Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11
    Senior Member genXer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Is this legislation been created to balance out other liberities taken away by the Patriot Act or the legalization of the NSA spying on US citizens? Or more political tripe?


    From the article:
    This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
    *sniff*sniff*... Smells like tripe.
    \"We\'re the middle children of history.... no purpose or place. We have no Great War, no Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. We\'ve all been raised by television to believe that one day we\'ll all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars -- but we won\'t. And we\'re learning slowly that fact. And we\'re very, very pissed off.\" - Tyler (Brad Pitt) Fight Club.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Here's my question. With the whole Clinton telling the DoJ to ignore a section of the law, couldn't a future president un-ignore it so to speak?

    We seriously need that "cross line veto" business that was talked about a decade ago. Not sure if I have my term correct, but that was where the president could cross out particular sections of a bill and veto them seperate from the entire bill. This was introduced when congress was voting themselves pay raises alot. (I was 10 at the time, so don't quote me on this paragraph).

    Of course, the cross line veto wouldn't help us because bush doesn't give 2 craps anyhow.

  3. #13
    The ******* Shadow dalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005

    Joey Stoner flies to Amsterdam, land of legal dope. He proceeds, while on vacation, to get stoned off his arse on the various (illegal in the US but NOT in Amsterdam) recrational substances available. He has a jolly time on holiday, with no incidents, and returns to the US sober, and not in possession of any of the substances he imbibed.

    Now while Joey was in Amsterdam, Fred MIBagent photographs him smoking the dope/imbibing the substances...

    When Joey arrives back in the US he is questioned. Joey freely admits he got stoned off his arse, and very willingly allows a search which proves fruitless because Joey's not stupid.

    Joey is perfectly legal. He has broken no laws in Amsterdam, and the US laws didn't take priority since he wasn't in the US.
    Depending on how long he stays in Amsterdam and stays off of the Cannabis, as soon as he is back in either the US or Canada, and is under suspicion, they can request a urine sample and with Cannabis.....
    Marijuana is also the drug that is more likely to stay in your system for days, weeks, or even an entire month after the last time that you smoke. Therefore, even though marijuana is one of the least harmful drugs out there, it is also the most likely drug to cause you to fail a drug test.
    ....so even if he abstained for a couple of days prior to returning, just hanging out at these cafes or coffee houses gives second hand smoke a whole new meaning....

    So I would say he would get nailed, for this even though he took the drug in another country...people forget, most chemicals take awhile to leave the system......

    Disclaimer: I am not an expert in this field, re: drugs leaving system..........(just both times we left Amsterdam to go back to Canada, the RCMP were waiting for us at the jetty with their canine units, one dog actually went nuts on a messmates leather gloves, turns out that human perspiration can have the same effect as weed on clothing...who knew)
    PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...

    "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
    Claude Swanson

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    The term you are looking for is "line item veto." Our governor has it in Washington. The president's have been begging for it for years. Requires a constitutional amendment (I'm a bit vague on the details right now)? Or, just a bill from congress? Congress doesn't like the idea. How would they get pork through with a line item veto? Or ... legislation like we are discussing.

    Ain't politics interesting?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Depending on how long he stays in Amsterdam and stays off of the Cannabis, as soon as he is back in either the US or Canada, and is under suspicion, they can request a urine sample and with Cannabis.....
    The key term here is "request"... All they can do is request, they can't force you to take a urine test, you are the one who has to be the dumbass and say "ok, I'll take the test"...
    I am the uber duck!!1
    Proxy Tools

  6. #16
    The ******* Shadow dalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    they can't force you to take a urine test, you are the one who has to be the dumbass and say "ok, I'll take the test"...
    True....and I can believe that most law enforcement agencies will explain to you in great detail that it is in "your best interest" to cooperate, so before we allow you to leave the terminal we would like to have a urine sample....now between Canada and the US, it is not common practise, but I would be willing to bet, that any visitors from Columbia would be not only subjected to a urine sample but a strip search as well, with or without a lawyer present.....

    If there is a will, there is a way, and we are not that naive to think that law enforcement will not use any means available to justify the end results.......One of the biggets problems is having too much trust in the Law to begin with, people readily allow State Troopers to look in the trunk, even though you have the right to say no, and get a lawyer, or force them to get a warrant, most of the busts they do is because people don't know how to say no to authority.....it's all there, if you know where to look......

    As for going after people in other soveriegn jurisdictions, the US has never let the other countries laws stop them before:
    Expand America's network of mutual legal assistance treaties . Combined with improved domestic law enforcement and global intelligence gathering capabilities, additional MLATs would make life more difficult for criminals who operate on a global basis. This approach also would reveal nations that are unwilling to help the United States, either because they refuse to negotiate an MLAT or because they fail to comply with one that is in force, and thus are deserving of sanctions.

    Criminal Cases Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties: Since the first U.S. bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) entered into force with Switzerland in 1977, our MLATs have become an increasingly important. They seek to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regularize and facilitate its procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally the two Justice Departments, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants, and to serve process. Generally, the remedies offered by the treaties are only available to the prosecutors. The defense must usually proceed with the methods of obtaining evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country, which usually involve letters rogatory. See also general information in Obtaining Evidence Abroad.
    PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...

    "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
    Claude Swanson

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004

    Are you sure? I thought if they have probable cause, just like drunk driving, they can arrest you and make you take the test or something....


    I agree that it would be difficult to administer a law like that, but not impossible. Look at what the RIAA has done. I, for one, thought they could never get away with what they're doing now, but I was wrong...

    Alright Brain, you don\'t like me, and I don\'t like you. But let\'s just do this, and I can get back to killing you with beer.
    -- Homer S.

  8. #18
    Senior Member IKnowNot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    I agree this law is unenforceable because of its wording, but I want to correct something stated.

    ...All they can do is request, they can't force you to take a urine test ...
    I don't know about Canada, but he in the US the US Supreme Court ( and most state courts ) have ruled that urine ( and blood ) are non-testimonial in nature, thus you have no right to refuse. The use of catheters has been upheld to retrieve such evidence ( under medically approved conditions by qualified personnel, ) along with strapping a person down.

    Although breath is also non-testimonial in nature it is much harder to retrieve without cooperation from the suspect. ( pouncing on someone's chest would be frowned upon. )

    That is why in some places if you refuse a breath test they can charge you with a refusal to take the test, but then bring you for a blood test so they get their evidence anyway, and you get a double hit.

    ( and yes, they need probable cause first )
    " And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes

  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    I actually have several friends that may find themselves in court soon defending themselves against a case of "unreasonable search and siezure". I wish that I had the exact details of what happened to them that night, but it sounds like the driver, age 19, blew clean. The police(for what reason, I don't know, and this will probably be the big point behind the case) then had the two passengers blow. These two were indeed intoxicated, both age 18, and probably were in no state of mind to defend their own rights.

    This law will be interesting to see in the future. I'll feel so bad for the first person to be charged and sentenced for this crime.
    Turn off the sun,
    Pull the stars from the sky.

  10. #20
    ********** |ceWriterguy
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Dalek - Re: urine sample testing

    You're quite correct in that THC and other chemicals stay in your system for extended periods of time (last I heard the only one that didn't was good ol' acid), but It's a moot point. The presence of THC in one's system by itself is not prosecutable. Joey Stoner could tell the authorities "Yes, I just got back from Amsterdam. I got stoned off my arse there on substances which are illegal in the US, and had a wonderful time. Here's the list of substances I took." And he'd still be free. He didn't commit a crime where he was.

    The exception to this rule:

    If Joey was on probation and failed his drug test they could revoke his probation and return him to prison...however, if he was on probation they wouldn't let him go to Amsterdam in the first place, so they could also prosecute him for illegal drug use (he couldn't go anywhere, so he stayed home and got stoned..).

    [edit]From Mrs |ce - if Joey has a criminal history of illegal drug usage in the US, they can use the urinalysis to prosecute him on the basis of 'once a stoner, always a stoner' or 'you cannot change a Leopard's spots' - but even there it's the HISTORY of usage, not the actual test that makes this viable. Each case is different.[/edit]

    Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

    Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

We have made updates to our Privacy Policy to reflect the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation.