When the Gestapo comes knocking....

[toughnut]

Which "dangersous criminals" do you refer to? The ones who are running around robbing gas stations, banks and snatching little old ladies purses or breaking into your cars at night to feed their crack addiction? or maybe the crack dealers on the street or in the crack houses? Don't forget, crack doesn't grow on trees in the Okanagan Valley. It comes from South America via the US. The only way that crack [cocaine] is brought into Canada is in exchange for money or marijuana. Marijuana comes from grow operations. So without getting into a war on drugs debate, the police are working on something that poses a risk to your life and liberty.

If pot and money were how these dangerous crackheads bought crack and the grow-ops were gone, then according to this theory, we would have to eliminate cash to get rid of the problem. It seems there are much better solutions than that.

I think this whole deal is caused by one Knot head over zealous cop whom lacks a certain amount of commen sence fueled by a mouthy family whom were smoking a little harmles MaryJay in the comfort of their home.Unfortunately it was previously owned by a drug crimminal and the cops thought he still lived there.He knocks on the door and can smell MJ and
his balls swell and hes on a mission.Starts giving the family a bad time and they get into it with the cop.The cops say I will show them whos boss and the rest is history.This is soley my theory and opinion

[Merry]

In response to KL3-Something - You miss my point.

Even if the OP was a marijuana user, and even if she did have a small amount of pot in the house for her own personal use, I still think it's a total waste of police time and money raiding her house the way they did. Because frankly, half the population of BC uses marijuana, yet they do not pose a threat to my life or liberty.

It is the crack heads and dealers you refer to in your post who are a threat to all of us, not the small time marijauna user. And I am tired of the police going after those small time users and then trumpeting how effective they are in fighting the "war" on drugs, while at the same time the really serious criminals are running free.

I have friends who are RCMP members who make all kinds of money in overtime going after these small time users, while at the same time they smoke pot themselves at their own private partys. How hypocritical is that?

No-one thinks these small time users are a threat to society at large, but they are an easy target for police looking to make a few brownie points in the media.

I think going after the REAL criminals (many of whom you describe in your post) would be a far better use of police time, and a far better use of my tax payer dollars.

I've never smoked pot, and have no desire to. But I've known people all my life who do, and none of them seem to have wound up being either hardened criminals or drug dealers. I think it's time we legalized mariuajana, regulated and taxed it, and started using our limited police resources in areas where it would do a lot more good.

[toughnut]

merry!!
I agree 100% with your post except I dont think making MaryJ leagel will be of any benifit to any of us
we have enough social problems with alcohol already

[Merry]

merry!!
I agree 100% with your post except I dont think making MaryJ leagel will be of any benifit to any of us
we have enough social problems with alcohol already

I hear what you're saying toughnut, but it seems to me that keeping marijuana use illegal has done nothing to prevent, or even limit, its use. At least if it was legal, we could attempt to control who uses it and under what circumstances.

I know of a workplace (and I'm sure it's not unique) where the boss suspected a worker was coming to work under the influence of marijuana, yet was unable to demand a drug test because it violated the employees human rights. What about the rights of the person that employee may wind up killing one day?

On the other hand, as a person who has never used drugs, I have to admit I would consider it a violation of my rights if employers were to conduct random drug tests. However, what about when employers have reason to suspect the employee is under the influence? Apparently its such a grey area that nobody wants to touch that one, much less enforce it. After all, how does one determine that someone is under the influence? What criteria are sufficient to require a drug test? It's a tough issue to deal with, but deal with it we must if we are to avoid someone being killed or maimed in the workplace because of the actions of a fellow worker who smokes pot on his lunchbreak.

I think it might be easier to enact and enforce legislation around this issue if marijuana use were legal. Because it seems almost impossible to do anything about it in the current legal environment. Hard to believe as it is, the employer I referred to called all kinds of government departments, as well as the police, and was unable to get any advice as to how to deal with the employee he suspected of marijuana use. Apparently it is possible in some industries to demand drug tests upon hiring, but not on an ongoing basis while employed, unless you have reason to believe they pose a threat to themselves or others. But in all honesty, how is a lay person to determine that someone poses such a threat? A false accusation opens the employer up to all kinds of legal issues, yet if the employer suspects the employee is impaired and does nothing, and an accident ensues, the employer can be held both negligent and liable. In other words, its a lose, lose situation for the employer, and that makes no sense.

Maybe if marijuana use were legal it would remove some of the stigma of having tests done when one is suspected of being under the influence. Also there could be more public education about the potential harm of driving or working after smoking a joint, which in turn might result in greater societal pressure on people who do such things. As it stands now the message is simply NOT to do it, and frankly it isn't working. So maybe we need to accept the fact that many ARE going to do it, and teach them how to do it in as safe a manner as possible.

[KL3-Something]

In response to KL3-Something - You miss my point.

Even if the OP was a marijuana user, and even if she did have a small amount of pot in the house for her own personal use, I still think it's a total waste of police time and money raiding her house the way they did. Because frankly, half the population of BC uses marijuana, yet they do not pose a threat to my life or liberty......

I think you missed my point as well. I don't think that I'll really get into it any further or attempt to explain it in another way except to say think about the bigger picture. Cocaine gets into out country in exchage for marijuana and large sums of money. Where does the marijuana and large sums of money come from? And how do the police know if they are going to walk into a small-time mom and pop grow-op or the one that is linked to OMG's for export to another country until they are in the door?

[ticat900]

In response to KL3-Something - You miss my point.

Even if the OP was a marijuana user, and even if she did have a small amount of pot in the house for her own personal use, I still think it's a total waste of police time and money raiding her house the way they did. Because frankly, half the population of BC uses marijuana, yet they do not pose a threat to my life or liberty......

I think you missed my point as well. I don't think that I'll really get into it any further or attempt to explain it in another way except to say think about the bigger picture. Cocaine gets into out country in exchage for marijuana and large sums of money. Where does the marijuana and large sums of money come from? And how do the police know if they are going to walk into a small-time mom and pop grow-op or the one that is linked to OMG's for export to another country until they are in the door?

Hello
Iam brand new here and have read all the posts here and find it very interesting to say the least
my comment towards the cop(KL3) is if this group of officers that raided this poor womens house is the smartest we have in vernon then we are with out a doubt in trouble.ANY smart well trained DEI type person would know that this was not a drug house and i do beleive the cop that got the warrent was a liar and was *bleep* off at this women arguing with him on the first go around

[bcpaul]

This bag of pot officer? Oh the previous owner left that for us. Didn't know what it was. So we put it away safe. We don't know what pot smells like.



Now they have a reputation in the community as a grow op.

[kgcayenne]

Just throwing this out there:

Has the OP contacted the real estate agents involved in their home purchase? Realtors have seen so many grow ops in this damn valley that I serioulsy, SERIOUSLY doubt that they were blind to the fact that a grow op had been present despite claiming they didn't know.

Those realtors can certainly be selectively dumb like a fox.

[ticat900]

Just throwing this out there:

Has the OP contacted the real estate agents involved in their home purchase? Realtors have seen so many grow ops in this damn valley that I serioulsy, SERIOUSLY doubt that they were blind to the fact that a grow op had been present despite claiming they didn't know.

Those realtors can certainly be selectively dumb like a fox.

they(she) claims they had a full home inspection? But I have seen some pretty stupid home inspecters also in the last couple years in vernon? So maybe She got a bad home inspection
SERIOUSLY I have read every word that has been printed here and My opinion is this cop that lied to the judge to get a warrent should be charged with stupidity AS I DONT think theses people did anything wrong

[OnTheRoadAgain]

I really didn't think it was real marijuana..it looks like hay or grass clippings...street value of $0.00 I'm sure...regardless, it did not belong to us....

"Possession is 9/10ths of the law". 'Finding' it is not good reason to "keep it around'.
"Shake" is Marijuana.

[WhatThe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if the cop could smell marijuana from the door that would constitute Probable and reasonable cause to search the premises without a warrant.

Kl-3. Care to comment?

[Gixxer]

merry!!
I agree 100% with your post except I dont think making MaryJ leagel will be of any benifit to any of us
we have enough social problems with alcohol already

I hear what you're saying toughnut, but it seems to me that keeping marijuana use illegal has done nothing to prevent, or even limit, its use. At least if it was legal, we could attempt to control who uses it and under what circumstances.

I know of a workplace (and I'm sure it's not unique) where the boss suspected a worker was coming to work under the influence of marijuana, yet was unable to demand a drug test because it violated the employees human rights. What about the rights of the person that employee may wind up killing one day?

On the other hand, as a person who has never used drugs, I have to admit I would consider it a violation of my rights if employers were to conduct random drug tests. However, what about when employers have reason to suspect the employee is under the influence? Apparently its such a grey area that nobody wants to touch that one, much less enforce it. After all, how does one determine that someone is under the influence? What criteria are sufficient to require a drug test? It's a tough issue to deal with, but deal with it we must if we are to avoid someone being killed or maimed in the workplace because of the actions of a fellow worker who smokes pot on his lunchbreak.

I think it might be easier to enact and enforce legislation around this issue if marijuana use were legal. Because it seems almost impossible to do anything about it in the current legal environment. Hard to believe as it is, the employer I referred to called all kinds of government departments, as well as the police, and was unable to get any advice as to how to deal with the employee he suspected of marijuana use. Apparently it is possible in some industries to demand drug tests upon hiring, but not on an ongoing basis while employed, unless you have reason to believe they pose a threat to themselves or others. But in all honesty, how is a lay person to determine that someone poses such a threat? A false accusation opens the employer up to all kinds of legal issues, yet if the employer suspects the employee is impaired and does nothing, and an accident ensues, the employer can be held both negligent and liable. In other words, its a lose, lose situation for the employer, and that makes no sense.

Maybe if marijuana use were legal it would remove some of the stigma of having tests done when one is suspected of being under the influence. Also there could be more public education about the potential harm of driving or working after smoking a joint, which in turn might result in greater societal pressure on people who do such things. As it stands now the message is simply NOT to do it, and frankly it isn't working. So maybe we need to accept the fact that many ARE going to do it, and teach them how to do it in as safe a manner as possible.

What social problems would MJ create?

[KL3-Something]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if the cop could smell marijuana from the door that would constitute Probable and reasonable cause to search the premises without a warrant.

Kl-3. Care to comment?

Short answer: No.

Only if you can see the plants (or stolen property or what ever illegal items you are dealing with) in plain sight while already inside the house for a lawful purpose. Even still, cops should hold the scene, go back and write up an ITO and ask a judge or justice of the peace if you have enough grounds to enter into some else's home to search for said items. Which in this case the cop obviously did. If he was lying about what he put into the ITO, like some people here are alleging, then that will come out in due course. If there are exigent circumstances where taking the time to obtain a warrant could lead to the imminent destruction of evidence then they can enter without warrant.

Warrantless searches and the granting of search warrants are complicated legal matters that are far from cut and dried in most situations.

[WhatThe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if the cop could smell marijuana from the door that would constitute Probable and reasonable cause to search the premises without a warrant.

Kl-3. Care to comment?

Short answer: No.

Only if you can see the plants (or stolen property or what ever illegal items you are dealing with) in plain sight while already inside the house for a lawful purpose. Even still, cops should hold the scene, go back and write up an ITO and ask a judge or justice of the peace if you have enough grounds to enter into some else's home to search for said items. Which in this case the cop obviously did. If he was lying about what he put into the ITO, like some people here are alleging, then that will come out in due course. If there are exigent circumstances where taking the time to obtain a warrant could lead to the imminent destruction of evidence then they can enter without warrant.

Warrantless searches and the granting of search warrants are complicated legal matters that are far from cut and dried in most situations.

So the officer would have to be inside the premises. Looking through a front door window and seeing illegal items would not constitute reasonable and probable cause?

[Bagotricks]

End of the day it is way to easy to get a search warrant, especially concerning a grow-op.

If they need a warrant to save a child from kiddie porn, or stop a company from allowing trucks with bad brakes on the road then I can see allowing some benefit of the doubt and fast tracking. However, we are talking about suspending a Canadian citizens rights to privacy and security based on marijuana prohibition.

Obviously there was no vegetative marijuana, and "incense" cannot be mistaken for fresh weed smell by a BC RCMP officer. That is like a east coast fisherman mistaking a sulfuric smell for Atlantic cod. So how did they get a warrant? They took the cops word in haste - which was obviously wrong. So the fact they found a small bag of personal pot is completely invalidated.

I can list off many separate incidents in the last year where the RCMP were granted search warrants for "grow ops" based on VERY LOOSE information, which turned out to be nothing. I started a few threads on the subject. Same goes with those municipal "grow op inspections".

How about the elderly west Kelowna couple that was raided because "their blinds were closed alot, and a officer smelt pot in the neighborhood when his cruiser window was open?

End of the day - its pot. The dire need is not there.

Busting a grow op does nothing to stem the flow of drugs and guns and money across the line, so saying that there *could be* this vast underlying criminal enterprise that will be thwarted by a bust, therefore search warrants should be easy to get is false flag. You want to stop the flow of money and drugs and weapons - take the market away from them instead of protecting their profits by enforcing prohibition.

End of the day dealers and users don't call the police on themselves because it is a consensual act, so the only way the law can "catch you in the act" is by violating your rights, or by allowing criminals to walk free based on their "ratting" out information. This is the mantra of the war on drugs.

I hope the OP gets a lawyer.