# marijuana **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 26, 2000, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786 "2000-08-26T02:06:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/21 "2000-08-26T19:07:56Z")
Whoops, I was wrong. It’s not the Supreme Court of Canada, it’s the Ontario Court of Appeals. If the law isn’t rewritten, dope will become legal (whether just in Ontario or nationwide is unclear). However, since 3 out of 4 Canadians are opposed to marijuana laws, hopefully the law will simply be dropped. Here are some links: [http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/08/01/marijuana000801](http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/08/01/marijuana000801) [http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/08/01/skmedmarj000801](http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/08/01/skmedmarj000801) [http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/07/31/marijuana000731](http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/07/31/marijuana000731) [http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/07/31/000731drug](http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/07/31/000731drug) ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/22 "2000-08-26T19:33:36Z")
The Hyde bill is of note to anyone dealing with any police agency in the U.S. From the [Forfeiture Endangers American Rights](http://www.fear.org/) website: > [@](#): > > Starting in 1984, federal police began a program began called “Equitable Sharing” or “Federal Adoption,” which allowed the federal police to recruit state and local police to work for them in seizing property under federal statutes. Under this law, local or state police could seize property – even if the seizure was invalid under state law – and turn it over to the federal government for forfeiture under a federal statute. If the federal forfeiture case was resolved favorably to the police, the feds would split the proceeds with the local cops – **even if the forfeiture would have been totally illegal under state law** , and even if their motivation in going federal was only to evade state law. > > As the 1984 amendments to the federal forfeiture laws grew in popularity among the police elements that profitted from them, state forfeiture laws were expanded to cut out the middleman – the federal government. Across the country, state governments have stumbled all over themselves trying to enact state forfeiture statutes as draconian as the federal statutes, so that state and local police can keep all they seize. Forfeiture laws treat the property in question as the transgressor, so when they seize your car they’re punishing it for its part in a crime. From the same site: > [@](#): > > The Federal Law: > In order to seize your property, the federal government only requires probable cause that there is a nexus, or connection, between your property and a drug crime. Once the agents have probable cause they can seize your property. You have 10 days in which to post a bond equal in value to 10% of the property. If you fail to post the bond you lose your property, and you never get your day in court. Assuming you can afford to post the bond, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you didn’t know about the connection between your property and the crime. 45 states have asset forfeiture laws modeled on federal law. An anecdote from my own personal experience: A friend of mine got pulled over by the Waller County (Texas) Sheriff’s Department and somebody (3 people in the car) tossed 3 joints out the window. Knowing they couldn’t pin the dope on anyone in particular, nor prove that all three occupants had knowledge of the presence of contraband, the Sheriff’s Department never filed charges (of course, they all got to spend the weekend in the County Jail). But the car was seized and never returned (my friend could not come up with a cost bond in time and was advised by an attorney that he would likely lose anyway). ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/23 "2000-08-26T19:35:38Z")
Many times, no matter the obvious reality, you will be charged with “intent to distribute” just because… …I don’t know how many people sucessfully fight off the charge, but it still must be a pain. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/24 "2000-08-26T20:11:31Z")
Beatle, The authorities have to have a reason for working with the feds. They will **never** work willingly with the feds…too much paperwork. A joint, or a bag, or anything under a felony won’t persuade a local cop to work with the feds just to get your car. Your friend should have fought it. Thanks GaWd for California law. Myrr, in California, it’s so difficult to prove possesion with intent to sell that it rarely happens unless there **is** intent to sell. A while back, in my younger and dumber days, I was busted. Aside from an illegal search, the cop found a scale and bags. He threatened intent to sell up and down all night long, but since he found nothing but a personal stash of less than a gram(“mistakenly” logged as 18 gms. in the police report), all he did was write me up for for possesion of less than an ounce. Since intent to sell was and is so difficult to prove, he took the weed, wrote my ticket, and returned all of my property(which included my scales, bags, and drug paraphenalia). No proof of intent, no seizure. THat’s the way it works here. THink he wanted to work with the feds to take my property? hell no! Too much trouble, no proof. This isn’t Tx, and this isn’t any other state with ridiculously fascist pot laws, but they’re following the law(to a certain extent). Now try having 400 pounds of dope…think that’ll get federal involvement? you betcha! -Sam ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/25 "2000-08-26T20:59:57Z")
Well, GaWd, you seem pretty comfy with the situation in CA, about which I know little. I don’t know where zebbmx is, but the fact remains you _can_ lose your car to the local cops for a joint in a large part of the U.S.; the local departments have significant financial incentives to work both the state laws as well as work with the feds (and sure, the feds are going to be called in for the bigger stuff). Just down the road from me, Lake Charles, Louisiana is notorious for grabbing stuff off of I-10. Recent developments in the Bay area: [Appeals court OKs confiscation in soliciting drugs or prostitution](http://www.free-market.net/cgi/redir.cgi?http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/2000/07/25/NEWS13395.dtl) [Supervisor Brown revives proposal to confiscate vehicles allegedly used in drugs or prostitution](http://www.free-market.net/cgi/redir.cgi?http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/2000/08/01/METRO3430.dtl) ---
**Author:** ![hypergirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/49beb7/32.png) [@hypergirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hypergirl)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/26 "2000-08-26T22:18:17Z")
mari-juana is baaad, mmmkay? dont do mari-juana, cuz mari-juana is baaad. Mmmkay. ---
**Author:** ![zebbmx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/958977/32.png) [@zebbmx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zebbmx)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/27 "2000-08-26T23:21:20Z")
mmkay hypergirl…Sure you arent on a dpe trip yourself? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/28 "2000-08-26T23:45:04Z")
Beatle- I know of these 2 ordinances. SF’s was knocked down, and Oakland’s new proposition won’t fly very far either. If you read the entire article, you come across this: > [@](#): > > He said there was one recent exception: the owner of a $5,000 car, represented by a lawyer, won a ruling from a judge that its seizure for a $20 marijuana purchase was an excessive penalty. > > “To those whose vehicles have been seized, it feels like a city extortion racket,” Schlosser said. Even if the ordinance survives state Supreme Court review, he said, its harsh provisions, such as the lack of an exemption for innocent owners, will raise constitutional questions in individual cases. There has already been one overturned punishment, and they expect the constitutionality of the ordinance to be questioned entirely. Add to that the re-opening of Oakland’s Cannabis clubs, and most likely the opening of an SF club not too far off and you have some severely hypocritical laws fighting each other. This, like “Smoke a joint, Lose your license”, will be thrown out, or allowed to lapse. Am I comfy with the situation where I live? Hell yes. Two reasons. 1- I’m clean 2- With the exception of the occasional fascist asshole cop in San Jose, pot is a very, VERY minor offense. I’m sorry that other states can’t be as open-minded as we are in California, but the time will come(give it, say, 20 years?), when a majority of states have more lax legistlation on Pot. over 8 states have passed decriminalization laws, or compassionate use laws already. And like you said already- > [@](#): > > but the fact remains you can lose your car to the local cops for a joint While this is true, it doesn’t jive with your citing of the Hyde act. State and local authorities **can** seize your property, but it’s not federal, so it doesn’t fall under Hyde. ---
**Author:** ![Mammie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/49beb7/32.png) [@Mammie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mammie)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/29 "2000-08-27T01:30:05Z")
I fine this discussion very interesting. There are a couple of things I’d like to ask…sorry for the slight sidetrack. Why, oh why do people take it with them when they go somewhere? Seems to me that is as bad as transporting alcohol and just asking to get busted. Seems to me that the only reason a person would carry it with them would be to sell it, or is it because they have to have it so often or what? Now you can call me dumb, naive (sp), and old,(I’d rather you called me Mammie,) but I’d like some input here. Splain to me, please. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/30 "2000-08-27T02:05:51Z")
Mammie. Much of the reason for using marijuana is for the experience. However the experience of hitin it in your house becomes routine very quickly. So you want to experience it in places like the movie theater, on top of a mountain, swimming in the local creek, and whatever. To get it to those places you have to carry it with you. Nobody I know carries more than a usable ammount, unless they are picking up or delivering. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/31 "2000-08-27T02:09:08Z")
P.S. most of the people I know who were busted with a little bit of pot only got caught becuase the where actively trying to avoid driving after smoking, so they kept it with them till they got there. In high pot areas there is a sometimes a bit of a gentlemen’s agreement between the cops and the users that if the driver isn’t high, but has some pot on him, it will get overlooked. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786/32 "2000-08-27T05:17:03Z")
**GaWd** posted: > [@](#): > > And like you said already- > > ## quote: > > ## but the fact remains you can lose your car to the local cops for a joint > > While this is true, it doesn’t jive with your citing of the Hyde act. State and local authorities can seize your property, but it’s not federal, so it doesn’t fall under Hyde. While I can see what confusion may have been created by my brief post: > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## The only time you’d be up to forfeit your property is, once again, if they can prove you intended on distributing what you have in your posession. > > Historically, forfeiture hasn’t required proof of anything, nor even the filing of any charge. > > Three days ago, the Hyde bill went into effect and its modification of civil asset forfeiture law include the abolishment of the cost bond that was a big part of the problems with asset forfeiture abuse by police agencies. The post does not state that forfeiture is a consideration solely in federal prosecutions. It is, in fact, a large factor in state (which includes county and municipal) actions. The gist of the post was to counter the assertion that some kind of proof of intent to distribute is required for forfeiture. It is not. The mention of the Hyde bill was meant to report that _some_ efforts at reform are underway and its effect is of note as federal law in this area has had the effect of wagging the state dogs. Nevertheless, the brevity of the post apparently had the effect of producing the impression that federal actions alone could result in forfeiture. So, I apologize for any confusion wrought; I mainly meant to counter the wrong assertion that proof of intent to distribute is required for forfeiture. On to the **Mammie** and **Wolfman** discussion (we’ve certainly traveled a bit from the 1/8 of an ounce, haven’t we?). Wolf makes a plausible assertion that marijuana carrying travelers transport the stuff in order to imbibe on the scene of their anticipated experience. That may cover some of the dope busts in a car scenarios, but hardly covers all. A lot of dope smokers do it everywhere they go and just carry it because they’re going to want some whenever they get to the next stop on the line. I dunno; how many stopped in traffic busts are there? I used to get searched on a regular basis - long-haired guy in the ‘60s - now I can’t even get a cop to look at me. Long hair means nothing anymore - what makes a cop decide to search you? I used to think people who put marijuana leaf decals on the back windows of their vans were either very crazy or very stupid. Apparently that no longer grabs the cops’ attention. So, to get busted on a traffic stop requires something extra in the info you give off to a cop. What’s that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marijuana/30786.md?page=1)