Smoke weed(Legally) in Colorado then drug tested at work in NJ

[TigerD]

I thought we were past that and were just having a general discussion. You guys answered my question on the first page!

I work in NJ, they don't have the same protections as Connecticut, Maine, Rhode island, Delaware, Illinois & Arizona and i'm not sure what the results would be in those states when it's used 100% legally for 'recreational use' instead of for 'medical use'. It's interesting and i'm aware this discussion is more 'legal theory' then actual law as no case has gone before a judge yet, but it's still really interesting.

This isn't theory. There is no state, territory, or possession of the United States of America where smoking marijuana is 100% legal. There is no part of that statement that is even in dispute. ... You are aware, I hope, of the federal raids being conducted in Colorado this past week? Or the civil asset forfeitures in California? Yes, some properties in L.A. County were returned while other properties were being forfeited for the same reason.

DC

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

This isn't theory. There is no state, territory, or possession of the United States of America where smoking marijuana is 100% legal. There is no part of that statement that is even in dispute. ...... You are aware, I hope, of the federal raids being conducted in Colorado this past week? Or the civil asset forfeitures in California? Yes, some properties in L.A. County were returned while other properties were being forfeited for the same reason.

DC

Prop 19 never passed in California, Marijuana is not legal there. Medical Marijuana is not legal marijuana IMO. Colorado is currently in a sort of grey area, legal sales begin January 1st 2014, but as of right now Smoking Marijuana recreationally is 100% legal there...the problem is getting it legally. Once legal sales begin, the fed will be digging themselves a awful deep rabbits hole that they may never be able to get out of by doing illegal raids.

 

[justalayman]

sorry but they will not be illegal raids.

As you said before; different states have different laws. Well, the federal law is different than the state law in Colorado. You can be arrested and tried under federal law regardless what state law says to the issue

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

sorry but they will not be illegal raids.

As you said before; different states have different laws. Well, the federal law is different than the state law in Colorado. You can be arrested and tried under federal law regardless what state law says to the issue

Can we just agree to disagree? I'm sleepy and not in the mood to argue. I believe when the federal government steps into the state of Colorado and begins raiding 100% legal business against Colorado law, those are illegal raids in Colorado, in the State of Colorado, Colorado law is what matters.....You believe that Colorado law doesn't matter(why even have state laws?) and that the fed can basically ignore any laws in any states it doesn't like and infringe upon them willy nilly.

 

[TigerD]

if the Fed's are conducting raids in Colorado where recreational use is 100% legal they are breaking Colorado law and are getting their heads stuck in a rabbit hole that they may never be able to dig themselves out of.

I see what the problem is. You don't understand our form of government and how it works.

States are sovereign; the federal government is sovereign. This is known a dual sovereignty.
However, the states surrendered a portion of their sovereignty when they became states. This is known as federal preemption. What that means is that when federal laws and state laws are in conflict - the federal laws win. It is more complicated than that, but I am trying to give you the simple version.

How does this apply to the drug situation?
A state may have no penalties for drug possession or use. That is a factor of the state sovereignty. The federal government may have a law banning drug XYZ. That is a factor of federal sovereignty. The state cannot repeal the federal law. The feds cannot repeal a state law. (A court can still find either unconstitutional but that is another lesson).

If something is illegal under state law that is not illegal under federal law, the state can prosecute, but the feds cannot. If something is illegal under federal law, but not illegal under state law, the feds can prosecute and the state cannot. (Again, this is more complicated than this graf presents but the essence is correct.)

If something is illegal under both federal law and state, then either or both of them can prosecute. Yes this can lead to two trials for the same offense and not be double jeopardy because each entity is sovereign.

The confusion that some people have regarding drug legalization and sovereignty issues is that the feds do not have the manpower to police the states. When the state is not compliant, the feds pick different targets. This means you could conduct yourself in a manner that is "legal" under state law, illegal under federal law and not get busted for years if ever. It also means you could draw federal attention at any time and have the hammer of government smash you to a pulp.

Civil asset forfeiture is one of those tools. The feds come in and seize those businesses -- which were acting lawfully under state law -- for violations of federal law. The local police assist because they get paid. Then under equitable sharing, the feds kick 80 percent of the seized assets back to the local police. The local police get to buy a discounted armored vehicle from the feds with seizure money and send their seizure team to Hawaii for training and pay overtime and bonuses. The state gets to pocket new license fees when the next "legal" business steps in to fill the void.

The druggies keep getting the product they were getting and different cartel reaps the profits.

 

[Ladyback1]

Can we just agree to disagree? I'm sleepy and not in the mood to argue. I believe when the federal government steps into the state of Colorado and begins raiding 100% legal business against Colorado law, those are illegal raids in Colorado, in the State of Colorado, Colorado law is what matters.....You believe that Colorado law doesn't matter(why even have state laws?) and that the fed can basically ignore any laws in any states it doesn't like and infringe upon them willy nilly.

LoL....you should probably research what happened in Montana

The Feds did just what you describe. And ya' know what? The State of MT did not stand in the Feds' way.

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

LoL....you should probably research what happened in Montana

The Feds did just what you describe. And ya' know what? The State of MT did not stand in the Feds' way.

That's the problem some how the federal government has forgotten:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

 

[justalayman]

Can we just agree to disagree? I'm sleepy and not in the mood to argue. I believe when the federal government steps into the state of Colorado and begins raiding 100% legal business against Colorado law, those are illegal raids in Colorado, in the State of Colorado, Colorado law is what matters.....You believe that Colorado law doesn't matter(why even have state laws?) and that the fed can basically ignore any laws in any states it doesn't like and infringe upon them willy nilly.

You are just plain wrong. You can disagree if you want. It won't change the facts.

You apparently have no idea how the two different entities laws work.

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

Civil asset forfeiture is one of those tools. The feds come in and seize those businesses -- which were acting lawfully under state law -- for violations of federal law. The local police assist because they get paid. Then under equitable sharing, the feds kick 80 percent of the seized assets back to the local police. The local police get to buy a discounted armored vehicle from the feds with seizure money and send their seizure team to Hawaii for training and pay overtime and bonuses. The state gets to pocket new license fees when the next "legal" business steps in to fill the void.

The druggies keep getting the product they were getting and different cartel reaps the profits.

You realize you are saying here that the state(local) police are breaking the law both as accomplices to the illegal seizure and by receiving stolen merchandise/money from the illegal seizure. I don't see how that changes the laws of Colorado or how it makes Marijuana illegal in the State of Colorado.

The federal government can pass any law it wants when it pertains to inter-state commerce, but that doesn't change intra-state law

 

[TigerD]

You realize you are saying here that the state(local) police are breaking the law both as accomplices to the illegal seizure and by receiving stolen merchandise/money from the illegal seizure. I don't see how that changes the laws of Colorado or how it makes Marijuana illegal in the State of Colorado.

The federal government can pass any law it wants when it pertains to inter-state commerce, but that doesn't change intra-state law

I'm sorry. It is beyond my ability to dumb it down any more.

Good luck.

DC

 

[justalayman]

You realize you are saying here that the state(local) police are breaking the law both as accomplices to the illegal seizure and by receiving stolen merchandise/money from the illegal seizure. I don't see how that changes the laws of Colorado or how it makes Marijuana illegal in the State of Colorado.

The federal government can pass any law it wants when it pertains to inter-state commerce, but that doesn't change intra-state law

You are correct to an extent. For the feds to act, the violation must be under the purview (jurisdiction) of of the federal government. If it is not, you are correct, the federal government cannot act.

so, you need to learn what makes the situation such that the federal laws are involved. Since the fed has their fingers in so many things ,it is very difficult to not fall under their umbrella. You might be surprised how simple it is for the feds to claim they have jurisdiction.

 

[CdwJava]

That's the problem some how the federal government has forgotten:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

So ... you are saying that the federal government cannot enforce federal law simply because the state says something is legal? Really?

Huh ... the feds raid LEGAL (under state law) medical marijuana dispensaries here in CA. If they can't, how do they do it and get away with it if it's not legal? I think you need to do a little more research rather than take isolated snippets from the Constitution without proper perspective.

 

[cbg]

I went back and read the Connecticut law and it does not say what the OP thinks it is saying. I wasn't interested enough to check out Maine, RI etc. specifically but I have no doubt that their laws mean more or less the same as the CT law does and not what the OP thinks it does.

 

[SmokeyParkCop]

So ... you are saying that the federal government cannot enforce federal law simply because the state says something is legal? Really?

Huh ... the feds raid LEGAL (under state law) medical marijuana dispensaries here in CA. If they can't, how do they do it and get away with it if it's not legal? I think you need to do a little more research rather than take isolated snippets from the Constitution without proper perspective.

When the feds pass into the borders of a state, they are held under the jurisdiction of that state. When the state(local) police assist the feds with ithese actions they are also acting illegally, they are held to state/local law.

How does the fed do illegal things and get away with it? Are you really claiming that the fed never gets away with illegal actions?

 

[cbg]

You used to skip Civics class and go hang around the water fountain, didn't you?