Edibles are low profile and better on the lungs than smoking.
It's all good from my perspective and I'm not here to promote or dissuade anybody from doing anything which isn't harmful to me personally. I'm just noting the Federal/states conflicts and how it's playing out in high volume MJ possession states now that their state laws are being relaxed. Seems to me a lot of people are spending a lot of time and a lot of money in court when they could have avoided it by recognizing the sharply differing Federal and state statutes on MJ possession. Whether that's fair or not isn't for me to judge. All I know is that it's happening.Originally Posted by redzombie
It would be of interest to see some case law as to how the various states' Castle Doctrine statutes relate to search as opposed to the self-defense/use of deadly force normally written into those statutes. Probable cause for a search is a pretty low standard for LEOs to clear, and I've spent enough time with family in court to expect the courts to leave LEOs a lot of latitude when it comes to probable cause. If you know of case law or statutory law applying Castle Doctrine concepts to search and seizure, the sources would be of broad interest.
You're absolutely right to observe one can argue one's own case before a judge. It happens every day in every state. But unless you've got the time to go to court and deal with the sentence if your arguments fail, perhaps best to be aware of the downside potential.
I genuinely feel for any who have conditions for which relief is provided by a drug which can't be legally obtained or possessed where they live/work/travel to. It's a shame the laws can't be simpler and that the penalties for illegal activities can be so severe.
AO
I am no lawyer, but I believe that you are misinterpreting Florida v. Jardines. Jardines, found only that a "drug dogs sniff is a unconstitutional search, and requires a warrant" with regard to one's home and curtilage. It was not a blanket finding that all searches by drug dogs are unconstitutional. As the article pointed out --
While we may want to argue that our tents are our homes, there is no curtilage as the land you are camping on is public property. Also there is not the same expectation privacy camping along the trail as there would be in one's own home. I would say that Jardines does not prevent an officer walking a dog around a tent, tarp or shelter.The court has OK'd drug dog sniffs in several other major cases. Two of those involved dogs that detected drugs during routine traffic stops. In another, a dog hit on drugs in airport luggage. A fourth involved a drug-laden package in transit.
The difference in this case, the court said, is that Franky was used at a home.
This article from the Vanderbilt Law review is an interesting article -- http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/c..._L_Rev_933.pdf
I also believe that you are misinterpreting what castle doctrine means with regard to a potential police search of a tent or shelter or your gear. In the end, the cop is not the judge and it will do no good to argue and will be even worse resisting. The place to argue a case is in the court before a judge.Life on Streets and Trails: Fourth Amendment Rights for the Homelessand the Homeward Bound
People who read law review articles usually have the resources to temporarily abscond from society on a whim, perhaps to the nearest trailhead, and begin a trek through the woods. Such readers, if they choose a well-maintained trail frequented by long-distance hikers, may come across a simple, three-sided cabin known as a shelter. There they might find a grimy and unwashed bunch, talking amongst themselves using jargon such as “blazes” and “trail angels.”2 Some may recognize them as “thru-hikers”3 and wonder how long the scrawny, bearded, and overloaded travelers have been at it. But some may ask if these apparent vagabonds have not taken residence in the humble shelter out of necessity. In fact, many homeless individuals leave the urban streets for hiking trails where their appearance and drifting lifestyle are not as quickly frowned upon.
People often confuse long-distance backpackers with homeless “squatters.” A visitor to the wealthy community of Kent, Connecticut, once asked a shop owner “how a town like Kent could have such a serious homeless problem,” referring to the numerous Appalachian Trail hikers who walk to Kent from the wilderness for resupplying and refreshments.4 While a benign misunderstanding may be comical, park rangers warn that failing to distinguish genuine hikers from squatters can have fatal consequences. Consider, for example, Gary Michael Hilton, an “apparently homeless” predator who “spent months migrating up and down the Appalachian Trail” before abducting and murdering a twenty-four-year-old experienced hiker, Meredith Emerson, on the Appalachian Trail at Blood Mountain in North Georgia.5 Of course, not all homeless denizens of the backcountry are dangerous, just as some recreational hikers have their own criminal proclivities.6 The intersection of the homeless and recreational hikers is no coincidence. On the one hand, those who have the means to live comfortably often look for ways to live more simply, even if only as a temporary escape from their complicated lives, and thus venture into the woods with just a few necessities of life.7 On the other hand, those who have nothing except the necessities of life may make their way to the campsites and hiking trails in the backcountry because society has deemed it appropriate to sleep on the ground in the wilderness, but not in the city. In fact, about seven percent of the nation’s homeless people live in rural areas.8
This combination produces an interesting legal result in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. When the privileged decide to live like the homeless, they bring with them their expectations of constitutional protections, and courts generally respect these expectations as the “reasonable expectations of privacy” that society is willing to afford.9 This suggests that homeless individuals should enjoy the de facto protection created by outdoorsmen’s expectations of privacy. Even though society might not otherwise give homeless individuals the rights associated with reasonable expectations of privacy, the homeless deserve such rights because they live similarly to recreational outdoorsmen.
Thus, greater Fourth Amendment protections for the homeless may be a secondary implication of society’s appreciation for outdoorrecreation. However, the fact that those protections are secondary raises the question of whether basing Fourth Amendment protections for one (small and marginalized) segment of society on what everyone else deems to be reasonable lends enough constitutional protection to the homeless in general. Indeed, society most likely does not deem the actions and choices of homeless people to be reasonable; this public bias may forestall any fair evaluation of homeless behavior.10 Consider, for example, the testimony of Gary Wayne Grimes, a homeless man who claims to have been unreasonably attacked by a police dog while sleeping next to a building one night.11 According to his complaint, one officer told the dog to “get that homeless **** bag,” and another officer told Grimes, “I hope [the police dog] rip[s] your ****[ing] arm off.”12 Grimes lost about thirty percent of his arm after passing out from blood loss and spent two weeks in a hospital and three more weeks in a medical jail cell.13 Grimes’s characterization of the police officers’ attitudes toward a homeless man illustrates the attitudes and biases that could undermine homeless individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights if courts only grant them according to society’s understanding of reasonableness.
igne et ferrum est potentas
"In the beginning, all America was Virginia." -William Byrd
INDEED! And, you can get the medical positives of medical marijuana(at least in the incidences I know of) by obtaining products that have the THC removed. NOT EVERYONE who LEGALLY medically benefits from medical marijuana prescriptions is simply looking to get stoned!!!
This is an interesting take and possible health issue with today's medical marijuana
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...gus-180954696/
Excerpt:
“There's a stereotype, a hippy kind of mentality, that leads people to assume that growers are using natural cultivation methods and growing organically," says Andy LaFrate, founder of Charas Scientific, one of eight Colorado labs certified to test cannabis. "That's not necessarily the case at all." LaFrate presented his results this week at a meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in Denver.
LaFrate says he's been surprised at just how strong most of today's marijuana has become. His group has tested more than 600 strains of marijuana from dozens of producers. Potency tests, the only ones Colorado currently requires, looked at tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive compound that produces the plant's famous high. They found that modern weed contains THC levels of 18 to 30 percent—double to triple the levels that were common in buds from the 1980s. That's because growers have cross-bred plants over the years to create more powerful strains, which today tout colorful names like Bruce Banner, Skunkberry and Blue Cookies.
Those thinking that stronger pot is always better pot might think again. Breeding for more powerful marijuana has led to the virtual absence of cannabidol (CBD), a compound being investigated for treatments to a range of ills, from anxiety and depression to schizophrenia, Huntington's disease and Alzheimer's. Much of the commercially available marijuana LaFrate's lab tested packs very little of this particular cannabinoid. “A lot of the time it's below the detection level of our equipment, or it's there at a very low concentration that we just categorize as a trace amount,” he says. Consumers specifically seeking medical benefits from cannabis-derived oils or other products may have a tough time determining how much, if any, CBD they contain, because Colorado doesn't currently require testing.”
Last edited by Alligator; 03-25-2015 at 08:18. Reason: Beginning sentence not SF.
One of our officers just informed me not too long ago that our State Attorney General sent a memo to Virginia's Law Enforcement Community anything less than a half ounce to slow it down and anyone from a state that prescribes MM in possession of it that Virginia would honor them. Do not now if this is fact though but still the law is getting more relaxed the subject....
While the AG may have issued a memo, I would caution that such opinions do not have the effect of law, and Commonwealth Attorneys are not necessarily bound by those opinions.
The AG's memo probably has more to with backlogs at the state crime lab coupled with Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts -- http://www.newsadvance.com/news/loca....html?mode=jqm
igne et ferrum est potentas
"In the beginning, all America was Virginia." -William Byrd
I tend to err on the side of safety, since the possible sentence is more time than I'd want to spend in jail.
I was stopped/questioned three times by LEO. Once in TN, NY & PA. In TN I was waiting at at road crossing for another hiker, in NY & PA I was hitchhiking back from town. Was never searched and twice was given a ride. One LEO just told me not to hitchhike in his town and directed me to the divided highway just outside of his town. I asked him if it was legal to hitchhike on a divided highway and he replied, "It's not in my town, therefore it's not my problem." None of them cited me for hitchhiking (it's legal in TN, except on divided highways).
My point being is that it's likely you'll be stopped by LEO and given how you interact with them you may be searched or given a friendly ride. As I didn't appear threatening or homeless or likely to be much of a problem (and older) they were friendly and helpful. Perhaps since I wasn't nervous (lots of experience working with law enforcement) I probably had good vibes and they weren't looking to hassle me. I pretty sure th TN LEO was just checking if I was homeless and needed assistance. She laughed was I to her that the only help I needed was a bit of global warming as it had snowed the night before and that the other AT hikers were making eyes at my zero degree down bag. (It's old, so it's probably more like a 20° bag.)
Whether you carry Medical MJ or not, you need to evaluate how an arrest would affect you and act accordingly. Personally I don't think the risk is worth it, but as they say HYOH.
Last edited by Alligator; 03-26-2015 at 08:31. Reason: fixed spelling per poster
And your law degree is from where? The court decision said mentioned bringing dogs onto your property (Real property, not Personal property). When you're on the AT you're in public. Its not your property. Yes, they could sniff a bunch of packs and alert on one, and you're screwed. And the castle doctrine refers only to things like burglaries, home invasions, and criminals coming into your house. Fighting the cops looking into your tent is never a good idea. What looks better to a jury, you trying to squash an illegal search, or a video of a crazed hippy-looking guy fighting the police and getting Tasered? Because the first one makes you seem like an innocent victim of an illegal search, and the second makes you look like a violent criminal that needs to be put in jail.
No, you're probably not going to get in trouble for having it, because you're likely not to get caught. But thats the chance you take for the drug. You'd be safer with prescription pills, they typically don't train dogs for those, it's mostly weed, crack, meth, and heroin.
But like any smoking, it's sort of rude to do in the woods. This past weekend we were hiking, and got behind someone on a short trail from a parking lot we crossed, headed to a waterfall. Someone was smoking cigarettes and it was really annoying following behind the nasty smoke. I know I go into the woods to enjoy the clean air and wilderness. Smoking around others is just kind of rude.
Last edited by Alligator; 03-26-2015 at 08:34. Reason: Not a debate about medical efficacy.
Please don't read my blog at theosus1.Wordpress.com
"I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. Thank God for Search and Rescue" - Robert Frost (first edit).
If you haven't noticed this is in the Straight Forward section. I left this part of your post not to debate whether it is rude to smoke medical MJ in the woods but rather to raise the question about whether states allowing it place any conditions on public administration of the drug. My guess would be that they might go as far as placing similar restrictions as tobacco smoking but I wouldn't expect a ban on open air administration. I am not aware of any bans on taking prescribed medicine in public provided you have the prescription. (Barring operating machinery and vehicles and that sort of thing.)
"Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
Call for his whisky
He can call for his tea
Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan
Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.
Depending on which state you hike through (not necessarily on the AT, though in the northeast it is now mainly decriminalized as well as North Carolina. An expensive traffic ticket basically.), this discussion may be moot. Of course, if you are on federal land, that's another story. Of course, the feds are enforcing it less, now, too. Yet another story.
Interesting times.
Last edited by Mags; 03-26-2015 at 14:08.
Paul "Mags" Magnanti
http://pmags.com
Twitter: @pmagsco
Facebook: pmagsblog
The true harvest of my life is intangible...a little stardust caught,a portion of the rainbow I have clutched -Thoreau
If YOU haven't noticed there's a WHOLE lot more stuff in the last two pages that was off the main topic, the ONLY straight-forward stuff here really would be discussing the three states where it is legal, since he asked basically, is there a problem with smoking weed in a state where its legal if you have a prescription from another state where its legal.
I don't know about the southern AT states, but while we are talking hiking; if you get caught hiking in South Carolina with weed and say, "oh but I have this prescription", they're still going to take your weed and destroy it, and likely you'll either get a ticket for Simple Possession (the same blue ticket they use for speeding and many other offenses), or get to spend the night in jail and have to have someone post bail the next day (more likely the latter, if you're not local).
But I agree with you on one point: In a state where it's legal, smoking dope with a prescription is likely pretty safe, since you can pretty much take ANY prescription medicine into any state as long as it is packaged properly (in its properly labeled bottle with your name on it).
Please don't read my blog at theosus1.Wordpress.com
"I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. Thank God for Search and Rescue" - Robert Frost (first edit).
Regardless of State law illegal in federal areas. Be respectful and private about it and you shouldn't have issues. redzombie, Actually a drug dog sniff is not an unconstitutional search. That case specifically had to do with officers bringing the dog onto someone's property, then conducting the sniff. That was the part found unreasonable and unconstitutional. A dog sniff on a traffic stop, public way, or on federal property (certain areas of A.T.) would be allowable. As for the tent is your home idea, you may be correct to a certain point. It varies by state and what officers are investigating it. Federal and Park officers have more leeway when it comes to these areas. However, if your tent was on federal land they could walk right up to it. "Plain view/ Plain Smell" doctrine could give them probable cause to seize it and detain you. Making them wait for a warrant would ensure you be charged the highest thing they could. As for hiking around, if you smell like weed, that's probable cause to search you and your gear in most areas. But I agree with most, that you have little to worry about as long as you aren't pulling a 10 foot bong on the park benches next to the ranger station. I've always found if your respectful of others and to the police you usually fair better.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
