Slashdot Mirror
Google Caught On Private Property
nathan halverson writes "Google recently launched Street View coverage in Sonoma and Mendocino counties — big pot growing counties. And while they hardly covered the area's biggest city, Santa Rosa, they canvassed many of the rural areas known for growing pot. I found at least one instance where they drove well onto private property, past a gate and no trespassing sign, and took photographs. I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking, but someone is likely to find some pot plants captured on Street View. That could cause big problems for residents. Because while growing a substantial amount of pot is legal in Mendocino and Sonoma County under state law, it's highly illegal under federal law and would be grounds for a federal raid."
Don't snitch.. online.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Where is the Google link then?
I need "directions to this location".
Well that was awfully nice of you to post about it on a prominent website.
Most pot growing is still illegal under California Law. Under Prop 215 you can grow pot for personal use provided your doctor has prescribed it.
People who are busy breaking the law might get in trouble because of Google Streetview.
Here is an interesting idea: Don't break the fucking law.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
How can a state tell you that you are allowed to violate a federal law? And, what happens if the feds do raid? Would you be able to make an arguable case in court on the premise that the state in which you reside said it is ok to violate the federal law?
Hoping someone can shed a little more light on this.
BrickerEnterprises.Com - Innovation at work
its whatever local company they contracted to do that business. they contract different companies in every country.
Read radical news here
And this article is about what? Are you (1) complaining about Google trespassing, (2) about pictures taken being incriminating for civilians, (3) about the preponderance of pot in the locales mentioned, or (4) an indirect pot shot at drugs not being legal?
Drugs are social nuisances and cause problems. While I wouldn't like Google people walking over my back yard, I don't see why revealing where growing of illegal drugs take place is a problem.
As someone from outside the US, I'm a bit (actually, rather much) stumped by the claim
that the legal status of doing something depends on who looks at the matter.
I know there are differing laws about some things e.g. in Germany on state and federal level,
but there are exact procedures on how to resolve such a conflict of law, and by result, in a single
place, something is either legal or not.
Completely independent from whether a matter is handled by state or federal police.
I would have suspected the same here: That in one place, doing $foo is either legal or not.
That this may very well differ from the legality of doing $foo in another place.
But that it would never be legal or illegal in a single place, just depending on who checks on people doing $foo.
Can anyone explain that please?
... great, CNN has iReporters, now it seems that we have iCops as well ...
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Look, if you haven't figured out that Google and the governments of the countries they are in work closely together on everything from data mining to monitoring your activities by now... well you're just a fool.
That's what we pay the CIA and DHS security goon squads to do, spy on everyone (but you of course, you're special and they aren't watching you).
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Anyway, would have, not would of. Sheesh.
Doesn't marijuana grow naturally? How can the mere presence of plants, unless they were obviously cultivated, be illegal?
Well, besides the fact that anyone who's got no job, an internet connection and a hankerin' for some weed can just go google-maps-weed-hunting... I think "snitching" is the best form of neighborhood control.
... all it takes for evil to win, is that good men do nothing.
If someone is doing something that isn't right, and you don't stop them, you're basically helping them do their incorrect business.
Not that pot is 'evil', but
Don't forget the National Search Agency [sic]. I hear they have quite the computational capability.
the massive amount the cops are spending is doing nothing to discourage use, and all that really happens is that:
A: Drug lords can make massive amounts of cash while engaging in very shady practices
B: People's lives are ruined because they were caught setting small amounts of plants on fire(meanwhile idiots light up massive amounts of the legal plants in giant bonfires are a risk to themselves and others and yet go unpunished)
C: Massive amounts of tax payer money are wasted chasing the former, and if they find them, even more is wasted putting them in a prison where they are no longer productive to society and branding them with a record that will cost them even more(and probably cause them to go from productive to an even BIGGER burden on society)
Legalize it for use in homes, but make sure if someone is stupid enough to do it and go out driving that you bust their asses.
Monstar L
Oh, come on. If you're growing illegal (in some jurisdictions) plants within plain sight of an easily-accessible road -- even if people must go down it by accident some distance -- then that's pretty stupid.
Plant the stuff *behind* the house or some other optical barrier, and put up a "No tresspassing" sign.
I suppose a "robots.txt" sign wouldn't hurt either. :-)
What I want to know is how in the hell did we get to the point of allowing any governmental body to declare a plant that grows normally in nature to be illegal on the grounds that it is bad for us? Sticking a knife in my eyes or eating poisonous mushroom or rubbing poisin ivy all over my body is bad for me too, you know. Do I need a f*cking federal law for that? I don't think so. I am tired of people being so complacent about their liberty as to allow the government to walk all over them.
We should vote every politician out of office who supports these kinds of dumb laws that infringe on the people's freedom or insult their intelligence.
Dealing with unjust laws is what the courts are for.
No they are not. The courts implement, interpret, and enforce laws. They do NOT have the role of declaring a given law as being unjust. At most, judges can make legal comment with regard to inconsistency of a particular law or other problems of a technical nature. And the dear public sitting in the jury benches has no freedom to comment on the law whatsoever.
Politicians are of course totally unable to repeal unjust laws. The bribe money is stuffed far too high up their arseholes.
Which leaves us with public disobediance and concerted pressure on corporates as the only means of "dealing with unjust laws".
I think I have a Slot 1 Mendocino somewhere in the junk drawer. Might as well overclock it to death and get experienced with the magic smoke...
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Google StreetView now has all of the major U.S. cities covered. Except the Washington, D.C. area. Of the top forty metropolitan areas in the US, Google has all of them covered except #8, the Washington D.C. area, and #20, the Baltimore area. There's no StreetView data for a 75-mile radius around Washington. They've covered Wilmington, DE and Richmond, VA, both about 100 miles from Washington, but that's as close as they get.
They're working on rural areas of California. They've worked down to Knoxville, TN, Greenville, NC, and Boise, IH. So it can't be accidental that they've avoided Washington.
One wonders why.
I don't see dope mentioned anywhere in what you cite.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You said it ... those kind've speling mistakes make me loose my temper.
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
Just replace them with plastic pot plants - our local supermarket cafe actually has plastic pot plants that have 5 point leaves with the central point the longest and the side points the sdhortest.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
The war on drugs is a war on people. The drugs rarely actually get hurt.
Quack, quack.
It's Google. Google publishes pictures which were taken on private property without permission. Sure, the company contracted to take the pictures deserves to be punished as well, but Google can't point at them and deny responsibility. It's not a copyright issue, so they can't weasel out of it with a DMCA-style opt-out either.
The DEA undoubtedly has access to plenty of super secret spy satellites that would allow them to read the license plates on the trucks servicing the pot plants you claim can be seen by street view...in real time. Street maps is of no relevance in this instance.
I don't think legalizing it goes far enough. There should be no laws about planting marijuana on your property whatosoever. Why? For the same reason that there is no law about planting roses or tomatoes or even poison ivy. Liberty above all. Either you live in a fascist country or you don't. We, the citizens, should not tolerate it, one way or another.
You can really get a sense of the staleness and unpopularity of marijuana laws- as opposed to laws dealing with methamphetamine and meth labs for example- by the reactions you see if you scroll down. Google drives past a pot farm taking pictures and everyone starts screaming at them about snitching.
There was a story on Digg about 200 pounds of marijuana that went to the wrong address, and the recipient immediately called the police. Everyone there was incredulous. Someone remarked that the only phone call they'd make would be to Pizza Hut.
If this trend keeps up it will be only a matter of time before restaurants start handing you a joint with your menu.
meh.
If Almight Google weren't involved this non-story wouldn't have even been posted.
Were that I say, pancakes?
Ha. Haha. HahahahahawhawhawHAWHAWHAWHAW.
Sorry. (Sniff. Heehee.)
Well, they'd like you to think so anyway.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Doesn't the 10th Amendment prohibit such federal laws?
Seastead this.
Releases are to avoid getting sued for violating someone's rights of publicity. You aren't required to do it because of some law. Do you really think Google is without lawyers? They obviously believe that they're within their rights to publicly post photographs of people who were photographed in public, just as I am within my rights to photograph people in public and post them. What I can be sued for is to use your likeness as the label for my products, as this violates your ability to control the use of your image for commercial purposes. Your photo sitting on the side of the road (harvesting pot plants, perhaps) sitting in a photo database that has to do with looking at a location and not to sell something? Google is doing Streetview perfectly correctly.
Arrest God! We've got a written confession, He admitted that he made cannabis. Here's part of the confession: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:11-12) Look it's right there in black and white. This God fellow made grass, the herb yielding seed, and he said that it was good! Somebody tell the DEA where God is so they can bust him.
As for The War Against Everything, isn't it time some brave leader tried declaring peace? How about "The Peaceful Attempt To Reduce The Harm Caused By Drug Abuse"? Give peace a chance?
The War Against Cannabis will probably have to stop soon, when we go back to the Hemp For Victory days. People are going to have to start growing large fields of hemp to convert carbon dioxide into plant fibers which can be used to build things. Has anybody got a graph of what happened to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels before and after they banned hemp growing? Go on, you know you want to abuse statistics.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced he will not enforce any marijuana laws broken by officials in the Bush administration, citing executive privilege.
I have more sympathy for those people whose property Google or a subcontractor has trespassed upon who didn't grow anything illicit. We all knew that there is no expectation of privacy on public roads, but if it's a private road with a sign saying "Keep Out!" then that's a different thing. As for those outlaw garderners, you've got the vote. Don't like the law? Change it, or move over to some place where growing that particular crop is legal. But don't complain if you break the law and subsequently get caught one way or the other.
Can someone explain how something can be legal in a small area, yet illegal in a broader and encompassing area?
The other way around I can understand; a country saying "this is okay" and a town saying "fine but we're having none of that around here". That's a matter of more fine-grained definitions, but what's described in the blurb is rather going against what the higher-ups are saying. Or not? Enligten me, please. :)
"Good news, everyone!"
U.S. states are not just jurisdictional division. They're actually quasi-sovereign entities, with their own laws, their own courts, even their own armies. Only specific powers are ceded to the federal government.
That's the theory, and there's always been a conflict between the theory and the practice. (The worst war in American history was a very literal conflict over this very issue.) And over the years, "states rights" have steadily eroded. Those state armies, for example, are now known as the National Guard and for most purposes, they're effectively under the control of the Feds. There have been many changes to the Constitution that took rights away from the states, most notably the 14th amendment.
The end result is that you have a constant legal tug-of-war between the federal legal system and the state. In some cases, federal law always has the last word, but not always. In this particular case, there's no legal principle that says that the state has to help the federal government enforce its anti-drug laws. So if you have a stash of medicinal marijane and live in California, you can't be busted by a city, county, or state copy; you just show them your special ID card. But it won't protect you from the DEA.
just a couple of major details.
The 10th Amendment, and the fact that the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to prohibit growing crops for personal use (or even for intrastate commerce), and the the 9th Amendment (growing plants/crops on one's own land is a completely natural right).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
... to get to our property.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
It's not trespass in California until someone asks you to leave and you refuse.
The DEA undoubtedly has access to plenty of super secret spy satellites that would allow them to read the license plates on the trucks servicing the pot plants you claim can be seen by street view...in real time. Street maps is of no relevance in this instance.
Short of a license plate being left in a window faced upward, how do you propose that satellites can get a viewable angle of the plate?
Does google selects the actual streets, or only points a broad area for the driver to cover? If it's the latter then here's the top 10 reasons for the driver starting there:
I'm surprised they haven't gotten a few citations from their own evidence. Even near my metro Atlanta residence, they've taped themselves performing 3 traffic violations that I noticed...
Naww,, but there is this program called CAMP.. and they fly all around in helicopters looking for pot.. Personally I doubt that street view is going to find much. Most people are not stupid enough to grow in plain view of even their private access roads.. It's grown away from you in amongst the Manzanitas.. and often on nearby public land.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
You never come in to land.
Says who? Most drug users are perfectly normal when not using.
So tell me what keeps you from getting behind the wheel?
If the penalty is severe and social stigma high then what remains of your judgement will suffice. I can't speak to other drugs, but I know that I have never thought it was a good idea to drive while under the influence of alcohol, despite how it may otherwise affect judgement. I may not be able to stand up or figure out anything complicated, but I can still remember that I shouldn't drive a car.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
OK, first of all no medical MJ patient in their right mind would grow OUTDOORS. The cops are not the only problem--there is also theft and even armed robbery.
Second, Google needs to be extra careful in rural areas. There are many places where the roads are privately owned but may not be clearly marked (there is one in my home neighborhood in unincorporated Sonoma county, in fact). The county knows about these full well (they won't pave them, for example). Google needs to check the land ownership records before they publish pictures... but this has nothing to do with pot growing, nor did TFA...
If you're high on drugs, can you be relied to make sane and logical decisions such as not driving?
that if the Supremes say that green is in fact red, it's true?
BS, and BS to Wickard v Filburn, too. We are not a nation of law, and haven't been for many years. It's all a disingenuous, self-serving scam to keep the proles in their place.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
well, according to slashdot...noaa says you can't take pictures of the EARTH with clearance. the whole EARTH. Google loses.
Federal officials lashed out at Google calling it "very irresponsible" to post detailed street view of these areas online. Their main concern is that the property owners may use the detailed street view to plot their getaway should there be a raid.
people shouldn't be growing marijuana anyways. if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be worried.
I had to tell Google to GTFO my property. They came in past a no trespassing sign and started taking pictures.
How about they start by not breaking the fucking law that protects my property?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I know it's not cool, but I'm glad pot is illegal.
So many people I've seen end up wasting their life and giving all these stupid reasons why so many other things are worse than pot. Other things being worse don't make pot any better.
The worst ones are the stoners who constantly push hemp clothes and crap or try to get things legalized for cancer patients when what they really want is to get high. I'm all for making a legal schedule II drug for cancer patients as long as they increase the penalty for people who abuse it at the same time.
Not a troll, just my opinion.
A drug ban would only work if every single psychoactive substance was banned. I think that pot is less harmful that booze, and that heroin is less harmful that cocaine.
the main problems with 'illegal' drugs, is the drug seeking behavior.
Funny, since the main problem with legal drugs (booze, smokes) is the behaviour that comes AFTER injestion - drunken fights, smelly people.
uh, yeah, either that or look for pit-bulls. If weed were legal, we wouldn't need pit bulls....
I've lived in a similar dope growing region of Northern New South Wales in Australia. People put private property signs up on their dead end streets way before their own boundary lines. Perhaps they thought it didn't matter but they were effectively stealing a public right of access to drive in some sections of beautiful forest. Some even put up offensive skull and crossbones signs. It used to really annoy me.
Good on the Google car for obeying the map and not recognising these illegal attempts to pretend that public roads are private driveways...
"I like my privacy, and this feels like an invasion of that," said Janet Tobin, who lives on the property. "My friends already know how to get here. I don't need the whole world coming to my door."
Honestly this woman is so stupid she has no expectation to privacy. Now anyone can Google her name and find her dumbass.
Janet Tobin, I have news for you, no one is coming to your dam door, your a nobody.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
I don't care what Google wants to take pictures of. I think it is dead wrong. It is an invasion of privacy in my view. I don't like satellites taking detailed pictures of my property and publishing it to the word. It seems just damn invasive. I think Google Earth and Street View should be shutdown and taken off line FOREVER! This is coming from a guy who thinks government should be minimal at best, but this is an infringement on my privacy and the law should take action against these offenders and any alike. Government should also be limited in using these privacy infringing devices as well.
My questions now are:
(1) How much time do they spend actually looking at what they have photographed, before making it available online?
(2) What would be the most embarrasing thing (for them to photograph and use) that I could "plant" in my yard for them, for "next time"
(3) If there will be a "next time", when?
I see a potential for some real fun here.
-NK
Google is EVIL.
Google is anti-privacy
Google is Big-Brother
Google needs to be STOPPED.
Maybe the cops have become more annoying to parts of society than the criminals.
I remember reading about someone speaking on the 'Stop Snitchin' campaign. His point was that people on the street should stand up for what's right and be ready to snitch on one of their own -- the day the cops themselves are willing to.
Actions speak louder than words and this action scream out loud.
What part of DO NOT TRESPASS do these people not get?
They get it all right, but they don't care. For them, it's enough to say "call us and complain" or "we'll remove it if you sue us". Well, what about the giant yellow and black ROBOTS.TXT in front of my property? Why isn't that good enough?
They want to be trusted with your email, your photos, your files, the details of your life. They want to intrude and invade. They will tell you that you should trust them and let them in because they do no evil. Google is god, they would never do bad and they just store data, they never use it.
Well fuck you Google, you are evil because you don't give a shit about the harm you may do, only that you can get what you want. Just another rich greedy asshole out to make a dime at someone else's expense. Learn some respect for privacy, I know it may be hard since you as a company hate that word.
Bunch a whiny babies who can't think for themselves.
Report Google Maps Inapropriate Image
...as long as the police don't tell them to do it (or can fake that they didn't), it's addmissible in court.
What do you want to bet that he got lost on purpose. Where's Cheech?
Personal webpages and wikipedia supposedly as evidence... try the fuck again.
You need to loose that extra 'o'.
Now that's just silly. They try to keep the bigass guns IN FRONT of them.
Wasn't the post about privacy? If you haven't read the NYer piece regarding medical marijuana, it's good:
http://tinyurl.com/59wwcg
As to the trespassing re: Google, this is an issue that will be on the forefront of litigation for the next few years. What are the statutes they are working with?
Well, I don't know about the other ones, but Erowid isn't generally known as a drug scare site. Rather, it has material from several sources. In any case, it definitely doesn't count as an anti-psychoactives propaganda site.
Well, a fight with gravity maybe. Gravity tends to win, especially when taking down baked stoners.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Around here, they would have been shot at. If you see a red X on a tree you better turn around cuz that means someone's fixing to shoot at you. If you actually see a sign you can figure that you're already in somebody's sights.
Course, now we've got that nice castle law so if my residence is on the property, I don't even need a sign to shoot you dead in my front yard.
Now, those pot growers up in northern Cali will shoot at you real fast too. I wonder when we'll be seeing the first dead streetview driver.
Is Google using their own equipment exclusively, or are they partnering with others who are doing similar work? My wife used to work indirectly for county auditors, and sometimes used photo vans. They had a rebuttable right to be on posted property--They couldn't open gates, but they could go past "no trespassing" signs (on a driveway) unless the residents specifically objected.
Just reading the article and I wonder if this guy even did any research. Google does not do any data gathering for their maps or for streetview. They use third party companies for the content like navteq which actually provides the data to the majority of the GPS with system. And i think navteq outsources streetview to other companies. One of them is teleatlas.com. I saw the truck once and was hoping to see my car on the map but it never made it. http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/help/terms_maps.html
I work for a Big Telecom Company, and one of the things we have to do is push the LEC out to make repairs on their equipment. From fibercuts to dead smartjacks, our ability to function revolves around our ability to get telco onsite as quickly and easily as possible.
The customer NOC's often have no clue as to what kind of access hours the end user keeps, or even what sort of conditions there are, such as security gates. It's not that they don't necessarily *have* this info, it just takes them forever to find it. Add the fact that the NOC is also in Bangalore, and you've got a clusterf$ck.
Using Google, I can not only find the customer's address, I can also find their web page. From there, I can find the access hours, local contact and phone numbers. Sattelite view tells me what kind of place I'm sending telco out to. Military base, business park, rural area...you name it.
By switching to Street View, I can often identify the precise nature of the location, as well as any key landmarks that will help guide the field tech to the site. I've had to give a field tech step-by-step instructions more than once, too.
"No-no...turn LEFT at the red building with the white doors. THERE! That antenna tower, that's the one. The combo lock is on the gate...blah-blah-blah..."
I've also managed to scare the bejabbers out of a few CO techs and testers by telling them precisely where they are, right down to suggesting they get a relaxing cup of coffee from the Dunkin Donuts next door. And yes, I'm aware of the irony of that statement.
And sometimes, I can even use StreetView to determine business hours. Hotel? 24-7. Gas farm? 0730-1700. Government? 0800-1600. Military reserve depot? 0700-1530.
StreetView is a tool, just like a ballpeen hammer. And just like any tool, including a ballpeen hammer, it can be used for bad things.
[End Of Line]
You can thank the "liberal" justices of the Supreme Court (plus Scalia) for ruling in Gonzales v. Raich that growing marijuana on your personal property for personal consumption falls within the scope of the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.
Though this bit of caselaw was basically set some decades ago for different reasons, in more of an ends-versus-means gamble that turned out badly. In the civil rights era, "interstate commerce" was interpreted in kind of unlikely ways in order to give federal civil-rights laws effect, to e.g. consider a restaurant owner who has a single location in a single state to be engaged in "interstate commerce", using the somewhat dubious argument that some of his suppliers might buy things from out of state, making him transitively engaged in interstate commerce.
Given that precedent, liberal jurists now basically have to, and did, say that federal drug laws are okay.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Alas, am aware of all that. It's ridiculous on its face, though, as it was with inarguable obviousness not even an inkling of the intent of those who put together our government to begin with.
It would be as if to say that our then-founders, presently suspicious of the sorts of powers that unrestricted governments wield... English Monarchy dontcha know... would insert words into the Constitution meaning that "well, we just wrote all that limiting stuff, but if you can squeeze your idea even thinly into 'commerce' or 'general welfare' you can do just anything."
Preposterous. The very idea boggles.
Sadly, we don't really have a Constitutional government today in any real sense.
Amendments are no longer needed.
C//
I grew up in Mendocino County.
Measure G passed in 2000. This is a county ordinance that allows for people to grow up to 25 female marijuana plants for personal use (i.e. not for sale) legally.
http://www.canorml.org/news/mendorelse.html
http://stopthedrugwar.org/in_the_trenches/2007/apr/25/amma_press_release_victory_mendo
I'm not sure, but this ordinance seems compatible with the statewide Proposition 215. It is still illegal under federal law, of course.
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
Well, I don't know about the other ones, but Erowid isn't generally known as a drug scare site.
I don't know - Erowid does have it's fair share of "I did pot, coke, mecaline, meth and acid within 4 hours" stories in the experience vaults. A fair bit of those should scare the hell out of anyone (and work as a great source for trolls)
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Now that's being loose with Os.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
"Aren't cops in the good ol' United States employed in a more buddy buddy system where someone is "elected" and then hires all their buddies?"
Yes, in fact, it's happening right now in my small Mendocino County town.
The police chief has been bringing in "buddies" from his former County.
It totally sucks because they have no connection to our town at all.
a sack of flour is a compound substance that has exact formulae of components known.
yet, no restaurant is required to check every ounce of flour they use in their products. its the SUPPLIERS' DUTY.
it seems to me that you just want to bash google and produce exorbitant excuses for it. and for some reason youre posting anonymous but tracking the thread. really annoying.
Read radical news here
restaurant receives flour sacks with proper best before dates. its the supplier that is smuggling in bad flour. what happens ?
Read radical news here
Yeah, assuming of course that your definition of a troll is someone who informs the public of facts that you just so happen to disagree with.
Marijuana is a hallucinogen, a dissociative, and can cause acute toxic and psychotic experiences; depersonalization and flashbacks are reported and they can persist and recur. This is reported in the literature, and reflected in the erowid vault.
Yeah, people who have a nightmare on weed are going to probably avoid it, and tell other people about that nightmare. It's not unusual for plants to have poisons targeting specific predators, sometimes while inviting others. And it's not unusual or wrong for those people to let everyone know the truth about the potential dangers of a drug.
If someone does too much of a drug and it seriously effs them up and they have flashbacks, why the hell shouldn't they warn people? Maybe you should just come to grips with the fact that marijuana is far from harmless instead of being a jackass brushing that under the carpet.
Obama said he would not have any more of the public's money wasted on raids over marijuana. Vote Obama! McCain is highly against medical marijuana whereas Obama is for it. I'd much rather put natural pain killers such as marijuana in my body than strange tablets I don't know anything about.
If you decide that drug-law is a states rights issue you allow Utah to make sale or possession of condoms a crime.
Modded troll, but damn, that's a good point.