usually reserved for alcohol, but that was their prerogative.

As to hippies saying its reason to avoid the 'police state', I very much doubt Texas will lose sleep over fewer hippies.


RE: One does wonder...
By myhipsi on 3/16/2012 10:34:16 AM , Rating: 2
The supreme court is very rarely on the side of the constitution and almost always sides with the government. There have been countless unconstitutional laws passed, and this is one of them. The constitution was meant to LIMIT federal government power, of course the government's main goal is to grow and acquire more power, so the constitution is antithetical to the federal government and the farce that is the supreme court.

Roadblocks and DUI checkpoints are no different then cops going door to door with police dogs to sniff around people's houses. It's random, there's no suspicion of wrong doing, people are just traveling. Hell, the whole drug war is unconstitutional on its face. At least with alcohol prohibition they actually amended the constitution (not that it was a smart idea).

Alas, I can argue these points all day long but you'll just counter that "the supreme court has decided X & Y laws to be constitutional". My point is that just because the supreme court has ruled a law constitutional doesn't mean it actually is.


RE: One does wonder...
By theblackrabbit on 3/16/2012 11:28:40 AM , Rating: 3
Invite those same judges over to explain why the constitution had to be AMENDED to ban ALCOHOL, yet only took congress and Comrade Nixon to ban ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE.

P.S. - Conservatives: please stop using the word comrade, it just makes you look ignorant and silly.


RE: One does wonder...
By runutz on 3/16/2012 4:34:06 PM , Rating: 1
Soooo, it's ok for mindless twits such as yourself to use the word "comrade" then turn around and mention others shouldn't. Natch.

BTW. Marijuana (and many other drugs) were outlawed while Nixon was a child. If you care to illustrate your lack of knowledge on the subject further expect getting pwned again.


RE: One does wonder...
By WinstonSmith on 3/16/2012 11:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
"If it's a checkpoint it's fairly applied to all travelers, rather than singling out on race/age/sex/wealth."

Yes, because what we need is a FAIR police state and what Texas needs is more otherwise law abiding citizens as fodder for its prison industrial complex. One more step down a very slippery slope courtesy of the War on Some Drugs aka Prohibition II. Hell, even Pat Robertson now believes this idiocy must end:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57393466/pat-r...


RE: One does wonder...
By WinstonSmith on 3/16/2012 11:09:38 AM , Rating: 2
"Because technically they are not violating your rights by having a drug dog outside your car sniffing around."

But they didn't do it at 70mph as he drove by. They stopped him.


RE: One does wonder...
By pbaum321 on 3/16/2012 11:36:03 AM , Rating: 3
The Supreme Court has held drug checkpoints to be unconstitutional. See City of Indianapolis v. Edmond. So here again it looks like taxpayers of this town/city will have to foot the legal bill for the police department violating his rights and not knowing the law.


RE: One does wonder...
By theblackrabbit on 3/16/2012 11:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
And would they be violating your rights by coming up with a "Super X-ray" that could see through your car and clothing and tell the police everything that was in your car and could pick up any and all microscopic drug residue?

Driver: "It was from the previous owner!"
Police: "Well, I guess I'll just arrest you, take you to jail, not allow you to use any of your own items in your own wallet to bail yourself out, and..err..bend over..."


RE: One does wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/15/2012 4:48:28 PM , Rating: 1
I'm pretty sure there was no DWI involved here. I can tell you that I have been driving for sixteen years and have not once been stopped for a warrantless K-9 search, and I believe it reasonable to expect not to be subjected to such searches.

Had he been exhibiting signs of intoxication, or had there been some probable cause prior the the K-9 search, it would have been a different matter, but those don't appear to be the facts of the case, as reported.


RE: One does wonder...
By vol7ron on 3/15/2012 6:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
Drug sniffing dogs are not a reasonable cause?


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: One does wonder...
By Ringold on 3/16/2012 12:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
Lots of hippies inbound. So they set up a device, basically, to detect weed.

How is this different then the logic that says, hmm, most drunk driving occurs at night, on holidays, so at night on holidays how about we set up check points and try to detect drunk drivers?

It's not, you just have your panties twisted.


RE: One does wonder...
By bigboxes on 3/16/2012 1:07:38 AM , Rating: 1
Ringold, GFY


RE: One does wonder...
By ajdavis on 3/18/2012 1:23:42 AM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding? Lets assume, for instance, most banks are robbed by young black men (may not be factual). Should the police be allowed to stop anyone that fits that profile too?

That'd be profiling, right? But by your logic that's totally acceptable. It's a slippery slope dude.


RE: One does wonder...
By Iketh on 3/17/2012 12:02:53 AM , Rating: 1
It saves lives. What don't you get about this? I sure as hell cannot drive with just a couple puffs of marijuana and there are plenty that do it. How is this different than checkpoints set up primarily to catch drunk drivers?


RE: One does wonder...
By GuyverAlpha on 3/16/2012 12:45:03 PM , Rating: 1
In reality it all depends on what you consider right and just or not. You don't have a problem with what he was doing so therefore it is unjust and you don't like it. To prove you're correct you'll state a bunch of facts and figures to back your statements. In response, those that don't agree with you and/or don't like what he potentially was doing will also do the same: state a bunch of facts and figures to counter yours. Bottom line is: the town is near a border, there was a higher awareness due to an event occurring in the state so extra measures were put in place to help deter the influx of illegal substances coming into the state. Whether or not the substances should be illegal is irrelevant at this point because they are, pure and simple. If the checkpoint had been setup to try to impede something else that you have no problem considering illegal we wouldn't hear a thing from you, even if what it is shouldn't be illegal either. If you want something changed complaining about it in an open forum is nothing more than throwing a tantrum in a store because mommy wouldn't buy you that toy. If you want it, go and get it. Get signatures, get letters, get backup with actual clout that can make an impact. Basically, if you want it changed, put up or shut up.


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/16/2012 8:17:32 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, I would protest any unreasonable search. I'm kind of offended you think I'm in it because Marijuana is some sort of cause celebre to me and not on the general legal principle. You seem to think you know me and my values, but you don't.


RE: One does wonder...
By Iketh on 3/17/2012 3:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's a reasonable search. That's the point. You're throwing a fit over a reasonable search. The reasons why they're reasonable and NECESSARY have already been stated.

If you ruled a country, it wouldn't last long.


RE: One does wonder...
By Quadrillity on 3/15/2012 12:11:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How is stopping and searching every vehicle traveling through town using a K9 unit- with or without cause- a 'reasonable' search?

Um... perhaps because they were patrolling for an event based on breaking current laws? It's pretty much the same situation with Wiz Khalifa and his "wake and bake tour". He got busted with possession at East Carolina University while performing one of his concerts. Smoke was rolling out of his tour bus... I mean come on man ya can't get more blatant and defiantly arrogant lol.

Yeah, screw laws. If you don't want to be busted for drug possession, then don't possess drugs. I'll never advocate for any police state mindset, but lets look at this for a moment: Some idiot was arrogant enough to walk around in public with illegal substances on his person. Do you think we should just be a free-for-all society?

I hardly think the "Bible belt" has anything to do with your argument either. The police busted this guy for doing something illegal, and you seem to think it's the fault of law enforcement? Yeah, whatever. We can discuss the issue of legalizing marijuana all day long, but don't turn this into police bashing. They are just doing their job. A job that we (as a society of law abiding citizens) told them to do.


RE: One does wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: One does wonder...
By carigis on 3/15/2012 1:14:20 PM , Rating: 1
except for the fact that marijuana is not like say crack... Its a plant that grows naturally (how do you regulate a plant..). Its less dangerous to a person then cigarettes and alcohol both of which are legal.

Going by the.. the laws is the law outlook.. we would still have slavery, seperate water fountains for races, no right for women to vote, etc.. civil disobedience and disobeyance is the only thing that gets laws changed.

I do think we should be a free for all society actually.. thats what freedom is all about. As long as it does not hurt other people in the process. The govt should have no place regulating what I do with my body, in my house, or anything else that does not hurt other people even if it hurts myself. they should not be able to tell me I have to wear a seat belt, can't smoke pot, who I can or cannot have sex with etc..

At the same time, drugs should not be an excuse. you commit a crime on drugs, then you get charged with that crime. period.


RE: One does wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2012 2:12:24 PM , Rating: 1
????

Crack is made from the Cocaine leaf. A plant that grows naturally.

quote:
I do think we should be a free for all society actually.. thats what freedom is all about. As long as it does not hurt other people in the process.


Well that's the catch isn't it? Police and Federal law enforcement will point to the deaths caused from drug-running, shootouts with authorities, etc etc and say "Look see, drugs ARE hurting people!"

It's gotten to the point where almost any Government action can be justified if it just causes a death, hurts someone's feelings, causes a problem etc etc.

quote:
The govt should have no place regulating what I do with my body, in my house, or anything else that does not hurt other people even if it hurts myself. they should not be able to tell me I have to wear a seat belt, can't smoke pot, who I can or cannot have sex with etc..


Amen!


RE: One does wonder...
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/15/2012 2:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's made from the Coca Leaf, but unlike marijuana, it's mixed with other chemicals to make into cocaine.


RE: One does wonder...
By carigis on 3/15/2012 3:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
the coca leaf is processed in lots and lots of chemicals...before it becomes crack or cocaine.. there is no cocaine leaf :)

also the deaths from drug running are attributable to it being illegal causing an underground market to be created.. The same thing that happened with alcohol.. which caused them to re-legalize it. No illegal market created by prohibition.. no way for drug smugglers to profit and reason for them to kill people.

now that alcohol is legal.. who is trafficking in alcohol? noone.. no al capone equivelant.. nothing.

they stick to book making and drug smuggling.. because both are illegal. if betting on games was legal.. there would be no bookies. knee cappers.. etc..


RE: One does wonder...
By Quadrillity on 3/15/2012 3:06:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
we would still have slavery, seperate water fountains for races, no right for women to vote, etc..


Really? I'd say that the U.S. Constitution gave everyone the right to equality. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, I would also say that any laws that went against it would be invalidated. So, in essence, it's true that slavery, and other oppression may have been laws at one point, but it's NOT true that they were justified or valid laws when challenged against the Constitution. If the people of the U.S. would have used the supreme law of the land in the first place, we would have never had slavery, unequal rights, and everything else.

quote:
I do think we should be a free for all society actually.. thats what freedom is all about.


If you truly believe that, then that is exactly why I have seen such a stark decay in the moral fabric of society in my few short years on this planet. If there are very many people like you (I fear there are), then we are in deep s***. That is NOT what freedom is all about. Your freedom does not somehow "give you the right to do whatever you want".

quote:
The govt should have no place regulating what I do with my body, in my house, or anything else that does not hurt other people even if it hurts myself. they should not be able to tell me I have to wear a seat belt, can't smoke pot, who I can or cannot have sex with etc..


Ok, I agree. As long as you do something that only affects you then there is no problem. Oh, but wait... every little thing you do will affect society in some way.

For instance: if you don't wear a seat-belt, then post a sign on your vehicle that tells the medics not to rush you to the hospital and render aid; because not wearing a seat-belt ends up costing everyone more money in terms of car insurance, medical services, medical coverage, etc. I'd say that is negatively affecting others right? The same thing goes for marijuana. If you want to smoke it, then by all means please do. But make sure you cancel your health insurance so that others don't have to pay for your lung cancer.

quote:
At the same time, drugs should not be an excuse. you commit a crime on drugs, then you get charged with that crime. period.

Hey! We can finally agree on something!


RE: One does wonder...
By carigis on 3/15/2012 4:58:46 PM , Rating: 1
lol.. by your comment on "moral fabric", im assuming your a religous person..and wish to push your beliefs on others... morality is based on how you personally percieve things. freedom is exactly about what it says.. freedom... not candosomethingsbutnotothersaslongasitokwitheveryone lseom.

How about the fact seatbelts have been known to CAUSE deaths in some accidents? so you think the govt should be able to pick winners and say you need to use a seatbelt even though it can "possibly" kill you. I pay for auto insurance like everyone else and have never been in an accident.

Should I get a refund for not using it? is my not wearing a seatbelt going to stop you from arguing with your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend or whatever and not paying attention to the road and slamming into me? or taking your eye off the roadd to put out your cigarette? or should we just only provide medical treatment to the person not at fault.. because either way someone is costing us money in car insurance bills, as someone is always at fault. if anything Im more likely to die not wearing a seatbelt.. so the insurance company gets off cheap.

or for marijuana, do cigarette smokers health insurance get cancelled? or drinkers who blow out thier liver.. do we say oh well... you have to die now.. sorry. or because its legal thats ok.. well just let that one pass.

wouldn't it be smarter to tax the marijuana and use the income to pay for any health effects like is done with alcohol and cigarettes? think of the lives saved by no drug war, and no criminal enterprise related to drugs. people would be buying weed from a store.. not the local drug dealers house were he gets exposed to harder chemically derived drugs that actually effect society and crime rates.

If your wife has sex with your buddy and gets aids from him then passes onto you aids.. should we not cancel your insurance because all your friends knew she was a hoe so you should have too? These are all questions we should ask right?


RE: One does wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2012 5:04:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ok, I agree. As long as you do something that only affects you then there is no problem. Oh, but wait... every little thing you do will affect society in some way.


You mentioned earlier that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. As you probably know, I'm big time in agreement with that.

So where in the Constitution does it say Freedom is defined by something that only affects you, and nobody else? I see no such described "Freedom from being offended" or ban against affecting society.

quote:
The same thing goes for marijuana. If you want to smoke it, then by all means please do. But make sure you cancel your health insurance so that others don't have to pay for your lung cancer.


Okay I'm not giving my opinion either way on this drug thing, but this isn't logical. Cigarettes are legal and have a FAR higher chance of causing lung cancer than marijuana. Hell you don't even have to smoke weed, you can ingest it. And many do.

You also inhale way less smoke with pot. We've all heard of the pack a day cigarette fiends, or even two packs a day! That would be like doing an ounce a day or something! Nobody does that, you would be stoned 24/7 lol. It's basically impossible.


RE: One does wonder...
By Bateluer on 3/15/2012 3:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
Fortunately for the rest of us, when you smoke pot and go for a drive without your seat belt, you'll remove yourself from the gene pool.


RE: One does wonder...
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/15/2012 3:52:35 PM , Rating: 1
You apparently have no clue what you are talking about...


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/15/2012 4:55:03 PM , Rating: 1
Heh, heh, you just set off my BS meter. Beep beep beep. Pot is not alcohol, it doesn't impair driving like alcohol. Medical MJ users are a legal example of this.


RE: One does wonder...
By Quadrillity on 3/16/2012 8:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
You have got to be kidding me. I have seen people blitzed out of their mind from smoking (and smoking only, not drinking). Do you mean to tell me that getting super high will not negatively affect your reaction time? Give me a break! Marijuana cannot be tested against a standard of sobriety since everyone handles it differently. Some people trip balls when they smoke; are you alluding that they can also drive safely?

Total bullcrap. Marijuana does negatively impact your driving skills. To what degree is still largely under review; but none the less. Take one hit from a bong and you will most likely be fine, but get "high" and you will not be able to drive the same as if you were not "high".

The bottom line is that there are accurate measurements for blood alcohol concentration in connection with impairment. There are no such measurements with marijuana.


RE: One does wonder...
By theblackrabbit on 3/16/2012 11:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
And cases can still be built when breathalyzers are refused. How about: Driving behavior, sobriety tests, objective physical symptoms.

Try Again


RE: One does wonder...
By Quadrillity on 3/16/2012 12:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't have to try again. Medically speaking, you can measure the exact amount of BAC. Breathalyzers are deemed "accurate enough" to use in the field. I never said nor implied that any or all of the tests are 100% accurate; so my initial statement is still correct.


RE: One does wonder...
By theblackrabbit on 3/16/2012 2:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Marijuana cannot be tested against a standard of sobriety since everyone handles it differently. Some people trip balls when they smoke; are you alluding that they can also drive safely?"

Replace Marijuana with alcohol, do you see my point? The statement in quotes is just you making a random comment. All people handle all drugs differently (ADHD meds, anxiety meds, on and on). Some people can drive fine on a higher BAC than others (daily drinkers vs casual drinkers). Some people get tweeked out from ADHD meds, some relax and focus.

You then said, "The bottom line is that there are accurate measurements for blood alcohol concentration in connection with impairment. There are no such measurements with marijuana."

-Okay, imagine for a moment there is no such thing as a breathalyzer: what would we do? Ban alcohol? Ban all driving with any alcohol in the system? The law would probably remain mostly the same. The case would be built on all the other evidence. DUI would still exist, but in more shades of gray.

Then I see this: "Ok, I agree. As long as you do something that only affects you then there is no problem. Oh, but wait... every little thing you do will affect society in some way."

So what is your stance exactly anyway? Do you want MJ legal but illegal to be driving with even if it is just trace amounts that would show up on a drug test? I am confused on your exact position. I was just pointing out (what I believe) to be flaws in your comparisons between DUI/alcohol and DWI/other drugs. You don't have to have a statistical line in the sand...


RE: One does wonder...
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/16/2012 11:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pot is not alcohol, it doesn't impair driving like alcohol.
This begs the question, if weed has no influence on your reaction time or judgment, why are you smoking it again?

I've seen people high and driving... they drive like 30mph. Slow drivers are just as much at fault for creating accidents as drunk drivers. And between the two of you (high or drunk), you still have no clue what happened in the aftermath.

Now the real issue with weed is that its illegal to possess it, right? In other words, possession should be treated no different than bringing home a 12-pk. Seems to me the most practical solution is to not charge for possession, but do take "intoxicated" or "driving while impaired" as seriously as drunk driving. In that sense, the 'routine traffic stops' are just as legal as DWI checks and serve the same purpose: Making sure idiots are off the highways.


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/16/2012 8:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
How do you make the moronic leap of logic from me saying that Alcohol and Marijuana are different to Marijuana has no influence. Put words in people's mouth much? Winning arguments is so much easier when you argue both sides and erect straw men, but it's kind of meaningless.


RE: One does wonder...
By Iketh on 3/17/2012 3:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
You're a complete retard. Go away druggy.


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/15/2012 4:51:05 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, because all laws are 'just' and must be honored. By this mode of thinking, interracial marriages would still be illegal, in Texas and elsewhere.


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/15/2012 4:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Um... perhaps because they were patrolling for an event based on breaking current laws?


Uh.. what? So, are you saying that South by Southwest is an event based on breaking laws? Last time I checked, music is not illegal, not even in Texas.

Further more, where this stop occurred, Sierra Blanca, is 488 miles away from Austin, where South by Southwest occurs. How it is even remotely reasonable for them to be patrolling (fishing really) for people going to see music 488 miles away. That's an absolutely asinine assertion you're making.


RE: One does wonder...
By Quadrillity on 3/15/2012 10:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is known is that the town's police, expecting the rush of festival participants driving in from California were screening all cars with drug sniffing dogs.


I read this part a little too fast and assumed that it was a obvious pro-weed event, sorry.

quote:
How it is even remotely reasonable for them to be patrolling (fishing really) for people going to see music 488 miles away. That's an absolutely asinine assertion you're making.

No, what is absolutely absurd is the idea that you somehow think people who break the law are somehow in the right, and the cops who enforce the current laws are in the wrong. There was no illegal search in this situation. As I said earlier, I am a hardcore conservative (mainly in the sense that I see the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and that it was created to restrict the government from taking control of the citizens). Having said that, I am probably just as anti-police state as you are. I understand that the branches of gov. need to know their boundaries, but in this case no right or freedom was violated. He broke the law, got caught, and will pay the price for it. It's called actions and consequences; something that is pretty much lost on this society.


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/15/2012 11:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm protesting the execution of law as being unconstitutional, not Texas's right to regulate illegal substances as they see fit. They just need to it without the extralegal crap. Because this is America, we supposedly have rights.


RE: One does wonder...
By Quadrillity on 3/15/2012 11:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
That made no sense, I have no idea what you are even trying to say. Are you saying we shouldn't enforce laws?


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/16/2012 12:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
I'm saying there's a concept called Due Process, and it's paramount in the administration of justice. What I don't comprehend is why I find myself having to explain this, I would hope you already know what I'm saying.


RE: One does wonder...
By Quadrillity on 3/16/2012 8:09:35 AM , Rating: 2
I am certainly not a law scholar, but I think you are further from it than me. There was no breach of due process. He was caught transporting a felonious amount of a controlled substance, and now he will be tried (and probably found guilty) in a court of law. Please outline where his constitutional rights were violated.

Should we just throw out drug laws just because you like weed?


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/16/2012 8:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
Are you even reading this comments? His rights were violated when he was stopped and subjected to an unreasonable search without probable cause by a K9 unit.

Also, from what has been reported, he was carrying a single 'dose' (if you will) of pot cooked into a confection, and is being charged based on the weight of the confection, not any unlawful substance it may contain. That does not merit a felony charge any any SANE societal sense. Of course, we're talking Texas, not sane.


RE: One does wonder...
By Iketh on 3/17/2012 4:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
May your kids get hooked on drugs imported from Mexico through Texas... you hypocrite.


RE: One does wonder...
By Simonova on 3/15/2012 12:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
The trouble is, you can't avoid the bible belt - this is where all the good stuff is!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-i...


RE: One does wonder...
By Keeir on 3/15/2012 1:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
While a funny headline there are a few important things to point out in that article

#1. It refers to paid porn subscriptions
#2. It refers to rate per broadband internet buyers

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0608/

They noticed a few other correlations, such as age and income.

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0608/

So called "Bible Belt" and "Red" states often have lower rates of broadband usage. Broadband usage is highest among the young and better off. These trends are even more exaggerated in these states.

Yet I see no attempt by the article to level set the data for these trends.

I also have an issue with the article here

quote:
States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."


yet

quote:
The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.


So the -average- difference between states with two views was greater than the -maximum- difference? This smells fishy and makes me wonder about the rest of the methodology.

All in all, since around ~36% of internet users view pornography at least occasionally, it seems like a statement such as

"Conservatives more likely to pay for pornography" is more apt conclusion to the study. Though looking the summery, I doubt there would be any significant trends once the whole per broadband subscriber issue is accounted for...


RE: One does wonder...
By ppardee on 3/15/2012 1:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Conservatives more likely to pay for pornography" is more apt conclusion to the study.


That's not even a valid conclusion. Unless you know the ideology of the people who are consuming the service (which I STRONGLY doubt) all you can say is that states with a high population of voters who vote for Republicans in the last election are more likely to pay for pornography. It is just as likely, however, that the people who are paying for the porn are liberals.

So, my conclusion (which is just as valid as the one you stated) is "Liberals in areas with a high percentage of conservatives are more likely to pay for pornography." Of course, both statements are bunk.


RE: One does wonder...
By drlumen on 3/15/2012 7:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
This town is off the interstate coming from El Paso. To say there is a lot of drug trafficking in the area would be an understatement. I-10 is probably THE only corridor headed east from El Paso (a major Mexico crossing point).

If it wasn't a checkpoint then he got pulled over for speeding. If an actual federal task force, this would have nothing to do with Texas. The Texas DPS will do the same thing with checkpoints though or will call dogs out if they have any suspicion (sp?). Pot is still illegal in Texas.


RE: One does wonder...
By Valoo on 3/15/2012 9:57:15 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, please stay out of Texas.

By the way, its the Feds who are doing all the busting in Sierra Blanca. The Border Patrol runs the road stop, and it seems lots of "california celebrities" get stopped there:

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Features/2012-02-...

But do please stay out of Texas, it was so much nicer before it got overcrowded without hating outsiders. And we don't need your weed either, we have plenty of good stuff here already.


RE: One does wonder...
By chromal on 3/15/2012 11:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
And please stay out of Colorado. The Texans who come up here clog our roads with slow-ass SUVs. Get the hell out.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki