Medical MJ

[Alligator]

A question came up recently about medical marijuana regarding access to dispensaries. Since 15 states now have legalized medical marijuana, including 3 AT states (NJ, VT, & ME), this information is AT relevant.

What are some of the issues affecting hikers with a MJ prescription that is legal in their home state when they travel to other states where medical MJ is also legal?

(White background-Straightforward Forum)

[StorminMormon]

Even with so many states changing their position on Medicinal MJ, it is still a Federal Felony to transport MJ across state lines. Some states will honor prescriptions from other states, meaning you can use a California prescription to legally purchase MJ in Arizona...but you have to consume it in Arizona.

[Majortrauma]

I'd say screw what the law says and take your chances. If someone on the trail is going to be that much of an ass and feel compelled to turn you in they first would have to actually able to get hold of someone via cellphone (good luck),running to a Ranger Station (how often do we see those) or flag down a passing motorist (yeah, good luck with that one) and then that someone would actually have to think it was worth his while to try and track you down on the trail for smoking weed.
Your chances of ever being caught are slim to none I think.

[4eyedbuzzard]

I don't know what real world NPS and USFS policy is on small quantities, but as much of the AT is on federal lands, it would be technically illegal to possess or consume on much of the AT regardless of the state laws. US Atty Gen Eric Holder recently stated, in response to CA prop 19, that the feds will continue to prosecute possession cases on federal lands regardless of conflicting state laws.

[Majortrauma]

Alcoholic beverages are also prohibited on the AT but that doesn't stop a lot of people, myself included, from bring along some Jack Daniels for section hikes.
Short of a drunken orgy and the woods being set ablaze, HIGHLY unlikely anyone is going to waste their time chasing down some hiker chasing down their ramens with a shot of whiskey.

[Alligator]

The question for this thread is aimed at state regulations. What states accept other states cards, how are dispensaries set up and where in regard to the trail, limits, how the state might handle a hiker taking his prescribed dose, etc. As far as the federal response it is still illegal at the federal level. It would be helpful to know how a hiker can act legally within the states' regulations.

[Majortrauma]

Sorry. I got more than a bit hung up on a pedantic adherence to ridiculous and practically speaking unenforceable Federal regulations.
If he/she wants to strictly adhere to these laws, it's none of my business really to try and dissuade them from doing so.

[4eyedbuzzard]

The question for this thread is aimed at state regulations. What states accept other states cards, how are dispensaries set up and where in regard to the trail, limits, how the state might handle a hiker taking his prescribed dose, etc. As far as the federal response it is still illegal at the federal level. It would be helpful to know how a hiker can act legally within the states' regulations.

No reciprocity in any of the AT states, more info at http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?list=type&type=361

VT http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=2012#recip
ME http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=2051#recip
NJ http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3391#New Jersey

[redzombie]

Screw it, I can just argue my case in front of the judge. Would it be worth it? Depends on the outcome.

[Alligator]

Screw it, I can just argue my case in front of the judge. Would it be worth it? Depends on the outcome.
Some of the thread information is outdated but Maine offers limited reciprocity for medical MJ from what I was reading.

[Dogwood]

No reciprocity in any of the AT states, more info at http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?list=type&type=361

VT http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=2012#recip
ME http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=2051#recip
NJ http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3391#New Jersey This info is 3.5 yrs old. Does anyone 100% know FOR SURE if is still this way?

[Alligator]

For Maine per NORML
http://norml.org/legal/item/maine-medical-marijuana

RECIPROCITY: Yes. Authorizes visiting qualifying patient with valid registry identification card (or its equivalent), to engage in conduct authorized for the registered patient (the medical use of marijuana) for 30 days after entering the State, without having to obtain a Maine registry identification card. Visiting qualifying patients are not authorized to obtain in Maine marijuana for medical use. Me. Rev. Stat. Tit. 22, §2423-D (2010

See here
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/22/title22sec2423-D.html

[Dogwood]

THX. This info may help those ATers who are legally prescribed medical marijuana and want to stay on the legal side of the law.

[Pedaling Fool]

Screw it, I can just argue my case in front of the judge. Would it be worth it? Depends on the outcome."Screw it...":confused:

This is exactly what you were looking for in your question/thread on MJ.

[ChefATLTCT]

Massachusetts has medical MJ, dispensaries opening sometime this year or next. MJ has also been decriminalized for one ounce or less. A fine and confiscation of product. In 2016 we will vote for Coloradoization of MJ.

[Gambit McCrae]

Didnt Read whole thread but I would say although a good question, realisticly from everything I have seen on the trail from dope to booze, being consumed anywhere from the side of the highway to hostels etc, even sold(dope and booze) pretty openly at one particular hostel, I dont think anyone has anything to worry about as far as getting caught. Only place I have seen that was not the case was trail days. Lots of cops lol

[flemdawg1]

I'd say screw what the law says and take your chances. If someone on the trail is going to be that much of an ass and feel compelled to turn you in they first would have to actually able to get hold of someone via cellphone (good luck),running to a Ranger Station (how often do we see those) or flag down a passing motorist (yeah, good luck with that one) and then that someone would actually have to think it was worth his while to try and track you down on the trail for smoking weed.
Your chances of ever being caught are slim to none I think.

Very little chance of being turned in by another hiker, but the AT crosses alot of roads and towns where LEOs may profile and search a hippy looking guy to see if he's carrying. And places like "The Place" are routinely swept by drug-sniffing dogs.

[Alleghanian Orogeny]

Realizing this thread concerns state-by-state reciprocity, the reality that MJ possession is everywhere a Federal offense should be clearly understood, and that surely seems to be the case from responses prior to this. As to the risk of "getting caught", the mainstream media has reported increased enforcement in National Parks in Washington and Colorado. Or at least increased arrest rates--perhaps due to individuals thinking they're OK to possess while in those states (and boy, aren't they wrong).

With only the AT's miles within Federal lands in GSMNP, Mount Rogers Nat Rec Area, and SNP considered, there would seem to be plenty of places having routine Federal agent presence. In GA, NC, TN, and VA, the great majority of the AT which is NOT in the NP or NRAs noted above is within National Forest boundaries. Irrespective of state-by-state reciprocity, the Feds alone should give folks much reason for caution, great deals of caution.

More strictly on the state-by-state issue, Idaho has an active profiling effort to nab its citizens returning from the west along I-84 and I-90, which brings folks CA, OR, and WA. It would not be the least bit surprising to see enforcement efforts of a similar nature here in the East. The AT has over 400 road crossings, so one is rarely more than a short distance from easy access by LEOs.

AO

[redzombie]

Well a drug dogs sniff is a unconstitutional search, and requires a warrant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/drug-sniffing-dogs-unconstitutional-search_n_2956079.html

Also if you are in the four states that don't recognize medical or have decriminalized it, recognize the castle doctrine. Basically, your tent is your home and you have the right to defend it. Which means they can search your tent or gear without a warrant.

Lastly, they have to have probable cause. They can't just single you out because you look like a hippie, stoner, Muslim, black, out of town ect. You have the right to ask why a cop stops you or singles you out.

Point blank, you can argue your case in front of a judge, or at lest I can.

[lemon b]

I stopped smoking weed over 30 years ago. One of my hiking partners does have a licence because her doctor said she benefits from its use. I believe these laws are going through a process of change. My experience hiking is that many people smoke weed on the trail even back in the 70's. Seen much more trouble caused by booze. That said I'm not a doctor but would seem to me that for hiking the smoking part could be an issue for the lungs, had my own battle with cigs over the years and know I enjoy hiking more without them. Hope that they can come up with some type of non smoking delivery method for the hiker who needs that medicine.

[Old_Man]

Edibles are low profile and better on the lungs than smoking.

[Alleghanian Orogeny]

Well a drug dogs sniff is a unconstitutional search, and requires a warrant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/drug-sniffing-dogs-unconstitutional-search_n_2956079.html

Also if you are in the four states that don't recognize medical or have decriminalized it, recognize the castle doctrine. Basically, your tent is your home and you have the right to defend it. Which means they can search your tent or gear without a warrant.

Lastly, they have to have probable cause. They can't just single you out because you look like a hippie, stoner, Muslim, black, out of town ect. You have the right to ask why a cop stops you or singles you out.

Point blank, you can argue your case in front of a judge, or at lest I can.

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.

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

[Tuckahoe]

Well a drug dogs sniff is a unconstitutional search, and requires a warrant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/drug-sniffing-dogs-unconstitutional-search_n_2956079.html

Also if you are in the four states that don't recognize medical or have decriminalized it, recognize the castle doctrine. Basically, your tent is your home and you have the right to defend it. Which means they can search your tent or gear without a warrant.

Lastly, they have to have probable cause. They can't just single you out because you look like a hippie, stoner, Muslim, black, out of town ect. You have the right to ask why a cop stops you or singles you out.

Point blank, you can argue your case in front of a judge, or at lest I can.

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 --


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.

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.

This article from the Vanderbilt Law review is an interesting article -- http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2013/04/Jackson_66_Vand_L_Rev_933.pdf


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.


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.

[Dogwood]

Edibles are low profile and better on the lungs than smoking.
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!!!

[Pedaling Fool]

This is an interesting take and possible health issue with today's medical marijuana



http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/modern-marijuana-more-potent-often-laced-heavy-metals-and-fungus-180954696/





Excerpt:http://d.adroll.com/cm/f/out http://d.adroll.com/cm/b/out http://d.adroll.com/cm/w/out http://d.adroll.com/cm/x/out http://d.adroll.com/cm/l/out https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=411875898959756&cd[segment_eid]=DX6LL5C5VVCNTE7NX6OWE4&ev=NoScripthttp://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/viewthroughconversion/933633792/?label=VHt_CIDU6AoQgL6YvQM&guid=ON&script=0&ord=2799169293772743 http://d.adroll.com/cm/g/out?google_nid=adroll4 http://ib.adnxs.com/seg?add=1020852&t=2
http://d.adroll.com/cm/r/out http://d.adroll.com/cm/f/out http://d.adroll.com/cm/b/out http://d.adroll.com/cm/w/out http://d.adroll.com/cm/x/out http://d.adroll.com/cm/l/out https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=411875898959756&cd[segment_eid]=DX6LL5C5VVCNTE7NX6OWE4&ev=NoScripthttp://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/viewthroughconversion/933633792/?label=VHt_CIDU6AoQgL6YvQM&guid=ON&script=0&ord=2823912392957853 http://d.adroll.com/cm/g/out?google_nid=adroll4 http://ib.adnxs.com/seg?add=1020852&t=2
“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 (http://charasscientific.com/), 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.
http://d.adroll.com/cm/x/out http://d.adroll.com/cm/l/out https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=411875898959756&cd[segment_eid]=DX6LL5C5VVCNTE7NX6OWE4&ev=NoScripthttp://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/viewthroughconversion/933633792/?label=VHt_CIDU6AoQgL6YvQM&guid=ON&script=0&ord=2823912392957853 http://d.adroll.com/cm/g/out?google_nid=adroll4 http://ib.adnxs.com/seg?add=1020852&t=2
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 (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/marijuana-isnt-a-pain-killerits-a-pain-distracter-169786068/) 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.”

[TOW]

A question came up recently about medical marijuana regarding access to dispensaries. Since 15 states now have legalized medical marijuana, including 3 AT states (NJ, VT, & ME), this information is AT relevant.

What are some of the issues affecting hikers with a MJ prescription that is legal in their home state when they travel to other states where medical MJ is also legal?

(White background-Straightforward Forum)
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....

[Tuckahoe]

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/local/backlog-delays-evidence-processing-at-state-crime-labs/article_a7dc59d6-5a5b-11e4-a894-0017a43b2370.html?mode=jqm

[Walkintom]

I tend to err on the side of safety, since the possible sentence is more time than I'd want to spend in jail.

[Fredt4]

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.

[Theosus]

Well a drug dogs sniff is a unconstitutional search, and requires a warrant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/drug-sniffing-dogs-unconstitutional-search_n_2956079.html

Also if you are in the four states that don't recognize medical or have decriminalized it, recognize the castle doctrine. Basically, your tent is your home and you have the right to defend it. Which means they can search your tent or gear without a warrant.

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.

[Alligator]

...
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.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.)

[Mags]

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.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction), 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.

[Theosus]

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.)

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).

[hiking@40]

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.