SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For reasons lost in the mists of time - or possibly to impared memory function - the number ‘420’ is code for pot. As such, mile markers and other signs bearing that number have become targets for trophy-hunting cannabis enthusiasts.
To combat this expensive annoyance, the State of Idaho has turned to to strategic inaccuracy, labeling their at-risk mile-markers a tenth short to become less appealing to would-be thieves.
-- submitted from IRC
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
‘420’ Mile-markers Changed to ‘419.9’ to Avoid Theft by Stoners
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 35 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nadia Comaneci, simple perfection.
-- '76 Olympics
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @09:44PM
They should sell 420 mile markers at all the surrounding rest-stops/visitor centers.
Use part of the profits to pay for new 420 mile markers as needed. Spend enough to buy a 'tamper-proof' mile-marker that is over-sized and acts as an advertisement -- nothing is 100% tamper-proof but make it too big fit in the back of a car and too heavy for 2 guys to lift without getting a hernia and you'll eliminate nearly all of the thefts.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Tuesday August 25 2015, @09:52PM
b-b-b-b-b-but that might CONDONE activity that's IMMORAL! (gasp)
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @10:34PM
Nah, give it a year and then raid the homes of everyone who bought one.
In all seriousness, that reminds me of the tax stamp program they have in my state. It is illegal to sell drugs; however, if you do sell drugs, it is an additional crime to not buy a tax stamp from the state treasury department. So you see these kids getting essentially double sentences for not buying a stamp as well. There have been calls to end the program as condoning the sale of drugs because the treasury said they didn't report people who bought one. Well, a legislator had an aide go and buy one. A few weeks later at 4 AM or some ridiculous time, the aide's house was raided by the SWAT team, who tore up carpet, put holes in walls, broke doors, had him handcuffed and sitting on the lawn the whole time; basically everything short of shooting his dog and setting the house on fire. Right after that happened, the republicans in the legislature suddenly stopped complaining about the program and I can't recall either side attacking it anymore. You'd think the democrats would be all over it as entrapment or unfair or something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:05PM
Where's the +i WTF mod option when you need it ?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday August 26 2015, @03:38AM
the "drug stamp" programs were the first loophole used to get around the fact that prohibition is unconstitutional. the concept behind the loophole is that you can't possess the drug without the stamp, but you can't get the stamp without possessing the drug (so by trying to get a stamp, you're admitting to breaking the law, of possessing the drug without a stamp). the racist "war on drugs" has always been about ignoring and undermining the constitution, for more than 100 years now. its no wonder the constitution is just ignored wholesale today, after 100+ years of constant undermining.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 26 2015, @05:40PM
Yeah, but in this case it sounds like they don't require you to have the drug to get the tax stamp, so I don't think that would actually violate the previous ruling.
Plus part of that ruling revolved around the idea that the federal government does not have the constitutional right to ban drugs, and as you've said the tax stamps acted as a de facto ban because they simply didn't produce many (if any!) of the tax stamps, so they couldn't issue them when requested. In this case, it's a state government so they have fewer constitutional restrictions on what they can regulate, and the idea that the feds don't have a right to create drug legislation has already been overturned.
This certainly *should* be illegal, but unfortunately I don't think it actually is...