In a decriminalized state - get arrested for buying?

I thought I saw a thread a while back on this. It's interesting I wonder if there is an answer.

If you live in a state where it's decriminalized, can you get arrested for buying as long as its under the possession amount?

im guessing its different in each state. i would assume that in most states only the dealer can get arrested

As long as you and the dealer have under the legal limit the. Youll be fine. And even if your dealer has more as long as you have the legal limit your fine.

"Decrim" just refers to the CHARGES that will result. (Misdemeanor versus felony.) It varies state to state. You can be under the felony limit, but you'll still get charged. Given the fines the state and police will collect as a result, and that you will be made into a line-toeing good comrade on parole, you can be sure they will charge you. It's the name of the game.

"As long as you and the dealer have under the legal limit the. Youll be fine. And even if your dealer has more as long as you have the legal limit your fine."> EVERYTHING said here is wrong- stupid- and based off of nothing.

"im guessing its different in each state. i would assume that in most states only the dealer can get arrested"> glad you said guessing


Decriminalized means next to nothing-

"As long as you and the dealer have under the legal limit the. Youll be fine. And even if your dealer has more as long as you have the legal limit your fine."> EVERYTHING said here is wrong- stupid- and based off of nothing.

"im guessing its different in each state. i would assume that in most states only the dealer can get arrested"> glad you said guessing


Decriminalized means next to nothing-

Well, it means you won't be a criminal if caught with a certain amount. Over that amount, and in most states, buying or selling is still a criminal offense.

Ummm- NO it doesnt?

Thats what sucks about drug laws- at WILL the police can add charges- it does not matter that your in a decriminalized state- or that you have under the amount.

charges STACK> paraphanalia

Ummm- NO it doesnt?

Thats what sucks about drug laws- at WILL the police can add charges- it does not matter that your in a decriminalized state- or that you have under the amount.

charges STACK> paraphanalia

I see your point. I don't live in state that has decriminalized marijuana, but if I did, I'd find a good attorney.

"Decrim" just refers to the CHARGES that will result. (Misdemeanor versus felony.) It varies state to state. You can be under the felony limit, but you'll still get charged. Given the fines the state and police will collect as a result, and that you will be made into a line-toeing good comrade on parole, you can be sure they will charge you. It's the name of the game.

Can I add the word infraction in with misdemeanor and felony? It is not a misdemeanor in CA for under an oz - it's an infraction and I believe there is another state of two that has the same.

"Decrim" just refers to the CHARGES that will result. (Misdemeanor versus felony.)

No, decriminalization technically means that the charge would be neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. It would be a civil charge and not a criminal charge. Felonies and misdemeanors are criminal charges.

Decriminalized means next to nothing-

It means A LOT if you are caught. It means no criminal record, which to many people is EXTREMELY important for their life, career, future, etc...

Ummm- NO it doesnt?

Thats what sucks about drug laws- at WILL the police can add charges- it does not matter that your in a decriminalized state- or that you have under the amount.

charges STACK> paraphanalia

Yes it still does matter. If you live in a state where paraphernalia is illegal then perhaps a secondary charge could be added, if you were in fact in possession of paraphernalia. If you were not in possession of paraphernalia, or if you live in a state where paraphernalia is not illegal (CA for example) then decriminalization is the difference between a criminal record and a civil offense for simple possession.

Edited by ocsurfer, 25 June 2012 - 06:18 PM.

I live in a decriminalized province- if you get pulled over (and have UNDER the 'criminal' amount) you will be charged for DWI-transporting drugs- paraphernalia- etc

> if you were NOT driving- depending on the cops mood- having bags- or cash on you may be charged with intent to distribute/trafficking ETC and the list goes on . .

ALL of those things would show on your criminal record- Stopping you from getting jobs- etc
To me- decriminalized means VERY little.

I live in a decriminalized province- if you get pulled over (and have UNDER the 'criminal' amount) you will be charged for DWI-transporting drugs- paraphernalia- etc

> if you were NOT driving- depending on the cops mood- having bags- or cash on you may be charged with intent to distribute/trafficking ETC and the list goes on . .

ALL of those things would show on your criminal record- Stopping you from getting jobs- etc
To me- decriminalized means VERY little.

That is your province and your country, so why are you commenting on state laws when you obviously don't know them? You've made a broad assumption that isn't true.
Decriminalized in the states, for purposes of weed, means you won't be charged with a felony and typically, that you can't be put in jail. Again, all we get here in my state for simple possession of less than an oz, and that's if the cop wants to even bother writing the ticket, is a $100 fine - it's not even a misdemeanor.

I offer the following for your review sir if you are interested in educating yourself:

What Employers Can and Can't Find Out About Applicants

By Les Rosen, Employment Screening Resources

Violence, theft and criminal activity have become greater risks in the workplace, so more employers are performing criminal background checks in addition to asking about criminal records on job applications. In fact, employers who fail to take reasonable precautions about whom they hire can be sued if an employee with a criminal background harms someone.

Do criminal record searches, however, mean that applicants who had a brush with the law will never find a good job, or that employers are assured that they will never hire a criminal? The answer to both is no.

When private employers check criminal records, they normally do not have access to governmental criminal databases (unless the position qualifies for a fingerprint check, such as teachers or child-care workers). Private employers can check criminal records only by going to individual courthouses and looking through the records that are kept by each court. Since there are more than 10,000 courthouses in America, a nationwide criminal check is not practical.

To determine where to search, employers will examine the resume or job application. They can also review records kept by credit bureaus that list addresses associated with Social Security numbers, and they need to verify past jobs to confirm where a person has been and to make sure there are no unexplained gaps in employment. Even with these precautions, however, records can be missed.

When a company hires a service to perform the search, it is regulated by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Searches can be conducted only if an applicant provides written consent. If a criminal record is found, applicants must be given an opportunity to question its accuracy and must receive a copy of their legal rights before the decision to deny the job is made final.

Because of the way public records are maintained, errors are always possible, and cases of mistaken identification have occurred. There are also legal limits on how far back court researchers can go in reporting convictions.

Despite these limitations, employers still find criminal record searches valuable. A search for criminal records discourages applicants with something to hide and limits uncertainty in the hiring process. It also shows that an employer exercised due diligence.

Even if there is a criminal record, there are legal limitations on what information can be used by an employer.

First, an employer may not ask about or consider information about arrests or detentions that did not result in convictions. Only convictions and pending cases can be considered.

Second, an employer may not consider crimes that have been sealed or expunged, or where the applicant participated in a special pretrial alternative program.

Third, there are limits concerning misdemeanors. Most employers will ask about both felonies and misdemeanors on applications, but a misdemeanor cannot be considered if probation was completed and the case dismissed, or for minor marijuana offenses more than two years old.

Ok- feel free to use that paper as a blanky to sleep at night . .

but if you get pulled over with UNDER the listed amount IN a deciminalized state- do not expect to be keeping your job.

Petty possession MAY not be on your criminal record to show employers- but ANY other charges in-the-meantime WILL. [and nothing prevents the officer from issuing you a DWI- disorderly conduct- transporting narcotics etc]

There is no way in hell I would lose my job for a simple possession INFRACTION, and that's IF the cop even bothers to write the ticket. Especially me, since I can have a 1/2 lb. in my truck.

We have something called the dash cam here to keep the playing field equal between the cops and people in pullover situations. Keeps that bullshit that apparently is allowed in your province from prevailing.

Here's another "blanket" for you - it's probably cold where you are. Maybe you should read this stuff before you start making baseless, broad, sweeping statements without a leg to stand on.

Marijuana in a Vehicle: Drivers found in possession of less than one ounce of marijuana in their vehicle are liable for a maximum $100 misdemeanor fine under Vehicle Code 23222 (larger amounts are punishable under H&SC 11357(a) and 11359).

California Vehicle Code 23222

SEC. 2. Section 23222 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23222. (a) No person shall have in his or her possession on his
or her person, while driving a motor vehicle upon a highway or on
lands, as described in subdivision ( of Section 23220, any bottle,
can, or other receptacle, containing any alcoholic beverage which has
been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been
partially removed.

( Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses, while
driving a motor vehicle upon a highway or on lands, as described in
subdivision ( of Section 23220, not more than one avoirdupois ounce
of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis as defined by Section
11006.5 of the Health and Safety Code, is guilty of an infraction
punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100).

"Marijuana in a Vehicle: Drivers found in possession of less than one ounce of marijuana in their vehicle are liable for a maximum $100 misdemeanor fine under Vehicle Code 23222"

> And WHERE does it say in that article that a person possessing LESS than one ounce CANNOT be charged with DWI- intent to distribute- Trafficking- ETC

ALL of those charges (due to drug laws in general) are REVERSE onus- meaning if you do not have the ability to PROVE that crime was not committed it does not matter.

That is also ASSUMING the cop plays by the book with you- which they do not always.

If you ACTUALLY think the worst you can get is a 100$ dollar fine .. . then you are not invited to go places with me ever.

SIMPLY having cash on you- when you are pulled over with LESS THAN AN OUNCE will likely result in criminal charges- and you better hope you do not have extra ziplock bags or you may find yourself arrested for dealing.

Edited by johnnyCage, 27 June 2012 - 12:38 PM.

NOT. You'd better stick with your country's laws.

NOT. You'd better stick with your country's laws.

What state are you in man?

Where I live it is similar to what johnny says except more freedom is given to the police. All the way from just taking your buds and a warning (if the police are in a good mood) to a fine and community service or drug rehab and/or a record and/or jail time and if they really want to be 'pigs' all of the above. Surely, decriminilization is better than nothing?

You get a ticket here in CA for simple possession and you mail the court $100. Obviously, that is better than going to jail. If you can't pass a sobriety test, then there's a problem, but a positive blood test alone is defensible. If your oz is broken up into several bags, then there might be a problem. A bad cop can try to charge you with anything he wants, but actually convicting someone without proof, especially in miniscule marijuana cases, isn't going to fly. Must suck where Johnny boy lives, but that's his problem.

Yeah I know, Johnny - the cops will plant other drugs or a gun on you, or charge you with laundering if you have 20 bucks on you, and then they'll call your employer and demand they fire you, or in your case, the absolute worst - calling your mommy

SIMPLY having cash on you- when you are pulled over with LESS THAN AN OUNCE will likely result in criminal charges- and you better hope you do not have extra ziplock bags or you may find yourself arrested for dealing.

Tin foil hat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You get a ticket here in CA for simple possession and you mail the court $100.

I believe that other "fees" bring the total up to about $400, but the original fine is $100.