legalized marijuana ... what will CAP do ?

[manfredvonrichthofen]

What will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned...

Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

[jeders]

My guess would be the same thing that they do in CAWG and everywhere else in the nation. They will maintain a drug free environment.

[JeffDG]

Regardless of state actions, Marijuana is still illegal throughout the United States under federal law.

See Gonzalez v. Raich (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html) for a clear indication of how pre-emption works.

[RogueLeader]

Despite that CO, as well as several other states, have legalized MJ, it is still an illegal drug by Federal Law.  It is NOT ok for use.  I would not allow anybody in my unit to use MJ, whether they had a license for it or not.  If they came to apply for membership using, outright rejection.  If they were a member, there would be a plan made to get them off, or termination.

[isuhawkeye]

Unless they are smoking in front of you how would you know.

[a2capt]

The lingering stench is a dead giveaway.

[lordmonar]

IF.....IF.....it were to be decrimilised nation wide....I would assume that we simply follow the same rules as we do for other legal drugs.

IMSAFE and 8 hours bottle to throttle.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

And Rogue, would you ban a person from membership if they Were prescribed marijuana for a disability?
Pleased note, I'm just up for debate, I'm not arguing for legal fun use of marijuana, but I'm not really against it's use for medical purposes.

[Eclipse]

If it's legal, we stay out of it, though we could still encourage moderation like we do with other legal intoxicants.
Until it's legal on the Federal level, CAP will likely maintain its "no tolerance" stance.

From a CN perspective, since most, if not all, our CN work is done to support state and local agencies, if they aren't
enforcing the Federal law, then CN work will dry up in those states very quickly, however there's plenty of it to go around in other
states, and this issue not likely to be settled on a national level any time soon, if ever.

It'll wind up being a pretty interesting, and heated "state's rights" test for the Supreme Court.

In fact the next decade is likely to be very interesting in the (purported) "Chinese" way, where "May you live in interesting times.", which is considered a curse.

We have states refusing to enforce Federal laws, and the Federal government refusing to allow enforcement of state laws.

[RogueLeader]

It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

State LE can't do anything about it but DEA, FBI, etc CAN as it is still a violation of Federal Statutes.

And Rogue, would you ban a person from membership if they Were prescribed marijuana for a disability?

Yes.  Just like I would bar membership to a person using cocaine, heroin, etc.

[Eclipse]

It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

That's not how it works, Federal law crosses all the borders, that's the point.  There's supposedly a "gentlemen's agreement" in California
where the feds have agreed to reduce or delay enforcement of marijuana laws until this is sorted in the courts, but there's also been
a lot of complaining that the Feds are still doing arbitrary enforcement.

Given the manpower and the will, the Feds could shut down all of the "legal" marijuana operations tomorrow.

As to denying membership - I would refer the matter to the Wing CC and stay out of it. It's a national issue and should be
handled and considered by NHQ.  We can't knowingly allow members to be users / in possession of a banned substance,
just because the local state has decided it's OK.

In some areas, this could put a real burden on members of law enforcement who are also members and have a duty to act.

[Pylon]

It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

And Rogue, would you ban a person from membership if they Were prescribed marijuana for a disability?

Pleased note, I'm just up for debate, I'm not arguing for legal fun use of marijuana, but I'm not really against it's use for medical purposes.

Manfred, sorry - see earlier post regarding preemption.  Federal law trumps state and applies throughout the land; federal law stops at no state's border.  MJ is still 100% illegal in every part of this country, even for medical use.   That certain states "legalize it" on their books only means state and local authorities will not prosecute; but a person in California or Colorado or wherever using MJ under state laws permitting it could still be arrested and tried on federal drug charges.  Whether or not the feds choose to actively pursue arresting and prosecuting in those states is a different matter, and often decided by an administration's executive policy.  However whether the feds actively pursue violators or not doesn't change the fact that marijuana is still illegal to grow, possess, deal, or use in every part of this country.

[Eclipse]

Imagine the nightmare of a member who uses it "legally", traveling for an NCSA or NESA, etc., and being caught with it
in a state where it's not legal.

We'd be fully complicit, have a huge PA stain, but could do little to intervene.  Further, the commanders and staff of those activities
might have legal issues as well. 

Heck, COV's, including aircraft, that were found with marijuana could be impounded and kept or sold under local and federal
seizure laws.

[Flying Pig]

....

[Flying Pig]

It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

And Rogue, would you ban a person from membership if they Were prescribed marijuana for a disability?

Pleased note, I'm just up for debate, I'm not arguing for legal fun use of marijuana, but I'm not really against it's use for medical purposes.

Manfred, sorry - see earlier post regarding preemption.  Federal law trumps state and applies throughout the land; federal law stops at no state's border.  MJ is still 100% illegal in every part of this country, even for medical use.   That certain states "legalize it" on their books only means state and local authorities will not prosecute; but a person in California or Colorado or wherever using MJ under state laws permitting it could still be arrested and tried on federal drug charges.  Whether or not the feds choose to actively pursue arresting and prosecuting in those states is a different matter, and often decided by an administration's executive policy.  However whether the feds actively pursue violators or not doesn't change the fact that marijuana is still illegal to grow, possess, deal, or use in every part of this country.

Yup

[JeffDG]

where the feds have agreed to reduce or delay enforcement of marijuana laws until this is sorted in the courts,

There's nothing to be "sorted in the courts".

The Supreme Court spoke very clearly in Gonzalez v. Raich.  Federal laws on possession of Marijuana are valid and in place, state laws to the contrary notwithstanding.  A state law permitting a drug does not supersede the clear federal prohibition.

California's Compassionate Use Act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes. Respondents Raich and Monson are California residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson's cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. Respondents claim that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The District Court denied respondents' motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that they had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient's physician pursuant to valid California state law. The court relied heavily on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, to hold that this separate class of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power.

Held: Congress' Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6—31.

[Flying Pig]

It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

That's not how it works, Federal law crosses all the borders, that's the point.  There's supposedly a "gentlemen's agreement" in California
where the feds have agreed to reduce or delay enforcement of marijuana laws until this is sorted in the courts, but there's also been
a lot of complaining that the Feds are still doing arbitrary enforcement.

Given the manpower and the will, the Feds could shut down all of the "legal" marijuana operations tomorrow.

As to denying membership - I would refer the matter to the Wing CC and stay out of it. It's a national issue and should be
handled and considered by NHQ.  We can't knowingly allow members to be users / in possession of a banned substance,
just because the local state has decided it's OK.

In some areas, this could put a real burden on members of law enforcement who are also members and have a duty to act.

CAP is a national organization.  The most responsible position for CAP to take is to defer to federal law. Not to mention the fact that we routinely use state, federal and military facilities and routinely interact with local, state, and federal LE agencies.  Medical MJ is legal in CA, but you cant use it as a cop.  You would be fired.   If CAP starts getting into "states rights" issues, or "wing rights" might be a better term, members crossing state lines will start causing issues. 

As far as CA, it is basically coming down to the counties.  In my county, we go after it 100% under the umbrella of the DEA.  We are assisting them with their investigations. I spent all summer slingin' weed!  There are other counties where people use weed as landscaping. 

[Eclipse]

where the feds have agreed to reduce or delay enforcement of marijuana laws until this is sorted in the courts,

There's nothing to be "sorted in the courts".

The Supreme Court spoke very clearly in Gonzalez v. Raich.  Federal laws on possession of Marijuana are valid and in place, state laws to the contrary notwithstanding.  A state law permitting a drug does not supersede the clear federal prohibition.

I agree 100%, but the Ogden memos have indicated that the Feds will not prosecute users or suppliers who are in compliance with state law, effectively
relinquishing control of the situation to the respective states.

[sardak]

What will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned... Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

Washington state also approved "recreational" marijuana yesterday but Oregon voters rejected it. 17 states and DC already allow MJ for medical purposes. In all of these locations the local laws are in violation of federal laws. For the most part, the feds have not been going after the medicinal users or even the licensed medical providers, unless there is some flagrant violation of the local laws.   

This is not an overnight surprise that CAP has to deal with.

Mike

[Flying Pig]

where the feds have agreed to reduce or delay enforcement of marijuana laws until this is sorted in the courts,

There's nothing to be "sorted in the courts".

The Supreme Court spoke very clearly in Gonzalez v. Raich.  Federal laws on possession of Marijuana are valid and in place, state laws to the contrary notwithstanding.  A state law permitting a drug does not supersede the clear federal prohibition.

I agree 100%, but the Ogden memos have indicated that the Feds will not prosecute users or suppliers who are in compliance with state law, effectively
relinquishing control of the situation to the respective states.

Not the case in CA in my county.  We shut down the stores all the time under the umbrella of the DEA.   On the case of Washington, I wasnt following it there, but I just read that it was the "recreational use" of MJ   Wow......  so basically.... its 100% legal in WA then I guess as far as state law goes.  I wonder what the DEA is going to do about that?