cannabisnews.com: Bushwhacked! 





Bushwhacked! 
Posted by CN Staff on June 12, 2002 at 11:41:34 PT
By Brittany Schaeffer
Source: Willamette Week 
Two months ago, Joel Foster and his business partner, Rick Schneider, took advantage of one of the first warm days of spring by heading to a favorite fishing hole on the Wilson River near the Oregon Coast. The pair of independent contractors had started out early that morning, hiking from Schneider's house near Rockaway Beach with rods, sandwiches and two joints. As the fishing slowed in the afternoon, Foster and Schneider decided to try their hand at catching a buzz. 
"We were just sitting there smoking a joint," recalls Foster, 44, "fishing and having a good time." But the relaxing day assumed a dismal cast when Oregon State Trooper Lalo Guerra crashed through the bushes. The officer, who had been spying on the pair, demanded to see their fishing licenses. Satisfied that they were angling legally, he then confronted them about the funny cigarettes he'd seen them smoking. Foster and Schneider admitted that they had consumed about a joint-and-a-half and handed over the remainder of the marijuana. Because the contents of the blunt were less than an ounce, the cop gave each a citation carrying a $585 fine and instructed them to either pay the ticket by mail or to fight it in court. Thinking that his punishment ended with the fine, Foster paid up and wrote it off as a loss. Schneider, however, decided to go to court, hoping to get the fine reduced. Instead, Neil Lemery, a Tillamook County justice of the peace, informed Schneider that, in addition to the fine (which he wouldn't reduce), the two men would face a mandatory six-month suspension of their driver's licenses. Although Schneider argued that he and Foster were not even in the vicinity of a vehicle when they were caught with the marijuana, Lemery remained unmoved. In early May, the two men each received a letter from the state Driver and Motor Vehicle Services, stating that in addition to the license suspension, they could not apply for hardship permits. Such permits are commonly issued to drivers convicted of motor-vehicle offenses, granting offenders with suspended licenses the right to drive to and from work. However, the 1991 Legislature passed a law prohibiting hardship permits for drug offenders--even those such as Foster and Schneider whose pot violations had nothing to do with driving. "The ironic thing is, you can get drunk, smash up your car and get back on the road," says Foster. "I know guys who have gotten three DUI's and are still legally driving with a hardship permit." Over the past three years, DMV records show, the state has issued 3,333 hardship permits to convicted drunk drivers. During that same period, the state suspended 6,227 drug offenders' licenses. None of those drivers could apply for a hardship permit. The Drug Offenders Driving Privileges Suspension Act of 1991 enjoyed large bipartisan support at the time and passed with only two dissenting votes in the House. One naysayer was Carl Hosticka, who then represented south Eugene. Now a Metro councilor, Hosticka says he still believes that the law is inappropriate. "This appears to be an overly hard reaction to minor drug offenses--without much opportunity for recourse," he says. "It's punishing people more than once." Foster and Schneider's situation, he says, "is the kind of thing we were anticipating. This punitive response doesn't do anyone any good--and, in fact, has the potential for harm." Even one of the bill's co-sponsors now questions the law. "We were trying to find alternative methods to sanction people," says Kevin Mannix, the GOP gubernatorial candidate who, in 1991, was a Democratic state rep from Salem. "However, it serves no public purpose to take away someone's license for a minor drug offense. It just doesn't make sense." According to the legal community, the suspension of a driver's license after a pot bust is the exception rather than the rule, but it does happen. "When the Legislature writes a law that says 'shall suspend the license,' that means that I have to do it--and I will," says Lemery. For Foster, that means asking family members and friends to shuttle him to and from jobs until November, a hassle he expects will cut his business in half. "I'm doing everything I can just to hold on for the next six months," he says. In addition, the suspension will almost certainly cause Foster's auto-insurance costs to spike--and probably result in the cancellation of his policy, according to Jeff Aeschliman of Farmers Insurance. Foster's attorney, James Glover, says it makes no sense to hurt his client's ability to work just because he smoked a joint on a hiking trail. "In this case, enforcing this law is outrageous, and may be unconstitutional, because it interferes with his right to travel and his right to make a living," says Glover, a Portland criminal-defense litigator. Foster is currently considering challenging the law in court--all of which seems a long way from the Wilson River. "All I had was a joint with really crappy leaf," he says. "If I'd known this was going to happen, I would have thrown it in the river." Note: Joel Foster says his livelihood shouldn't go up in smoke. Complete Title: Bushwhacked! Oregon Won't Let Pot-Smokers Behind The WheelSource: Willamette Week (OR)Author: Brittany SchaefferPublished: June 12, 2002Copyright: 2002 Willamette WeekContact: mzusman wweek.comWebsite: http://www.wweek.com/Related Articles:Idaho OKs Marijuana With Driving http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11763.shtmlCannabis May Make You a Safer Driverhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6717.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on June 14, 2002 at 18:27:32 PT
Sacriledge
It is a crime against humanity to bust a man for smoking a joint while fishing. Its inhuman. Its a desacration.Its a litmus test for ones appreciation of the greater things in life. Smoking a joint while fishing is the antithesis of the rat Race. total self sufficiency and relaxation. Definately NOT capitalist values.The Bush Speech prompts me to coin a term : Canned Incoherence.Its almost incoherent, this speech.But it is "canned. Like a somewhat hi-tech trained seal honking a number of horns in no necessary order.He might as well make the noise adults make in Peanuts cartoons (womp-womp-wommp) while they just fulfil the plans they have set in motion.They sandbagged us by making us fear the rise of Danny Quayle, but its clear they need the president to be little more than a parrot....or a trained seal..thats more entertaining.**until we rout out every terrorist cell and every terrorist, until attitudes change about freedom in America, we've got to protect our homeland in a new way.**That is creepy BS if I ever heard it. Hear come the thought police.... I wonder whos attitudes about "freedom" need to "change".I dont like the sound of that. (preceptoral cadreship anyone?)Freedom Endures....Camrades
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by goneposthole on June 13, 2002 at 06:10:09 PT
I think the goal ia
300,000,000. Americans are the new Jews in a kinda sorta way.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by freedom fighter on June 12, 2002 at 23:24:16 PT
dddd Stop What?
2400 human beings with no due process? And where the hell is Bin Laden?Dang!Gotta have more?24000?
240,000?ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by dddd on June 12, 2002 at 13:51:12 PT
....stop it!...
..I think it's inappropriate for pppp to post things like that speech....after all,,if that were an actual speech from the president,,then it would be so obvious to every citizen that he was a whacko..............
..please,,,,really,,,.read the speech.......is it just me,,or does this speech sound alot like some dimestore sci-fi paperback from the 50s' ??.......I cant believe it..........nope......I cant believe it.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by qqqq on June 12, 2002 at 13:40:57 PT
...I agree pppp..it's unreal!....
..you sure that speech isnt just a joke?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by pppp on June 12, 2002 at 13:35:08 PT
....BushWhacko......
.....this is not a joke.....this is the actual transcript of yesterdays speech......read it,,and then ask yourself ,,if you can fucking believe it!!!!!!...please......read it!...it is awesomely absurd..If it were a joke,it would be quite clever,,,BUT!...it is REAL!.....
Remarks by President Bush at Meeting of Homeland Security Advisory
Council
To: National Desk
Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2580WASHINGTON, June 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a
transcript of remarks by President Bush at a meeting of the
Homeland Security Advisory Council:The Indian Treaty Room
10:44 A.M. EDTTHE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you all very much for taking on this
assignment. Joe, thank you for your being chairman. And, Bill
Webster, we've got a lot of talented folks around this table. And
I want to thank you for agreeing to help our nation.We're under attack; just the way it is. The more we love
freedom, the more we espouse values that are decent and honorable,
the more we welcome religion in our society, open political
discourse, the more this enemy is going to try to hit us. And we've
got two course of action. One is to run them down, wherever
they try to hide, and bring them to justice. That's precisely what
we're going to do.These people are the kind of people that -- they try to find a
soft spot around the world and burrow in and plot and plan. And
we're just going to have to enforce the doctrine, either you're
with us or against us. You join the coalition of freedom, or you're
on the other side of the fence.And we're making good progress, we really are. The other night
when I announced this Department of Homeland Security, I made
mention of the fact that our coalition has hauled in about 2,400 of
these terrorists, these killers. The problem is there's still quite
a number of them still out there.We're using our military -- we've got a great military, by the
way. I'm really proud of the men and women who wear our uniform,
and our nation stands squarely with our military.We're using diplomatic pressure. That's an important tool.
We're cutting off their money. That's -- we've been fairly
effective at cutting off their money. We can all do a little better
job of denying them the funds they need. They don't need a lot of
money, but they do need money to conduct their attacks.We're sharing intelligence. I know many members of this
committee have been very much involved in the intelligence
gathering capacity of America, and we're doing a better job of
finding our weaknesses here at home, and working on the weaknesses.
The CIA and the FBI now are doing a much better job today than
they had been prior to September the 11th of sharing information
across these -- what were once formidable jurisdictional
boundaries.The culture of our agencies have changed since the war. The FBI
has got a -- has got a new job, which is to prevent attack, and
that's now their primary focus. And Bob Mueller is doing a good job
of recognizing the cultural shift that needs to take place, of
taking input, listening to people, and responding.So we're making progress, we really are. But until we rout out
every terrorist cell and every terrorist, until attitudes change
about freedom in America, we've got to protect our homeland in a
new way. And I want to thank you all for agreeing to help us.
You're breaking new ground, and you're going to help us leave a
legacy, so that future Presidents, future administrations and
future Congress can deal more effectively with how to do the most
important job any elected official has, which is to protect
innocent life.As you know, I called for the Department of Homeland Security.
Obviously I wouldn't have done so if I didn't think it was the
absolute right thing to do. I think it's important to focus the
mission, through reorganization. I know it's going to make -- help
us be more effective here at home.I also recognize how tough the chore is going to be. I mean,
after all, we are asking people in Congress to give up turf, as
they say, give up a little power. And I'm under no illusions that
asking folks to give up power can be a difficult assignment. So
one of the things I'll do is remind the members of Congress that
this is not a political issue, that protecting America is an
American issue. It's a duty we all have and that I vow not to play
politics with doing what's right.I'll also remind the Congress that I am going to speak to the
American people about this issue. Once I propose it, I'm going to
take my case beyond Washington to the true influence -- the real
influence peddlers of America; that's the American people, the
people who work every day and who've got the capacity to inform
their members of Congress or the Senate their opinion. And that's
what I'm going to continue to do.I'm going to continue to speak as plainly as I can about the
need for this department, assuring the American people that we're
not interested in increasing the size and scope of the federal
government, we're interested in efficiency. We want an organization
that can work closely with local leaders such as my Mayor, Mayor
Williams. We want to be able to respond better if something were
to occur. We want to know how better to enforce our borders. We
want to know when they're coming in the country and if they're
overstaying their visas. We need to know that in America, under
this new -- the new threats under which we live.We've got to -- I signed a bioterrorism bill today. I want to
thank you all for coming for the signing ceremony. I saw Jim
Schlesinger there, and I'm sure you're glad I cut my remarks in
half, because the temperature seemed to be -- (laughter) -- seemed
to be a little warm out there. But the idea is to better
coordinate our capacity to detect weapons of mass destruction and
respond to them if they occur.And, finally, we need an analytical capacity within a department
that can take all the intelligence that's gathered, not only by the
FBI or the CIA, but all throughout our government, and analyze it
so we have a better feel for what the terrorists might be thinking,
and then how to respond.And you all can play a very useful role in this -- in this
process. You bring a lot of heft and a lot of experience and a lot
of know-how. You can definitely help us understand how best to
coordinate government activities with the private sector, and
that's essential, that we team up to do everything we need to do to
protect America.So I want to thank you for your service. I want you to know
this administration is totally committed to protecting the people.
Many of you are aware of the President's briefing he gets, sees or
knows what the President reads and they're still out there. These
people -- you know, these killers, they're still lurking around.
But they picked on a -- they picked on a group of people who are
plenty determined, and that's the American people.We've got a fabulous nation. And we're tough and we're
determined and we're united and we're strong. And at the same
time, we're showing the world that we're a compassionate nation, as
well. We won the first battle, or we're winning the first battle
in the war of the 21st century, which was in Afghanistan. And we
went into that country not as conquerors, but as liberators. And
I'm proud of our nation, and I'm proud of your service to our
nation. And I want to thank you all for giving us your time.God bless you all. Thank you. (Applause.)END
10:52 A.M. EDT
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by CorvallisEric on June 12, 2002 at 13:25:29 PT
Oregon
I should know better, but it still surprises me that Oregon is as rotten as this (yes, we're a decrim state, if that has any meaning anymore - defended our decrim status by about 2 to 1 vote in 1998 against the legislature and Democrat governor). Maybe fear of this explains why I have yet to smell any pot smoke wafting around the college town I live in (moved here 2 years ago from fragrant Santa Barbara, hardly a hotbed of tolerance).
Even one of the bill's co-sponsors now questions the law. "We were trying to find alternative methods to sanction people," says Kevin Mannix, the GOP gubernatorial candidate who, in 1991, was a Democratic state rep from Salem. "However, it serves no public purpose to take away someone's license for a minor drug offense. It just doesn't make sense."
If Mannix becomes governor and ACTUALLY DOES ANYTHING sensible, I'll eat my hat. I'm pretty safe because he'll lose the election because once again the Republicans nominated the most socially-conservative candidate.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment