
Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted - zabalmendi
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-22/marijuana-law-mayhem-splits-u-s-in-two-as-travelers-get-busted.html
======
benmanns
“I very politely and truthfully told him, ‘I’ll show you where it is.’”

Don't Talk to Police:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

------
jeffdavis
The US Constitution makes states almost like countries. For those who don't
know, laws are different, sometimes in major ways, when you cross a state
line.

And that's just fine. A big problem in politics is trying to push 300M people
to all follow the same set of laws. That's how we ended up with illegal
marijuana in the first place.

Vote for what you believe in in your state, and leave the rest alone.
Singapore doesn't nees the same drug laws as California. Mississippi doesn't
need the same minimum wage as Massachusetts.

And when you travel, it's a good idea to follow a baseline of behavior that is
acceptable almost anywhere. If you don't live there, you are a guest.

~~~
bronbron
> For those who don't know, laws are different, sometimes in major ways, when
> you cross a state line

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

It's incredibly easy to cross state lines without purposely intending to,
especially in the northeast (e.g. you can easily be ushered into NJ trying to
get to upstate NY through NYC). It's exactly why 'safe passage' laws exist,
even if it doesn't apply in these two scenarios.

It's not as though there's a customs check point at interstate boundaries
where you are urged to dispose of materials that might cause you to be in
violation of another state's laws.

~~~
tjohns
Actually, California has precisely that. Shortly after driving across the
California border, you'll usually find an agricultural checkpoint or "Border
Protection Station".

Their focus is mainly on agricultural products, but they're there to get you
to dispose of (plant/animal-based) materials that violate CA law.

[http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/ExteriorExclusion/borders.ht...](http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/ExteriorExclusion/borders.html)

~~~
bronbron
Interesting! Certainly seems to be the exception, but good to know
nonetheless.

------
mikestew
As already pointed out in another comment, don't _volunteer_ that you have pot
on you. At least make 'em work for it. Oh, you were thinking they were going
to go easier on you? It doesn't work that way.

On the one hand, yes, current marijuana laws in most states and at the federal
level are ridiculous and unproductive. On the other hand, as a Washington
resident what do you think I left at home on a recent motorcycle trip out of
state? There's the way we think things should be, and then there's reality.
And the reality is that the states through which I would be traveling are not
quite as enlightened as WA when it comes to pot possession.

I mean, come on, it's not like pot laws are the only laws that differ from
state to state (I refer the skeptical to state liquor laws). I understand that
folks will say "I didn't know." and "But I thought that..." to the press, and
it's probably the wiser answer should one be interviewed by a reporter. But I
don't seriously believe that someone buys pot in WA and thinks that driving
through ID with a quarter ounce is a-okay.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>> As already pointed out in another comment, don't volunteer that you have
pot on you. At least make 'em work for it. Oh, you were thinking they were
going to go easier on you? It doesn't work that way.

Actually it does.

I've had several incidents in states where medical marijuana is legal, but you
have to have a card. Possession without the card is illegal. Both times we
were up front with the cop and he thanked us for being honest. He only gave us
a citation for a fine, confiscated our weed and then sent us on our way.

Or you can "make em' work for it" like you said. You can bet the cops are not
only going to get you on the possession, but then you get arrested and now if
you're driving and you test positive for THC, now you're looking at an
impaired driving or driving under the influence, which can get you reckless
driving or reckless endangerment if you had passengers. If you were a real
douche to them, then they start looking at obstruction or impeding an
investigation. Sure, if you get yourself a decent lawyer, most of those
charges could be dropped, but that doesn't change the fact you spent a few
nights in jail, had to post bond and now have a court date and now have to
explain to your employer why you missed three days of work.

Trust me, it's always better to cooperate with the cops. Being a dick is just
going to get you more trouble.

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

If he had chosen to simply invoke his 5th amendment right, he very likely
would have left that incident a little bit poorer (traffic violation) but not
much else.

~~~
lutusp
> If he had chosen to simply invoke his 5th amendment right ...

The right to be silent, and the right to avoid self-incrimination, are
distinct rights. Being silent during interrogation doesn't necessarily mean
one is exercising a fifth amendment right.

------
themartorana
Marijuana laws are much like gun laws - you live in the US, but legal activity
in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the
same country. It's mind-numbing that a citizen of the US would have to know 50
sets of laws just to travel around their own country.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
We have a Federal system, though states' rights have been weakened over time.
A US State has sovereignty that the Feds may not impede on. The boundary
between state sovereignty and national sovereignty has been contentious
throughout history. States rights are good because it allows California to be
a leader in emissions laws (example.) States rights are bad because they make
inter-state commerce and travel more perilous.

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

~~~
Solarsail
Odd that you would pick those two countries as your examples. Both are
federations comprised of a number of separate sovereign governments. Or, for
that matter, the United States of Mexico shares that trait of its name with
America. (An actual counterexample would be France, a unitary state.)

The Constitution of Canada far more clearly lays out what is and is not the
role of the Federal and Provincial governments than the US 10'th amendment
does for states rights. Canadian provinces, then, are sovereign themselves
(tho not independent). The federal government can't decide it doesn't like an
Ontario law and block it any more than it could an American law.

The States of the United States then sound far less like united, sovereign
states than the members of some federations without United in their names.

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

US is much more federal than Canada, except may be for legal fiction where
each Canadian province has their own relation to Crown. While Canadian federal
government cannot outright strike out a state law, they almost never have to,
as the power of Canadian federal government are almost endless where it really
matter viz. criminal law, tax and spending.

------
mbarrett
Even if the cop sees the card, is it probable cause for a search?

Comparing it to gun laws and interstate travel, a gun permit seen in a wallet
probably wouldn't lead to a search if the driver simply said there is no gun
in the vehicle.

Pot seems like it would be under more scrutiny in a red state than guns sadly.

~~~
DLister
Interestingly with guns if you have a concealed carry permit from state A that
is accepted in state C but not in state B which you must pass through in
transit between you can't be held liable for violating state B's gun laws as
long as you are just passing through between point where your permit is valid.
Thanks to the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA.

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

------
MBCook
Marijuana is illegal federally, and federal laws supersede state laws.

Until the federal law changes, possession is risky even in states that have
'legalized' it. Things seem to exist in a sort of grey area where the federal
government doesn't seem to be doing (many?) raids of medical marijuana or
what's going on in Denver; but that doesn't mean you're in the clear.

I'm surprised people aren't more careful about this kind of stuff. Then again
the TSA likes to show pictures of the large knives that people either forgot
about or (somehow) didn't realize were illegal on planes.

------
golemotron
Jurors deciding not to convict (Jury Nullification
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)
) would speed along a change in law but the penalties for possession are so
harsh that most people take the deal in plea bargain.

~~~
cylinder
I can't see an Arizona jury making this leap to rescue a Mr. Patel.

------
gcb0
traveling with pot is not smart.

also little sympathy for people that dont use the car turn signals

~~~
mikestew
Upvote for the turn signals. Traveling with contraband? Be a model driver.

~~~
mikeash
And don't carry a card in your wallet that says "I have contraband," and don't
tell the police, "I'll show you where the contraband is, kind and friendly
officer" when he asks you about it.

------
brianbreslin
It says 14% of americans smoke pot. I think that sounds accurate. That is 44
MILLION people in case you were wondering.

~~~
internet2pac
That is impossible and does not even pass a basic math.

317,493,212 is the current population. If you discard people under 15 and over
70 you are left with the you have (219685604) that means 20% of the US smoke
pot.

Pot people always like to over inflate the usage number, but 14% too funny.
Even in states where its legal, it would not reach 20%.

~~~
Retric
People under 15 and over 70 smoke pot.

According to this 38% of those surveyed and 17% of those over 65 admit to
trying pot. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-
cha...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-
changed-80s.aspx) Though only 7% of those surveyed where willing to say they
currently smoked.

As a sanity check if you where 15 in 1960 your ~69.

PS: Though, in an informal survey's my 14-15 year old classmates in the 1990's
over 90% said they had used pot in the last year. So their numbers might be
off.

~~~
internet2pac
Yeah sure but statistically it is not significant. There is a two year chinese
kid that smokes 2 packs a day, but that does not mean a significant number of
2 year old kids smoke.

Also if 14% of people smoke pot that means 80% of all house household smoke
pot and it is NOT true.

~~~
Retric
My point is it's a high variance statistic which is hard to control for.

If population A = 95%, Population B = 30%, and Population C = 1% then it
becomes vary important to get the correct ratio of populations A, B, and C.
And correctly sampling culturally diverse populations in the same geographic
area is vary difficult. Something as simple as a phone screen is unlikely to
work due to things like % of population in prison or number of phone numbers
in a household. Even block by block analysis can fail with transient
populations as it's easy to introduce bias by counting someone twice or not at
all.

------
lfuller
I'll never understand the logic behind this. How come cancer patients or
people recovering from surgery with powerful opiates aren't thrown in prison?
Why is possessing a chemical used medically a crime? (This is mostly
rhetorical, but still sad.)

~~~
cylinder
Authorities will ruin an individual's life and nobody will really think much
of it. There's no accountability. No logic or sense to pop up at some point
and say "this isn't right." No, if they can find a way, they will ruin your
life for the most harmless matter.

Meanwhile another suburban soccer mom/dad doctor-shops and snags another
prescription for fully legal, powerful opiates. He/she eventually overdoses
and dies. Nothing is done.

------
deciplex
>James Siebe, a lawyer in Coeur d’Alene, put it another way: “Come on
vacation, leave on probation.”

Who the hell is going to Idaho for a vacation aside from neo-Nazis.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Lots of people visiting Yellowstone National Park

