NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's the scene: Drugged up teenager. Texas. Some wooman judge, 40, called Lauri Blake. According to the guardian this girl's been banned from sexual intercourse 'while enrolled in school and living with parents.' She was also ordered to 'not wear clothing associated with the drug culture (presumably those things doctors wear),' 'obtain any tatoos or piercings' or 'use tabacco products'. and to observe a 10pm curfew. Apparently this judge thinks sleeveless shirts and cleaveage in her courtroom is unacceptable. And Americans wonder why we think of them as fundamentalist. :(

Where the hell did you find this? Seriously...source please. I would like to read this story. :D

Where the hell did you find this? Seriously...source please. I would like to read this story. :D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1584270,00.html

the Guardian newspaper. October 4th, page 15. It just really, really annoyed me

mmmmmm.........

That's beyond the power of the Government. They cannot force a ban on someone's sexuality, nor can they mandate a person's dress code. This will not stand on appeal if there is an ounce of justice somewhere in the Judicial system.

Of course if it does, I'll add it to my evergrowing list of reasons I loathe this country.

I wonder what sort of drugs she was carrying. Anyone know the penalty for carrying weed in the USA?

I fail to see how not having sex has anything to do with drugs.

Ah, the strangeness of the American justice system never ceases to amaze me...

Liasia']I wonder what sort of drugs she was carrying. Anyone know the penalty for carrying weed in the USA?
Probably 10 years. It might've been weed she was carrying, especially if there was a ban on clothing, since most drug-themed clothing surrounded Cannabis Sativa.

I fail to see how not having sex has anything to do with drugs.

Ah, the strangeness of the American justice system never ceases to amaze me...

Thats what the drugs were for, perchance?

I heard about this a few days ago. I had to laugh. While I strongly agree that sleeveless shirts, and even blue jeans, should NOT be allowed in a courtroom, I think it is virtually impossible to judicially enforce a ban on sexual conduct of any kind with one individual. Drug tests are easy. But how are you going to know whether she's giving BJ's under the bleachers. Sorry, but this is soooooo Texas.

Curious, Was the whole situation blown out of proportion?

Liasia']Thats what the drugs were for, perchance?
It's possible, but it doesn't specify that in the article, now, does it?

Curious, Was the whole situation blown out of proportion?

Ha, blown. I wouldn't be surprised. The Guardian is a wee tiny bit left wing.

Probably 10 years. It might've been weed she was carrying, especially if there was a ban on clothing, since most drug-themed clothing surrounded Cannabis Sativa.

I can't believe it could be Cannabis. I know America is stricter when it comes to soft drug use but not THAT strict surely?

I mean, in Britain police will only really confiscate any Cannabis for personal use, and most of the time not even do that. My brother was smoking a spliff one night when a police woman mistook him for someone who had earlier started a fight and asked him some questions, and didn't even comment on it.

I mean, in Britain police will only really confiscate any Cannabis for personal use, and most of the time not even do that. My brother was smoking a spliff one night when a police woman mistook him for someone who had earlier started a fight and asked him some questions, and didn't even comment on it.

Luck of the draw, really. Some of them are total bastards, some policemen probably smoke the herb themselves. Its a pleasant surprise when they dont totally bollock you for small things though.

Liasia']Luck of the draw, really. Some of them are total bastards, some policemen probably smoke the herb themselves. Its a pleasant surprise when they dont totally bollock you for small things though.

I think it was the police chief of Oxfordshire who publically declared that he took marijuana and he believed it should be legal.

I suppose from a lot of policemens point of view cracking down on cannabis is a complete waste of their time. I'm sure they'd rather be feeling like they made a difference and catching real criminals rather than caring what a few students got up to in the privacy of their own home.

Liasia']Luck of the draw, really. Some of them are total bastards, some policemen probably smoke the herb themselves. Its a pleasant surprise when they dont totally bollock you for small things though.

In my town, there are undercover police officers patrolling the streets, and charging fines of up to 50 pounds for littering! Yet when you go out on the streets at the weekend, you see beatings, intoxicated minors, druggies, the occasional stabbing. We live just down the road from Glasgow. Yet this is what they're wasting their time and money on...

pardon me while i vomit on my key board...thats discusting, its not the corts job to tell kids how to dress- can i say power trip?

That's beyond the power of the Government. They cannot force a ban on someone's sexuality...the Gov says...they get to say at what age you can have sex with "legal" adults...nor can they mandate a person's dress code..the Gov says they can....if there is an ounce of justice somewhere in the Judicial system.some Judicial systems are fucked up.

pardon me while i vomit on my key board...thats discusting, its not the corts job to tell kids how to dress- can i say power trip?get used to it...and Get a waterproof keyboard.

That's beyond the power of the Government. They cannot force a ban on someone's sexuality, nor can they mandate a person's dress code. This will not stand on appeal if there is an ounce of justice somewhere in the Judicial system.

Of course if it does, I'll add it to my evergrowing list of reasons I loathe this country.

Yes they can enforce dress code, in Texas it's illegal to wear your boxers high above your trous.. erm pants.

I hate that type of fashion, I hate any fashion[Even underground fashion.] But please, let people decide themselves how they want to look, I can't stand it that people are feeling so important about themselves that they think their ideas of appropriatism are better than others's

nor can they mandate a person's dress code..the Gov says they can
1st amendment anyone?

Liasia']I wonder what sort of drugs she was carrying. Anyone know the penalty for carrying weed in the USA?

It varies from state to state.

People need to stop trusting the Guardian. Ignore it unless you can find another source.

People need to stop trusting the Guardian. Ignore it unless you can find another source.

You Sun reading BASTARD!

It varies from state to state.
It also depends on how much. And if you're a juvenile or not. And if they catch you in the act of trying to sell it or buy it.

Yes they can enforce dress code, in Texas it's illegal to wear your boxers high above your trous.. erm pants.

I hate that type of fashion, I hate any fashion[Even underground fashion.] But please, let people decide themselves how they want to look, I can't stand it that people are feeling so important about themselves that they think their ideas of appropriatism are better than others's

this is untrue. it isn't illegal in Texas to wear your boxers that way. We'll all look at you and treat you like an idiot if you do, but no law enforces this.

People need to stop trusting the Guardian. Ignore it unless you can find another source.

That's what I thought too, but it is actually in the Dallas Morning News.

People need to stop trusting the Guardian. Ignore it unless you can find another source.
No, the Guardian is generally accurate with the facts as they are presented (unlike one or two other newspapers), it's the editorials and opinion pieces that are what you want to watch for bias.

I fail to see how not having sex has anything to do with drugs.

Ah, the strangeness of the American justice system never ceases to amaze me...

Our British justice system is wierder! Judges have to wear wigs, for crying out loud!

As well as "Disagreeing with Labour is a terrorist offense, and you don't get a trial" thing.

As well as "Disagreeing with Labour is a terrorist offense, and you don't get a trial" thing.
And the whole "that's not true" thing.

No, the Guardian is generally accurate with the facts as they are presented (unlike one or two other newspapers), it's the editorials and opinion pieces that are what you want to watch for bias.

The Guardian has far less bias than the Torygraph and the Wail ;)

Seriously, people worry the Guardian has left wing undertones. Look at the BNP overtones in the mail!

And the whole "that's not true" thing.

Hecklers? Labour conference? That bloke was arrested under the Terrorism Act, before being freed. Fact.

Liasia']I wonder what sort of drugs she was carrying. Anyone know the penalty for carrying weed in the USA?
Depends on the quantity, the state you're in and weather or not you've transported it across state lines or been caught selling it. Also first offenses are treated much more leniently than subsequent offenses.

My first offense got me a "conditional discharge". a bunch of fines, a year of unsupervised probation, and alot of attention from the local police department. That was for possesion of three quarters of an ounce of weed.

Second offense the fines got alot bigger, and I was warned that I could get jail time for it, but the judge just promised to give me jail time if I ever got caught with weed again.

I never got caught in that town with marijuana again, so I don't know what the third offense would have gotten me.

Hecklers? Labour conference? That bloke was arrested under the Terrorism Act, before being freed. Fact.
One example of trigger happy Police does not mean that disagreeing with Labour is a terrorist offence.

In my experience Judges can demand a lot as far as conditions for release but the enforcement is functionally non-existant.

Dress code restrictions are not that unusual - those little baby soothers alot of the techno kids used to wear was a symbol that they used e (actually it helped with the teeth grinding side effect.) Lots of clothes "glorify" the drug culture - t-shirts and caps with "BLUNT" on it, the big pot leaf ... etc.

It is used as a tool to inspire the criminal to avoid such influences. If the judge decided to enforce such restrictions actively it is likely there would be a quick lawsuit on constitutional violation.

One example of trigger happy Police does not mean that disagreeing with Labour is a terrorist offence.

It was the labour stewards who chucked him out the conference and (as far as I know) the government responsible for running the police and passing anti-terror legislation!

It was the labour stewards who chucked him out the conference and (as far as I know) the government responsible for running the police and passing anti-terror legislation!
The Labour Party stewards have absolutely no powers of arrest.

Yup, the government is responsible for passing legislation, but they are not responsible for every arrest made under legislation. He was held under (I believe) the Terrorism Act 2000, and the Terrorism Act requires a trial.

The Labour Party stewards have absolutely no powers of arrest.

The labour stewards ejected him before he was arrested. The police then detained him under the terrorism act.

Yup, the government is responsible for passing legislation, but they are not responsible for every arrest made under legislation. He was held under (I believe) the Terrorism Act 2000, and the Terrorism Act requires a trial.

However, the government is responsible for law & order and policing policy. Clarke has obviously not been doing his job - to make sure that the police use appropriate legislation. And if it is possible to detain people in that way who are obviously not doing anything wrong - the legislation is obviously deeply flawed. It seems not to have done much good.

And under the Prevention of Terrorism act you can be given House Arrest (Oops, that Control Orders in Newspeak) without trial, at the whim of the home secritary.

As a lawyer I find that police tend to get stricter on minor drugs offences in forces where they try to set up quasi-arrest quotas. If the police are required or expected to make X number of arrests every month/year then it encourages them to go after minor easy crimes.


And yes, the terrorism reforms labour is proposing WOULD allow them to detain you WITHOUT trial nigh on indefinitely - and the person who decides whether you are a naughty terrorist is the Home Secretary - no appeal. If you're nice they may just put you under house arrest and prevent you from using telephones and the internet.

The labour stewards ejected him before he was arrested. The police then detained him under the terrorism act.
Exactly, that's my point. He wasn't detained by the Labour Party, he was detained by the Police.



However, the government is responsible for law & order and policing policy. Clarke has obviously not been doing his job - to make sure that the police use appropriate legislation. And if it is possible to detain people in that way who are obviously not doing anything wrong - the legislation is obviously deeply flawed. It seems not to have done much good.
Charles Clarke came in long after the Terrorism Act was passed...we can blame Blunkett for that one.

And under the Prevention of Terrorism act you can be given House Arrest (Oops, that Control Orders in Newspeak) without trial, at the whim of the home secritary.

Not strictly true. A Court is required to authorise each Control Order (Article 3, subsection 1 (a)), and a Court may quash any Order if it was "obviously flawed" (Article 3, subsection 6 (a)), and each Control Order has to be compatible with Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention (Article 1, subsection 1).

I don't like it one bit, but it's very definitely not as bad as it could have been.

Sure, toss the salad ;)
Dresscode is REALLY important in a court, who knows, people might DRESS AS THEY WANT. Holy SHIT. This is SUCH a high-class elite-tavern for suit-clothed beurocrat's with fake judge-hair, hah! :P

1st amendment anyone?not only the Gov..

even The local high school can tell you how to dress.

You try going to High school like this:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/12/24/jennifer_lopez,0.jpg

...and tell me after how much Dress freedom you have. :D

"That's a new one. I'm not sure how you would enforce that,"
chastity belt anyone? :p

The Guardian has far less bias than the Torygraph and the Wail ;)

Seriously, people worry the Guardian has left wing undertones. Look at the BNP overtones in the mail!

Torygraph indeed, its the best paper in Britain :mad: admittedly the mail is distinctly BNP at times, however the guardian is oft little more than Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto applied to the modern world.

not only the Gov..

even The local high school can tell you how to dress.

You try going to High school like this:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/12/24/jennifer_lopez,0.jpg

...and tell me after how much Dress freedom you have. :D

poor me,i have a uniform

People need to stop trusting the Guardian. Ignore it unless you can find another source.
Other sources (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=christina+brazier&btnG=Search+News)

I can't believe it could be Cannabis. I know America is stricter when it comes to soft drug use but not THAT strict surely?
Sadly, they are that strict.

In the US, the pushments for marijuana are extremely inflated, while the punishments for harsher drugs aren't strict enough. I believe in New York State you can get 15 years for a third offense.