I don't ask permission. I've already stated here repeatedly my notification to toke. Fuck the Pigs and make them squeal.

Common Law is clear, there is no crime without a victim and without intent to do harm. Colorable Code is a perverse attempt to redefine Truth to be whatever a judge describes it to be.

Superior Law states:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentarie…

behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon
the face of all the earth;

every herb or plant which had a seed in it, by which it sowed itself again; or being taken off, might be sown by man, even everyone that was wholesome, healthful, and nourishing, without any exception; whatever grew in any part of the earth, be it where it would:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/exodus/…

25 And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary : it shall be an holy anointing oil.

As the "chief pig" in Clatsop County I'll let you in on a little secret:
We don't CARE if you "toke up."
As long as you don't give it to your 12-year old nephew (still a crime if 91 passes) or drive stoned (like a local did here recently crashing into another car seriously injuring three people)...we have bigger fish to fry.

Josh Marquis
District Attorney
Clatsop County

Sour grapes, Josh? You have no accurate way of testing if a person is stoned or not. In event of a vehicular collision, in order for there to be a crime, you have to prove intent to do harm. The mere presence of THC in the body of the defendant does not prove intoxication or intent. Unless the driver were convincingly trying to collide with a victim, all there would be is a Tort. That is a Civil offense, where the victim could actually collect damages as the State would not have been able to clean out the defendant first. Prosecuting Attorneys are over paid, blood sucking letches. Criminal trials ought to have to wait until a victim gets first crack at a defendant, to collect compensation instead of having to be victimized by the State as well as the defendant.

This is the reason why a Jury must find even drunk drivers innocent of crime, irrespective of the illegitimate oath to find according to vulgar code, and prejudicial instructions from Kangaroo Judges.

Josh, Even though it takes one to know one, I don't know if you are a letch or not. Spellcheck gave me the perfectly correct spelling of the absolutely wrong word. What I meant to imply is that you are a leech.

THC, is typically detectable in the blood for hours days, or weeks after the psychoactive effects have faded. Many individuals drive just fine even while experiencing these beneficial effects. Vulgar code effectively criminalizes thousands of non-impaired drivers as DUI. There is going to be a raft of litigation against state and local governments for false arrest and malicious prosecution.

The proper Common Law Oath for Jurors, is simply to swear to tell the Truth.

When summoned to Jury duty, the first thing to happen, is a kangaroo judge makes the entire group swear to find according to the law. What if the law is fucking bullshit? Then when called to trial, the judge gives instructions to the Jury, of how they have to consider extrapolated presumptions of facts not in evidence. More bullshit.

The Jury under all circumstances, even in a court which displays on a pole the military flag with yellow fringe, The Jury still has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. A kangaroo judge is grounds to have plenty of doubt.

...and it was my 12 year old cousin; I don't have any nephew. Besides, all I did was take him to the party after the Rush Moving Pictures concert. There was this chic, a good friend of mine, who called me over to check out a big trash bag which held about ten pounds of three foot colas. She thought the kid was cute, so I left him with her. I didn't know that he never smoked grass before, and I didn't have any idea that she was going to turn him on, either. Okay, so I also took him to see Apocalypse Now, some time before that. If had know he would grow up to be the most infamous hippy in Portland, I never would have done it. Anyway, the statutes of limitations must have expired long, ago. Right? Tell me I'm right, Josh. Oh, oh. Gulp. Ah, screw it. He's good friends with Eric Sten, so that makes me immune.

Scenario: A defendant is on trial in criminal court for injuring a complainant with an automobile while under the influence of alcohol. The judge instructs the jurors that if they find that the defendant did indeed injure the complainant with an automobile, and that they also find that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, that therefore he must be found guilty of DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY injuring the complainant, and so sentenced accordingly, same as if he had carefully aimed a loaded gun and pulled the trigger.

The State brings the criminal case before allowing a civil case to proceed. If the defendant is found guilty, then he is heavily fined, and imprisoned. When the victim sues for damages in civil court, even if she wins, she loses, because the State got all the defendant's money, and now that he's in prison, he has lost his job and no longer has any income with which to compensate the victim.

Of course, the judge, prosecutors, public defenders, prison and police all manage to pull down larger salaries than most folk.

It's real simple. If a driver causes damage, then the victim has the prerogative to sue. If there is factual evidence to support that the driver acted with malice aforethought, then and only then ought criminal charges be brought. This evidence is to be considered by the Jury, without any prejudicial framing by a kangaroo judge.

The reason why Josh is so smug, is because some drug tests will find THC in a body's system thirty days after an individual has been exposed to Cannabis. There are two types of side stream smoke, a common incidence for exposure. While exhaled smoke contains no THC, as it is quickly absorbed in the lungs, any smoke from a burning joint or pipe which is inhaled deliberately or not, does contain THC which may show up in a drug test, even if the amount inhaled is insufficient to induce psychoactive results.

The draconian implication of this, is that if someone who inadvertently inhaled a minute amount of THC is stopped by police for a burnt out tail light and then is required to take an invasive blood test, that driver could be charged for driving under the influence. In criminal court, the judge will inform the Jury that if they find that the defendant did in fact have THC in his system, that the Jury must find the defendant guilty of driving under the influence.

This new legislation will assure that Josh keeps making money up the ass!

As an aside, there is no advantage to holding smoke in the lungs, as THC is absorbed instantaneously. Also, one can utilize filters as THC molecules are small enough to pass through, leaving the inert tars trapped in the filter.