Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

#51

Post by enjo »

mbarrett wrote: post #16

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.

Re: Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

#52

Post by enjo »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #31
mikestew wrote: post #5

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 t…

>>> 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 u…

If you're telling the truth, you are incredibly lucky. Hell the guy in the cited article was absolutely cooperative and now he's very likely going to jail and ultimately will likely be deported.

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.

Re: Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

#53

Post by jeffdavis »

bronbron wrote: post #44
jeffdavis wrote: post #38

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 does…

> 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 app…

"That seems like a recipe for a huge disaster that we should rectify."

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.

Re: Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

#54

Post by Pinckney »

DLister wrote: post #39
mbarrett wrote: post #16

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.

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.

Concealed carry has nothing to do with it. You don't need a CC permit to take advantage of the FOPA safe passage provisions, and FOPA won't protect you if you're carrying on your person even if you have a CC permit valid at the endpoints. The firearms and ammunition need to be unloaded and not readily accessible from the passenger compartment.

Re: Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

#55

Post by some_guy_there »

Nogwater wrote: post #50
jeffdavis wrote: post #38

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 does…

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…

While the magic number might take some time to arrive at, nothing stops California to run its own system of federalization inside the state if they think they are too big to manage. The cities usually handle their own police force, for example, and can also pass quite a few laws within power structure of California.

Re: Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

#56

Post by jeffdavis »

Nogwater wrote: post #50
jeffdavis wrote: post #38

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 does…

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…

I agree that there's no magic number, but I think we dramatically err on the side of centralization, so cutting it down by an order of magnitude is fine by me. And states do have a general character/culture -- consider the differences between California and Arizona or Nevada.

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?

Re: Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

#57

Post by true_religion »

DLister wrote: post #39
mbarrett wrote: post #16

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.

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.

Isn't this because guns are legal at the federal level, and thus not allowing them to transit through a state would be a violation of interstate commerce?

Re: Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

#58

Post by jeffdavis »

grecy wrote: post #47
jeffdavis wrote: post #38

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 does…

> 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. T…

"You call that "united"?"

"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.

Re: Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

#59

Post by some_guy_there »

Solarsail wrote: post #36
fjolthor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the name 'United States', and not Germany or Canada.

Odd that you would pick those two countries as your examples. Both are federations comprised of a number of separate sovereign governments. Or, for that matter, the United States of Mexico shares that trait of its name with America. (An actual counterexample would be France, a unitary state.) The Constitution of Canada far more clearly lays out what is and is not the role of the Federal and Provincial governments tha…

Canadian federal government has much more power than US feds can ever imagine to have. The criminal law is entirely up to the Canadian Parliament, and this is highly unlikely to ever fly in US. Further more, the courts have held that Canadian federal government can spend its money any way it likes to influence provincial policy. While the US Supreme court has allowed some percentage of money to be tied to state legislation (viz 21 year drinking age), it has also struck down laws which forces states to take up new spending or lose all the earlier grant from federal government (viz Medicare expansion in Obamacare). Each US state maintains its own Constitution and individual Judiciary, while the Canadian Supreme Court sits on top of any case of controversy in Canada,

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.

Re: Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

#60

Post by Nogwater »

jeffdavis wrote: post #56
Nogwater wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree that there's no magic number, but I think we dramatically err on the side of centralization, so cutting it down by an order of magnitude is fine by me. And states do have a general character/culture -- consider the differences between California and Arizona or Nevada. Also, the borders aren't arbitrary: there are governmental structures that have built up and settled over centuries. Really, I think there's no…

I guess we disagree on the general character/culture front. I see a lot of similarities across state boundaries (for example: people think murder is bad) and a lot of differences within states (especially in the city vs. rural divide). Lots of values aren't even geographical (e.g. should religion be a part of public schools?). Similarly, I'd say that most boarders are arbitrary and have very little lasting meaning, but whatever.

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.

Post reply on HN