Careful driving toward and away from Vedauwoo/ BS traffic stops

J Q wrote: Now,he has graduated to grandstanding creeper who takes the law into his own hands, classic. Not a perspective based on personal experience or objective studies, but one based on fear and authority. And if you challenge his authority, he's gonna send someone to "talk to you" all right!

As I said before: "I like to bring out the dick in my detractors."
Call this success #2.

I read the links that were posted & am pretty familiar with the issue already, having been an advocate for drug law reform for some time.
I think current limits in CO and WA need revised upwards.
But stoners don't help with that. They hurt the cause. Ever see one testify in a committee hearing? I have...
"There goes our support in the legislature..."

It is driving on the stuff that is going to get it or keep it banned.
People that do it and brag about it are the worst- they don't even have to cause an accident to create a problem for those who keep it recreational or medical.
So I'll sure offer them the opportunity to turn themselves in if they think it is something that they want to do. How is that taking the law into my own hands?

Also... I'm a drug counselor now? Tell me more about myself, please... I'd like to know more!
You've always been an troll. Not much to graduate to from there. That's kinda sad.

Tony B wrote: "Pro-tip"? I guess! The mind wanders here. Just how often do you have to be stoned, and how often do you have to be getting pulled over to have a significant amount of experience with talking to cops so recently after toking? Please stop driving like that. As for what you do when walking- I couldn't care less.

I rarely drive stoned. Did you read the rest of the post?
Most of the encounters were in daily life out and about town.
I only referenced the driving encounter since it was my first experience with hash and dealing with an officer.
Your reading comprehension is quite poor for a non smoker.

goatboy wrote: I rarely drive stoned. Did you read the rest of the post? Most of the encounters were in daily life out and about town. I only referenced the driving encounter since it was my first experience with hash and dealing with an officer. Your reading comprehension is quite poor for a non smoker.

Yeah, I read the whole post. As for reading comprehension... I do OK. When you admit (profess) to driving stoned on an occasion, can you claim surprise at someone for saying: "Please stop driving like that." One cen gerneally presume that if you are stoned a lot, and admit to being pulled over for it once, that it is not the one and only time you drove like that.
Even if claimed "rarely" later, which if said in present tense is more than once, and not declared in the past... it would imply that you intend to do it again. So where was my misperception? My unreasonableness? In asking that people drive sober?

Seems reasonable to me. I guess YMMV, but I didn't think it was too out of line.

I got nothing against drug use, medical or recreational. I've been fighting for legalization for decades. That's why I said "As for what you do when walking- I couldn't care less."
And I genuinely couldn't, so long as you don't pass out in the streets or appear a village idiot making reasonable people look bad, which you don't give any indication of doing, you seem like you are aware of your situation. Some people are, some are not.

Thanks, regardless, for the relatively civil discourse.

David Sahalie wrote:Thing is, as much as I smoke, Ill test as having THC in my blood even if I havent smoked that day, or even that week.

That's one of the reasons why the current limits need changed. Unfortunately the current methods don't reasonably measure intoxication...

David Sahalie wrote: So, my candor in illustrating what many climbers do: smoke while on the road, is hindering drug reform? Ok, Ill keep quiet about the reality I have lived weekly for 20 years.

Quiet, discrete, braggadocio, martyrdom, and hurting the cause all lie on a spectrum that is not entirely clear to everyone.
If you want to see what drug reform looks like at a legislative level, use google/Cspan, or go to a committee hearing for a bill. It is open to the public. Or just listen to the adds from the other side.

I smoke more than my fair share and honestly you guys are making fools of yourselves criticizing Tony B.

I don't know your reputation elsewhere but thus far everything I've read from you has been on point and totally fair in this thread.

C'mon fellas, if we're going to be effective advocates for an incredible plant we need to drop the ad hominem and stick to the facts in a respectful manner.

Cannabis prohibition if the most bogus agenda ever undertaken by this country. I'm sure most of us can come to that same conclusion.

These traffic stops are complete BS, no question. Let's keep posting these when a certain climbing area is targeted.

A few members here need to switch the tone from reactive to responsive.

Flame on, MP.

javd wrote: That's sounds like great advice. I think I've seen the first part before in a book titled "how to get shot by the police for dummies". Second part is a great way to talk yourself into a ticket or worse. Do you seriously wonder why the cops give you a hard time? Funny, I have never had any difficulties and I'm polite and respectful, coincident?

The cops don't give me a hard time. I don't know where on earth you got that from. Being polite and and letting someone walk on your rights are two different things. Any cop no matter how right or wrong you are will fuck with you if you aren't polite. A better word might be tactful.

To counter your point, I have had situations where I should have had a ticket but didn't. Speeding, or accidental jackass maneuver(I cut off a cop that was in my blind spot :/). I have 0 tickets currently on my record, and I've only had one. I got that when I was 16. Maybe I know how to talk to cops too...

I can tell already you have some aversion to guns, so I won't even bother with that. But, keep doing whatever it is you're doing. It's working for you, and what I do works for me. Except I won't ever have a search happen to me without a warrant or legitimate probable cause.

Since your profile says you live in Colorado, you do not have to let them know you are carrying if pulled over. You only have to let them know if they ask.

I know, but I generally find its better to open with honesty. I suppose I did word incorrectly though.

"Since your profile says you live in Colorado, you do not have to let them know you are carrying if pulled over. You only have to let them know if they ask. "

I'm not quite sure what this even means. If they don't ask it's no problem but if they do ask it's not like you have any special rights or protection.

The suggestions about how to handle yourself during a traffic stop are interesting, and could save you from a conviction, but the bottom line is that cops lie. A cop will lie about why he stopped you, he will lie about how you responded to questions, and he will lie about whether you consented to a search. He might even lie about what he found.

So, be careful out there.

Josh Kornish wrote:"Since your profile says you live in Colorado, you do not have to let them know you are carrying if pulled over. You only have to let them know if they ask. " I'm not quite sure what this even means. If they don't ask it's no problem but if they do ask it's not like you have any special rights or protection.

Having a gun on you isn't a crime. Your car is considered private property(which is also why you should lock it if the cop asks you to step out). Having a loaded gun on private property isn't a crime. Would you tell a cop about the 12 gauge in your closet at home if a cop came to your front door? It's not about special rights, but enforcing the ones you already have.

PRRose wrote:The suggestions about how to handle yourself during a traffic stop are interesting, and could save you from a conviction, but the bottom line is that cops lie. A cop will lie about why he stopped you, he will lie about how you responded to questions, and he will lie about whether you consented to a search. He might even lie about what he found. So, be careful out there.

Nothing like a widely inaccurate blanket statement to wrap it all up. Good work.

How about people lie, no exceptions or exemptions. Some people generally won't lie, some generally will, and most will lie in some cases and not in another. Cops are no speciality here. Enough of the Kerouac-ian cop hating distrust.

No internet post would be relevant without masquerading personal experience as proof of a rule, so here goes: I've been pulled over plenty of times and never had a bad experience with an officer, or even unpleasant words I didn't deserve. There, it's fact now, cops are nice guys.

Recording the cops isn't legal everywhere. One reason the story quoted upthread about the NYPD CHOKING A GUY TO DEATH blew up was the video a lady took. A retired lawyer who happened to walk by and who tried to video record the aftermath got arrested and held for over a day. Now her case will go through the courts and hopefully all the way up. It is bs, but some places it is illegal to record the cops.

Recording the cops isn't legal everywhere. One reason the story quoted upthread about the NYPD CHOKING A GUY TO DEATH blew up was the video a lady took. A retired lawyer who happened to walk by and who tried to video record the aftermath got arrested and held for over a day. Now her case will go through the courts and hopefully all the way up. It is bs, but some places it is illegal to record the cops.

Heads to the 'woo tomorrow! Hopefully the fuz won't mistake our green Vt plates for rado ones...

Eric Chabot wrote:Recording the cops isn't legal everywhere. One reason the story quoted upthread about the NYPD CHOKING A GUY TO DEATH blew up was the video a lady took. A retired lawyer who happened to walk by and who tried to video record the aftermath got arrested and held for over a day. Now her case will go through the courts and hopefully all the way up. It is bs, but some places it is illegal to record the cops.

Actually they can arrest you for pretty much anything.
What they can't do anymore is make the charges stick.

A recent decision citing more decisions...

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane states:
"From the foregoing foundational and long-standing principles of constitutional
law, a protected right emerges:
A private citizen has the right to assemble in a public forum, receive information on a matter of public concern such as police officers performing their official duties—and to record that information for the purpose
of conveying that information."

He further cites "...A robust consensus of circuit courts of appeals (including the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th) that the First Amendment encompasses a right to record public officials as they perform their official duties."

The case law on this is getting pretty clear. A city ordinance does not preclude the constitution. You want a settlement? Get yourself arrested by a cop for recording them publicly, then sue. It will be an interesting ride, and you'll be famous. Given the time and opportunity, I'd take that ride myself.
In fact, I already kind of have... it was pre-cellular-camera, but I have been arrested for "interference" when refusing to leave the scene of police brutality. It took a few years to settle, and sadly, was not recorded... No charges against me stuck, if that is what is important.
Citizens are now at a much greater advantage, as a recording eliminates the he-said she-said aspect of testimony.

Tony B wrote:let me know where you are and your plates, eh? I can arrange to have someone come talk to you about that if you'd like.

Tony B wrote: How is that taking the law into my own hands?

Oh, my bad. I thought you were being a self righteous dick and threatening to send someone to talk to David about his despicable behavior. Now I see you are simply altruistic, what a relief!

J Q wrote: Oh, my bad. I thought you were being a self righteous dick and threatening to send someone to talk to David about his despicable behavior.

Who is the dick? That presumed "goodfellas" reference you called out (a movie I have never even seen) was mistaken. My actual reference was Dostoyevskian; a philosophical and literary reference to 'Crime and Punishment.' Whereas people seem to WANT to get caught for some transgression/crime/offense so as to find a way past it, and that it will disturb them until they do. And it might help if you reread precisely what I said, rather than twist it into something else.

Perhaps I gave you too much credit by not spelling that out earlier. I thought that the quotes: "... talk to you about that if you'd like." and "So I'll sure offer them the opportunity to turn themselves in if they think it is something that they want to do." Would invoke a fairly clear vector of thought into that idea and certainly something other than a threat. But whatever. Even in that "don't talk to police" video posted here, those ideas are invoked...

In the context of people bragging about breaking laws on a public forum, this should not be so obtuse to an educated person. But I suppose to you...

But I guess I'm the ignorant and presumptive one? I didn't realize I quoted "goodfellas" being the literary dullard that I am. Not you, though, of course. (Of course.) I missed a Hollywood movie reference I didn't even make, whereas you only missed Dostoyevsky.

I had to know that there would be someone, and should have known it would be you, who would bend that however they wanted, through ignorance and arrogance, to create a straw man. One necessarily created in order to assure a victory in some squabble that you'd have no chance of winning against an actual person.

As well, I should mention... The psychology of a "you need the last word" statement in any context is an attempt to have the last word. And in the context of telling another person that they need to have the last word, how interesting and transparent is that? And I thank you for that. I admire your ability to pack that much irony into such a small space.
Edit to add: Nice to see you deleted that line. Is that kind of having another word now, is it? Heh. Love it!

The cool thing that runs parallel to this is the similarity of police tactics to this conversation. You see, I never wanted the last word. A rule of investigation and interrogation is "keep them talking - they will reveal something." I am not interested in the last word. Please continue to go about hanging yourself.

I've lived in Ft. Collins and Laramie and have traveled 287 many times. WY Highway Patrol pulls over mostly Colorado, or other out-of-state plates. They have since before recreational marijuana passed, and continue to do so. I'd be surprised if they didn't ramp up there efforts in the future. I've been pulled over on 287 when I still had my green plates, but magically haven't been bothered since I got Wyoming plates.

Be careful out there, nothing gets a WY cop more excited than a green plate.

That being said, not having probable cause to initiate a traffic stop is BS. That sort of thing pisses me off. You should file some FOIA requests and see what "probable cause" they had. Also, while I don't necessarily agree with all their views, Copblock ( facebook.com/CopBlock) puts out some good info. Email them your story and they'll post it for their almost 1 million fans to see; that'd be a good way to spread the word to a wide audience.

Turns out, Wyoming isn't the only place where cops are abusing their power.

Guys Tony B is right on here. I've seen my share of lazy, unmotivated pot heads ands stoners. They can barely even get out of the door to go climb let alone get behind the wheel! Maybe they can watch and quote a few lines from a Hollywood movie but they will probably misquote the lines because their memories are so warped and skewed!

Car and Driver study has revealed, stoned drivers are more cautious than those who are dead sober.

First, testers were sent through a driving course, timed and scored for fouls (hitting cones).

Then, they got them all baked. Reconfigured the test course. Sent the now stoned drivers through the revised course.

All recorded a slower time navigating under the influence, at the same time, they recorded fewer fouls.

I just don't see the 'paranoid' driver, crashing all that often. No evidence has been found to the contrary.

Senior Hernandez wrote:I have never avoided WY but I do avoid Utah. Based on the op's report, I may begin avoiding that state as well.

This is a very silly reason to completely avoid two states with some of the best climbing in the world.

As for driving high, I think the most important thing to remember is that it is still illegal in every state. Regardless of whether or not it actually impairs you or puts others at risk, the consequences of driving under the influence are severe and something I wouldn't want to mess with. Sure, I've gotten behind the wheel shortly after a smoke to pick up some shit from Home Depot a few miles away, but toking up just to make a long drive across Wyoming or Utah seems like you're just poking the bear. I'm not criticizing, as I totally understand the appeal and would rather be in a car with a high driver than with one that's extremely tired (or even just a 'bad' driver), but for me it's just not worth it.

To all the freaks with good imagination on here: good pro is not me. She seems to be like a cool person I would like to hang out with for fun. Van life update: it's freaking awesome! Some military dudes loved it and one of them said he just bough one himself....as they directed us to the climbing area when we got stranded on the base (way cool stuff there and I wish they would let us do some role playing with them I just did not have the guts to ask).