First Church of Cannabis picking up steam.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    39,759
    113
    Uranus

    image.jpg
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    26,608
    113
    I could be wrong.

    I posted his quote. I think they've been pretty careful to say "could be" and not "will be".

    Heroin use seems to be an issue all to itself in that it kills the user more often then any other drug I can think of we've routinely seen.

    I'm speculating, but I think crowd contol issues have been a bigger concern than pot issues on this one. When you've got thousands of people saying they'll show up to an area that's not really set up for thousands of people to occupy, bad things can happen. If anyone was downtown for the LMFAO concert during the Super Bowl hooplah, well, you saw it. The crowd wasn't made up of bad people or anything like that at all...but there were way too many people for the area and it was extremely dangerous for everyone.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    Well, I think it is time for the General Assembly to look at marijuana legalization and it drives me nuts that Indiana has a medical exemption for heroin but not for pot, but the crime of Visiting a Common Nuisance does exist. So, I think Chief Hite is giving everyone notice that the police will investigate criminal conduct.

    Which should be OK, I mean, if you are going to jail for the cause (challenging narcotics laws based on religious freedom) then your arrest/prosecution should already be factored in.

    If you don't want to be arrested, then don't go Visit a Common Nuisance.

    Last I looked, I seem to remember that the caselaw on visiting a common nuisance was very explicit that you had to have multiple incidents to support the charge. Has this changed?
     

    Dirtebiker

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Feb 13, 2011
    7,107
    63
    Greenwood
    I posted his quote. I think they've been pretty careful to say "could be" and not "will be".

    Heroin use seems to be an issue all to itself in that it kills the user more often then any other drug I can think of we've routinely seen.

    I'm speculating, but I think crowd contol issues have been a bigger concern than pot issues on this one. When you've got thousands of people saying they'll show up to an area that's not really set up for thousands of people to occupy, bad things can happen. If anyone was downtown for the LMFAO concert during the Super Bowl hooplah, well, you saw it. The crowd wasn't made up of bad people or anything like that at all...but there were way too many people for the area and it was extremely dangerous for everyone.
    I understand the crowd issues( I haven't been following, is there really supposed to be "thousands"?) ,but without all the attention by the media (and the chief giving interviews) you wouldn't have the expected "crowd". Also it does seem like the chief has more of a problem (a real dislike, hatred?)with pot smokers.
    It is illegal, and if people are caught possessing the evil weed, I see no problem issuing tickets. But come on, arresting people for visiting a common nuisance!?
    In the big picture, I think we have a LOT more to worry about than a few people sitting around smoking weed.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis

    Moreover, the State must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the "place the defendant visited was used on more than one occasion for the unlawful use of a controlled substance." Id. at 464; see also Wells v. State, 170 Ind. App. 29, 34, 351 N.E.2d 43, 46 (1976). Specifically, the term "common nuisance" as used within the statute, necessarily requires proof of a continuous or recurrent violation. Wells, 170 Ind. App. at 33, 351 N.E.2d at 46.

    Hale v. State :: 2003 :: Indiana Court of Appeals Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: Indiana Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia
     

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    530,972
    Messages
    9,963,576
    Members
    54,967
    Latest member
    Bengineer
    Top Bottom