The US Constitution makes states almost like countries. For those who don't know, laws are different, sometimes in major ways, when you cross a state line.
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.
>Singapore doesn't nees the same drug laws as California. Mississippi doesn't need the same minimum wage as Massachusetts.
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.
> For those who don't know, laws are different, sometimes in major ways, when you cross a state line
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.
Why is it a problem to have 300 million people follow the same set of laws, but it's okay to have 38 million people with the same laws? Or maybe California is too big to be a viable state too? Maybe 6 million is the right magic number, and that's why Singapore is still okay? Or maybe 3 million would be better (like Mississippi.)? Then again, the founding fathers knew best (right?) and the largest colony/state at that time was well under a million, so maybe that's the right size?
"Leave the rest alone" is a massive failure as a blanket statement.
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.
As already pointed out in another comment, don't volunteer that you have pot on you. At least make 'em work for it. Oh, you were thinking they were going to go easier on you? It doesn't work that way.
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.
>>> As already pointed out in another comment, don't volunteer that you have pot on you. At least make 'em work for it. Oh, you were thinking they were going to go easier on you? It doesn't work that way.
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.
Marijuana laws are much like gun laws - you live in the US, but legal activity in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the same country. It's mind-numbing that a citizen of the US would have to know 50 sets of laws just to travel around their own country.
You live in the EU, but legal activity in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the same political union. It's mind numbing that a citizen of the EU would have to know 26 sets of laws just to travel around the Schengen Area.
"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.
In practice, such variance in the law is rarely of relevance to an interstate traveler. And the advantages federalism provides more than make it worth it.
We have a Federal system, though states' rights have been weakened over time. A US State has sovereignty that the Feds may not impede on. The boundary between state sovereignty and national sovereignty has been contentious throughout history. States rights are good because it allows California to be a leader in emissions laws (example.) States rights are bad because they make inter-state commerce and travel more perilous.
Even if the cop sees the card, is it probable cause for a search?
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.
The answer is a definite maybe. One common language definition of probable cause:
> 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.
Interestingly with guns if you have a concealed carry permit from state A that is accepted in state C but not in state B which you must pass through in transit between you can't be held liable for violating state B's gun laws as long as you are just passing through between point where your permit is valid. Thanks to the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA.
Marijuana is illegal federally, and federal laws supersede state laws.
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.
Jurors deciding not to convict (Jury Nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification ) would speed along a change in law but the penalties for possession are so harsh that most people take the deal in plea bargain.
That's only within the last year. The percentage of American adults who have ever smoked weed is just under 90%. The former statistic isn't especially informative or useful for anything.
That is impossible and does not even pass a basic math.
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%.
I'll never understand the logic behind this. How come cancer patients or people recovering from surgery with powerful opiates aren't thrown in prison? Why is possessing a chemical used medically a crime? (This is mostly rhetorical, but still sad.)
Authorities will ruin an individual's life and nobody will really think much of it. There's no accountability. No logic or sense to pop up at some point and say "this isn't right." No, if they can find a way, they will ruin your life for the most harmless matter.
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.
Because the federal government hasn't approved it for medical use but isn't enforcing it either, so it's up to the states which have inconsistent laws.
The law says that opiates are legal to use medically if the right conditions are fulfilled. The law provides no legal uses for marijuana. That's why cancer and surgery patients don't get thrown in jail for using opiates.
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.
Idaho is a very pretty state, especially the northern regions, and I have been very happy with my vacation time spent there. Have you ever heard of the Idaho National Laboratory? They study cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Or how about the advanced manufacturing and electronics facilities in Boise? There's lots of reasons to go to Idaho.
You've obviously never been to Coeur d’Alene. It is a vacation destination for many up here and I don't think there anyone would consider it a haven for neo-Nazis.
[+] [-] benmanns|11 years ago|reply
Don't Talk to Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
[+] [-] jeffdavis|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] grecy|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bronbron|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Nogwater|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mikestew|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Houshalter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] themartorana|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GauntletWizard|11 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronblohowiak|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbarrett|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] enjo|11 years ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] nedwin|11 years ago|reply
Either way in this situation the defendant not only allowed the search but pointed out where to find the drugs.
[+] [-] DLister|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway1230|11 years ago|reply
I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.
[+] [-] MBCook|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] golemotron|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cylinder|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gcb0|11 years ago|reply
also little sympathy for people that dont use the car turn signals
[+] [-] mikestew|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianbreslin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] internet2pac|11 years ago|reply
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%.
[+] [-] lfuller|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cylinder|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Houshalter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] deciplex|11 years ago|reply
Who the hell is going to Idaho for a vacation aside from neo-Nazis.
[+] [-] bdamm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicarus1984|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] optimusclimb|11 years ago|reply
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Idaho-town-is-favorite-Sc...
[+] [-] TallGuyShort|11 years ago|reply