Legalized marijuana initiatives leave federal government wrestling with policy

The exact reason i haven't been too over excited for these initiatives in the past months. I know the gov't is going to do what they want when they want, regardless of what actually is voted in.

 

Don't think so. It has been voted in by the people under the state constitution. It will be a battle but Colorado and Washington will win this. In 30 days or so the governors will sign them off and the law immediately goes in effect. Stores will take a while to pop up.

 

Their viewpoint is already that federal law trumps state law in this area. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have been hassling dispenseries all these years.
Just because the feds say. "No!" doesn't mean the states have to listen. We really shouldn't fucking care what the DOJ thinks or decides about this unless they actually try to physically intervene; in which case state/local law enforcement officers need to arrest the federal officers caught trying to harass their citizens. If the folks in Cali had busted the feds in Oaksterdam, that would have been a clear signal to the US gov't to back the fuck off.

These states basically need to tell the DOJ, "Think and decide what you want, we're doing this regardless." If they really want to get down in the weeds about it, there's a reason each state has it's own branch of national guard.

 

Idk if anyone knows this but a loophole to this legalization that the government doesn't say is if your caught with bud on you, and that officer believes in the federal law than your fucked. Same goes for court. If that judge believes in federal law than your fucked. You will still be punished I'm sorry to say. So this all will be very interesting when 30 days pass and it finally gets signed.

 

Here's a practical guide for what the Seattle Police Department believes I-502 means for you, beginning December 6th, based on the department's current understanding of the initiative Please keep in mind that this is all subject to review and revision by the state attorney general, and King County Prosecutor's office:
Can I legally carry around an ounce of marijuana?
According to the recently passed initiative, beginning December 6th, adults over the age of 21 will be able to carry up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use. Please note that the initiative says it “is unlawful to open a package containing marijuana…in view of the general public,” so there's that. Also, you probably shouldn't bring pot with you to the federal courthouse (or any other federal property).
Well, where can I legally buy pot, then?
The Washington State Liquor Control Board is working to establish guidelines for the sale and distribution of marijuana. The WSLCB has until December 1, 2013 to finalize those rules.
Can I grow marijuana in my home and sell it to my friends, family, and co-workers?
As long as you're a licensed grower and seller, yes. If you're a medical marijuana patient, the rules on growing haven't changed.
Can I smoke pot outside my home? Like at a park, magic show, or the Bite of Seattle?
Much like having an open container of alcohol in public, doing so could result in a civil infraction-like a ticket-but not arrest. You can certainly use marijuana in the privacy of your own home. Additionally, if smoking a cigarette isn't allowed where you are (say, inside an apartment building or flammable chemical factory), smoking marijuana isn't allowed there either.
Will police officers be able to smoke marijuana?
As of right now, no. This is still a very complicated issue.
If I apply for a job at the Seattle Police Department, will past (or current) marijuana use be held against me? The current standard for applicants is that they have not used marijuana in the previous three years. In light of I-502, the department is consulting with the city's employment law division and the state attorney general to see if and how that standard may be revised.
What happens if I get pulled over and an officer thinks I've been smoking pot?
If an officer believes you're driving under the influence of anything, they will conduct a field sobriety test and may consult with a drug recognition expert. If officers establish probable cause, they will bring you to a precinct and ask your permission to draw your blood for testing. If officers have reason to believe you're under the influence of something, they can get a warrant for a blood draw from a judge. If you're in a serious accident, then a blood draw will be mandatory.
What happens if I get pulled over and I'm sober, but an officer or his K9 buddy smells the ounce of Super Skunk I've got in my trunk?
Under state law, officers have to develop probable cause to search a closed or locked container. Each case stands on its own, but the smell of pot alone will not be reason to search a vehicle. If officers have information that you're trafficking, producing or delivering marijuana in violation of state law, they can get a warrant to search your vehicle.
SPD seized a bunch of my marijuana before I-502 passed. Can I have it back?
No.
Will SPD assist federal law enforcement in investigations of marijuana users or marijuana-related businesses, which are legal, at the state level, under I-502?
No. Officers and detectives will not participate in an investigation of anything that's allowed by state law.
December 6th seems like a really long ways away. What happens if I get caught with marijuana before then? Hold your breath. Your case will be processed under current state statute. However, there is already a city statute making marijuana enforcement the lowest law enforcement priority.
I'm under 21. What happens if I get caught smoking pot?
It's a violation of state law. It'll be referred to prosecutors, just like if you were a minor in possession of alcohol. But, again, marijuana enforcement is still the lowest law enforcement priority in Seattle. This is all still under review and we're still awaiting advisement from the state attorney general.


Pay real close attention to this" \tWill SPD assist federal law enforcement in investigations of marijuana users or marijuana-related businesses, which are legal, at the state level, under I-502?
No. Officers and detectives will not participate in an investigation of anything that's allowed by state law"

The sheriff,who is elected by the people and for everyone's state constituion, the ultimate choice falls on the sheriff, the law of the land who is elected by the people.Every sheriff knows that if he uses his own state's resources agasnt the wishes of his people he wont get elected next term cos the fed's are not elected by the people never have been.in our original constituion BEFORE they threw away the insight of our God Fearing! herb smoking! fore-fathers, they had no more power then anyone else and most! Educated people know this.

 

But dude thats the beauty of america this is a democracy not a dictatorship, and if the gov didn't respect that the people voted on it being legal then Im sure there will be a civil war and I know I'm going to right there fighting fuck all this peaceful protesting that doesn't do anything but get people thrown in jail and tear gassed so I'm going to grab an AK and fight for whats right

 

No one said this was going to be the final straw that breaks the governments back and legalizes pot acros the country, rather most of us advocates see this as our chance to finally debate this issue in the supreme court, with the worst case scenario us not getting legal pot but at least a reduction in the scheduling federally.

 

The simple fact is the Governors of these two states are already laying the ground work for backing out of this by saying they will not allow state employees to be put in a position to be charged by the federal government, these laws will not be signed in by there respective governors. The reasoning by the state will be it opens there employees up to federal charges, there already debating this now.

The federal government will not reschedule marijuana that's just living in a dream world.

If this goes before the Supreme Court it will lose this is the most conservative Supreme Court that we have had in the past 50 years.

 

Uh, that officer who believes in God also gonna threaten me if I don't go to church? People in positions of power have all kinds of beliefs, which should have ZERO effect here. I don't give a shit what a judge "believes" in, I want him or her to sit there and be impartial and uphold the State laws they're there to uphold. They are State employees, and they better remember that.

The Federal law might TRY and remain supreme, but I wouldn't want to be that State employee who is clearly violating local jurisdictions and wasting local taxpayer money with unlawful arrests. They probably won't be employed very long. Firing tends to happen when you disobey your immediate supervisors, regardless of position.

 

[quote name='"WookiesDoItBest"']Their viewpoint is already that federal law trumps state law in this area. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have been hassling dispenseries all these years.
Just because the feds say. "No!" doesn't mean the states have to listen. We really shouldn't fucking care what the DOJ thinks or decides about this unless they actually try to physically intervene; in which case state/local law enforcement officers need to arrest the federal officers caught trying to harass their citizens. If the folks in Cali had busted the feds in Oaksterdam, that would have been a clear signal to the US gov't to back the fuck off.

These states basically need to tell the DOJ, "Think and decide what you want, we're doing this regardless." If they really want to get down in the weeds about it, there's a reason each state has it's own branch of national guard.[/quote]

Yeah but fighting the DEA is not the way to do it. We can not greet opposition with violence, it will only make us look bad

 

I agree with others. Don't expect rescheduling to happen.

And on top of that, what exactly does anyone expect with a rescheduling? I keep hearing this drum be pounded over and over again, but it's not like the criminal laws and prosecution related to any other drug sitting at a lower schedule is any less difficult or cheaper to deal with from a legal perspective. It's just as painful and damaging to someone who is caught. The ONLY advantage rescheduling has is a medical one, which would likely be a large impact to those in need, but the MMJ program is already well under way regardless. I also see a rather massive response from Big Pharma if rescheduling ever happens, which would be yet another huge blockade to progress.

And if this goes to SCOTUS and loses, then it's back to the drawing board. I hate the fact that cannabis debates don't have enough pull with the general public to realize that a defeat in SCOTUS ultimately means a violation of States Rights, which is the bigger issue here if recent law is overturned. Again, the problem is most won't see that, and will likely side with the Feds and their propaganda.

This is also a global issue, not just a US one. We are being looked at by a few billion people with these decisions, which is why they are being scrutinized so heavily.

 

What I dont think some of you are realizing is that the American political scene is changing. This election is evidence of that change starting. Who knows to what extent it will continue to change, but it is. The "old white man" aka average politician is dying off. These are the ones who grew up thinking homosexuality is bad and the weed is for the devil. They're dying off, and more informed youth is now reaching the voting age, and pretty soon, more informed people will be running for federal office. It's just a matter of time. This election was record setting in terms of youth voter turnout. Change is coming. We need to continue to make our voices heard.

 

Arresting Federal officers who are violating State law is not an act of violence.

But it sure as hell would make a point, and force the Feds to realize just where their jurisdiction begins...and where it needs to end.

 

[quote name='"tokinITguy"']

Arresting Federal officers who are violating State law is not an act of violence.

But it sure as hell would make a point, and force the Feds to realize just where their jurisdiction begins...and where it needs to end.[/quote]

I was referring to the national guard part

 

For me, I see the prohibition of weed the same as the prohibition of alcohol. They didn't suddenly decide on 12/4/1933 that they were going to repeal prohibition, rather the movement itself started in 1925 with several steps towards their ultimate goal. Along the way several individual states themselves repealed prohibition first with the federal governement fighting them the whole way. Eventually it was Utah (the mormon non drinking state) that tipped the scale in the peoples favor.If the majority keeps demanding, the politicians have to listen or eventually the people figure out who to vote in that will.

 

[quote name='"JakalopeIVXX"']For me, I see the prohibition of weed the same as the prohibition of alcohol. They didn't suddenly decide on 12/4/1933 that they were going to repeal prohibition, rather the movement itself started in 1925 with several steps towards their ultimate goal. Along the way the several individual states themselves repealed prohibition first with the federal governement fighting them the whole way. Eventually it was Utah (the mormon non drinking state) that tipped the scale in the peoples favor.If the majority keeps demanding, the politicians have to listen or eventually the people figure out who to vote in that will.[/quote]

^^^ this. The scene will continue to change so long as we make it

 

Dude c'mon. This is a debate about legalizing weed. There won't be a damn "uprising" that would be beyond what a local State enforcement department couldn't handle. There's not going to be "blood in the streets" over this (even though there should be, this would be a blatant violation of States Rights), but people don't give a shit about weed enough to fight that hard for it. There will be no civil war unless you can somehow convince the masses that States Rights for this AND everything else are at risk here, but he Feds will just paint this as a "massive conflict against Federal law", or some other bullshit to convince the masses that they are right, and we (the People) are wrong here.

If people truly gave a shit, this "war" would have ended long ago. No one gives a shit. They go to work, and bitch about paying higher taxes, but don't do a damn thing about it.

It is sad, really. I fear for the eventual outcome here. I fear an illusion of progress has been made.

I hope I'm dead wrong.

 

[quote name='"tokinITguy"']

Dude c'mon. This is a debate about legalizing weed. There won't be a damn "uprising" that would be beyond what a local State enforcement department couldn't handle. There's not going to be "blood in the streets" over this (even though there should be, this would be a blatant violation of States Rights), but people don't give a shit about weed enough to fight that hard for it. There will be no civil war unless you can somehow convince the masses that States Rights for this AND everything else are at risk here, but he Feds will just paint this as a "massive conflict against Federal law", or some other bullshit to convince the masses that they are right, and we (the People) are wrong here.

If people truly gave a shit, this "war" would have ended long ago. No one gives a shit. They go to work, and bitch about paying higher taxes, but don't do a damn thing about it.

It is sad, really. I fear for the eventual outcome here. I fear an illusion of progress has been made.

I hope I'm dead wrong.[/quote]

I just don't think lives need to be lost over this. Weed is supposed to promote peace and caring and compassion for human beings.

 

This changing of political scene may seem like a good thing but it happens to be very bad, the old white men are the ones who are scared of legalization and gay marriage. However they are also scared of a government becoming a dictatorship and with Obama being President looks like that is going to become a truth. The federal government does not have the resources to stop two states from legalizing, they just simply cannot enforce enough.