Unrelated to the discussion at hand. There is no decision as to what to do.
Those arrests were by the local and not Federal government.
Wrong. State trooper will not arrest you because under his jurisdiction, it is legal. Now, if for some unknown reason, the FBI happens to be driving around pulling people over with a K-9 unit, you might be in trouble.
He broke curfew…
I think in Washington or Colorado there would be a discussion as the State Trooper is there to enforce the laws of the State and have been told by State officials to leave you alone, your legal.
Duval was not from a State that legalized pot.
Your post is right on point with the quoted material about conflicting laws. In your scenario it is impossible to comply with both jurisdictions, since their laws differ as to actions required. Also, it addresses the quandary as to which jurisdiction trumps the other. One could say the Federal jurisdiction dispensed you from breaking the Federal law by advising your compliance with the state law, but on the other hand, the Federal CO’s reasoning suggested that the local state jurisdiction should take precedence, not because of who had the higher jurisdiction, but because of who owned the land. I would add a third question: Was the Federal CO correct when he said the state owned the land occupied by the national park; I had always thought that the Federal government did, but maybe they only have something equivalent to an easement, ??? Anyway, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It helps muddy the waters, lol, which after all is the point that some have been trying to make, that is, it’s not always black and white. True, Coptic Christian, it does not address other questions. Peace.
Here is the rub. Someone somewhere is going to come across this thread or even reading it right now. They are thinking…Wow, those Catholics say it is Ok to use Marijuana because the Feds are not going to prosecute.Your post is right on point with the quoted material about conflicting laws. In your scenario it is impossible to comply with both jurisdictions, since their laws differ as to actions required. Also, it addresses the quandary as to which jurisdiction trumps the other. One could say the Federal jurisdiction dispensed you from breaking the Federal law by advising your compliance with the state law, but on the other hand, the Federal CO’s reasoning suggested that the local state jurisdiction should take precedence, not because of who had the higher jurisdiction, but because of who owned the land. I would add a third question: Was the Federal CO correct when he said the state owned the land occupied by the national park; I had always thought that the Federal government did, but maybe they only have something equivalent to an easement, ??? Anyway, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It helps muddy the waters, lol, which after all is the point that some have been trying to make, that is, it’s not always black and white. True, Coptic Christian, it does not address other questions. Peace.
PS-- In CC’s later post, the question of jurisdiction in a national forest comes up again. In this scenario, the Feds say that being in a state that legalizes M is not a defense. That’s what they say anyway. I wonder if a good lawyer could make it go the other way. Others might even contest the Federal government’s intrusion into state business and question its role in drug enforcement in the first place. Because a law is on the books neither makes it just nor Constitutional. I personally have felt for years that the SCOTUS has erred in its extension of interstate commerce to cover practically any activity imaginable. It seems like the Court has turned the Constitution upside down and given all powers not enumerated to the Federal government, which it has no right to do. For many, it’s “interpretation” is tantamount to an amendment, which is beyond its scope.
lol Point well taken. But do you think we should abandon earnest and free discussion because some persons bent on doing what they want to do are looking for any excuse to do what common sense tells them is foolhardy. Even if I thought an action were moral, I would pay attention to the probability of being incarcerated for doing it. The Federal government can intervene in any state where the law legalizes marijuana, and I believe they do, especially with regards to medical marijuana businesses. Also, these legal state markets are not always populated by the most savory of characters, and it would not be beyond these people to entice Federal agents to act against any competitors and their customers. The same goes for prostitution in Nevada, which while legal in some counties, is prohibited by Federal law. Here of course there is no question of morality.
It would help if those that want to take the side of risk, add, this is not to say that anyone viewing this should take this as advice to break the law, this is just a discussion.
I’s not a source for anything official and anyone who takes advice from ANY forum without checking it out is foolish. Not sure about you, but I didn’t have to show my Baptismal Certificate to list my religion as Catholic. In some cases, believing anything said here as being true is tha same as believing something on Facebook is true. I could be a rapist…and you could be a serial killer
