4 ms·

Honest question: is there a silent tug of war over the use of the word "legal" regarding drugs in the U.S.?

lost_tourist 4y ago
Not really, the feds seem to be leaving it up to the states for now as long as you keep it to cash transactions and don't use banks, so it's state level legal (in Oregon) for now. There is no silent battle.
redwood 4y ago
What do you mean?
adrusi 4y ago
Well about one time in three that someone mentions "legal weed" in the circles I run in, someone will drop a remark about how there's federalism-themed ambiguity over how legal it actually is, so I'm not sure how "silent" it really is.
balls187 4y ago
Not just drugs, but in certain communities push for the word “decriminalizing”
- AntiRush 4y ago
  Decriminalization and legalization are different things. Decriminalization is removing criminal penalties - there may still be fines or other non criminal penalties.
- 1986 4y ago
  Decriminalization and legalization are distinct things. Legalization means just that, the act becomes legal. Decriminalization means that the act isn't legal but the perceived severity is reduced and punishment for it is moved out of the bounds of the criminal justice system (e.g. getting caught with a joint becomes a ticket, like a parking ticket or an open container ticket, instead of sending someone to jail)
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
I wouldn't call it a "tug of war" but it seems like a lot of people are/were happy to just leave a lot of things as expensive civil infractions (not the case here) because they implicitly trust the cops/DA to only enforce it on people who are "violating cultural standards" (e.g. drinking in broad daylight on your front porch somewhere "nice" vs the same behavior in the hood).
dekhn 4y ago
No? What do you mean? Federal vs. state? Enforced or not?
- Liquix 4y ago
  Yes, federal vs. state. For example, many early dispensary owners - after wading through mountains of red tape, paying license fees, getting inspected, etc - had to get "creative" with their accounting and investment strategies, as the legal profits their business generated cannot be deposited into (federally monitored) bank accounts. It doesn't make much sense and seems to be arbitrarily enforced.
  - adolph 4y ago
    Yes, it is an effort on the part of federal government to create an unfavorable business climate for certain activities that are not otherwise prosecuted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
  - notch656c 4y ago
    They are not legal profits. And what they are doing in getting creative is pretty much vanilla money laundering. But to enforce the law would just invite the more violent cartels to do it instead. The whole system of a patchwork of half-measures is really insanity in the face of the simplicity of just de-scheduling cannabis.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    Ah, I see. Dispensaries, not consumers. As pointed elsewhere in this thread, lands under federal jurisdiction also apply federal limits. Hopefully, a bill like this will get passed into law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4591 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/459... and provide much more structure for removing the remaining barriers. At this point it doesn't seem like many people in the fed world really want to do any gatekeeping, but apparently elected reps are more cautious.
__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
Yes. While at a national park in Colorado I had a pipe confiscated despite the contents being "legal" in Colorado. I also spent an hour lined up against a wall while MP's buzzed around and tried to get CSPD to extradite me from a military base over some "spice" (that awful engineered-to-be-legal weed) which turned up in a search of the truck I had borrowed to buy a couch on Craigslist. So in gray areas like those, the tug of war still lives. But nobody I know of is afraid that the feds are gonna kick their door in over something that's legal in CO. Edit: grey area was the wrong phrase. But when the military is trying to hand you off to the cops and the cops won't take you, you know the system still has some kinks.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  Both of those situations are clearly federal jurisdiction, so it's unfortunate but not an example of a legal gray area. A gray area would be when federal agents/LEO attempt to enforce federal laws in places where the state has jurisdiction (such as raids of dispensaries).
  - notch656c 4y ago
    Controlled substance act is not a gray area anywhere in the US as far as I know. There is nothing gray at all about federal LEO raiding a dispensary on private non-federal land. These dispensaries are basically depending on the kindness of federal agencies to look the other way. As soon as they become political enemies with someone they are cooked. But federal land is definitely the worst. I had a federal agent obtain a search warrant to strip search me and drag me to a hospital and 'internally search' my GI tract because they claimed there were drugs up my ass.
    - chimeracoder 4y ago
      > Controlled substance act is not a gray area anywhere in the US as far as I know. There is nothing gray at all about federal LEO raiding a dispensary on private non-federal land. These dispensaries are basically depending on the kindness of federal agencies to look the other way. As soon as they become political enemies with someone they are cooked. Your last two sentences are correct, but there are actually grey areas here. It's actually more complicated than it seems. IANAL, but I have worked in drug policy previously, so I have worked with lawyers who are very well-versed on the nuances of this law. The ambiguity isn't whether marijuana falls under the CSA (it does) - it's the extent to which federal agents can pursue violations of it in specific circumstances. Especially since this often involves the cooperation of local law enforcement (ie, subject to the state), and some states even statutorily prohibit local law enforcement from assisting federal law enforcement with matters that are legal under state law. A lot of it is grey specifically because aspects of these issues haven't been definitively tested in court in recent years, and as time goes on, they become more murky because state laws change, and federal agents become less excited about pressing the issue with the possibility of an unfavorable court ruling. > But federal land is definitely the worst. I had a federal agent obtain a search warrant to strip search me and drag me to a hospital and 'internally search' my GI tract because they claimed there were drugs up my ass. It's truly insane. I'm sorry that happened to you. That's awful.

Not really, the feds seem to be leaving it up to the states for now as long as you keep it to cash transactions and don't use banks, so it's state level legal (in Oregon) for now. There is no silent battle.

redwood 4y ago

What do you mean?

adrusi 4y ago

Well about one time in three that someone mentions "legal weed" in the circles I run in, someone will drop a remark about how there's federalism-themed ambiguity over how legal it actually is, so I'm not sure how "silent" it really is.

balls187 4y ago

Not just drugs, but in certain communities push for the word “decriminalizing”

AntiRush 4y ago
Decriminalization and legalization are different things. Decriminalization is removing criminal penalties - there may still be fines or other non criminal penalties.
1986 4y ago
Decriminalization and legalization are distinct things. Legalization means just that, the act becomes legal. Decriminalization means that the act isn't legal but the perceived severity is reduced and punishment for it is moved out of the bounds of the criminal justice system (e.g. getting caught with a joint becomes a ticket, like a parking ticket or an open container ticket, instead of sending someone to jail)

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

I wouldn't call it a "tug of war" but it seems like a lot of people are/were happy to just leave a lot of things as expensive civil infractions (not the case here) because they implicitly trust the cops/DA to only enforce it on people who are "violating cultural standards" (e.g. drinking in broad daylight on your front porch somewhere "nice" vs the same behavior in the hood).

dekhn 4y ago

No? What do you mean? Federal vs. state? Enforced or not?

Liquix 4y ago
Yes, federal vs. state. For example, many early dispensary owners - after wading through mountains of red tape, paying license fees, getting inspected, etc - had to get "creative" with their accounting and investment strategies, as the legal profits their business generated cannot be deposited into (federally monitored) bank accounts. It doesn't make much sense and seems to be arbitrarily enforced.
- adolph 4y ago
  Yes, it is an effort on the part of federal government to create an unfavorable business climate for certain activities that are not otherwise prosecuted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
- notch656c 4y ago
  They are not legal profits. And what they are doing in getting creative is pretty much vanilla money laundering. But to enforce the law would just invite the more violent cartels to do it instead. The whole system of a patchwork of half-measures is really insanity in the face of the simplicity of just de-scheduling cannabis.
- dekhn 4y ago
  Ah, I see. Dispensaries, not consumers. As pointed elsewhere in this thread, lands under federal jurisdiction also apply federal limits. Hopefully, a bill like this will get passed into law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4591 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/459... and provide much more structure for removing the remaining barriers. At this point it doesn't seem like many people in the fed world really want to do any gatekeeping, but apparently elected reps are more cautious.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

Yes. While at a national park in Colorado I had a pipe confiscated despite the contents being "legal" in Colorado. I also spent an hour lined up against a wall while MP's buzzed around and tried to get CSPD to extradite me from a military base over some "spice" (that awful engineered-to-be-legal weed) which turned up in a search of the truck I had borrowed to buy a couch on Craigslist. So in gray areas like those, the tug of war still lives. But nobody I know of is afraid that the feds are gonna kick their door in over something that's legal in CO. Edit: grey area was the wrong phrase. But when the military is trying to hand you off to the cops and the cops won't take you, you know the system still has some kinks.

chimeracoder 4y ago
Both of those situations are clearly federal jurisdiction, so it's unfortunate but not an example of a legal gray area. A gray area would be when federal agents/LEO attempt to enforce federal laws in places where the state has jurisdiction (such as raids of dispensaries).
- notch656c 4y ago
  Controlled substance act is not a gray area anywhere in the US as far as I know. There is nothing gray at all about federal LEO raiding a dispensary on private non-federal land. These dispensaries are basically depending on the kindness of federal agencies to look the other way. As soon as they become political enemies with someone they are cooked. But federal land is definitely the worst. I had a federal agent obtain a search warrant to strip search me and drag me to a hospital and 'internally search' my GI tract because they claimed there were drugs up my ass.
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    > Controlled substance act is not a gray area anywhere in the US as far as I know. There is nothing gray at all about federal LEO raiding a dispensary on private non-federal land. These dispensaries are basically depending on the kindness of federal agencies to look the other way. As soon as they become political enemies with someone they are cooked. Your last two sentences are correct, but there are actually grey areas here. It's actually more complicated than it seems. IANAL, but I have worked in drug policy previously, so I have worked with lawyers who are very well-versed on the nuances of this law. The ambiguity isn't whether marijuana falls under the CSA (it does) - it's the extent to which federal agents can pursue violations of it in specific circumstances. Especially since this often involves the cooperation of local law enforcement (ie, subject to the state), and some states even statutorily prohibit local law enforcement from assisting federal law enforcement with matters that are legal under state law. A lot of it is grey specifically because aspects of these issues haven't been definitively tested in court in recent years, and as time goes on, they become more murky because state laws change, and federal agents become less excited about pressing the issue with the possibility of an unfavorable court ruling. > But federal land is definitely the worst. I had a federal agent obtain a search warrant to strip search me and drag me to a hospital and 'internally search' my GI tract because they claimed there were drugs up my ass. It's truly insane. I'm sorry that happened to you. That's awful.