6 ms·

Marijuana Law Mayhem Splits U.S. In Two as Travelers Get Busted

56 points by zabalmendi 12y ago

benmanns 12y ago
“I very politely and truthfully told him, ‘I’ll show you where it is.’” Don't Talk to Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
gcb0 12y ago
traveling with pot is not smart. also little sympathy for people that dont use the car turn signals
- mikestew 12y ago
  Upvote for the turn signals. Traveling with contraband? Be a model driver.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    And don't carry a card in your wallet that says "I have contraband," and don't tell the police, "I'll show you where the contraband is, kind and friendly officer" when he asks you about it.
themartorana 12y ago
Marijuana laws are much like gun laws - you live in the US, but legal activity in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the same country. It's mind-numbing that a citizen of the US would have to know 50 sets of laws just to travel around their own country.
- aaronblohowiak 12y ago
  We have a Federal system, though states' rights have been weakened over time. A US State has sovereignty that the Feds may not impede on. The boundary between state sovereignty and national sovereignty has been contentious throughout history. States rights are good because it allows California to be a leader in emissions laws (example.) States rights are bad because they make inter-state commerce and travel more perilous.
  - fjolthor 12y ago
    Hence the name 'United States', and not Germany or Canada.
    - eru 12y ago
      Federal Republic of Germany. Just `Germany' is roughly equivalent to saying just `America'. As an example, education is in the purview of the German states. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany Canada also has a federal system. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism
    - Solarsail 12y ago
      Odd that you would pick those two countries as your examples. Both are federations comprised of a number of separate sovereign governments. Or, for that matter, the United States of Mexico shares that trait of its name with America. (An actual counterexample would be France, a unitary state.) The Constitution of Canada far more clearly lays out what is and is not the role of the Federal and Provincial governments than the US 10'th amendment does for states rights. Canadian provinces, then, are sovereign themselves (tho not independent). The federal government can't decide it doesn't like an Ontario law and block it any more than it could an American law. The States of the United States then sound far less like united, sovereign states than the members of some federations without United in their names.
      - some_guy_there 12y ago
        Canadian federal government has much more power than US feds can ever imagine to have. The criminal law is entirely up to the Canadian Parliament, and this is highly unlikely to ever fly in US. Further more, the courts have held that Canadian federal government can spend its money any way it likes to influence provincial policy. While the US Supreme court has allowed some percentage of money to be tied to state legislation (viz 21 year drinking age), it has also struck down laws which forces states to take up new spending or lose all the earlier grant from federal government (viz Medicare expansion in Obamacare). Each US state maintains its own Constitution and individual Judiciary, while the Canadian Supreme Court sits on top of any case of controversy in Canada, US is much more federal than Canada, except may be for legal fiction where each Canadian province has their own relation to Crown. While Canadian federal government cannot outright strike out a state law, they almost never have to, as the power of Canadian federal government are almost endless where it really matter viz. criminal law, tax and spending.
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  In practice, such variance in the law is rarely of relevance to an interstate traveler. And the advantages federalism provides more than make it worth it.
- GauntletWizard 12y ago
  You live in the EU, but legal activity in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the same political union. It's mind numbing that a citizen of the EU would have to know 26 sets of laws just to travel around the Schengen Area. "States" in the American sense have nearly all of the powers and differences that "Countries" have in europe. Each one is as large as a european country, and nearly as socially diverse. The only difference is that we've long since figured out the whole Unified Currency and Freedom of Travel thing, while it's still a morass of bickering in Europe.
  - cloakanddagger 12y ago
    Please keep in mind you are comparing a continent to a country. So no, north america has not 'figured out' the unified currency & freedom of traveling thing nor the bickering.
    - GauntletWizard 12y ago
      3.119 million sq miles - Continental US. 3.931 million sq miles - Europe. 1.691 million sq miles - The EU. No, not a huge difference.
mikestew 12y ago
As already pointed out in another comment, don't volunteer that you have pot on you. At least make 'em work for it. Oh, you were thinking they were going to go easier on you? It doesn't work that way. On the one hand, yes, current marijuana laws in most states and at the federal level are ridiculous and unproductive. On the other hand, as a Washington resident what do you think I left at home on a recent motorcycle trip out of state? There's the way we think things should be, and then there's reality. And the reality is that the states through which I would be traveling are not quite as enlightened as WA when it comes to pot possession. I mean, come on, it's not like pot laws are the only laws that differ from state to state (I refer the skeptical to state liquor laws). I understand that folks will say "I didn't know." and "But I thought that..." to the press, and it's probably the wiser answer should one be interviewed by a reporter. But I don't seriously believe that someone buys pot in WA and thinks that driving through ID with a quarter ounce is a-okay.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  Can you get in trouble for lying to a police officer?
  - mrj 12y ago
    Yes, absolutely. You are safer not saying anything.
  - electromagnetic 12y ago
    Yes and no. Lying in routine questioning isn't obstruction of justice until an investigation is underway. It would fall under the right to not self-incriminate otherwise a cop could just walk the street and ask everyone "do you smoke pot?". You also have the right not to self incriminate on an obstruction of justice charge! Basically the closer you get to a jury and a judge the worse the charge for lying is. So if lying stands a good chance of keeping you far far away, you lie your ass off.
  - bstpierre 12y ago
    Not saying anything is better than lying -- whatever you do say, truthful or not, can get twisted around and used against you. "I respectfully decline to answer your questions." "I prefer not to answer." Also, I have to wonder if the guy was under the influence at the time if he handled his wallet in a way that showed the officer the marijuana card. (Or are they bright orange or something?) Hand over just your license, registration, and insurance. Keep your wallet in your pocket.
brianbreslin 12y ago
It says 14% of americans smoke pot. I think that sounds accurate. That is 44 MILLION people in case you were wondering.
- internet2pac 12y ago
  That is impossible and does not even pass a basic math. 317,493,212 is the current population. If you discard people under 15 and over 70 you are left with the you have (219685604) that means 20% of the US smoke pot. Pot people always like to over inflate the usage number, but 14% too funny. Even in states where its legal, it would not reach 20%.
  - Retric 12y ago
    People under 15 and over 70 smoke pot. According to this 38% of those surveyed and 17% of those over 65 admit to trying pot. http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-changed-80s.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-cha... Though only 7% of those surveyed where willing to say they currently smoked. As a sanity check if you where 15 in 1960 your ~69. PS: Though, in an informal survey's my 14-15 year old classmates in the 1990's over 90% said they had used pot in the last year. So their numbers might be off.
    - internet2pac 12y ago
      Yeah sure but statistically it is not significant. There is a two year chinese kid that smokes 2 packs a day, but that does not mean a significant number of 2 year old kids smoke. Also if 14% of people smoke pot that means 80% of all house household smoke pot and it is NOT true.
      - Retric 12y ago
        My point is it's a high variance statistic which is hard to control for. If population A = 95%, Population B = 30%, and Population C = 1% then it becomes vary important to get the correct ratio of populations A, B, and C. And correctly sampling culturally diverse populations in the same geographic area is vary difficult. Something as simple as a phone screen is unlikely to work due to things like % of population in prison or number of phone numbers in a household. Even block by block analysis can fail with transient populations as it's easy to introduce bias by counting someone twice or not at all.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
MBCook 12y ago
Marijuana is illegal federally, and federal laws supersede state laws. Until the federal law changes, possession is risky even in states that have 'legalized' it. Things seem to exist in a sort of grey area where the federal government doesn't seem to be doing (many?) raids of medical marijuana or what's going on in Denver; but that doesn't mean you're in the clear. I'm surprised people aren't more careful about this kind of stuff. Then again the TSA likes to show pictures of the large knives that people either forgot about or (somehow) didn't realize were illegal on planes.
mbarrett 12y ago
Even if the cop sees the card, is it probable cause for a search? Comparing it to gun laws and interstate travel, a gun permit seen in a wallet probably wouldn't lead to a search if the driver simply said there is no gun in the vehicle. Pot seems like it would be under more scrutiny in a red state than guns sadly.
- nedwin 12y ago
  Interesting question. INAL but I would suggest it's not reasonable grounds for search. Either way in this situation the defendant not only allowed the search but pointed out where to find the drugs.
- DLister 12y ago
  Interestingly with guns if you have a concealed carry permit from state A that is accepted in state C but not in state B which you must pass through in transit between you can't be held liable for violating state B's gun laws as long as you are just passing through between point where your permit is valid. Thanks to the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA.
  - Pinckney 12y ago
    Concealed carry has nothing to do with it. You don't need a CC permit to take advantage of the FOPA safe passage provisions, and FOPA won't protect you if you're carrying on your person even if you have a CC permit valid at the endpoints. The firearms and ammunition need to be unloaded and not readily accessible from the passenger compartment.
  - true_religion 12y ago
    Isn't this because guns are legal at the federal level, and thus not allowing them to transit through a state would be a violation of interstate commerce?
- throwaway1230 12y ago
  Does possession of a document merit "probable cause" that you used it for its purpose that very day? I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.
lfuller 12y ago
I'll never understand the logic behind this. How come cancer patients or people recovering from surgery with powerful opiates aren't thrown in prison? Why is possessing a chemical used medically a crime? (This is mostly rhetorical, but still sad.)
- Houshalter 12y ago
  Because the federal government hasn't approved it for medical use but isn't enforcing it either, so it's up to the states which have inconsistent laws.
- cylinder 12y ago
  Authorities will ruin an individual's life and nobody will really think much of it. There's no accountability. No logic or sense to pop up at some point and say "this isn't right." No, if they can find a way, they will ruin your life for the most harmless matter. Meanwhile another suburban soccer mom/dad doctor-shops and snags another prescription for fully legal, powerful opiates. He/she eventually overdoses and dies. Nothing is done.
- mikeash 12y ago
  The law says that opiates are legal to use medically if the right conditions are fulfilled. The law provides no legal uses for marijuana. That's why cancer and surgery patients don't get thrown in jail for using opiates. If you're asking about the logic behind the law, don't. Looking for logic in politics is a fast way to the crazy house.
deciplex 12y ago
>James Siebe, a lawyer in Coeur d’Alene, put it another way: “Come on vacation, leave on probation.” Who the hell is going to Idaho for a vacation aside from neo-Nazis.
- bdamm 12y ago
  Idaho is a very pretty state, especially the northern regions, and I have been very happy with my vacation time spent there. Have you ever heard of the Idaho National Laboratory? They study cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Or how about the advanced manufacturing and electronics facilities in Boise? There's lots of reasons to go to Idaho.
- TallGuyShort 12y ago
  Lots of people visiting Yellowstone National Park
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- nicarus1984 12y ago
  You've obviously never been to Coeur d’Alene. It is a vacation destination for many up here and I don't think there anyone would consider it a haven for neo-Nazis.
- optimusclimb 12y ago
  Former Governor Schwarzenegger for one http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Idaho-town-is-favorite-Schwarzenegger-getaway-3416075.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Idaho-town-is-favorite-Sc...
golemotron 12y ago
Jurors deciding not to convict (Jury Nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification ) would speed along a change in law but the penalties for possession are so harsh that most people take the deal in plea bargain.
- cylinder 12y ago
  I can't see an Arizona jury making this leap to rescue a Mr. Patel.
jeffdavis 12y ago
The US Constitution makes states almost like countries. For those who don't know, laws are different, sometimes in major ways, when you cross a state line. And that's just fine. A big problem in politics is trying to push 300M people to all follow the same set of laws. That's how we ended up with illegal marijuana in the first place. Vote for what you believe in in your state, and leave the rest alone. Singapore doesn't nees the same drug laws as California. Mississippi doesn't need the same minimum wage as Massachusetts. And when you travel, it's a good idea to follow a baseline of behavior that is acceptable almost anywhere. If you don't live there, you are a guest.
- bronbron 12y ago
  > For those who don't know, laws are different, sometimes in major ways, when you cross a state line That seems like a recipe for a huge disaster that we should rectify. It's incredibly easy to cross state lines without purposely intending to, especially in the northeast (e.g. you can easily be ushered into NJ trying to get to upstate NY through NYC). It's exactly why 'safe passage' laws exist, even if it doesn't apply in these two scenarios. It's not as though there's a customs check point at interstate boundaries where you are urged to dispose of materials that might cause you to be in violation of another state's laws.
  - tjohns 12y ago
    Actually, California has precisely that. Shortly after driving across the California border, you'll usually find an agricultural checkpoint or "Border Protection Station". Their focus is mainly on agricultural products, but they're there to get you to dispose of (plant/animal-based) materials that violate CA law. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/ExteriorExclusion/borders.html http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/ExteriorExclusion/borders.ht...
    - bronbron 12y ago
      Interesting! Certainly seems to be the exception, but good to know nonetheless.
  - 12y ago

56 points by zabalmendi 12y ago

“I very politely and truthfully told him, ‘I’ll show you where it is.’” Don't Talk to Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

gcb0 12y ago

traveling with pot is not smart. also little sympathy for people that dont use the car turn signals

mikestew 12y ago
Upvote for the turn signals. Traveling with contraband? Be a model driver.
- mikeash 12y ago
  And don't carry a card in your wallet that says "I have contraband," and don't tell the police, "I'll show you where the contraband is, kind and friendly officer" when he asks you about it.

themartorana 12y ago

Marijuana laws are much like gun laws - you live in the US, but legal activity in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the same country. It's mind-numbing that a citizen of the US would have to know 50 sets of laws just to travel around their own country.

aaronblohowiak 12y ago
We have a Federal system, though states' rights have been weakened over time. A US State has sovereignty that the Feds may not impede on. The boundary between state sovereignty and national sovereignty has been contentious throughout history. States rights are good because it allows California to be a leader in emissions laws (example.) States rights are bad because they make inter-state commerce and travel more perilous.
- fjolthor 12y ago
  Hence the name 'United States', and not Germany or Canada.
  - eru 12y ago
    Federal Republic of Germany. Just `Germany' is roughly equivalent to saying just `America'. As an example, education is in the purview of the German states. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany Canada also has a federal system. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism
  - Solarsail 12y ago
    Odd that you would pick those two countries as your examples. Both are federations comprised of a number of separate sovereign governments. Or, for that matter, the United States of Mexico shares that trait of its name with America. (An actual counterexample would be France, a unitary state.) The Constitution of Canada far more clearly lays out what is and is not the role of the Federal and Provincial governments than the US 10'th amendment does for states rights. Canadian provinces, then, are sovereign themselves (tho not independent). The federal government can't decide it doesn't like an Ontario law and block it any more than it could an American law. The States of the United States then sound far less like united, sovereign states than the members of some federations without United in their names.
    - some_guy_there 12y ago
      Canadian federal government has much more power than US feds can ever imagine to have. The criminal law is entirely up to the Canadian Parliament, and this is highly unlikely to ever fly in US. Further more, the courts have held that Canadian federal government can spend its money any way it likes to influence provincial policy. While the US Supreme court has allowed some percentage of money to be tied to state legislation (viz 21 year drinking age), it has also struck down laws which forces states to take up new spending or lose all the earlier grant from federal government (viz Medicare expansion in Obamacare). Each US state maintains its own Constitution and individual Judiciary, while the Canadian Supreme Court sits on top of any case of controversy in Canada, US is much more federal than Canada, except may be for legal fiction where each Canadian province has their own relation to Crown. While Canadian federal government cannot outright strike out a state law, they almost never have to, as the power of Canadian federal government are almost endless where it really matter viz. criminal law, tax and spending.
w1ntermute 12y ago
In practice, such variance in the law is rarely of relevance to an interstate traveler. And the advantages federalism provides more than make it worth it.
GauntletWizard 12y ago
You live in the EU, but legal activity in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the same political union. It's mind numbing that a citizen of the EU would have to know 26 sets of laws just to travel around the Schengen Area. "States" in the American sense have nearly all of the powers and differences that "Countries" have in europe. Each one is as large as a european country, and nearly as socially diverse. The only difference is that we've long since figured out the whole Unified Currency and Freedom of Travel thing, while it's still a morass of bickering in Europe.
- cloakanddagger 12y ago
  Please keep in mind you are comparing a continent to a country. So no, north america has not 'figured out' the unified currency & freedom of traveling thing nor the bickering.
  - GauntletWizard 12y ago
    3.119 million sq miles - Continental US. 3.931 million sq miles - Europe. 1.691 million sq miles - The EU. No, not a huge difference.

mikestew 12y ago

As already pointed out in another comment, don't volunteer that you have pot on you. At least make 'em work for it. Oh, you were thinking they were going to go easier on you? It doesn't work that way. On the one hand, yes, current marijuana laws in most states and at the federal level are ridiculous and unproductive. On the other hand, as a Washington resident what do you think I left at home on a recent motorcycle trip out of state? There's the way we think things should be, and then there's reality. And the reality is that the states through which I would be traveling are not quite as enlightened as WA when it comes to pot possession. I mean, come on, it's not like pot laws are the only laws that differ from state to state (I refer the skeptical to state liquor laws). I understand that folks will say "I didn't know." and "But I thought that..." to the press, and it's probably the wiser answer should one be interviewed by a reporter. But I don't seriously believe that someone buys pot in WA and thinks that driving through ID with a quarter ounce is a-okay.

Houshalter 12y ago
Can you get in trouble for lying to a police officer?
- mrj 12y ago
  Yes, absolutely. You are safer not saying anything.
- electromagnetic 12y ago
  Yes and no. Lying in routine questioning isn't obstruction of justice until an investigation is underway. It would fall under the right to not self-incriminate otherwise a cop could just walk the street and ask everyone "do you smoke pot?". You also have the right not to self incriminate on an obstruction of justice charge! Basically the closer you get to a jury and a judge the worse the charge for lying is. So if lying stands a good chance of keeping you far far away, you lie your ass off.
- bstpierre 12y ago
  Not saying anything is better than lying -- whatever you do say, truthful or not, can get twisted around and used against you. "I respectfully decline to answer your questions." "I prefer not to answer." Also, I have to wonder if the guy was under the influence at the time if he handled his wallet in a way that showed the officer the marijuana card. (Or are they bright orange or something?) Hand over just your license, registration, and insurance. Keep your wallet in your pocket.

brianbreslin 12y ago

It says 14% of americans smoke pot. I think that sounds accurate. That is 44 MILLION people in case you were wondering.

internet2pac 12y ago
That is impossible and does not even pass a basic math. 317,493,212 is the current population. If you discard people under 15 and over 70 you are left with the you have (219685604) that means 20% of the US smoke pot. Pot people always like to over inflate the usage number, but 14% too funny. Even in states where its legal, it would not reach 20%.
- Retric 12y ago
  People under 15 and over 70 smoke pot. According to this 38% of those surveyed and 17% of those over 65 admit to trying pot. http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-changed-80s.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-cha... Though only 7% of those surveyed where willing to say they currently smoked. As a sanity check if you where 15 in 1960 your ~69. PS: Though, in an informal survey's my 14-15 year old classmates in the 1990's over 90% said they had used pot in the last year. So their numbers might be off.
  - internet2pac 12y ago
    Yeah sure but statistically it is not significant. There is a two year chinese kid that smokes 2 packs a day, but that does not mean a significant number of 2 year old kids smoke. Also if 14% of people smoke pot that means 80% of all house household smoke pot and it is NOT true.
    - Retric 12y ago
      My point is it's a high variance statistic which is hard to control for. If population A = 95%, Population B = 30%, and Population C = 1% then it becomes vary important to get the correct ratio of populations A, B, and C. And correctly sampling culturally diverse populations in the same geographic area is vary difficult. Something as simple as a phone screen is unlikely to work due to things like % of population in prison or number of phone numbers in a household. Even block by block analysis can fail with transient populations as it's easy to introduce bias by counting someone twice or not at all.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

MBCook 12y ago

Marijuana is illegal federally, and federal laws supersede state laws. Until the federal law changes, possession is risky even in states that have 'legalized' it. Things seem to exist in a sort of grey area where the federal government doesn't seem to be doing (many?) raids of medical marijuana or what's going on in Denver; but that doesn't mean you're in the clear. I'm surprised people aren't more careful about this kind of stuff. Then again the TSA likes to show pictures of the large knives that people either forgot about or (somehow) didn't realize were illegal on planes.

mbarrett 12y ago

Even if the cop sees the card, is it probable cause for a search? Comparing it to gun laws and interstate travel, a gun permit seen in a wallet probably wouldn't lead to a search if the driver simply said there is no gun in the vehicle. Pot seems like it would be under more scrutiny in a red state than guns sadly.

nedwin 12y ago
Interesting question. INAL but I would suggest it's not reasonable grounds for search. Either way in this situation the defendant not only allowed the search but pointed out where to find the drugs.
DLister 12y ago
Interestingly with guns if you have a concealed carry permit from state A that is accepted in state C but not in state B which you must pass through in transit between you can't be held liable for violating state B's gun laws as long as you are just passing through between point where your permit is valid. Thanks to the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA.
- Pinckney 12y ago
  Concealed carry has nothing to do with it. You don't need a CC permit to take advantage of the FOPA safe passage provisions, and FOPA won't protect you if you're carrying on your person even if you have a CC permit valid at the endpoints. The firearms and ammunition need to be unloaded and not readily accessible from the passenger compartment.
- true_religion 12y ago
  Isn't this because guns are legal at the federal level, and thus not allowing them to transit through a state would be a violation of interstate commerce?
throwaway1230 12y ago
Does possession of a document merit "probable cause" that you used it for its purpose that very day? I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.

lfuller 12y ago

I'll never understand the logic behind this. How come cancer patients or people recovering from surgery with powerful opiates aren't thrown in prison? Why is possessing a chemical used medically a crime? (This is mostly rhetorical, but still sad.)

Houshalter 12y ago
Because the federal government hasn't approved it for medical use but isn't enforcing it either, so it's up to the states which have inconsistent laws.
cylinder 12y ago
Authorities will ruin an individual's life and nobody will really think much of it. There's no accountability. No logic or sense to pop up at some point and say "this isn't right." No, if they can find a way, they will ruin your life for the most harmless matter. Meanwhile another suburban soccer mom/dad doctor-shops and snags another prescription for fully legal, powerful opiates. He/she eventually overdoses and dies. Nothing is done.
mikeash 12y ago
The law says that opiates are legal to use medically if the right conditions are fulfilled. The law provides no legal uses for marijuana. That's why cancer and surgery patients don't get thrown in jail for using opiates. If you're asking about the logic behind the law, don't. Looking for logic in politics is a fast way to the crazy house.

deciplex 12y ago

>James Siebe, a lawyer in Coeur d’Alene, put it another way: “Come on vacation, leave on probation.” Who the hell is going to Idaho for a vacation aside from neo-Nazis.

bdamm 12y ago
Idaho is a very pretty state, especially the northern regions, and I have been very happy with my vacation time spent there. Have you ever heard of the Idaho National Laboratory? They study cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Or how about the advanced manufacturing and electronics facilities in Boise? There's lots of reasons to go to Idaho.
TallGuyShort 12y ago
Lots of people visiting Yellowstone National Park
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
nicarus1984 12y ago
You've obviously never been to Coeur d’Alene. It is a vacation destination for many up here and I don't think there anyone would consider it a haven for neo-Nazis.
optimusclimb 12y ago
Former Governor Schwarzenegger for one http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Idaho-town-is-favorite-Schwarzenegger-getaway-3416075.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Idaho-town-is-favorite-Sc...

golemotron 12y ago

Jurors deciding not to convict (Jury Nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification ) would speed along a change in law but the penalties for possession are so harsh that most people take the deal in plea bargain.

cylinder 12y ago
I can't see an Arizona jury making this leap to rescue a Mr. Patel.

jeffdavis 12y ago

The US Constitution makes states almost like countries. For those who don't know, laws are different, sometimes in major ways, when you cross a state line. And that's just fine. A big problem in politics is trying to push 300M people to all follow the same set of laws. That's how we ended up with illegal marijuana in the first place. Vote for what you believe in in your state, and leave the rest alone. Singapore doesn't nees the same drug laws as California. Mississippi doesn't need the same minimum wage as Massachusetts. And when you travel, it's a good idea to follow a baseline of behavior that is acceptable almost anywhere. If you don't live there, you are a guest.

bronbron 12y ago
> For those who don't know, laws are different, sometimes in major ways, when you cross a state line That seems like a recipe for a huge disaster that we should rectify. It's incredibly easy to cross state lines without purposely intending to, especially in the northeast (e.g. you can easily be ushered into NJ trying to get to upstate NY through NYC). It's exactly why 'safe passage' laws exist, even if it doesn't apply in these two scenarios. It's not as though there's a customs check point at interstate boundaries where you are urged to dispose of materials that might cause you to be in violation of another state's laws.
- tjohns 12y ago
  Actually, California has precisely that. Shortly after driving across the California border, you'll usually find an agricultural checkpoint or "Border Protection Station". Their focus is mainly on agricultural products, but they're there to get you to dispose of (plant/animal-based) materials that violate CA law. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/ExteriorExclusion/borders.html http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/ExteriorExclusion/borders.ht...
  - bronbron 12y ago
    Interesting! Certainly seems to be the exception, but good to know nonetheless.
- 12y ago