Quantcast

Marijuana Legalization: The Nightmare of Traveling Between States

    August 23, 2014
    Mike Tuttle
    Comments are off for this post.

The pros and cons of marijuana legalization have been debated for decades, but only recent have moves been made to legalize or even just decriminalize marijuana in entire states within the United States. Those states that have gone the full legalization route, even if only for medical marijuana, have been touting outright improvements in areas that opponents had claimed would deteriorate.

For example, pot opponents had said that legalizing pot would lead to increased use among teens, but the opposite has happened. They warned that traffic fatalities would spike, but they have gone down. They said that teens should develop a calloused attitude about drug use, but all that has happened is that teens no longer see pot as the demon substance they were long told. But they still have a healthy respect for substances that cause real problems.

But not all states are seeing the light about marijuana legalization. It is the right of each state to decide for itself. But when people find themselves traveling between neighboring states or on even longer interstate travels, they may run afoul of laws different from their home state.

This was the case for B.J. Patel. Patel holds a medical marijuana card, with which he can legally buy marijuana in his home state of California. But Patel was driving a Uhaul from California to Ohio when he was pulled over by police in Oklahoma. The county deputy who stopped him noticed his medical marijuana card. He asked where Patel’s marijuana was, and Patel had indeed brought some with him, since it is his medicine.

In the end, Patel was arrested and now faces felony charges in Oklahoma fr something that is perfectly legal in the state where he lives.

Another example of this disparity is the state of Idaho. Idaho is surrounded on three sides by states with more lax marijuana laws. As a result of this difference, Idaho law enforcement has seized three times more marijuana so far in 2014 as they did in all of 2011.

That is the quandary of living in the United States: easy interstate travel, but vastly different laws.


  • fishfry001

    It’s time for the feds to step up and legalize pot at the federal level and direct the states to comply. Enough of persecuting consenting adults over something unquestionably less dangerous than alcohol. The second paragraph in this report says it all.

    • ru4real

      fishfry001…so…we should set federal precedent to forcibly comply the states to do your bidding because you can’t blaze up in ohio? do we get to put it to a vote state by state, have it ratified or just one day wake up and realize that some card carrying stoner now runs the country? how old are you? have they gotten to the part in your middle school history book about states rights? have you always been a communist? you are either ignorant or stupid. what you suggest is frightening beyond words.

      • fishfry001

        Then screw it, let’s return to a federal ban on alcohol. Oh, we learned that lesson already… Better we should continue to victimize, through law enforcement, consenting adults who make a safer choice than alcohol for their recreation. Makes total sense.

  • John Riparetti

    the state of idaho is stupid. kill someone drunk driving nothing really happen. lmao look at senator or congressman got a drunk driving and nothing really happen to him

    • Francis Vetter

      If you kill some one while drunk you go to jail, what does this have to do with the story? Driving drunk or drugged its open in the same- you are impaired and should not be driving.

      • aceofspd

        facts not yet in evidence. Drunk driving laws and limits came about because there was a clear problem that alcohol impairs you judgement of how much you are impaired. No such problem exist with pot. Looking back fifty years, where are all of the stories about death and destruction on our highways?

        • Francis Vetter

          The FACTS are over the last 10 years Marijuana related traffic deaths have jumped 300%.

          • Beau Peepski

            Drugged driving is a threat to our roadways.

            It is plausible that greater cannabis use could lead to less carnage on the road. States that legalized medical cannabis actually saw an overall drop in vehicle related fatalities. They also saw a decrease in alcohol consumption:

            “The first full year after coming into effect, [medical marijuana] legalization is associated with an 8 to 11 percent reduction in the fatality rate.”
            “We find that the legalization of medical marijuana is associated with reduced alcohol consumption, especially among young adults.”
            Anderson et al. Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption. Journal of Law and Economics. 2013

            An extensive 2013 review of 66 studies regarding crash risk and drug use found that cannabis was associated with minor, but not statistically significant increased odds of injury or fatal accident:

            The estimated fatal crash odds for cannabis, 1.26, were lower than:
            1.68 – Opiates
            2.30 – Antianxiety meds
            2.60 – Zopiclone (sleep medicine)
            2.96 – Cocaine
            5.17 – Amphetamines

            The estimated injury odds for cannabis, 1.10, were lower than:
            1.12 – Antihistamines
            1.12 – Penicillin
            1.17 – Antianxiety meds
            1.35 – Antidepressants
            1.31 – Antiasthmatics
            1.42 – Zopiclone (sleep medicine)
            1.66 – Cocaine
            1.91 – Opiates

            The study concluded: “By and large, the increase in the risk of accident involvement associated with the use of drugs must be regarded as modest. … Compared to the huge increase in accident risk associated with alcohol, as well as the high accident rate among young drivers, the increases in risk associated with the use of drugs are surprisingly small.”
            Elvik R. Risk of road accident associated with the use of drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from epidemiological studies. Accident Analysis Prevention. 2013. Review.

            Early reports show a possible decrease in fatal accidents after legalization:

            “The number of fatal crashes also dropped 25.5% from 2013 to 2014 during the first quarter”
            The Great Colorado Weed Experiment. New York Times. Aug 2, 2014.

          • Francis Vetter
          • Jared

            Francis, I know your probably have good intentions. But you are mistaken. You also must not have not read the study from that lawyers website you cited. Study says 1 in 9 drivers tested positive for Marijuana. Sheesh I though everyone by 2014 would know that testing positive and being impaired from smoking Marijuana are not even close to being the same thing. Unlike alcohol Marijuana can be detected in your system over 30 days after use. Imagine how many people involved in auto accidents consumed alcohol sometime during the 30 previous days. If you really want to educate yourself on all the comprehensive scientific studies ever done on Cannabis then I highly recommend you read: Understanding Marijuana by Mitch Earleywine. There is a wealth of information out there, but you probably won,t seek it out because your own confirmation bias.

          • Beau Peepski

            Francis, the article from your link summerizes it self in this manner ~ “Just as a person would find a designated driver after a night drinking
            at the bar, similar precautions might be necessary after consuming
            marijuana. Failure to follow through with this demonstrates a lack of
            concern and care.”

            Fair enough.

            Now look at the facts of the studies I posted,and decide if that applies to Antihistamines(common over the counter cold medicine ), anti anxiety meds, penicillin, Antidepressants,Antiasthmatics which ALL rated worse.

          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            A blog from a law firm?
            lol

          • Mj

            Come on Francis, read the study. Most obviously, marijuana stays in your system for up to 40 days. All this study shows is that marijuana is being used more frequently. If I smoke last week and get in a wreck today – Inwould automatically join the “marijuana-related wreck” category, just because I tested positive. The study does nothing to show causation. If alcohol stayed in your system for up to 40 days, nearly all the car crashes would be “alcohol related wrecks”.

          • Francis Vetter

            so 20 years ago marijuana didn’t stay in your system for 30 days or more? The point is its increasing as use becomes more available , you just can not accept that facts that MJ is increases in use and car fatalities.

          • Mj

            What? No? I’m saying the tests now pick up the trace levels that older tests would have missed – thereby increasing # of positive tests. You are the one that has no data to show that increased marijuana use has anything to do with CAUSING the wrecks. And if cannabis related wrecks have jumped 300 percent, why then has Colorado’s traffic fatalities actually dropped every year since 2002 when they legalized medical use? There isn’t any data suggesting marijuana has actually led to more danger on the roads. Period. Correlation and causation are East and West.

          • Francis Vetter

            The go by the AMOUNT of Marijuana in your system. not trace amounts. .http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/study-fatal-car-crashes-involving-marijuana-have-tripled/

          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            In Colorado automobile fatalities are down.

            How do you explain that?

          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            20 years ago they did not have the same tests, if they tested at all.

            Do you know what “contributed” means?

          • Mj

            If you think that study shows any decipherable “facts” that marijuana causes massive death and destruction on the roads you are incredibly thick. I look at all evidence as fairly and objectively as possible – this study means nothing. Especially since they have also increased the sensitivity of the drug tests so that even the smallest traces are found. The limit used to be 50ng, it is more commonly 15ng now to test positive.

          • Francis Vetter
          • Mj

            I just reread the article again. Show me where it says that marijuana tests don’t pick up trace amount. This is from the very article you just posted –

            Li added that police do not have a test as accurate as the Breathalyzer to check a driver’s marijuana intoxication level.

            “In the case of marijuana, I would say in maybe five years or more you will see some testing method or technique that may not as accurate as the Breathalyzer, but is more accurate than the testing devices we have today,” Li said.

          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            Cutting and pasting articles you didn’t read is dumb.

          • DAH

            No deaths related to Marijuana have happened. 300% ?, Get real.

          • Jason A Sprouse

            Bullpucky. I have driven under the influence of alcohol, and under the influence of marijuana. As the saying goes, drunks drive through red lights, stoners stop for green ones. The alcohol industry is AGAINST marijuana, smoking weed will make people drink less. I know for me it takes away almost all desire to consume alcohol for the intoxicating effect. And marijuana “buzz” is nothing like the debilitating effects of alcohol.

          • Joe

            300% ? lol … horseSHIT ! where are the facts –

            don’t just come on here running your mouth without being able to ACCURATELY back it up

          • Francis Vetter
          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            That is not a fact. You have no idea what you are talking about.

      • snookie5150

        I agree totally with Francis and as for the statement by fishfry001 “unquestionably less dangerous than alcohol” they are both dangerous if you are driving and should be punished by DUI and jail. in every state. Make it legal but do it at HOME where it is safe.

        • Mj

          You totally agree with someone who assumes correlation equals causation? Nobody should drive impaired – on anything. We aren’t arguing that marijuana is completely safe for everyone to drive, the argument is that marijuana does not cause a significant amount of car wrecks. Sure some people, especially infrequent or new users, should not drive under even slight cannabis intoxication. However, unlike alcohol, frequent or experienced users actually are less dangerous on the roads because the high is less intense and the user is in more control.

          Also, that study does not show that there has been a 300% increase in wrecks, it merely shows 3x more people are using pot – or at least 3x more people are testing positive. Pot has been studied and carries a smaller risk than antihistamines for goodness sake

          • Francis Vetter

            The article I posted isn’t about the population using more pot, its about More people causing accidents and killing people while having used pot. another 4 dead in my own are a from a stoner.

            http://news.yahoo.com/ny-teen-faces-sentence-wreck-killed-4-pals-061325257.html

          • Mj

            They were driving over 100mph around a bend! That doesn’t prove cannabis intoxication caused the wreck. Cannabis has never associated with fast driving – so one can easily argue that because the kid was a regular smoker that the cannabis was not nearly as debilitating as someone who is not a regular smoker. It’s a story about a bunch of kids being stupid, and driving 100 is stupid. But you would be hard pressed to find any data that cannabis is associated with 100 mph speeds. I’m not saying he wasn’t impaired but it doesn’t mean marijuana is causing death all over the roads. If the story was about him not paying attention and hitting someone I would agree with you. But the result does not correlate much with the effects of the cannabis – I’m not saying it didn’t play a role but it certainly doesn’t seem to be the smoking gun. At all.

          • Francis Vetter

            HE WAS FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW BEING HIGH AND CAUSING AN ACCIDENT!!! Just Like the Balck kid that just got shot up. high on weed and aggressive!! your in denial!! Stealing Blunts so he can go get even more high, shattering a cops eye socket, then charging at him, no other drugs or intoxicants other then weed in his system.

      • Guest

        Ive been driving for 22 years for companies making deliveries, 0 tickets ever.. so shut up.. that is another Lie the Government Started ..

        • Francis Vetter

          you should be locked up, it was an asshole loser like you that ran over my friends 10 year old daughter in a freakin parking lot. Fuckin loser.

          • Mj

            My condolences. Honestly. I know this issue is personal, and nobody should drive intoxicated. But in order to get the facts we have to remove the emotional aspect. Correlation still does not equal causation. Impaired driving is impaired driving whether one is drunk, or sleep-deprived. The problem is that we do not have an accurate way of measuring marijuana intoxication as the effects vary greatly by the ingestion method, amount used, Frequency of use, strain and the person. Merely taking blood and urine samples after a crash does not give us any clue about whether the driver was intoxicated. Fact. Before you call someone a f-ing moron, call everyone a moron – because nearly every single one of us is a distracted driver at some point – and merely being buzzed from pot doesn’t mean one is incapable of driving – so save the judgement.

          • Francis Vetter

            MI, they do have a way to know if the amount of Marijuana in ones system has been recent, with hrs, they are going by nanograms , I thinks its 5, just like alcohol, they know if you were impair by the amount in your system. You statement is simply not accurate.

          • Mj

            Never said they didn’t have a way of knowing the amount – they do not have an accurate level for intoxication. Yes they do have the 5ng limit, however that limit has NEVER been a proven level of unsafe intoxication. In fact it’s possible for heavy/frequent users and especially medical users to have more than 5ng/ml in their blood even days after use. They have the same limit in Colorado as well, but you can still get a DUI even if you are not impaired or even recently consumed.

          • Mj
      • Francis Vetter
        • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

          Did you actually read anything besides the headline?

    • Steve

      Or having their former State Senator, Larry Craig, cruise for sex in men’s bathrooms.

  • nils1090

    The pros and cons? There was no debate, there was only bad propaganda and lies.
    The weed isn’t the big thing, it’s just a smokescreen for what the big corporations are really afraid of, and that is HEMP. We lost 75 yrs of producing hemp oil, that is healthy and can produce thousands of products. The American people were conned in the thirties, all in the name of greed. Now the oil companies own all of us, and are continuing to choke the shit out of us. When you do the research and connect all of the dots, it is just sick.

  • shirley smith

    NO legalization of pot! We are going to rid this society of all dope and alcohol! Cigarettes, too!

    • TexasRanger

      Oh Look another idiot

    • Chad Moore

      good luck bible thumper your kind are a dying breed.

    • Chad Moore

      control freak

    • Chromium Blue

      How about we add your dumb-ss bible to the fire?

      • DAH

        No reason to be slamming the Bible. Pot should be legalized nation wide.

    • Eric Now

      Candles too, inhaling those fumes are very dangerous!

      • Jason A Sprouse

        (Runs over and lights a candle and starts huffing)

    • Mj

      Right….and society will enjoy the massive criminal black market and corruption that would follow if we banned all substances. If you think Mexico is bad, wait till we create a black market for alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, sugar, caffeine and all other psychoactive drugs. Al Capone is going to look like Mickey Mouse. Can’t wait to live in your dreamworld…

    • DAH

      When you get home
      from Oz tell Auntie Em I said hi ok?

    • Jason A Sprouse

      Does nobody get sarcasm? It goes like this….. And we are going to prevent teen pregnancy by telling the kids to stop screwing”….

    • Guest

      I vehemently disagree. Why do you not crusade to make those drugs illegal too, lest you seem a rank hypocrite?

    • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

      Do you have an actual reason to limit freedom?

      Why do you want Obama deciding what you can and can not consume?

    • Francis Vetter

      Agreed, ALL intoxicants cause harm. we should have learned our lessons, but we wont.

  • Chromium Blue

    Nightmare? Really? Leave your weed at home when you go out of state. Are people really this stupid? Sorry, of course they are.

    • Beau Peepski

      It should (and will eventually) be legal everywhere. This is such a non issue
      logically, that the idea of keeping it illegal has fallen quickly on it’s face,and is now stumbling to it’s demise.

    • Jason A Sprouse

      Agreed. I have a concealed carry permit for a gun in Ohio, when I was looking at buying a truck out of state I looked up what the laws were for the states I was looking at traveling through. Some have reciprocy, some do not.

  • Francis Vetter

    Enforce our DEA drug laws, shut down the Pot farms and start locking up violators for real, if not, soon coke and Meth will be legal with these losers .

    • Beau Peepski

      The gateway theory. The gateway theory has long been
      the stock response of marijuana opponents to the notion that cannabis
      itself isn’t that bad for you. They falsely claim it leads to harder
      stuff, and insist that what starts with a joint ends with a heroin
      needle.

      While it’s true that most users of hard drugs used
      marijuana and alcohol first, that doesn’t prove that cannabis use leads
      to harder drugs. Correlation does not equal causality—most heroin users
      have worn jeans at some point in their lives, but it’s unlikely that one
      leads to another.

      But is it at least plausible that cannabis use
      creates a bridge to experimenting with more dangerous chemicals? The
      research says no.

      A RAND Institute study using
      data collected from 1982-1994 found that drug use patterns in American
      youths can be explained without resorting to a gateway effect. People
      who are interested in mind-altering substances are likely to have tried
      pot, as it is the most popular and available illicit drug. This and
      other circumstantial factors related to drug availability and how old
      someone was when they first used cannabis were sufficient to explain
      drug use patterns. Since then, numerous peer-reviewed studies have been published, supporting RAND’s basic conclusions.

      Holland
      provides a good natural experiment in the effects of cannabis use, as
      marijuana has been legal there for citizens since 1976. A RAND
      Corporation study from 2011, titled What Can We Learn From The Dutch Coffee Shop Experience? found
      no causal relationship between using cannabis and harder drugs. In
      fact, because legalization meant that people went to a coffee shop, not a
      dealer, to get high, RAND found that legal cannabis likely reduced
      rates of harder drug use.

      • Jason A Sprouse

        Every heroin addict I’ve seen was also a cigarette smoker (addict). Cigarettes are certainly more addictive than marijuana.

    • DAH

      I you really believe that then all alcohol should be illegal. And all fast food restaurants, no more vehicles due to high death rates, cell phones too due to deaths caused by people texting while driving. Got my point? Didn’t think so. SMH

    • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

      What kind of a loser are you?
      Why do you hate freedom?
      Why don’t you take two weeks off then quit?

    • Jacob Boden

      Wow you are just prejudice against anyone that smokes marijuana. The simple fact that you call them losers every time you speak of them will show that. You are therefore biased and I cannot trust any arguments you may have against marijuana

  • sillyfugger

    what many people do not understands is arguments they can use in their defense . since federal government still to this day supplies medical patients marijuana grown under dea license in the state of Mississippi and given out by the n.i.d.a. / fda /dea approved n.i.h. compassionate use act . then others also cannot be refused . why because of these 2 things in the us constitution …

    Article. IV.
    Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    case that broke it open and if ya notice the 78′ case where feds asked for an out of court settlement … why so they could continue busting those who do not know. read on =)

    the case that broke it open
    (U.S. v. Randall). On November 24, 1976, federal Judge James Washington ruled:

    While blindness was shown by competent medical testimony to be the otherwise inevitable result of the defendant’s disease, no adverse effects from the smoking of marijuana have been demonstrated…Medical evidence suggests that the medical prohibition is not well-founded.

    Believe it or not, the federal government sends free pre-rolled cannabis cigarettes to a special, but dwindling group of patients on a regular basis beginning in 1976 with Robert Randall. It all started when Robert was arrested for growing cannabis on his back deck and had to prove that this medicine was essential in to prevent his progressive loss of vision from glaucoma. Robert Randall won his case and subsequently the federal government allowed him access to the federal cannabis supply through the Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) Program that was under the authority of the FDA.The criminal charges against Randall were dropped, and following a petition (May 1976) filed by Randall, federal agencies began providing him with FDA-approved access to government supplies of medical marijuana, becoming the first American to receive marijuana for the treatment of a medical disorder. Randall went public with his victory and shortly after the government tried to prevent his legal access to marijuana.

    [take notice here lol ]
    This led to the 1978 lawsuit where Randall was represented by law firm Steptoe & Johnson. Twenty-four hours after filing the suit, the federal agencies requested an out-of-court settlement which resulted in Randall gaining prescriptive access to marijuana through a federal pharmacy near his home.

    The settlement in Randall v. U.S. became the legal basis for the FDA’s Compassionate IND program

    To date, only four patients, Barbara Douglass (IA), George McMahon (IA), Irving Rosenfeld (FL) and Elvy Musikka (OR) continue to receive their medication from the federal government.

    Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids,” an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute
    The summary of the Virginia study begins, “Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was redused by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)” — two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. “Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size.”

    while many never knew the govt knew in 74′ that could help fight cancer n other ailments was due to profit minded corporate puppets ….

    The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research.

    In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out — unsuccessfully — to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the “high.”

    In 1983 the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries.. now why would they do that .

    money yes money the money government makes in tandem with corporations ….

    such as drug testing , probation, prison for profit , chemical and pharmaceuticals and many more industries … just check out how much corporations who lobby politicians to keep the lie ongoing .. just ask peter bessinger ex dea czar and sen dupont on how much they make on drug testing … just to cite a few ..want to clam up a politician ask him or her for their financial disclosure ..many groups like s.a.m. hide the fact where their funds come from .. you be amazed at the money law enforcement gains from drug seizures and how much they lobby politicians ..

    In a follow-up to his CNN documentary, WEED, Dr. Sanjay Gupta spoke on Anderson Cooper 360 about the patent that the US Government holds on cannabidiol: U.S. Patent 6,630,507, “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.” This patent, commonly known as “the ’507 Patent,” defines the benefits of CBD as recognized by the US Government. KannaLife Sciences, one of our investment holdings, has been awarded an exclusive license agreement with the National Institutes of Health – Office of Technology Transfer (“NIH-OTT”) for the commercialization of this patent.

    “The U.S. holds a patent [on marijuana] on one hand, and on the other hand, same government says it has no medical applications,” Gupta told Cooper. “Journalists are trained to hate hypocrisy. This is hypocrisy. I’ve never seen it quite like this.”
    The existence of this patent—filed over a decade ago—means that the US Government is at least nominally aware of the potential health benefits of CBD.

    let me ask you one question here .. if medical marijuana has no medical use then why is it still kept on schedule 1 and the federal government still gives it to people and also hold a patent and leases this patent …. then please explain the hypocrisy. this issue the government has no leg to stand on when faced with the truth .. should it be regulated yes should it be illegal no and according to the us constitution Article. IV.
    Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    people who are legal in one state traveling through should honor and respect it. and accept it … this continued war on drugs will only incite further civil distrust of the governments that lay yoke n chains upon the people … we will be free …

    as Judge Gray points out.
    is that in order to regulate such things, it’d take a Constitutional Amendment. If it didn’t, then why pass the 18th and 21st ?

    It’s a de facto case that such power does NOT inherently rest in the body of the Constitution, otherwise why did they have to pass an amendment to do it?

    Holder denies that states have the right to withstand federal tyranny and argues that the Constitution declares federal acts to be the “supreme law of the land.”
    His comments echo a common misreading and misunderstanding of Article VI of the Constitution, the so-called Supremacy Clause.
    The Supremacy Clause (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that federal laws are the supreme law of the land without qualification. What it says is that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land.
    Read that clause again: “In pursuance thereof,” not in violation thereof. If an act of Congress is not permissible under any enumerated power given to it in the Constitution, it was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and therefore not only is not the supreme law of the land, it is not the law at all.
    Constitutionally speaking, then, whenever the federal government passes any measure not provided for in the limited roster of its enumerated powers, those acts are not awarded any sort of supremacy. Instead, they are “merely acts of usurpation” and do not qualify as the supreme law of the land. In fact, acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only if they are made in pursuance of its constitutional powers, not in defiance thereof.
    the Supreme Court indicated in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in cases such as Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), which held that the federal government may not enact a regulatory program that “commandeers” the state’s legislative and administrative mechanisms to enforce federal law. States therefore may refuse to use their legislative or administrative resources to enforce federal law. This should be distinguished from nullification. States that withhold their enforcement assistance, but do not declare the federal law unconstitutional or forbid its enforcement, are not challenging the validity of the federal law and therefore are not engaging in nullification. As Prigg held, the federal law still is valid and federal authorities may enforce it within the state. The states in this situation, rather than attempting to legally nullify federal law, are attempting to make enforcement of federal law more difficult by refusing to make available their legislative and administrative resources.

    The Commerce Clause is found at: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and declares: the congress shall have power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
    Lawyers and laity alike generally assume the Congress’s power “to regulate” commerce, includes the authority to prohibit it. Professor Friedman points out that historically, this is not how the Commerce Clause has always been understood and practiced.
    “At the Founding, and roughly 115 years thereafter, the dominant view was that Congress did not possess the authority to ban goods merely because they crossed state lines.”
    “The primary reason for granting Congress the domestic commerce power was to facilitate interstate trade and protect it against the sort of protectionist state trade policies that occurred all too frequently under the Articles of Confederation. These protectionist type laws, “proliferated in the weak economic conditions of the post-Revolutionary period, as states attempted to protect local manufacturers by discriminatory taxing and regulating domestic imports and by restricting access of the states’ vessels into local ports. These measures generated increasing concern about their effect on the national economy and political unity.”
    “It seems to have occurred to no one that Congress might act not only to limit who could provide goods and services to the interstate market, but also to limit what kinds of interstate markets could exist. In short, both positive and negative evidence suggests that the Framers did not intend, and probably did not even imagine, that the Interstate Commerce Clause would be read in such a way as to give Congress the power to restrain interstate intercourse, as well as promote it.”
    “Those who believe Congress has the power to restrain interstate commerce, generally rely on the argument that, since Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce appears in the same sentence granting the power “to regulate” foreign commerce, the argument fallaciously promotes that the two powers should be read in pari materia, or treated the same, as a subject matter. Unfortunately this argument does not yield any evidence or standing from the Founders to support this position.”

    check out “Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998”. h11225 Responsibilities. –The Director– […]

    (12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that–

    is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
    has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

    Now, let’s take as a simple example, the issue of medical marijuana. If the government finds that marijuana Has “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” or “accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision,” then by law, marijuana cannot remain in Schedule 1 of csa which would immediately legalize it for medical purposes.

    cple legal points ….

    To be sure, Congress declared that state policy would disrupt federal law enforcement. It believed the across-the-board ban essential to policing interstate drug trafficking. 21 U. S. C. § 801(6) . But as Justice O’Connor points out, Congress presented no evidence in support of its conclusions, which are not so much findings of fact as assertions of power. Ante, at 13-14 . Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments.

    Even assuming the CSA’s ban on locally cultivated and consumed marijuana is “necessary,” that does not mean it is also “proper.” The means selected by Congress to regulate interstate commerce cannot be “prohibited” by, or inconsistent with the “letter and spirit” of, the Constitution. McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 421.

    The majority holds that Congress may regulate intrastate cultivation and possession of medical marijuana under the Commerce Clause, because such conduct arguably has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority’s decision is further proof that the “substantial effects” test is a “rootless and malleable standard” at odds with the constitutional design. Morrison, supra, at 627

    The majority’s treatment of the substantial effects test is rootless, because it is not tethered to either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate interstate commerce, not activities that substantially affect interstate commerce–any more than Congress may regulate activities that do not fall within, but that affect, the subjects of its other Article I powers. Lopez, supra, at 589 (Thomas, J., concurring). Whatever additional latitude the Necessary and Proper Clause affords, supra, at 9-10, the question is whether Congress’ legislation is essential to the regulation of interstate commerce itself–not whether the legislation extends only to economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Supra, at 4; ante, at 5 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).

    But by law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form).

    Therefore, despite the fact that there is extensive evidence of medical marijuana’s safety and effectiveness (including the fact that even the federal government supplies it to patients), and clearly the drug czar would know about all this information, he is required by law to lie about it.

    The job description also means that since he must oppose any attempt to legalize, he has no choice but declare that the drug war is working, that legalization would fail, etc., regardless of any… facts.

    Translation: Since lying is in the job description of the ONDCP, there’s no point in bothering to see whether they’re telling the truth.

    Keep in mind that this requirement to avoid the truth if it interferes with the mission of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is not limited to the current drug czar

    have a nice day … eventually freedom will ring again only a matter of time . =)

  • moefugger

    anyone notice how that k2 crap took a backseat since pot became more accessible?
    do they even sell k2 anymore? Id bet Colorado and Washington don’t sell k2 anymore… no need to… we need to get rid of the Mexican connections… legalize across the board and stop having to import lesser quality pot from mexico…

    • Jason A Sprouse

      They will, as long as people have a drug test they need to pass. Weed isn’t hard to get, it’s a matter if passing or failing a drug test. The chemicals in K2 / Spice are constantly changing, so a test cannot be developed for it.

  • mark wyatt

    Texas and Okla are the model states for the privatized prison industry , they will be preying on your money long after the rest of the country has legalized. Both states are 1 and 2 at the harshest laws and highest fines. Red states could care less about the healthcare benefits , as matter of fact this flies in the face of the rights struggle to deny low cost healthcare to those that cannot afford the worlds most expensive healthcare and scripts .

    • Thomas

      It’s COULDN’T care less. If you COULD care less about something, that means you actually still care about it. If you COULDN’T care less, that means you have absolutely zero interest in it

      • mark wyatt

        thanx, the older I get the more laxed Ive become , I actually did well in eng 1& 2 and comp, but that was 30+ years ago. Good thing there was no math on display .

      • Fugg

        I could actually not care any less about caring less. Nor could I care less about remarks from Thomas.

  • Eric Now

    It should be a choice for the individual. Available for use you have Alcohol, Script drugs, Synthetics, Cigars {Havanas, excluded for political reasons}, every single different type of tobacco, they’re chemicals really, Clove cigs., Chewing tobacco, RUSH!, Poppers, Inhalants, Sugar, Corn syrup, GMOs, think about some of the foods that are available, whats in your US Inspected food, is it really healthy? That is available, if you ever had any of these and then smoke a joint, what is the healthy choice, now you have none. That goes for all the players in this game of life. It’s a leaf from a plant, grown from mother earths soil. All natural high. Cannabis makes sense. Legalize this so the insanity can stop, make it legal like cigarettes and alcohol, so this can be over already, it’s a choice. If you don’t want to use it, you don’t HAVE to. Tobacco is not even tobacco, it’s chemicals, and in the “old days” {before 1964} less than 50 years ago was promoted by doctors and presidents {actors at the time} saying how healthy it was to breath the tobacco smoke deeply into your lungs. They’ve changed there stance on smoking cigarettes, now they say they cause cancer, it’s about time they change there opinion of cannabis. Freedom of Choice, NO! I think the best reply is why are all these things a choice but not cannabis? The reason Cannabis would be a gateway drug is that your local drug dealer, begs you to buy the harder drugs {more ca$h for them}, which would not happen if legal.

  • Bruce Wayne

    Oh you can SMOKE HERE….someone else decides when you have had enough.
    You sit on a floor Japanese style and are served… and served more… then when you doze off you are bitch slapped to wake up and an another one is shoved in your mouth…
    And we start over…

    • Mj

      Dude, go to sleep. You sound like you’ve been up for a week

      • Bruce Wayne

        IS this the best you can do ?
        Are you a stoner?

        • Mj

          Don’t use cannabis. But your logic sounds like you love your meth!

          I can’t believe I’m talking to a troll named Bruce Wayne. Your knowledge and presumptions about pot are baseless and ignorant. Let’s be honest, you don’t know anything about pot other than what DARE and your Pentecostal mother told you.

          • Bruce Wayne

            Mj… go away… you assume a bunch…you do not deserve answers… I often ask why Morons with cell phones wander outside Facebook..

          • Fugg

            I often wonder how morons named Bruce figure out how to log onto a site to post stupid comments.

          • Bruce Wayne

            As a serial masturbater you would know.. the answer is in your hand :)

          • Fugg

            You might want to wipe the sticky stuff off your chin Bruce.

          • Bruce Wayne

            Bring it Found under gay guy…. is that all you have?
            Go lower and get the award

          • Fugg

            Is that all you got little boy?

          • Bruce Wayne

            Fugg… When you lose your Obama phone service how do you get net access?

          • Fugg

            Took you 2 days to come up with that? What a looser!

          • Bruce Wayne

            It worked well you waited … many see you for what you are.

          • Fugg

            Actually I get a email notice when someone stupid comments. What an idiot you are.

          • Bruce Wayne

            I had a mother… unlike some… that were dropped off in alleys .
            As for meth… that is in the water out here on west coast.

      • DAH

        Probably on crack

  • Tafiq Khoury

    Too bad you can’t stop smoking your “medicine” for the one month or so it would take, to get clean enough to pass a pre-employment drug screen… You could put down your cardboard sign, get off the street corner, and be earning a paycheck… Too bad you couldn’t stop coming to work stoned and reeking like pot… That’s why we had to fire your addicted ass in the first place…..

    • Beau Peepski

      The dependence rate of cannabis is the lowest of legal drugs. In addition, the dependency symptoms that develop in these few consumers are very minor and often not significant, unlike alcohol.

      Dependency rates of common substances:

      Tobacco 32%
      Caffeine 30% [Catherine et al. 2011]
      Heroin 23%
      Cocaine 17%
      Alcohol 15%
      Antianxiety Meds 9%
      Cannabis 9%

      Anthony et al. Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, and inhalants: Basic findings from the National Comorbidity Survey. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 1994.

      “Compared to most other drugs … dependence among marijuana users is relatively rare.”
      “A distinctive marijuana and THC withdrawal syndrome has been identified, but it is mild and subtle compared with the profound physical syndrome of alcohol or heroin withdrawal.”
      Joy et al. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Institute of Medicine. 1999.

      After a decade of use, the rate of cannabis dependence is only 5.9%. It is 8.9% for lifetime use:

      “Consistent with previous estimates from the National Comorbidity Survey (Wagner and Anthony, 2002a), the cumulative probability of transition from use to dependence a decade after use onset was 14.8% among cocaine users, 11.0% among alcohol users, and 5.9% among cannabis users.”
      “Furthermore, lifetime cumulative probability estimates indicated that 67.5% of nicotine users, 22.7% of alcohol users, 20.9% of cocaine users, and 8.9% of cannabis users would become dependent at some time in their life.”
      Lopez-Quintero et al. Probability and predictors of transition from first use to dependence on nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine: results of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011.

      Addiction specialist Dr. Jack E. Henningfield and pharmacologist Dr. Neal L. Benowitz created a chart in 1994 ranking the relative addictive potential of heroin, cocaine, alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, and caffeine. Cannabis was ranked lower than caffeine for most categories. Cannabis was ranked lower than all of them for withdrawal, reinforcement, tolerance, and dependence.

      Withdrawal is rare for medicinal use, where patients are often instructed to use it daily:

      “The most common side effects of cannabinoids are tiredness and dizziness (in more than 10% of patients), psychological effects, and dry mouth. Tolerance to these side effects nearly always develops within a short time. Withdrawal symptoms are hardly ever a problem in the therapeutic setting.”
      Grotenhermen F, Müller-Vahl K. The therapeutic potential of cannabis and cannabinoids. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012. Review.

      • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

        The leading addiction experts agree that the 9% rate of “addiction” to cannabis is a joke. The questions used to ascertain addiction were ridiculous and vague.

        That number is based on a study from around 20 years ago and was funded by the NIDA.

        Marijuana is not physically addictive and is less addictive than coffee.

    • Mj

      Stereotype much? Geez, that’s the most illogical, wild goose chase logic I have ever seen. Every person that I know who used cannabis and needed a job stopped. I like how 50% of Americans have tried pot and only 7% are current users – yet somehow you make it out to be an addictive, life changing substance. Sir, quitting caffeine is harder than cannabis. Perhaps the truth is that the great majority of homeless people have major mental health issues. Not some “addict” on pot that couldn’t pass a urine screen. You show that you have absolutely zero knowledge on the subject.

    • Fugg

      Too bad you assume everyone who ever smoked pot failed a drug test and has been unemployed since. I have been smoking pot for 45 years and never failed a drug test or been unemployed. That’s because I refuse to work for a company that assumes every applicant is a drug addict until proven innocent. Of course I have never applied for a low level job like retail.

    • Guest

      Bigot

    • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

      Obviously you are not a golfer.

  • James

    Fortunately, I have my own plane. I’ve been flying for 25 years. Small airports that the commercial airliners never fly out of have no security. I live in Spokane and have a Ski hut in the Rockies. perfectly convenient

  • Raul

    Hahahahaha. I’ll be in Denver in 2 weeks. I’ll try to get a pic shaking a cop’s hand, bud in my hand. He will be holding a $25 check for the Police Benevolent Assoc., and another $25 check for NORML. And I won’t carry one nano gram of any cannabis product home. I hope they do stop me in Iowa or Nebraska. I’ll tell them what a good time we had. Hahahahahahahaha.

    • Fugg

      If you display your “bud” in public you will be ticketed. Please don’t come to Colorado and act stupid. Learn all of the laws pertaining to marijuana, its use and possession before causing trouble. We really don’t need a bunch of idiots from out of state ruining our hard fought victory over prohibition by acting like children.

  • Ben Gazi

    video shows what can happen when Very High
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=71e_1408853976

  • OKIE DOUGHIE

    Well, the Jerry Garcia below me who is older needs to stop smoking as it comes up into my apartment and I deal with the odor and it is a no smoking policy in the building get a grip old dude and go get your own place if you can afford a car and all the nice furniture and everything you can afford MJ you can afford to move into your own space and not poke the floor below me and be weird GET A GRIP and move

    • Fugg

      You move if you don’t like where you live.

  • Ben Gazi

    Driving while high this can happen to you
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=71e_1408853976

    • Fugg

      I doubt it.

  • Mnzu Ris

    Legalize everything…Let us start with painting the “White” House…all BLACK, or ORANGE, by the way.

    • Fugg

      Lets don’t do any of your suggestions.

  • BillA

    How much is it going to cost Oklahoma taxpayers to convict and possibly jail Mr. Patel ? And what is the social cost of branding one a Felon, when the action the person took was 100% legal across a state line where they live.

    It is possible to face jail time over a bottle of wine. Imagine driving along the interstate. You have two bottles of wine that you picked up at a winery where you were on vacation. The police stop you because you had an out of state plate and out of state means easier bait. The see the two bottle wine box on the back seat. You are going through a dry county in Mississippi. And yea that poor county will spend several thousand dollars prosecuting you and then a few thousand more housing you in the local jail. But those god fearing people got the drink of the devil destroyed and they feel good about it.

    • Mj

      As a Christian fighting against prohibition – you hit the nail square in the head. Self-righteousness will be the downfall of “American Christianity” (which is different than Christianity). The Pharisees thought they were righteous, but instead were the focal point of Jesus’ “what not to do” teachings.

  • KewlPrez

    I’ve just about had it up to here with the bullsh*t that those people who want to keep marijuana a Schedule 1 “drug” even tho it is, in fact, an herb. That, beside the point, these people bring up archaic arguments for keeping it illegal, even though those arguments are totally wrong. Marijuana is not addictive. Marijuana has certain healing properties. Marijuana cannot be overdosed. Marijuana has not been linked to a single death. Marijuana has but one drawback….the large pharmaceutical houses are financing the campaign of your favorite politician through “lobby money”. Big Pharma is paying GOBS of money to keep it illegal, since they already KNOW that marijuana is AT WORST: benign and AT BEST: one of the most useful plants God ever created. Those that want to keep it illegal have financial stakes in keeping it illegal – nothing more, unless they have not read a damn thing on the healing and medicinal properties of THC. I, for one, want them just to admit that their stand is purely for protecting their financial interests.

  • 1Archangel

    It is time for the Republicans to get going and make this demon weed illegal!
    We need a Republican President that will get the DEA back to work and seize money and real-estate and jail time for all! Don’t let the liberals take over!

    • Guest

      Right. Let’s waste even more resources on a substance that is safer than alcohol.

    • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

      Obama said marijuana should be illegal. That means bigger government, less personal and medical freedom and limited states’ rights.
      Surprise! You are a liberal! Are you a Kenyan Muslim too?

    • Tre Tastic

      i don’t even know what to say to that.. you’re clearly a very ignorant, stupid person. do a little research.. oh that’s right! you’re a brainwashed bias moron.

  • Winston

    His Lawyer needs to argue Title 63 OS 2-402 in Oklahoma specifically makes marijuana legal if “lawfully prescribed.” That has been the law in Oklahoma for over 20 years.

  • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

    The federal government says that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine and meth.
    The federal government says that marijuana has no medical uses.
    The federal government has patents on some of the medical uses of marijuana.

    Why would anyone trust the federal government?

    • Tre Tastic

      Exactly.. when they’re lying right in everyones face, how are we suppose to take that? They obviously think we’re all brainless sheep that will eat up any b.s they feed us.

  • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

    Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause Constitution of the United States of America.
    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts,
    records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress
    may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records,
    and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

  • George

    Even worse, a mother with a constitutionally protected firearm is arrested in PA, for carrying it concealed; her permit not recognized by PA.

    • Tre Tastic

      even worst? the guy got a felony for having a flower in his possession.

  • chris

    My dad said if marijuana was legal he would quit drinking since he preferred marijuana over alcohol. I am not surprised the opponents were wrong. They knew they’d be wrong. All they cared about was the money they would collect for marijuana drug busts.

  • chris

    Anyone see an issue with someone being arrested and charged a felony for having a prescription for a controlled substance even though that drug was illegal in the other state? The federal government needs to step in at least legalize medical marijuana use across all 50 states and other US territories.

  • chris

    If I was the guy who got charged a felony in OK, I would send a letter to Obama asking for a pardon.

  • Kelly Chase

    These are the issues the two political parties toss around to keep us away from the real problems in this country. They do the same with gay marriage, abortion, religion in schools and a few other things that should be personal choice issues not government regulated ones.

  • ru4real

    wow. all the comments regarding this article are debates between alcohol and weed. can we get someone who actually read the article and be intelligent enough to see that it’s about states rights and the consequences of having those rights abolished.