Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Don't Talk to Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
And that's just fine. A big problem in politics is trying to push 300M people to all follow the same set of laws. That's how we ended up with illegal marijuana in the first place.
Vote for what you believe in in your state, and leave the rest alone. Singapore doesn't nees the same drug laws as California. Mississippi doesn't need the same minimum wage as Massachusetts.
And when you travel, it's a good idea to follow a baseline of behavior that is acceptable almost anywhere. If you don't live there, you are a guest.
That seems like a recipe for a huge disaster that we should rectify.
It's incredibly easy to cross state lines without purposely intending to, especially in the northeast (e.g. you can easily be ushered into NJ trying to get to upstate NY through NYC). It's exactly why 'safe passage' laws exist, even if it doesn't apply in these two scenarios.
It's not as though there's a customs check point at interstate boundaries where you are urged to dispose of materials that might cause you to be in violation of another state's laws.
Their focus is mainly on agricultural products, but they're there to get you to dispose of (plant/animal-based) materials that violate CA law.
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/ExteriorExclusion/borders.ht...
Not nearly as much of a disaster as trying to get different kinds of people to agree to the same laws at the same time.
Sure, it all sounds great and harmonious when you imagine it, because you imagine all of the laws being what you want.
What is your feeling about open carry laws? Someone comes from another state wearing their gun collection into the grocery store, and they think your state's laws against it are picky and burdensome.
That seems inevitable, even two people won't agree on an entire body of laws.
> What is your feeling about open carry laws? Someone comes from another state wearing their gun collection into the grocery store, and they think your state's laws against it are picky and burdensome.
The same as I feel about the individuals in the article transporting marijuana - it's, at worst, a civil matter. A small fine, possibly of increasing amounts for repeated violations, is appropriate if the individual wasn't merely passing through your state (as would've been appropriate for the individuals in the article).
Imprisonment for accidentally staying on the interstate too long is silly. It's incredibly easy to make a mistake and end up in another state - rarely as easy to enter another country by mistake.
> That seems like a recipe for a huge disaster that we should rectify.
Naw, bro. It's by design. I'd rather not get into the US's extensive history of states rights vs. federal goverment, but you have to appreciate the fact that it's even possible for a state to independently and legally override a federal law.
You call that "united"?
We were just talking about why that approach sucks here in Canada for health care. The cost of health care is paid for by the province (state) you live in. Once you're not in that province for 3 months, they won't pay for it, so you have to register in the new province.
That's fine if you've moving province to province, but what happens when you leave the country for > 3 months? You have no health care, and you won't have any till you've been back for more than 3 months.
Compare that to Australia, where Health Care is federal, and you always have it, end of discussion. I haven't been there for 8 years, I could fly back tomorrow and get full coverage.
Apply this to 10 thousand other nuances like education, driving licenses, etc. etc. and even little things become a pain in the ass - i.e. My car has a crack in the windshield which is perfectly legal and insured in state X, but as soon as I drive in to state Y I'm breaking some law... uh. Life is too short for crap like that, make stupid rules and certificates and permits and approvals all transparent so day-to-day I don't have to know or think about them.
"Union" and "United" are the same word, so you could make an equal criticism of the EU for not being "united" enough because laws happen to vary between Germany and Spain.
What if some bureaucrat decided to move your family and 10 others (from radically different cultures) into big house? You can all agree on who cleans what common areas at what times, who cooks, what pets everyone can have, when are the quiet hours, etc. Does that sound appealing?
If so, then I see why you have a different opinion than I do, and I'm not sure we'll ever agree. If that doesn't sound appealing, then you should acknowledge that "united" is only good in reasonable doses.
The problem is that it's too easy for the majority on an issue to feel like they are universally right, and it's just fine to impose their will on the 40% minority. But the people in the minority rightly feel oppressed. And guess what: opinions change and sometimes you will end up in the minority, so it's a good idea to set up a system of tolerance where people can live in the same country without telling each other what to do in every situation.
And it IS important to protect the minority, but that is different laws: sometimes having basic federal laws to protect the minority is most definitely needed as I don't trust states to do it themselves, especially in places with a voter base intent on keeping things 'traditional' over making sure people are free enough to be happy.
Having studied the Constitution and surrounding documents with some degree of rigor, I think it's incorrect to assert that that a large difference was intended between the United States and the European Union.
It's of course open to interpretation, but the idea that states espouse a degree of autonomy beyond a monolithic federal government isn't absurd, and is even codified into both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Also, the borders aren't arbitrary: there are governmental structures that have built up and settled over centuries.
Really, I think there's no reason most of the laws we argue about should even be done at the federal level. We just do because the media is national, so it seems convenient and it makes for a more firey discussion, and we forget that we don't even need to agree with the other side. We can each do what we want.
Let me turn the question around and ask why you're so determined to tell people in another state what to do?
To try to answer your question. I think there are common rules that make sense to apply globally (eg no murder, slavery, theft of private property, etc...), and some rules that should be very local (eg maximum sizes for billboards), and there's some middle ground for things like regulation and management of watersheds.
IMO this isn't true now, and it's demonstrably been getting less and less true in recent years[1]. The claim that states seem like they have different cultures if you consider it isn't really helpful either: The human brain loves imposing structure on things, so if you claim that a certain area is a single entity, naturally one's tendency is to think of things as "Californian" or "Arizonan", etc. In much the same way, one thinks of an Italian living on the French border as ethnically Italian, and a guy living a few miles away as ethnically French. Drawing arbitrary lines is convenient enough, but pretending there's any sound reason behind these distinctions is silly (look at the recent history of Central/Eastern Europe to see exactly how arbitrary state lines are).
[1] I'm referring specifically to the fact that it's a well-studied phenomenon that the urban/suburban/rural divide in culture+values is becoming a lot more significant than the state-to-state ones.
There are some things that should be enforced for everybody, like basic human rights. And there are some things that should be left up to more local governments. But where do you draw the line? There are no easy answers.
The standard example out of US history is, of course, slavery. Would you apply your "leave the rest alone" there? If so, I disagree in the most strenuous manner possible. If not, what makes slavery different from, say, drug laws?
The US Constitution makes states almost like countries, but exactly where the line is drawn has been an extremely contentious issue since before the Constitution was even written, and has remained so up to the present day and for the foreseeable future.
On the one hand, yes, current marijuana laws in most states and at the federal level are ridiculous and unproductive. On the other hand, as a Washington resident what do you think I left at home on a recent motorcycle trip out of state? There's the way we think things should be, and then there's reality. And the reality is that the states through which I would be traveling are not quite as enlightened as WA when it comes to pot possession.
I mean, come on, it's not like pot laws are the only laws that differ from state to state (I refer the skeptical to state liquor laws). I understand that folks will say "I didn't know." and "But I thought that..." to the press, and it's probably the wiser answer should one be interviewed by a reporter. But I don't seriously believe that someone buys pot in WA and thinks that driving through ID with a quarter ounce is a-okay.
Basically the closer you get to a jury and a judge the worse the charge for lying is. So if lying stands a good chance of keeping you far far away, you lie your ass off.
"I respectfully decline to answer your questions."
"I prefer not to answer."
Also, I have to wonder if the guy was under the influence at the time if he handled his wallet in a way that showed the officer the marijuana card. (Or are they bright orange or something?)
Hand over just your license, registration, and insurance. Keep your wallet in your pocket.
Actually it does.
I've had several incidents in states where medical marijuana is legal, but you have to have a card. Possession without the card is illegal. Both times we were up front with the cop and he thanked us for being honest. He only gave us a citation for a fine, confiscated our weed and then sent us on our way.
Or you can "make em' work for it" like you said. You can bet the cops are not only going to get you on the possession, but then you get arrested and now if you're driving and you test positive for THC, now you're looking at an impaired driving or driving under the influence, which can get you reckless driving or reckless endangerment if you had passengers. If you were a real douche to them, then they start looking at obstruction or impeding an investigation. Sure, if you get yourself a decent lawyer, most of those charges could be dropped, but that doesn't change the fact you spent a few nights in jail, had to post bond and now have a court date and now have to explain to your employer why you missed three days of work.
Trust me, it's always better to cooperate with the cops. Being a dick is just going to get you more trouble.
If he had chosen to simply invoke his 5th amendment right, he very likely would have left that incident a little bit poorer (traffic violation) but not much else.
The right to be silent, and the right to avoid self-incrimination, are distinct rights. Being silent during interrogation doesn't necessarily mean one is exercising a fifth amendment right.
Did you not read the article? My comment was a counterpoint to the actions of a person who did exactly what you recommend, and now he's facing ten years.
> Trust me, it's always better to cooperate with the cops.
If we're going to play a round of Anecdotal Evidence: Home Edition, I can tell several stories of how keeping my mouth shut worked out just fine, and one story of how cooperating was the worst of all the choices available to me.
Trust me -- an experienced defense lawyer will tell you in no uncertain terms to do exactly the opposite.
1. Exercise your right to be silent.
2. Do not volunteer any information.
3. Ask whether you are under arrest, and if the answer is "no", leave and engage the services of a competent attorney.
> Being a dick is just going to get you more trouble.
This is what the cops always tell you as they try to get you to abandon your rights. But the cops are allowed -- nay, encouraged -- to lie during interrogations, something the suspect cannot do without dire consequences.
Canada also has a federal system. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism
The Constitution of Canada far more clearly lays out what is and is not the role of the Federal and Provincial governments than the US 10'th amendment does for states rights. Canadian provinces, then, are sovereign themselves (tho not independent). The federal government can't decide it doesn't like an Ontario law and block it any more than it could an American law.
The States of the United States then sound far less like united, sovereign states than the members of some federations without United in their names.
US is much more federal than Canada, except may be for legal fiction where each Canadian province has their own relation to Crown. While Canadian federal government cannot outright strike out a state law, they almost never have to, as the power of Canadian federal government are almost endless where it really matter viz. criminal law, tax and spending.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...
"The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress. It punished every state that allowed persons below 21 years to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by ten percent."
"States" in the American sense have nearly all of the powers and differences that "Countries" have in europe. Each one is as large as a european country, and nearly as socially diverse. The only difference is that we've long since figured out the whole Unified Currency and Freedom of Travel thing, while it's still a morass of bickering in Europe.
3.931 million sq miles - Europe.
1.691 million sq miles - The EU.
No, not a huge difference.
Comparing it to gun laws and interstate travel, a gun permit seen in a wallet probably wouldn't lead to a search if the driver simply said there is no gun in the vehicle.
Pot seems like it would be under more scrutiny in a red state than guns sadly.
Either way in this situation the defendant not only allowed the search but pointed out where to find the drugs.
I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.
> An officer has probable cause for a search where the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe that there was a likelihood that the object to be searched contained contraband or evidence of a crime.
In a state where medical marijuana is not legal the card might be interpreted to mean that there is a likelihood that the person in the car has pot on them. They can establish that this person uses marijuana (why else would they have the card), is unreasonable to think that they might not carry it with them?
I don't think there is a ton of case-law here. One notable instance happened in California. In People v. Waxler an officer approached a car that smelled of marijuana. The defendant in the case admitted to smoking pot, but produced a medical card making the claim that it was legal for him to do so. Interestingly the court ruled that even when a card was present the police still have probable cause to search as they are allowed to ascertain wether or not the marijuana was legally purchased from within the medical system and wether or not the suspect is not in possession of pot in excess of the medical limit.
While that is a state court ruling, you might expect similar logic is applied to states where medical pot isn't legal. In those cases the presence of of a card might be interpreted as probable cause. Since the odor of pot alone is enough for a search, any cop who sees a card is very likely to claim to smell it as well anyways. After all they're not going to get a lot of pushback on the claim if they have defacto evidence that you're using marijuana anyways.
Until the federal law changes, possession is risky even in states that have 'legalized' it. Things seem to exist in a sort of grey area where the federal government doesn't seem to be doing (many?) raids of medical marijuana or what's going on in Denver; but that doesn't mean you're in the clear.
I'm surprised people aren't more careful about this kind of stuff. Then again the TSA likes to show pictures of the large knives that people either forgot about or (somehow) didn't realize were illegal on planes.
also little sympathy for people that dont use the car turn signals
317,493,212 is the current population. If you discard people under 15 and over 70 you are left with the you have (219685604) that means 20% of the US smoke pot.
Pot people always like to over inflate the usage number, but 14% too funny. Even in states where its legal, it would not reach 20%.
(But to be more actual, it's probably those numbers are not for "smoke pot" but mostly for "have smoked pot at some point").
Btw -- you said "That is impossible and does not even pass a basic math", but you proved it neither impossible, nor that it does not pass some math test. Just that you find the number too big.
According to this 38% of those surveyed and 17% of those over 65 admit to trying pot. http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-cha... Though only 7% of those surveyed where willing to say they currently smoked.
As a sanity check if you where 15 in 1960 your ~69.
PS: Though, in an informal survey's my 14-15 year old classmates in the 1990's over 90% said they had used pot in the last year. So their numbers might be off.
Also if 14% of people smoke pot that means 80% of all house household smoke pot and it is NOT true.
If population A = 95%, Population B = 30%, and Population C = 1% then it becomes vary important to get the correct ratio of populations A, B, and C. And correctly sampling culturally diverse populations in the same geographic area is vary difficult. Something as simple as a phone screen is unlikely to work due to things like % of population in prison or number of phone numbers in a household. Even block by block analysis can fail with transient populations as it's easy to introduce bias by counting someone twice or not at all.
What about your "basic math" argument applies to pot but not alcohol?
Pot smokers confuse... "I have one time tried smoking pot" with "14% of america consumes alcohol". It is not the same thing, but you use it as if it is. That is the lie... they knowingly or through lack of braincells from smoking pot get this point intentionally wrong.
Meanwhile another suburban soccer mom/dad doctor-shops and snags another prescription for fully legal, powerful opiates. He/she eventually overdoses and dies. Nothing is done.
If you're asking about the logic behind the law, don't. Looking for logic in politics is a fast way to the crazy house.
Who the hell is going to Idaho for a vacation aside from neo-Nazis.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Idaho-town-is-favorite-Sc...