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."
Well that was awfully nice of you to post about it on a prominent website.
Here's a clue: not all laws are just, and not all laws should be obeyed.
Don't even joke about "no snitching". It's a serious problem because people do not come forward to report crimes or give information. People are constantly exposed to this message through clothes (many varieties of 'no snitchin' shirts, hats) and primarily through rap.
It may seem funny but people really live in environments where the fear of retaliation for speaking with the police is so strong that they say nothing. The whole "no snitchin'" thing bolsters that message.
There is nothing funny about unsolved crime and criminals who go free because people are intimidated into not talking.
Let's prioritize. Start with dealing with those who are "breaking the fucking law" forbidding wars of aggression and torture. Then let's go after the ones swindling people out of billions. Then smaller-scale violent crime. Once we're done with those problems, maybe we can go after a few granola-munchers growing pot in their backyards, unless by that time the US gets its collective head unwedged and repeals the inane and repressive laws against cannabis.
Incidentally I'm not a cannabis user or grower. I don't like the high and make my money in other ways. I'm for legalization because it's the right thing to do, not because there's anything in it for me personally.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
There is nothing funny about unsolved crime and criminals who go free because people are intimidated into not talking.
There is when the "crime" in question is essentially gardening.
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
It's not black and white, and by treating it as such you risk disingenuousness. In this case there are different laws on the books for the same thing at the municipal, state, and federal level. Why? Because it's a hotly contested issue, which also means that some people feel strongly enough about it to put themselves at risk. Possession of even a decent amount in CA is a civil offense. A parking ticket. You don't have any of those, do you? Are you confident that everything in your house is up to building code?
Some people don't agree with having penalties for thoughtcrime. Some just think they can get away with it. I realize that laws are not "made to be broken", but those who defended the status quo during Jim Crow or Prohibition became history's losers, and rightly so. Plus, consider again the loss of privacy. I trust the system more than I trust some self-appointed vigilantes with internet access. But if this makes mainstream news, they will be judged and sentenced long before any cop arrives at their place.
Funny thing about the law: it applies to companies like Google just as well. Their quest to index the universe is at odds with people's right to privacy. Too bad. Find a business model that doesn't involve breaking the law. This is not the first of these stories. They lose the benefit of the doubt. I am left with one conclusion: that there's an unspoken rule for these drivers: "ignore those gates and signs, or we'll replace you with someone who will."
So your argument is that people shouldn't drive while high. That seems reasonable, just as people can't drive while drunk. As far as I can tell your argument makes the point that it should be controlled like alcohol, not illegal.
I'm as against drunk driving as anyone, and am even more against driving while high, but I am also highly against restrictions on these things while not driving. You should be free to get high on your own time as much as you want, just so long as you don't try to operate deadly machinery while doing it.
Banning an entire class of substances just because you don't want people driving while under their influence is ridiculous.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Dealing with unjust laws is what the courts are for.
At least in the US, that is 100% wrong. Courts are for interpreting laws and dealing with conflicts, real and apparent, between various layers of the law.
Dealing with unjust laws is explicitly not part of their remit. A relevant example to this case: someone growing or selling medical marijuana, even when they have a municipal license and are paying all their taxes, may not mention the medical nature of their selling in federal court, because the law in question doesn't excuse that.
Dealing with unjust laws is the responsibility of the citizenry. And, supposedly, the politicians, but I think they've forgotten.
That excuse is very weak - when you pay someone to do something, you take responsibility for the things they do to that end. You don't let a company off the hook for poor service because they outsource support to India, and people certainly don't get off the hook if they hire someone to murder someone for them.
Excuse a non American dude here, but if growing pot within the boundaries you describe is legal according to the state, how can it be illegal nationally?
Which one of the systems has precedence?
Excellent question. I believe the founding fathers of our country intended state law to take precedence.
Yeah, feel free to try and explain that to the guys in full swat team gear and automatic rifles.
I fully agree with you, mind you, but, the powers that be have decided they have the power to decide this, and, well, they have bigass firearms behind them.
Doesn't the 10th Amendment prohibit such federal laws?
Seastead this.
Yeah, weed should be legal for the rope and not because pot-heads want it. Very insightful.
...Banning an entire class of substances....
is only the beginning. I can see controlling people's behavior, that what they do may be needed, but NOT what they happen to possess. It is so easy to surreptitiously plant some illegal material or object in order to frame someone. People should be held responsible for what they DO, not what they merely HAVE. If some driver has an open bottle of booze in a car they could be tested for alcohol, but not punished for merely having the bottle.
If someone has some arbitrarily classified, so called illegal weapon in their house, they should not be punished merely for that fact, only if they threaten someone or in some other way DO something harmful with any object. One can beat someone to death with a baseball bat or cut someone's throat with a kitchen knife. Do we declare the ownership of baseball bats or knives illegal? A large fraction, if not the majority of the US prison population is there because they had something that was for mostly arbitrary reason declared to be illegal to merely own, even if they may not have done anything harmful to another.
Anyone who merely OWNS say a shotgun a quarter inch shorter than some arbitrarily decided length some politicians came up with, can be thrown in prison for simply that. Anyone who grows certain kinds of plants, which the Creator saw fit to put on our planet, can be punished for that. Anyone who simply HAS certain kinds of pictures or information can currently be sent to prison for a long time, regardless of what harm they have actually DONE with those pictures or information.
It is BEHAVIOR that people may DO with some of these things that should be looked at to see whether society is truly harmed, not whether they merely HAVE something that someone doesn't approve of.
All theory is gray
Ah yes, that lovely old fallacy, everyone that smokes pot ruins their life in doing so.
Just like everyone that ever had a beer is a hopeless drunk and lives in a gutter.
Federal law on this point preempts (trumps, overrules) state law on this point, thanks to the federal constitution.
What part of "enumerated powers" as well as the 10th amendment (sort of a "we really meant it!" amendment) do you not understand? Why not actually try reading your Constitution. Powers are only assigned to the Federal government by enumeration in the Constitution (expressly), otherwise powers are held by the States or the People. See the 10th.
C//
Couple of things:
1. Yes, people should not drive while attending collage. An ex-girlfriend's roommate did once. She'd stay awake the night before studying for an exam, wound up falling asleep at the wheel and rolled her SUV, killing her boyfriend. (This IS a true). So, following your logic, college, or at least exams, should be illegal. That being said, I am for pro-legalization, but allowing people to drive while high should not be legal.
2. First, I loathe tobacco. However, you're a moron. "These days"?!? Try 15 years ago you couldn't sit in a restaurant without some asshole's cigarette smoke killing the flavor of your food. I'm only 28 but I can still remember smoking "sections" on airplanes. However, walking through that smoke will not get you the buzz that the person actually smoking the cigarette is getting. What's that? You get a buzz from smoking a cigarette? Yes, you do. People don't just do it for fashion, you know. You can't get high just walking through a puff of smoke. Alcohol is legal. Do you think all bus drivers are drunk?
3. No one said that making pot legal would me a plethora of people smoking in a parking lot. You could make Amsterdam style coffee shops. Legal only on personal property, etc. Legal != presence everywhere
They don't always...but then the government does it for them.
rj
How about the other argument against drug bans: that banning the drug creates more harm than it removes. A major harm caused by banning drugs is that producing those drugs becomes a criminal activity, and so naturally criminals take over that activity. Another problem is that banning drugs causes the price of the drugs to go up dramatically. This makes drug users spend more of their money on drugs. The money goes to the criminals producing, importing, and selling the drugs. These criminals don't pay tax on their income, and use their money to protect their business, by corrupting law makers and law enforcers.
This is a major harm to society caused by banning drugs. Criminals can now get lots of money without much effort, or much risk. If the drugs were legal, the price would be much lower, and the money would go to legitimate businesses. Think about that, by banning drugs, we make criminals rich and powerful.
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.
I'll accept your final sentence - no one is force to patronize a private business. However, I'm astounded that the post has been rated insightful. As I can't mod it down myself, I'll highlight some of the major errors in the argument for others:
You could, however, eat in the non-smoking section.
You do realise that the smoking and non-smoking sections are often in the same room? Smoke circulates throughout the room and often ignores signs telling it to stay in a certain area.
No one forces you to work or spend time there. Let the market win on that one...if a place can make more money or just chooses to be smoke free, that should be their choice.
Your argument is that large and small businesses should be allowed to do what they want if they make money from it? You also suggest that staff should accept that they have to breathe cigarette smoke for several hours at a time, irrespective of the long-term health concerns b/c they are being paid?
Seriously?