Other Resources The Political Joe » Legality of pot... Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2014-01-03 7:17 AM

User image

Subject: Legality of pot...
First off, it's still illegal to possess, sell, buy, grow, federally. Period. Even in states that have no state laws about it. The feds are still going to go after any organization that they believe might be contributing to outside the state sales.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24570937/feds-involved-ra...
Feds raid Denver-area marijuana dispensaries, grow operations, 2 homes


That said I wonder about a handful of things:

All the states that have "it's illegal to smoke with a minor (whatever age) in the car" are they going to include pot?

Is pot going to come under the open container laws?

How are they going to start doing DUI/DWI because this will be an issue.

Just a few of the many that are rattling around with me.



2014-01-03 8:05 AM
in reply to: DanielG

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

Originally posted by DanielG First off, it's still illegal to possess, sell, buy, grow, federally. Period. Even in states that have no state laws about it. The feds are still going to go after any organization that they believe might be contributing to outside the state sales. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24570937/feds-involved-ra... Feds raid Denver-area marijuana dispensaries, grow operations, 2 homes That said I wonder about a handful of things: All the states that have "it's illegal to smoke with a minor (whatever age) in the car" are they going to include pot? Is pot going to come under the open container laws? How are they going to start doing DUI/DWI because this will be an issue. Just a few of the many that are rattling around with me.

It does open up a whole new can of legal worms.  The good news is that lawmakers love writing laws, so I'm sure this will give them lots of new laws to write for several years into the future.

Usually it takes one tragic incident, such as "stoned driver runs red light and kills a mother and her two children" and then the floodgates open.

The interesting part about the Federal side is that as you mentioned it is still illegal, but the Feds are simply choosing not to prosecute the crimes.  What this means is if you are picked up for something else and they don't have enough to make it stick they can "choose" to prosecute you if they want.  Also, a new administration could decide to start enforcing the law down the road.

Personally I'm not a fan of legalizing pot, but LB has convinced me to at least open my mind to the idea.  I also am a fan of states rights, so if a state chooses to allow it, then I am ok with that as well. 

2014-01-03 8:22 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Subject: RE: Legality of pot...
Originally posted by tuwood

Personally I'm not a fan of legalizing pot, but LB has convinced me to at least open my mind to the idea.  I also am a fan of states rights, so if a state chooses to allow it, then I am ok with that as well. 




Personally I believe they should do away with prescriptions and all the schedule of drugs altogether. Just legalize them all. It would all shake out within a few months.

But that's another topic

Yeah, I could see an administration against drugs pushing the DEA, FBI etc to start enforcing them all. Poof, a few million in revenue confiscated and burned. May or may not cause for federal changes in law but it damn sure will ruin a whole bunch of days with felony charges all around and all that tax money gone.

2014-01-03 8:57 AM
in reply to: DanielG

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

In Colorado (not sure what Washington is doing), it's illegal to use pot "openly or publicly".  So you can't smoke it in a car at all.  They're also not allowing it in restaurants, bars, any public buildings, or your front lawn.  Basically, it's illegal pretty much everywhere but inside your own house.  

It can be transported in your car, but it's illegal to have it in an open container.  And you get a DUI if you're caught with driving with a certain amount in your system.  I assume if you get pulled over and the officer suspects your high, you get hauled in to the hospital for a blood test.

I'm a big fan of what Colorado is doing, and I don't even smoke it.  They're freeing up their prisons and got themselves a new tax revenue. 

2014-01-03 9:03 AM
in reply to: kevin_trapp

User image

Elite
4564
200020005002525
Boise
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...
Originally posted by kevin_trapp

In Colorado (not sure what Washington is doing), it's illegal to use pot "openly or publicly".  So you can't smoke it in a car at all.  They're also not allowing it in restaurants, bars, any public buildings, or your front lawn.  Basically, it's illegal pretty much everywhere but inside your own house.  

It can be transported in your car, but it's illegal to have it in an open container.  And you get a DUI if you're caught with driving with a certain amount in your system.  I assume if you get pulled over and the officer suspects your high, you get hauled in to the hospital for a blood test.

I'm a big fan of what Colorado is doing, and I don't even smoke it.  They're freeing up their prisons and got themselves a new tax revenue. 




I'm also a fan of the new laws. I personally, don't know why anyone would do it and I will never do it, but I don't see why we need to put all these people behind bars for it. I wonder if the law is retroactive though? What about all of the people who got busted with pot a few months/years ago and are now serving jail time? Do they finish out their sentences? Are they just going to let everyone out of jail that is serving time for something that is now legal?
2014-01-03 9:12 AM
in reply to: JoshR

User image

Subject: RE: Legality of pot...
Originally posted by JoshR

Originally posted by kevin_trapp


I'm also a fan of the new laws. I personally, don't know why anyone would do it and I will never do it, but I don't see why we need to put all these people behind bars for it. I wonder if the law is retroactive though? What about all of the people who got busted with pot a few months/years ago and are now serving jail time? Do they finish out their sentences? Are they just going to let everyone out of jail that is serving time for something that is now legal?


The people in jail stay there. No one new gets busted for the specific things they legalized by the state or locals.

It's the other way around that is forbidden, if you did a legal action yesterday they cannot arrest you for it if they pass a law effective today.



2014-01-03 9:13 AM
in reply to: 0


286
100100252525
,
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...
There's a lot of money in keeping pot illegal. I have no opinion, either way. I don't smoke it. But, the main reason it's (still) illegal is because it's profitable to do so.

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/

Edited by SGirl 2014-01-03 9:14 AM
2014-01-03 9:26 AM
in reply to: SGirl

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

Stop the money war.......er........I mean drug war.

We don't seize drugs, we seize money.....believe it.

2014-01-03 9:33 AM
in reply to: Left Brain


286
100100252525
,
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...
Originally posted by Left Brain

Stop the money war.......er........I mean drug war.

We don't seize drugs, we seize money.....believe it.




Well..........hmmm..........

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/wald...
2014-01-03 9:34 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...
Originally posted by Left Brain

Stop the money war.......er........I mean drug war.

We don't seize drugs, we seize money.....believe it.




When I was a kid I thought seizing of drug money was a good thing. Take away the profit motivates. I am against it now because as you said it is not about doing the right thing but making money for themselves.

I am all for legalization and I am sure they will have a few hick ups. I am glad couple of states are trying it. Better to try it at a small level and see how it goes.
2014-01-03 9:43 AM
in reply to: JoshR

User image

Pro
4277
20002000100100252525
Parker, CO
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...
Originally posted by JoshR

Originally posted by kevin_trapp

In Colorado (not sure what Washington is doing), it's illegal to use pot "openly or publicly".  So you can't smoke it in a car at all.  They're also not allowing it in restaurants, bars, any public buildings, or your front lawn.  Basically, it's illegal pretty much everywhere but inside your own house.  

It can be transported in your car, but it's illegal to have it in an open container.  And you get a DUI if you're caught with driving with a certain amount in your system.  I assume if you get pulled over and the officer suspects your high, you get hauled in to the hospital for a blood test.

I'm a big fan of what Colorado is doing, and I don't even smoke it.  They're freeing up their prisons and got themselves a new tax revenue. 




I'm also a fan of the new laws. I personally, don't know why anyone would do it and I will never do it, but I don't see why we need to put all these people behind bars for it. I wonder if the law is retroactive though? What about all of the people who got busted with pot a few months/years ago and are now serving jail time? Do they finish out their sentences? Are they just going to let everyone out of jail that is serving time for something that is now legal?


That's a good question and with all the press about legalization of weed in Colorado I have not read anything on this topic. My guess is most anyone that has been busted for pot where they are doing time is that they where dealers and possessed a large amount. With the new law you are only allowed to possess one ounce. Out of state i believe it's quarter ounce. Funny thing is, the long lines at the "Pot Shops" are mostly people from out of state. Anyway, I think the people that are doing time are doing so for possessing much more than an ounce of weed. They would still be breaking the law today.


2014-01-03 9:44 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

Originally posted by SGirl
Originally posted by Left Brain

Stop the money war.......er........I mean drug war.

We don't seize drugs, we seize money.....believe it.

Well..........hmmm.......... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/wald...

 

If you (collective you) didn't know this was going on then you haven't been paying attention (something law enforcement agencies enjoy).  All of those AR-15's that you see in police cars?  Drug money.  Helicopters?  Drug money. Drones?  Drug money.  Need a new roof on your police department?  Drug money. Want some mobile firing ranges?  Drug money. The seizure and forfeiture laws were written so that the money HAS to go to Police departments.  That's why there are so many "drug task forces".  Hell, Homeland Security funds some of the largest drug task forces.......because it pays off REALLY well.

It probably started with the best of intentions, but over time it has become bastardized to the point that nobody cares about how much dope is seized, only how much money.  The war on drugs is all about money......don't ever think otherwise.



Edited by Left Brain 2014-01-03 9:45 AM
2014-01-03 10:00 AM
in reply to: Left Brain


286
100100252525
,
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by SGirl
Originally posted by Left Brain

Stop the money war.......er........I mean drug war.

We don't seize drugs, we seize money.....believe it.

Well..........hmmm.......... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/wald...

 

If you (collective you) didn't know this was going on then you haven't been paying attention (something law enforcement agencies enjoy).  All of those AR-15's that you see in police cars?  Drug money.  Helicopters?  Drug money. Drones?  Drug money.  Need a new roof on your police department?  Drug money. Want some mobile firing ranges?  Drug money. The seizure and forfeiture laws were written so that the money HAS to go to Police departments.  That's why there are so many "drug task forces".  Hell, Homeland Security funds some of the largest drug task forces.......because it pays off REALLY well.

It probably started with the best of intentions, but over time it has become bastardized to the point that nobody cares about how much dope is seized, only how much money.  The war on drugs is all about money......don't ever think otherwise.



Yup.
I had a general idea…but, not to the depths of how far reaching it all goes.
Yes, keeping pot/drugs illegal is quite a money making machine…so, it (most likely) will always remain…illegal.
Aw, and I once thought it was for altruistic reasons.
2014-01-03 10:21 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
4313
20002000100100100
McKinney, TX
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...
Originally posted by Left Brain

If you (collective you) didn't know this was going on then you haven't been paying attention (something law enforcement agencies enjoy).  All of those AR-15's that you see in police cars?  Drug money.  Helicopters?  Drug money. Drones?  Drug money.  Need a new roof on your police department?  Drug money. Want some mobile firing ranges?  Drug money. 


I read this as Ray Liotta in Goodfella's.

You had a fire....f'you, pay me.
Those drones....drug money



To the OP....from an employment law standpoint, you can still be terminated from your job for possession, sale, use, etc....or if it's in your system (provided your company has a policy regarding it).....same as alcohol, OTC/prescription meds, heroin, etc.

So, basically, if a Colorado employer wanted to get rid of someone, they could have done randoms yesterday on everybody.



2014-01-03 10:35 AM
in reply to: DanielG

User image

Expert
2192
2000100252525
Greenville, SC
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

It will probably be handled the same way it was before it was illegal.  The only reason it was banned in the first place is because DuPont's synthetic fibers couldn't begin to compete with it so they lobbied that it was a horrible drug that needed to be banned for the benefit of society... and so they could get all the contracts for military clothing and canvas which they wouldn't have gotten if it wasn't banned.  If the ban ever gets nationally turned over the biggest impact will be in the textile industry not recreational drug use.

2014-01-03 10:48 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by SGirl
Originally posted by Left Brain

Stop the money war.......er........I mean drug war.

We don't seize drugs, we seize money.....believe it.

Well..........hmmm.......... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/wald...

 

If you (collective you) didn't know this was going on then you haven't been paying attention (something law enforcement agencies enjoy).  All of those AR-15's that you see in police cars?  Drug money.  Helicopters?  Drug money. Drones?  Drug money.  Need a new roof on your police department?  Drug money. Want some mobile firing ranges?  Drug money. The seizure and forfeiture laws were written so that the money HAS to go to Police departments.  That's why there are so many "drug task forces".  Hell, Homeland Security funds some of the largest drug task forces.......because it pays off REALLY well.

It probably started with the best of intentions, but over time it has become bastardized to the point that nobody cares about how much dope is seized, only how much money.  The war on drugs is all about money......don't ever think otherwise.

... and gee.... why do we have so many illegal immigrants?



2014-01-03 10:51 AM
in reply to: Clempson

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

Originally posted by Clempson

It will probably be handled the same way it was before it was illegal.  The only reason it was banned in the first place is because DuPont's synthetic fibers couldn't begin to compete with it so they lobbied that it was a horrible drug that needed to be banned for the benefit of society... and so they could get all the contracts for military clothing and canvas which they wouldn't have gotten if it wasn't banned.  If the ban ever gets nationally turned over the biggest impact will be in the textile industry not recreational drug use.

Right... because cotton is a very small cottage industry. 

If it benefitted DuPont...fine... but that is not why it and all the drugs are illegal.

2014-01-03 11:04 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

There are not any more problems regulating drug sales and use that there are alcohol sales and use. It will all get worked out.

The Feds have already said they are not interested with operations that comply with State laws if that state allows it. They WILL bust those that are trafficking drugs to black market sales and across state line.... interestingly enough, the same thing they do for alcohol.  

For all of you guys that just LOVE the idea of taxing someone else's legal recreation.... why are you not volunteering yours if the country/state/local government needs so much money? How about we just have one big recreation tax? We could raise a fortune.

Taxes should be collected to pay for the regulation of the industry, and the cost of it to society. If you feel differently, then feel free to push for legislation to tax yours.

2014-01-03 12:19 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

Originally posted by Left Brain

If you (collective you) didn't know this was going on then you haven't been paying attention (something law enforcement agencies enjoy).  All of those AR-15's that you see in police cars?  Drug money.  Helicopters?  Drug money. Drones?  Drug money.  Need a new roof on your police department?  Drug money. Want some mobile firing ranges?  Drug money. The seizure and forfeiture laws were written so that the money HAS to go to Police departments.  That's why there are so many "drug task forces".  Hell, Homeland Security funds some of the largest drug task forces.......because it pays off REALLY well.

It probably started with the best of intentions, but over time it has become bastardized to the point that nobody cares about how much dope is seized, only how much money.  The war on drugs is all about money......don't ever think otherwise.

There don't even have to be any drugs. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman



Edited by drewb8 2014-01-03 12:20 PM
2014-01-03 12:32 PM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by Left Brain

If you (collective you) didn't know this was going on then you haven't been paying attention (something law enforcement agencies enjoy).  All of those AR-15's that you see in police cars?  Drug money.  Helicopters?  Drug money. Drones?  Drug money.  Need a new roof on your police department?  Drug money. Want some mobile firing ranges?  Drug money. The seizure and forfeiture laws were written so that the money HAS to go to Police departments.  That's why there are so many "drug task forces".  Hell, Homeland Security funds some of the largest drug task forces.......because it pays off REALLY well.

It probably started with the best of intentions, but over time it has become bastardized to the point that nobody cares about how much dope is seized, only how much money.  The war on drugs is all about money......don't ever think otherwise.

There don't even have to be any drugs. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman

It's a war dammit!!!  You can't always see the enemy. 

2014-01-03 12:51 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

Originally posted by Left Brain

It's a war dammit!!!  You can't always see the enemy. 

if it turns out that baby seals are dying from eating invisible drugs I'm going to have a brain puke.



2014-01-03 1:05 PM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

I just wanna roll a fatty with Michael Phelps and get some swimming tips.

2014-01-03 1:32 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Regular
525
50025
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...
I'm kind of an account, but haven't done any professional tax work in years so don't quote me on this as I am not sure and never prepared returns for revenues made by breaking federal laws. When filing a return and your income is through the sale of something against federal law, I don't think you can claim any legal expenses to reduce that revenue. That means a pot dispensary would pay income taxes on all revenues, not just net income. I think in CA they got around this by being non-profits, but I am not 100% sure. Anyone else know about the income tax side of things here.

This is from Wiki so it may or may not be true:
Internal Revenue Code section 280E specifically denies a deduction or credit for any expense in a business consisting of trafficking in illegal drugs "prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted."

Edit to add research and answer to my own question.

Edited by Its Only Money 2014-01-03 1:35 PM
2014-01-03 1:52 PM
in reply to: Its Only Money

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

Originally posted by Its Only Money I'm kind of an account, but haven't done any professional tax work in years so don't quote me on this as I am not sure and never prepared returns for revenues made by breaking federal laws. When filing a return and your income is through the sale of something against federal law, I don't think you can claim any legal expenses to reduce that revenue. That means a pot dispensary would pay income taxes on all revenues, not just net income. I think in CA they got around this by being non-profits, but I am not 100% sure. Anyone else know about the income tax side of things here. This is from Wiki so it may or may not be true: Internal Revenue Code section 280E specifically denies a deduction or credit for any expense in a business consisting of trafficking in illegal drugs "prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted." Edit to add research and answer to my own question.

I'm guessing there's not alot of poeple claiming income from an illegal enterprise.

2014-01-03 1:56 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Legality of pot...

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Its Only Money I'm kind of an account, but haven't done any professional tax work in years so don't quote me on this as I am not sure and never prepared returns for revenues made by breaking federal laws. When filing a return and your income is through the sale of something against federal law, I don't think you can claim any legal expenses to reduce that revenue. That means a pot dispensary would pay income taxes on all revenues, not just net income. I think in CA they got around this by being non-profits, but I am not 100% sure. Anyone else know about the income tax side of things here. This is from Wiki so it may or may not be true: Internal Revenue Code section 280E specifically denies a deduction or credit for any expense in a business consisting of trafficking in illegal drugs "prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted." Edit to add research and answer to my own question.

I'm guessing there's not alot of poeple claiming income from an illegal enterprise.

But it is legal in Colorado.

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Legality of pot... Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2