4 ms·

> Reminder: Possession of psilocybin or psilocybin-containing substances such as magic mushrooms remain a felony in all 50 US states, just like possession of ma

> Reminder: Possession of psilocybin or psilocybin-containing substances such as magic mushrooms remain a felony in all 50 US states, just like possession of marijuana. > They may not be enforcing it, but it's still a federal felony, and they are free to (as well as within their legal rights to) enforce it at any time, for any arbitrary reason. I can't speak to enforcement of laws around psilocybin, but I can speak to federal enforcement of cannabis laws. I worked in the legal cannabis industry for several years. The claim that they are free to enforce it at any time is true, in the sense that any arcane law could be enforced because it's still law. But it's not consistent with the federal government's posture since the first states legalized, even after Jeff Sessions led at least a vocal campaign to roll it back. The reality is that the guiding legal principle that determines federal intervention in states' legal cannabis markets is the Cole Memo[1], and that all legal states operate comprehensive seed-to-sale tracking sufficiently satisfying that the federal government has either felt disinclined or disadvantaged to challenge it under the Interstate Commerce clause (which is how they can even ban drugs in the first place). IANAL, but I'm very familiar with the specifics on the topic, and the comment above is full of misleading and downright bad legal advice. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Memorandum

sneak 6y ago
First off, my comment wasn't legal advice. Second, the federal government is not bound by the linked document, and indeed there are several cases (such as banking, firearms, et cetera) where it does not apply at all. The basic core of my statement stands: the fact that they are not actually legally restrained by anything from prosecuting you under these federal laws is a risk that you should be aware of when you undertake breaking them. The fact that they have voluntarily subjected themselves, in some limited circumstances, to restraint is a) not binding upon them, and b) not relevant to that risk, as anyone who has filled out a Form 4473 (or tried to get a credit card terminal for a dispensary) can attest. They can write all of the memos they want; malicious prosecution for pissing off the wrong people is still a thing, and has recent federal examples (weev, Roger Ver, et c).
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  Would that not be a front and over exertion of states rights? The state said the federal government is overreaching. If they ignore them, would that not lead to the state to fight against the federal government in court?
  - sneak 6y ago
    States don't have the right, under the current US legal system, to nullify federal laws.
    - vulcan01 6y ago
      > current US legal system To clarify, this is part of the US Constitution (Supremacy Clause). https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI_C2_1_1_3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI_C2_1_1_...
- yesenadam 6y ago
  > First off, my comment wasn't legal advice. ?! I'm not sure what you mean by that, but that's exactly what it looked like, every word of it. I guess you know that.
  - sneak 6y ago
    What did I advise anyone to do?
    - yesenadam 6y ago
      Sorry but I find it impossible to believe you are speaking in good faith.
      - sneak 6y ago
        I've read my comment four times and I can't find anywhere in it where I advised anyone to do anything. You seem to think it was advice; what was the advice? What thing did I tell someone to do or not do?
int_19h 6y ago
Don't assume that Cole Memorandum covers all relevant interactions, though. Aside from the more obvious federal laws that directly criminalize use of drugs, there are others that make other activities illegal when drugs are involved. It's not just the DEA that's on the bandwagon. For example, when purchasing a firearm, one of the questions on the form that has to be filled is this: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? WARNING: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside." (That disclaimer was added long after the memorandum you mention, by the way.) The ATF has since decided that a mere possession of a medical marijuana card constitutes prima facie evidence of being "unlawful user of".

sneak 6y ago

First off, my comment wasn't legal advice. Second, the federal government is not bound by the linked document, and indeed there are several cases (such as banking, firearms, et cetera) where it does not apply at all. The basic core of my statement stands: the fact that they are not actually legally restrained by anything from prosecuting you under these federal laws is a risk that you should be aware of when you undertake breaking them. The fact that they have voluntarily subjected themselves, in some limited circumstances, to restraint is a) not binding upon them, and b) not relevant to that risk, as anyone who has filled out a Form 4473 (or tried to get a credit card terminal for a dispensary) can attest. They can write all of the memos they want; malicious prosecution for pissing off the wrong people is still a thing, and has recent federal examples (weev, Roger Ver, et c).

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Would that not be a front and over exertion of states rights? The state said the federal government is overreaching. If they ignore them, would that not lead to the state to fight against the federal government in court?
- sneak 6y ago
  States don't have the right, under the current US legal system, to nullify federal laws.
  - vulcan01 6y ago
    > current US legal system To clarify, this is part of the US Constitution (Supremacy Clause). https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI_C2_1_1_3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI_C2_1_1_...
yesenadam 6y ago
> First off, my comment wasn't legal advice. ?! I'm not sure what you mean by that, but that's exactly what it looked like, every word of it. I guess you know that.
- sneak 6y ago
  What did I advise anyone to do?
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    Sorry but I find it impossible to believe you are speaking in good faith.
    - sneak 6y ago
      I've read my comment four times and I can't find anywhere in it where I advised anyone to do anything. You seem to think it was advice; what was the advice? What thing did I tell someone to do or not do?

int_19h 6y ago

Don't assume that Cole Memorandum covers all relevant interactions, though. Aside from the more obvious federal laws that directly criminalize use of drugs, there are others that make other activities illegal when drugs are involved. It's not just the DEA that's on the bandwagon. For example, when purchasing a firearm, one of the questions on the form that has to be filled is this: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? WARNING: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside." (That disclaimer was added long after the memorandum you mention, by the way.) The ATF has since decided that a mere possession of a medical marijuana card constitutes prima facie evidence of being "unlawful user of".