Probably been discussed ..view of marijuana ..

[CaliYanksFan]

Does your personal opinion of marijuana differ from what the law says?

Meaning ..do you beleive in the legalization of MJ (make it a controlled substance like booze) ...but since you are a cop ...you have to treat it a particular way?

[hopefulskeptic2]

No, my opinion doesn't differ from what the law says.

Having said that, one of my earliest posts here mentions my extracurricular activity in high school, 10+ years ago, and my personal experience was pretty neutral - never a habit, not even a weekly occurrence, never affected my grades, quitting was a non-issue but a stand was taken based on a, no joke, Montel Williams anti-drug speech, and the fact that people are just so incredibly STOOOOOPID when they're using. And, yes, by the time I was 18, I did finally care that it was illegal.

I do think using impairs your judgment and particularly your motivation even when you're not high somehow.

Also, I have heard the legalization argument that making drugs legal would reduce drug-related crime (like the repeal of prohibition reduced alcohol-related crimes, I'm assuming?). An interesting point, but I have yet to change my mind.

The majority of what I've seen gives evidence that, at the very least, illegal drugs do more harm than good, including MJ - those who I knew who used MJ frequently were really having a lot of behavioral issues (cause or effect? I don't know).

If I ever have kids, I'm so going to be a "do what I say not what I did" parent. :rolleyes:

IMHO $.02

[CaliYanksFan]

Would you agree with the statement that alchohol is worse than marijuana?

Since I'm not a LE officer (yet) ... I can't speak from experience, but I have asked this of plenty of officers ...Would you rather deal with someone who is drunk or someone who is stoned? 100% of the responses is that they would rather deal with someone who is stoned ...I, and they have never seen a violent stoner.


While interviewing with one agency (that did pick me up ...but the academy was closed due to the budget) ... they asked me about my stance on marijuana ...and I said that I personally beleive that it should be classified as a controlled substance like booze. They then asked if I would have a problem with enforcing the law when if comes to marijuana. I told them "not at all. I would do whatever the law says for me to do. It is not my job to make the laws, but to enforce them. Just as in the case of taking another persons life in the line of duty ... I would prefer not to do it, but I would do it if required."

[hopefulskeptic2]

Would you rather deal with someone who is drunk or someone who is stoned?

Well, from that angle, definitely someone who's stoned, I think, would be much easier to deal with. I also have never seen someone who was solely high on MJ do anything violent. Stupid, yes, violent, no. But I've seen a whole lot of irrational and angry drunks.

Good point.

[ATF SAC]

Big surprise, I disagree. Not sure what the relevance of the MJ/Alcohol discussion is. First, if you review the statutory framework, lots of controls on alcohol. Costs a bit too and not necessary to invite the same level of costs and controls to other optional substances.

Second, it is actually possible to have wine with dinner, a beer and brat at the ball game or a cocktail without reaching intoxication. Have absolutely never seen any drug including MJ discussed other than in context of getting high (Absent pain mitigation, but few terminal patients applying to LE). "I love the bouquet of Maui Wowi and the rich flavor, but a toke is my limit or I feel an uncomfortable loss of control," is a conversation I do not expect to ever have.

Can't finish a career in ATF without recognizing that lots of legal things have interesting alternative uses. Thus with MJ except (again outside pain mitigation) there isn't anything in the way of use except to get wrecked. Wrecked is wrecked gang and is not condusive to the good social order.

Hell, my preference drug is heroin. Never fought someone on the nod. Fought everything else.

[CaliYanksFan]

When I smoked MJ, I never smoked it to get wasted. I would take a hit or 2 just to relax ..much the same way that a person my have a glass of wine or drink a beer when they get home from work.

I realize that I'm probably an exception ...but if that's how I did it, there's has to be others...

Now, as far as alcohol goes ...we've probably all met people who have 1 beer and they are under the table. I've seen my father drink 1/2 a beer and he passed out on the couch. lol

[hopefulskeptic2]

That's funny, Cali. I had a glass of wine with dinner a few weeks ago and felt NOTHING. Had a Fat Tire last weekend and had to hand over the keys. I was SLURRING!!!! :rolleyes: What a lightweight! :p

[PaulNunis]

An interesting and timely question, now that the Supreme Court has sided with the medical community and various state legislatures in ruling on the medical uses and legality of maijuana, while the executive branch continues to take the position that any use is criminal, even in the absence of a controlling statutory authority.

So what will YOU do when ordered by an AUSA to arrest some 80 year old cancer/glaucoma patient holding a prescription from a doctor in a state where it is legal?

Paul

[hopefulskeptic2]

So what will YOU do when ordered by an AUSA to arrest some 80 year old cancer/glaucoma patient holding a prescription from a doctor in a state where it is legal?

My job. :(

[PaulNunis]

No way will I let you get off with that facile of an answer.
:D

Your job is to uphold the Constitution and 'The Law'.

So what do you do when the courts say your job is one thing, and the legislature, or statehouse says it is the opposite?

What if it wasn't drugs? What if your boss called you in and said "Today we are going to round up and inter all citizens of Japanese descent, and seize their stores and homes so that real Americans can have them"?

Somebody obeyed that order back in 1945, which is universally held to have been wrong today, what would we do today with the advantages of hindsight?

Paul

[hopefulskeptic2]

I forgot I was replying to Paul. :D

So, since I'm a wannabe, I can't answer the question.

As local LE, how do you enforce federal laws for something that is locally legal? If you do? Oh boy, I know that's a stupid question.
:rolleyes: Keep your verbal tomatoes to yourselves. LOL

As I understand it, federal law overrides state, not vice versa, which makes sense to me as far as organization goes.

In the case of the round-up, are the roundees US citizens? Do they have Constitutional protection?:o

Man, Paul, you are forever making me go back and re-read the Constitution! :wink:

[UncleSugar]

Originally posted by PaulNunis
So what will YOU do when ordered by an AUSA to arrest some 80 year old cancer/glaucoma patient holding a prescription from a doctor in a state where it is legal?

I'll enforce Title 21 of US Code.

For that 80 year old cancer patient I suggest Marinol.

I also agree with ATF SAC, you can have a social drink, but I've never heard of a social smoke. Folks smoke to get high, call it relaxing if you want, but it's getting high.

[PaulNunis]

"I'll enforce Title 21 of US Code."

And ignore the specific US Supreme Court ruling that legalized medical marijuana in those states?

Then what, ignore Miranda,and various amendments, and torture a confession out of the old druggie?
:D

(Not you personally, but I think we just saw a slippery slope rear its ugly head).

If not over marijuana, then over gun background checks, or right to life, or some other hot button issue, officers on the front line need to consider how they will be affected by the growing trend of bureaucrats to ignore court rulings and even court orders.

Paul

[dmclark]

Last time I looked, the Supreme Court was issuing decisions, however Title 21 still rules for the LEO. I don't make interpretations based on the latest SC guidelines. That's not my job. I enforce the law.

That 80 year old is in violation of 21 USC and if I'm told to enforce that by my superiors, I'm going to do it. She doesn't need MJ and marinol will do just fine. I know...the NORML folks want weed. Gee, what a surprise.

You are absurd to go to the concepts of arresting or "torturing" an 80 year old. My career has been about law enforcement, not defining or defending the "concepts" of what should or shouldn't be enforced. That is a legislative/judicial decision.

Let's get real here folks. DM

[PaulNunis]

If you want to resort to name calling because you have no factual or useful information on the subject at hand, then take it to PM

Claiming ignorance of the law, and 'just following orders' won't protect any LEO from the consequences of knowingly violating a Supreme Court ruling.

Like it or not, medical marijuana usage is now legal in several states, and it is time to quit putting personal prejudices above the Constitution, and above the law.

Paul

[SecretNY]

Originally posted by PaulNunis
If you want to resort to name calling because you have no factual or useful information on the subject at hand, then take it to PM


Paul

When was dm name calling???

It seems you are being defensive. I believe dm has plenty of factual useful info not OPINIONS on the matter.

SecretNY

[hopefulskeptic2]

officers on the front line need to consider how they will be affected by the growing trend of bureaucrats to ignore court rulings and even court orders.

If I had the option, at the moment, I'd kick most of the judges out of the courts right now. The court decisions are, IMHO, far too politically liberal and rarely, RARELY interpret (and there is certainly a lot of interpretation going on) the Constitution the way I would. Obviously, that brings me back to "what the heck do I know?" Yes, they're more educated than me, yes, more experienced, but if we look at our educational system today, it is my opinion that is strongly biased towards the left. For example, there are VALID, science-based arguments against Darwin's Origin of Species (see "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe, professor of biochemistry), which even Darwin admitted to in his book, but Darwin's ideas are taught as unrefuted, unquestionable fact to our kids.

As I said, I will do my job as I understand it and if that is to follow Title 21, then that is what I will do.

I know we vote for judges as well as reps, senators, etc., and I definitely vote, but our courts seem to have an entrenched political view and it feels like I have less power to fight court decisions than to change who the bureaucrats who represent me are.

Well, that's all IMHO.

[dmclark]

My, my..a little defensive aren't you Paul???

No one is ignoring anything. But to state that all officers should "interpret" the latest Supreme Court rulings on the streets is asking for chaos.

Law enforcement officers adhere to rules, regulations and laws set forth by their respective departments and legal advisors.

When and if those persons are told to inform the rank and file of policy changes, THAT'S when the individual officer will change their enforcement protocols.

Just following orders, be they departmental or state/federal LAWS is what we do. If someone wants to interpret laws, they should seek roles on the bench as a jurist or create new laws as a member of the political establishment.

It's a simple concept. Stating your arguement was impractical and "absurd" is not name calling where I come from.

[CaliYanksFan]

Originally posted by PaulNunis
So what will YOU do when ordered by an AUSA to arrest some 80 year old cancer/glaucoma patient holding a prescription from a doctor in a state where it is legal?

Paul

My job. As I said, it's not my job to make the laws ..just enforce them.

[LeeRoy]

First of all my personal opinion is that California's Medical Marijuana Law was a scam on many voters who thought they were approving marijuana for terminal Cancer and Aids patients. In reality the medical marijuana law is used by anybody who wants to pay a $75 to $150 to a doctor who will then recommend marijuana to their "patient" to cure their back pain or stress.

Originally posted by PaulNunis
So what will YOU do when ordered by an AUSA to arrest some 80 year old cancer/glaucoma patient holding a prescription from a doctor in a state where it is legal?

Paul

First of all AUSA's don't order folks to arrest people. Judges order arrests by way of arrest warrant. If I came across such a warrant and knew the facts behind the case I might call up the person and tell them to go turn themselves in on the warrant and doing such would most likely guaruntee themselves a release on their own recognazince.

Paul,

I thought the 10/01 decision (U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, No. 00-151) by the US Supreme Court said there was not a legitimite federal defense of "Medical Necessity" to title 21USC?

I believe the latest supreme court decision (Walters v. Conant, 03-40) was to just to let stand a lower court ruling which said the US DOJ/DEA couldn't revoke drug licenses for doctors who recommend marijuana to their clients? That's a far cry from saying medical marijuana is not a violation of title 21USC in the 9th district.

To answer CaliYanksFan's orginal post yes my opinion differs from current law.

First: I see no problem with marijuana being prescribed (Doctor writes prescirption and then pharmacist dispenses) to the terminally ill to ease their suffering. If you're terminal (For you guys in the south that means somebody is dying :) ) anything that helps you feel better is okay with me.

Second: Before we start allowing folks to use it for more minor ailments marijuana needs to be studied more. There are few controlled studies of the effects of long term and short term marijuana use on humans.

The problem I see with our current medical marijuana law is that it isn't a prescription. Under CA law your physician "Recommends" marijuana to you for an ailment and then its up to you to either grow it or get a "Primary Caregiver" to grow it for you. Marijuana is treated special under the law and is not treated as a prescribed pharmaceutical.

I enforce all laws, not just local ones. When I come across marijuana and the folks present proof their marijuana is "legal" I explain to them their doctor's recommendation prevents prosecution under local law but the marijuana is still illegal and therefore contraband under title 21. I don't waste my time arresting for the federal violation but I still seize their dope and document accordingly.

An interesting note for you CA cops. The compassionate use act does applies only to 11357 (possession) & 11358 (cultivation). It does not apply to transporation or sales, 11360(a) HS), nor does it apply to 11360(b) HS furnishing or transporting less than an ounce.

It also does not apply to 23222(b) CVC driver of a car possessing less than an ounce.

[Bow-n-Arrow]

Paul,

You need to chill out man. DM was not calling anybody out.

Neither should you.

[ATF SAC]

there's a little room out here guys. No federal program is going after 80 year old prescription users who are dying. Might go after a doc who is prescribing to the 80 year old and the 12 year old who has pain caused by low self esteem. The difference between the Feds and some locals is mostly a courtroom fight over the law, very little is operational. Underlying issue Paul raises is a little broader than MJ. Local cop in CA who hates MJ and can't stand CA law might consider getting out of the business or relocating professionally to GA. DEA agent who thinks programs are going after pitiful small potatoes might well consider ICE or ATF or law school or local or State LE.

Your duty is to enforce the law you are authorized to enforce until you are convinced the system is so wrong you cannot serve it anymore. Might want to blow a whistle or just blow town.

Illustrative story about paying attention to the point of what you are doing. Years, hell decades ago, was a Vice and Narcotics Detective. Got called in to work an off Sunday. City Attorney addressed roll call. Had a bucketful of complaints that stores were violating blue laws. Most arcane statutes I ever saw. Could sell film but not cameras. Gutsy CA, gutsy chief. Sent us out with buy money and we murdered Giants and 7-11's for violations. We called it the only case we ever worked where the cops wore their coats over their heads on the perp walks for the media. Result. Blue laws were repealed within 30 days, all cases dismissed, all records expunged from systems. Very odd matter and often still wonder why we put up with it. Realize we were given an honorable mission to make a point by just doing our duty by folks who shared with us the whys and whatfores. If we had gotten the Blue laws good, must enforce, most of us would have gone to a bar and found no violations.

DM is absolutely right, do your damn duty until the point where Paul is damn right, never blindly.