[jlgreco]

You have completely missed my point. I have to wonder if you are being willfully dense; right now you are violently agreeing with me while nevertheless misconstruing everything I am saying.

My point, stated succinctly: If a law cannot be enforced without violating the 4th amendment, it is not a legitimate law.

Alternative expression of my point: "When the police cannot catch you legally, they are not permitted to catch you anyway"

Application of my point: If grow houses cannot be found without using drones, which violate the 4th amendment (or should), then grow houses should be legal. Bans on grow houses should only exist if there are legal ways of finding them. If there are legal methods of finding grow houses, than illegal methods should not be employed. Of course grow houses can be found without drones, so no drones should ever be employed.

The purpose of this rule of thumb (notice that I never claim that this principle could be effectively coded into law) would be to provide the population with an effective way of telling Sheriffs to "Fuck off" when they say "We need to violate your 4th ammendment rights to enforce this law.".

[nnnnnnnn]

On the contrary I understand your point well, and it appears to be nonsense.

You have, however, missed mine.

[pg]

Please stop.

[nnnnnnnn]

I apologize. I thought I was quite clear here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4676144 and I was overly brusque in my latest response (due to the language above).