CHP Revises Policy on Pot Seizures (Hands off medical marijuana)

LA Times ^ | August 28, 2005

[Wolfie]

CHP Revises Policy on Pot Seizures

Sacramento -- The California Highway Patrol has ordered its officers to stop confiscating medical marijuana during routine traffic stops, a victory for patients hoping to win broader acceptance of the controversial medicine from balky police departments around the state.

Highway Patrol officials sent out a bulletin last week to field commanders spelling out the policy shift, which would allow patients to travel on California's highways with up to 8 ounces of marijuana as long as they have a certified user identification card or documented physician's approval.

Patient advocates say the change will make the state's highways a "safe haven" for those who use marijuana with a physician's permission. They also hope the shift by the CHP sets an example for law enforcement agencies around California.

"This is going to send a very clear message: The constitutionality of patients needs to be protected," said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, a marijuana patients group that sued the CHP to force the policy change. "Our hope is this will ripple around the state."

Lt. Joe Whiteford, a CHP spokesman, called the policy shift "a revision" needed in part because of confusion among rank-and-file officers over a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The high court declared in June that medical marijuana laws in a dozen states, including California, don't protect patients or suppliers from federal prosecution. But the ruling did not sweep away state medical marijuana laws and had no effect on local and state police such as the CHP.

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

Hey Robert! Actually $480/oz. for the really good stuff is the same as the street price. That works out to about $5 per joint. It doesn't surprise me that people are abusing this Cal. law. I'm for legalizing, but most of these people saying they need it for pain are full of it and are lying just to be 'legal'. The BS doctors and so-called 'legal' suppliers are making a fortune off these scammers. The 'clinic' near me seems to have a lot of very healthy people going in and out. Like kids doing near bone-breaking stunts on skateboards. The abuse is laughable.

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

re: "$480/oz. = $25/joint." You must've rolled real big ones back in the day! $25 worth would = 1.5 grams and the joint would be bigger than my middle finger. The expensive new stuff is lighter and fluffier, so one would get more joints per ounce than with the old Mexican stuff. Plus, there's no seeds and very little stems to throw away. Nowadays a third or a fourth of a gram is enough to make a joint. So $480/oz. works out to about $5 per joint.

[robertpaulsen]

"Do you think you will be at odds with Justice Thomas in this eventual case?"

I prefer to say that I will be in concurrence with Justice Scalia.

[robertpaulsen]

"Is that the issue or is the issue the right of Californians to pass their own internal laws without the federal government butting in?"

That is the issue -- a very narrow one -- legal medical marijuana in a state after the USSC has spoken on the subject. If you wish to generalize the issue into one of "passing internal laws", then I'll simply bring up my Governor George Wallace example again.

"California is a state with around 30,000,000 people and those people have voted to allow medical marijuana."

1996 General Election Returns for
Proposition 215 - Medical Marijuana
The number in each county indicates the percentage
of the vote cast as indicated by the color.

Yes, by an overall narrow margin, and carried mainly by the San Francisco Bay area.

I believe a vote today would be very different for two reasons: 1) The USSC decision, and 2) Nine years of actually exposing this program (and its patients) for the scam and fraud that it is.

"... which will only be good for those of us who believe in states rights ..."

Whoa!

I'm a big believer in states rights. I'm also a believer in the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

So let's be careful here.

[robertpaulsen]

Thank you for your first-hand, factual report -- a breath of fresh air.

[MilspecRob]

480/oz? - MUST BE GOOD S*IT

$480 is cheap for good stuff. $100.00 for an eight of an oz is the going rate for "good stuff" in LA. So I'm told.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Then you don't agree 'cause that's not what I said."

You sure did say "Seems to me that if the state is not going to enforce the drug laws, then they certainly don't need the federal money that goes with it." I just happen to agree--and I think the "federal money that goes with [states enforcing the drug laws]" ought to first be pulled where it will 'hurt' California the most, the California DEA offices.

Leave it to California to be the states' rights capitol of the U.S. in order to protect their craphead liberal laws. This demonstrates pretty clearly that some 'conservatives' ARE of an authoritarian cut as libertarians claim, that the federalist sheepskins they clothe themselves in when they run for office get thrown off when convenient.

[Ken H]

Yes, by an overall narrow margin, and carried mainly by the San Francisco Bay area.

The vote was 55.6% to 44.4%, for crying out loud. Such measures have passed by even wider margins in other red states.

I'm a big believer in states rights. I'm also a believer in the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

So far, the only places I've seen it claimed that CA is in violation of the Supremacy Clause are your posts. Have you been able to come up with any source yet that agrees with your position?

[TKDietz]

"I'm a big believer in states rights."

Bull

"Yes, by an overall narrow margin, and carried mainly by the San Francisco Bay area."

I wouldn't say there was a narrow margin between the 56% of Californians who voted for Prop 215 and the 39% who voted against it. I suppose you can characterize it as such if it makes you happy.

"I believe a vote today would be very different..."

Poll results I have seen show more support for medical marijuana in California today than in 1996. The polls might all be bogus though. The most recent polls from California I have seen for outright legalization of marijuana similar to the way alcohol is legal now mirror the 1996 Prop. 215 results, only for legalization its 39%, 56% want it to stay illegal.

Things are going to change, rp, and not in the direction you want them to change. The first set of folks who more likely than not have smoked marijuana are now in their early fifties. Less than 10% of those now in their late sixties and older have ever smoked it. The old politicians are slowly but surely being replaced by people who have probably smoked pot, as are the old voters. Along with this change in people is coming a change in attitudes about marijuana. Support for a war on marijuana will slowly but surely disappear. The colors on your little color coded voter maps will shift. The percentage of those opposing marijuana legalization will decrease. Ignore it if you want, but don't be surprised when marijuana is legalized in the next twenty years or so.

[tacticalogic]

I prefer to say that I will be in concurrence with Justice Scalia.

You may prefer to say it, but it still won't answer the question. "Silence speaks volumes".

[tacticalogic]

I'm a big believer in states rights. I'm also a believer in the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Would those be the rights of the States as intended by those that wrote the Constitution, or the rights of the States as they would have been intended by you if you had written it?

[tacticalogic]

I'm a big believer in states rights. I'm also a believer in the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Would those be the rights of the States as intended by those that wrote the Constitution, or the rights of the States as they would have been intended by you if you had written it?

[vikzilla]

Actually $480/oz. for the really good stuff is the same as the street price. That works out to about $5 per joint.

A bargain when compared to a $2.75 longneck Bud.

You wouldn't want to smoke an entire joint of the good stuff by yourself anyway. Shared between friends, the costs are miniscule when compared to alcohol. Thats even after taking into acount LE's share.

[robertpaulsen]

Allow me to clarify:

Seems to me that if the state is not going to enforce the drug laws, then they certainly don't need the federal money for local law enforcement that goes with it.

The DEA in California should get more money to fund the additional federal personnel that will now be necessary.

[robertpaulsen]

"Have you been able to come up with any source yet that agrees with your position?

Nope.

But this open flaunting of federal law will soon provoke the feds into requesting the USSC to declare the California laws unconstitutional.

Then I'll have plenty of sources for you.

[robertpaulsen]

"Ignore it if you want, but don't be surprised when marijuana is legalized in the next twenty years or so."

If the next generation wishes to legalize marijuana, so be it. Then they have no one to blame but themselves for the outcome.

But not on my watch, if I can help it.

[jmc813]

I prefer to say that I will be in concurrence with Justice Scalia.

That could be a toss-up, though at least we can agree that conservatives in good faith can disagree on this, right?

[robertpaulsen]

"Would those be the rights of the States as intended by those that wrote the Constitution, or the rights of the States as they would have been intended by you if you had written it?"

Eliminate the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment and you'll know what I mean.

State constitutions and state laws prevail unless superceded by constitutional federal law. That is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and established federalism.

I know that makes a centrist like yourself uncomfortable. You'd like one set of laws, one set of protected rights, and you get to interpret what they all mean for every American.

Quote me any Founding Father that said that was the goal.

[robertpaulsen]

"That could be a toss-up, though at least we can agree that conservatives in good faith can disagree on this, right?"

On this issue, I think conservatives can disagree on the decision of the federal government to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs. That is, some would say it is not the business of the federal government and that each state should decide.

But I am surprised that conservatives would disagree on the fact that the federal government has the power to do so.

[Protagoras]

Your position is ludicrious. As usual. Your understanding of the Constitution is liliputian.

You interpret it to fit into your authoritarian wet dream.