Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lordhat wrote:
Don't worry. The Federal Government will sue them.

They don't need to.

In the event of a conflict between state and federal law, the federal law wins and the state law is defunct.

So all this means is the state and local police won't stop weed users(unless its black market weed) but the Feds remain unchanged.


This is why I think its utterly pointless for people to legalize it at the state level.

Man... Peyton Manning is a genius .

A couple of weeks ago, he acquired 21 Pappa John's franchises in the state.

Munchie sales will increase!

Colorado here

At the moment thanks to medical marijuana dispensaries it's not terribly had to get a hold of in the first place. The groundwork has already been laid for full legalization. It will be interesting how the state vs feds work the whole thing out. If the feds still push it it'll just mean you can't purchase it legally without a medical card, but if you possess it the local authorities won't care.

EDIT: Just tossing it out there that I've never even tried it before, but know LOTS of people that use.

 BlueDagger wrote:
Colorado here

At the moment thanks to medical marijuana dispensaries it's not terribly had to get a hold of in the first place. The groundwork has already been laid for full legalization. It will be interesting how the state vs feds work the whole thing out. If the feds still push it it'll just mean you can't purchase it legally without a medical card, but if you possess it the local authorities won't care.

EDIT: Just tossing it out there that I've never even tried it before, but know LOTS of people that use.

I don't see the Feds getting involved...

In fact, that's how you change current federal laws. Have the states pass 'em and dare the Feds to take 'em to court.

Yep, there has already been a steady creep of medically legal marijuana over the past 10 years and now we've got states going whole hog on legalization. Just the amount of money saved from not prosecuting and holding marijuana users is going to be insane. Not to mention the chance for the rest of the country to see the effects of legalization.

Sidenote: Anyone think it's strange that a full on hippy state was the one of the three to not 100% legalize pot?

 Grey Templar wrote:
So all this means is the state and local police won't stop weed users(unless its black market weed) but the Feds remain unchanged.


This is why I think its utterly pointless for people to legalize it at the state level.

I think not having state and local police worrying about small amounts of weed on someone is a bit of a victory.

 Hulksmash wrote:

Sidenote: Anyone think it's strange that a full on hippy state was the one of the three to not 100% legalize pot?

It's difficult to call CA a full-on Hippy state when they voted down a ban on Capital Punishment yesterday.

CA is an odd state.

Its way more divided then it seems.

We do vote Blue very consistantly, however its only by the slimmest of margins. We have quite a few moderate dems in the state and they do swing stuff away from the far left.

If California changed its demographics to the center by only a few points it could easily be a swing state.

So if anyone actually cared to look you're allowed to carry up to an ounce for personal use and grow up to 6 plants at home for personal use. Anything in excess of that requires a marijuana vendor or growers license. This is actually looser than the tobacco laws here in Canada, disregarding the possession part.

As for the whole, Fed's don't allow it argument, how often to you run into/get searched by federal officers? State and municipal police will no longer report you as long as you're under the carry limit, so pretty much just don't carry when on waterways or anywhere near the FBI.

The Feds really only get involved if someone is brought in on some other more serious charge(such as suspicion of murder) and they use the Federal Drug charge to keep them locked up.

Plus the Feds will shut down any dispensory, and go after major distributers.


The only time a medical weed user will usually get hit by the Feds is if they are operating in an area and might as well clean up the area while they are there.

 kronk wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

Sidenote: Anyone think it's strange that a full on hippy state was the one of the three to not 100% legalize pot?

It's difficult to call CA a full-on Hippy state when they voted down a ban on Capital Punishment yesterday.

CA is an odd state.

I was talking about Oregon. California is to dang big to be generalized.

Ah. Thought you meant CA. Carry on!

No worries. Northern Cali is pretty hippy And they were one of the first, if not the first, to legalize medicinal marijuana (not 100% on which one) so the logic jump makes sense

Nor Cal has moved far beyond hippy.

Wickens and Goddesses are scary people.

 Ratbarf wrote:
So if anyone actually cared to look you're allowed to carry up to an ounce for personal use and grow up to 6 plants at home for personal use. Anything in excess of that requires a marijuana vendor or growers license. This is actually looser than the tobacco laws here in Canada, disregarding the possession part.

As for the whole, Fed's don't allow it argument, how often to you run into/get searched by federal officers? State and municipal police will no longer report you as long as you're under the carry limit, so pretty much just don't carry when on waterways or anywhere near the FBI.

DEA, but you're correct overall.

I forsee this coming down to a county issue where we could have "dry" counties within the state. Obviously Denver and Boulder counties were overwhelmingly in support while El Paso (Colorado Springs) and many rural counties were not. Will be interesting. Personally I voted against despite having a best friend with a full-on grow operation of 20+ plants (he, his girlfriend and his brother are all "care givers".)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My employer (who has numerous DoD contracts) has already sent out a company-wide statement that the use of any substance (legal or otherwise) which impacts safety, security or performance continues to be grounds for termination. Randoms are still in use.

It will be interesting to see what states do in 2014 at this rate. MO was close to having a decrim proposition on the ballot. It's wording passed state government but didn't make it due to the required number of petition signatures not being met. The push is on and I'm surprised at the momentum, especially after California failed to pass its decrim in 2010. We'll be seeing a lot more about state rights versus federal rights on this, I think.

EDIT: Oh for the love of... do NOT drive under the influence of anything. I won't drive after having to take certain cough medicines. I would imagine the same applies here.

It gets trickier than working or driving while Intoxicated, I'm afraid. My company does random drug tests where they take a hair sample. Anything illegal, and you're terminated. Hair samples can go back for months. My company has a production plant in Washington and distribution centers in Washington and Colorado.

The states are allowing Marijuana for recreational use, but the Feds are not. What happens when you get chosen for a random test and it shows up in your system? I have no idea.

If memeory serves employment laws are State.

 AustonT wrote:
If memeory serves employment laws are State.

I think it'll be trickier than that, though.

With alcohol, it's out of your system entirely in a few hours, so employers can't claim you were under the influence while at work (as long as you quit drinking early enough the night before).

But, with marijuana, it stays around in your system for days or weeks. So, an employer could claim you showed up to work under the influence, which they can certainly terminate you for.

It's illegal to own a lobster. Nothing is simple.

I don't own a Lobster. I married one. That's legal here, I think.

 kronk wrote:
It gets trickier than working or driving while Intoxicated, I'm afraid. My company does random drug tests where they take a hair sample. Anything illegal, and you're terminated. Hair samples can go back for months. My company has a production plant in Washington and distribution centers in Washington and Colorado.

The states are allowing Marijuana for recreational use, but the Feds are not. What happens when you get chosen for a random test and it shows up in your system? I have no idea.

Even if both fed and state law permitted MJ smoking, but your employer does not, they can fire you (ok maybe not a union or union state if thats in the contract).

It should be only if they come in High. just like if you come in drunk they can fire you.

Except there isn't a way to legally measure if someone is high or not, unlike Alcohol.

Thats the problem with driving under the influence. Unless they are totally wasted you really can't tell if they are high or not.

 Seaward wrote:

 Huffy wrote:
I want to see the effects of this in 6 months in terms of whether or not major corporations will begin selling and the revenue the state is bringing in

It's still illegal under federal law.

The only Constitutional law that growing weed may break is the express power given to the federal government about interstate commerce. Growing weed itself is not a federal crime constitutionally, but taking the weed and crossing a border into another state IS.

Now of course, federal powers can be used unconstitutionally, which is what California has been fighting for years. The issue is this;

Federal - growing pot is illegal whether you cross state lines or not.
California - F you. The constitution gives me intrastate commerce powers, and you cannot regulate that.

This why you basically have the Federal government raiding weed shops, yet weed shops keep popping up. More or less, the Feds are saying NO, and California is saying F OFF quit over stepping your power.

This is also why Montana is able to manufacture it's own ammo, and give it's citizen guns. That is intrastate commerce. BUT.... If you take that ammo and/or the gun, and cross the state border without a weapons permit, you are now the Fed's bitch.

Overall... This is about Federalism. Colorado and Washington just gave the Federal powers the middle finger by making weed legal.... Now the second you cross a state boarder with weed grown in either of those state, you just gave the Feds permission to give it to you up the butt.

Well, Obama did promise to push for more green jobs, this is his chance to help make it a reality.

whembly wrote:I can see my dad (living outside Golden, CO) hauling ass to California to get some mucho-premium grade seeds to harvest at home.

I'll be regulated the same way as alcohol.

I would strongly advise him not to cross state lines with seeds.

 BuFFo wrote:


This is also why Montana is able to manufacture it's own ammo, and give it's citizen guns. That is iLntrastate commerce. BUT.... If you take that ammo and/or the gun, and cross the state border without a weapons permit, you are now the Fed's bitch.

While I can nod along with most of your post you seem to be mixing and matching some things. Ammunition is virtually unregulated and while mentioned in the FFA, as the name suggests. The bill is about firearms.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:I can see my dad (living outside Golden, CO) hauling ass to California to get some mucho-premium grade seeds to harvest at home.

I'll be regulated the same way as alcohol.

I would strongly advise him not to cross state lines with seeds.

He was kinda joking... at least, I think he was.

How in the hell would the fed know this? Are there that many dog sniffers?

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:I can see my dad (living outside Golden, CO) hauling ass to California to get some mucho-premium grade seeds to harvest at home.

I'll be regulated the same way as alcohol.

I would strongly advise him not to cross state lines with seeds.

Depends on if he can make the drive through medically approved states and has an ID