Maine's new Marijuana law (Washington: buy, legality, statistics)

[UpTheCreek]

Originally Posted by Zymer

I would generally be in favor of the feds hammering the states on 'weed'...so long as that same hammer was simultaneously used on those states that infringe on the 2A RIGHT enumerated in the Constitution by enacting their own laws, 'rules' and 'regulations' that restrict it.

'Weed' is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as a 'right', but the RTKBA *IS*, and therefore should be especially inviolable, as it was intended to be.

(I would, however, argue that 'weed' could/should be incorporated as part of "...life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...")

GREAT post!

[ground_pounder]

great with all of these state passing marijuana laws. not only will we have idiots texting and driving now they will be stoned off there asses as well

[LordSquidworth]

Ignorance is bliss.

[mainebrokerman]

Originally Posted by ground_pounder

great with all of these state passing marijuana laws. not only will we have idiots texting and driving now they will be stoned off there asses as well

and we spent the last 30 years treating cigarette smokers like lepers???????

and we are promoting marijuana???

you don't get "high" from cigarettes, but do from weed

and we want more young adults in the workplace ...coming to work...high....driving high??


I'm not opposed to adult liberties....but there is a reason the drinking age isn't 18 anymore

and we will also see some negative fall out from the weed law..

[Maineguy04654]

Originally Posted by Zymer

Actually, the question asks if one is an 'illegal' user. This, in essence, requires the buyer to render an opinion on the legality of his/her use. If the use is legal in one's home state where the purchase is being made, then, given that the legislators have determined that the use is legal, it is certainly a valid argument that one is relying on the opinion of those legislators and can honestly answer the question "No". If one believes that the answer he is giving is true, then he is not guilty of perjury.

A charge of perjury is based on an individual intentionally and willfully making a false statement. If one believes, in his opinion, that the statement is true, then even if it is later determined that the answer was incorrect, the elements of being 'willful' and 'intentional' are not satisfied.

A layman is not a legal professional and certainly cannot be expected to be an expert on legal matters. If legal professionals in state and federal governments are at odds, then how can the layman be held to a higher standard? If the layman chooses to follow the laws of his state and believes that his use is legal, based on the opinion of his state legislators, then his answering "No" is not an act of perjury.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've played one in court (and won, several times***). The above should not be construed as legal advice from a qualified legal professional...it is, however, a well-reasoned argument and I should expect that if it were argued in court (by a competent, licensed lawyer) that a judge would be hard-pressed to render a verdict of one being guilty of perjury, which is the threat of Form 4473, as the prosecutor would have to prove that the defendant made a *willful* and *intentional* false statement. The fact that the state law says his use is legal presents sufficient doubt that would make a finding of guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" unfeasible.

***(My record in legal proceedings argued is currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 13 wins, one draw, one loss.)

According to the recent ruling you smoke weed and own a firearm you are breaking the law. Ninth Circuit Rules Marijuana Card Holders May Not Own Firearms

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by Maineguy04654

According to the recent ruling you smoke weed and own a firearm you are breaking the law. Ninth Circuit Rules Marijuana Card Holders May Not Own Firearms

We've already covered that, and the new 4473. You're late and clearly didn't follow the entire thread. Given this serious lapse in judgement, I think that we have reasonable cause to believe that you're high, and therefore unsuitable to own weapons. In order to maintain safety in the state, I hereby demand that you surrender all of your weapons to me.

[inthetrees]

Originally Posted by mainebrokerman

and we spent the last 30 years treating cigarette smokers like lepers???????

and we are promoting marijuana???

you don't get "high" from cigarettes, but do from weed

and we want more young adults in the workplace ...coming to work...high....driving high??


I'm not opposed to adult liberties....but there is a reason the drinking age isn't 18 anymore

and we will also see some negative fall out from the weed law..

2nd hand tobacco smoke is highly carcinogenic, 2nd hand cannabis smoke is not.

There is no good reason for the legal drinking age to be 21. We as a society no longer have any sort of personal responsibility, it's much easier to pass the buck and blame someone else for our kids problems then our own bad parenting, so we have all these silly rules that don't really do anything, instead of just doing it right from the start and teaching kids responsible/moderate drug(alcohol, cannabis, even caffeine) use. Kids all over Europe drink alcohol as young as 10 years old. They hardly have a bigger alcohol problem then we do. IIRC canada is 19 and they also don't have any worse of a problem then we do.

Similar to how we have figured out it is really dumb to try to teach kids abstinence only for sex education.

Human start getting impaired from the moment they can walk. Ever watch a toddler spin around in circles until they cant walk straight? The only purpose of this is for an altered state of mind.

[kevin5098]

Originally Posted by inthetrees

2nd hand tobacco smoke is highly carcinogenic, 2nd hand cannabis smoke is not.

There is no good reason for the legal drinking age to be 21. We as a society no longer have any sort of personal responsibility, it's much easier to pass the buck and blame someone else for our kids problems then our own bad parenting, so we have all these silly rules that don't really do anything, instead of just doing it right from the start and teaching kids responsible/moderate drug(alcohol, cannabis, even caffeine) use. Kids all over Europe drink alcohol as young as 10 years old. They hardly have a bigger alcohol problem then we do. IIRC canada is 19 and they also don't have any worse of a problem then we do.

Similar to how we have figured out it is really dumb to try to teach kids abstinence only for sex education.

Human start getting impaired from the moment they can walk. Ever watch a toddler spin around in circles until they cant walk straight? The only purpose of this is for an altered state of mind.

Second hand cannabis smoke is not necessarily harmless. Studies in animals have shown that second hand cannabis smoke may have a greater effect on circulatory system function than second hand tobacco smoke. A lack of clinical data should not be confused with the absence of health issues. In 1946 an ad declared that more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.

Is Secondhand Marijuana Smoke Bad for You?

[inthetrees]

Originally Posted by kevin5098

Second hand cannabis smoke is not necessarily harmless. Studies in animals have shown that second hand cannabis smoke may have a greater effect on circulatory system function than second hand tobacco smoke. A lack of clinical data should not be confused with the absence of health issues. In 1946 an ad declared that more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.

Is Secondhand Marijuana Smoke Bad for You?

I dont believe I said anywhere it was harmless, what I did say was that it is not carcinogenic.

[kevin5098]

Originally Posted by inthetrees

I dont believe I said anywhere it was harmless, what I did say was that it is not carcinogenic.

Yes and what I attempted to say is that there is insufficient data to conclude that it is not carcinogenic. Cannabis smoke does contain many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smo...ww.google.com/