What's in _your_ ballot?

[strawman]

What's unusual about Michigan's ballot this year is not what's on it - it's what isn't on it.

Usually the michigan ballots contain a whole slew of statewide proposals, but this year we are asked only two, and one of them is due to the state constitution (requires that every 16 years voters are asked if we want to convene a constitutional convention, which hasn't happened since 1963)

The only other one is a fairly mundane "people who commited a felony involving dishonesty, breaking of the public trust, etc while in office are no longer eligible for public office or specifc types of public employment" due largely to the whole mayor kwame kilpatrick scandel and fallout.

10 other proposals failed to get the 380k signatures required to be put on the statewide ballot.

So what interesting things are on your state ballot? Usually you can review your state ballot prior to the election - try a google search for "michigan ballot", replacing michigan with your state.

 

[Tress]

It appears that California will be the first state to legalize marijuana. So yeah, there's that.

 

[David]

Unfortunately it will remain a federal crime and tax dollars will continue to be spent on FBI agents tackling down college potheads.

 

[Tress]

I highly doubt that the FBI will actively pursue small-time pot smokers. It just means if they find pot on your person during the course of a federal investigation for something else, you'll get a drug bust too.

 

[AshburnerX]

What's going to end up happening is the Feds will suddenly find their local support for drug enforcement of Marijuana go out the window, as they futilely attempt to crack down on all of the suddenly legal Medical Marijuana dispensaries that pop up. The Feds will then try and get the local judges to process and try the drug offenses. From there it goes one of two ways:

- The judges comply and they face the repercussions of disobeying the will of their constituencies, such as getting thrown off the bench or finding themselves under investigation.

- The judges don't. The feds will then sit on their thumbs or attempt to get what they want from other means.

Regardless of what happens, it's probably going to be VERY interesting in California in the next year (assuming it passes).

 

[crono1224]

What's going to end up happening is the Feds will suddenly find their local support for drug enforcement of Marijuana go out the window, as they futilely attempt to crack down on all of the suddenly legal Medical Marijuana dispensaries that pop up. The Feds will then try and get the local judges to process and try the drug offenses. From there it goes one of two ways:

- The judges comply and they face the repercussions of disobeying the will of their constituencies, such as getting thrown off the bench or finding themselves under investigation.

- The judges don't. The feds will then sit on their thumbs or attempt to get what they want from other means.

Regardless of what happens, it's probably going to be VERY interesting in California in the next year (assuming it passes).

Federal judges don't have constituents and they are the ones that would be trying the people for federal crimes. So they can't really get thrown off the bench, and don't face investigation because it has nothing to do with state or local laws.

The big issue to watch is if local governments still ban marijuana it could then be against the law in that area to do it while still legal in the state.

*unless I am off with how the federal court system works.

 

[AshburnerX]

Federal judges don't have constituents and they are the ones that would be trying the people for federal crimes. So they can't really get thrown off the bench, and don't face investigation because it has nothing to do with state or local laws.

Except that Federal Judges are rarely, if ever, the ones who rule on things like drug possession. Yes, the feds COULD simply bring the drug users/dispensary owners to Federal Court, but that would keep them from doing their intended duties and just generally clog up the Federal Courts. Local judges are the ones who usually do it and THEY are elected (or at least some of them are on 6-year terms in California).

 

[crono1224]

Federal judges don't have constituents and they are the ones that would be trying the people for federal crimes. So they can't really get thrown off the bench, and don't face investigation because it has nothing to do with state or local laws.

Except that Federal Judges are rarely, if ever, the ones who rule on things like drug possession. Yes, the feds COULD simply bring the drug users/dispensary owners to Federal Court, but that would keep them from doing their intended duties and just generally clog up the Federal Courts. Local judges are the ones who usually do it and THEY are elected (or at least some of them are on 6-year terms in California).[/QUOTE]

But if it is a federal crime they broke they would be tried in federal court. So I don't get what you are saying.

 

[AshburnerX]

Ugh... the US legal system is set up very oddly. Does anyone have the legal knowledge to explain this well, one way or another?

 

[strawman]

Ugh... the US legal system is set up very oddly. Does anyone have the legal knowledge to explain this well, one way or another?

Let me explain as best as I can.

There are federal laws against drugs. These are primarily intended to stop interstate and international drug trafficking since the state can't go outside its boundaries and prosecute someone.

There are state and local laws that also cover drugs. They are concerned primarily with possession, sales, intent to sell, etc. As long as a case doesn't involve parties outside the state, or the movement of drugs beyond the border, then that case is generally handled at the local level. Whether a case gets moved from the local to federal court system and vice versa is a relatively complex subject. In general prosecutors will examine the case facts and attempt to move the case to the court where the greater punishment is likely, while defense will attempt to move it to the court of lesser punishment. This is after the primary investigation is complete and the suspects are in custody. Prior to that the two will do work that is appropriate for their jurisdiction.

What happens when the state and local government remove their laws, or stop enforcing them?

For instance - a university may have its own police force, and may choose not to enforce the city's drug laws to the letter. Since the city police aren't allowed to police on campus, and the university police aren't going to cite violators, there exists a place where users can possess and use drugs with a low chance of being fined. In most cases, sales are still fined, but as long as the sales are discreet they may go undetected.

If California chooses to allow recreational use statewide, then the federal government is NOT going to extend itself to put recreational drug users behind bars. They will, however, continue to track and arrest drug distributors in cases with a clear federal violation.

This will create a unique situation where small time producers will succeed, while big time distributors will have a hard time moving product. Further, those that produce, distribute, and use completely within state boundaries face significantly less antagonism from the government.

It will serve to give a leg up to locally produced a distributed goods. Since the demand will likely increase then bigger distributors will still try to feed the demand, find themselves caught more frequently, but in total more goods will go through the borders.

Eventually many small time producers will find that the in-state market isn't very profitable and will attempt to sell out of state, and face a higher risk of falling afoul of federal laws, and other state laws. Even if they stay in california, once they become subject to a federal investigation they may be arrested anyway, if they are found to be complicit with their product being moved out of state.

This is all wild speculation, and is not intended to be taken as legal advice. See a lawyer.

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

It should be noted that the federal and local agencies work together. Even though the local police may not be interested in enforcing federal drug laws, they get some funding in order to help the federal agents with their various investigations.

Therefore you may find local police investigating subjects in violation of federal law. This means that even if CA passes their pot law, local police may still be involved in drug investigations at the behest of the federal investigators.

The local police may choose to report violations of federal law (just like any other citizen can) even if there is no local law being violated.

So if you get on the bad side of the police, and they can't nail you for anything else, they may report you for possession to the feds just to make your life difficult, or get you arrested/fined/imprisoned. Think in terms of "We can't get Capone for alcohol distribution, but we can nail him to the wall for income tax evasion."

So even if the proposal is passed and signed into law, it hardly gives everyone free reign.

 

[crono1224]

Ugh... the US legal system is set up very oddly. Does anyone have the legal knowledge to explain this well, one way or another?

Let me explain as best as I can.

There are federal laws against drugs. These are primarily intended to stop interstate and international drug trafficking since the state can't go outside its boundaries and prosecute someone.

There are state and local laws that also cover drugs. They are concerned primarily with possession, sales, intent to sell, etc. As long as a case doesn't involve parties outside the state, or the movement of drugs beyond the border, then that case is generally handled at the local level. Whether a case gets moved from the local to federal court system and vice versa is a relatively complex subject. In general prosecutors will examine the case facts and attempt to move the case to the court where the greater punishment is likely, while defense will attempt to move it to the court of lesser punishment. This is after the primary investigation is complete and the suspects are in custody. Prior to that the two will do work that is appropriate for their jurisdiction.

What happens when the state and local government remove their laws, or stop enforcing them?

For instance - a university may have its own police force, and may choose not to enforce the city's drug laws to the letter. Since the city police aren't allowed to police on campus, and the university police aren't going to cite violators, there exists a place where users can possess and use drugs with a low chance of being fined. In most cases, sales are still fined, but as long as the sales are discreet they may go undetected.

If California chooses to allow recreational use statewide, then the federal government is NOT going to extend itself to put recreational drug users behind bars. They will, however, continue to track and arrest drug distributors in cases with a clear federal violation.

This will create a unique situation where small time producers will succeed, while big time distributors will have a hard time moving product. Further, those that produce, distribute, and use completely within state boundaries face significantly less antagonism from the government.

It will serve to give a leg up to locally produced a distributed goods. Since the demand will likely increase then bigger distributors will still try to feed the demand, find themselves caught more frequently, but in total more goods will go through the borders.

Eventually many small time producers will find that the in-state market isn't very profitable and will attempt to sell out of state, and face a higher risk of falling afoul of federal laws, and other state laws. Even if they stay in california, once they become subject to a federal investigation they may be arrested anyway, if they are found to be complicit with their product being moved out of state.

This is all wild speculation, and is not intended to be taken as legal advice. See a lawyer.

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

It should be noted that the federal and local agencies work together. Even though the local police may not be interested in enforcing federal drug laws, they get some funding in order to help the federal agents with their various investigations.

Therefore you may find local police investigating subjects in violation of federal law. This means that even if CA passes their pot law, local police may still be involved in drug investigations at the behest of the federal investigators.

The local police may choose to report violations of federal law (just like any other citizen can) even if there is no local law being violated.

So if you get on the bad side of the police, and they can't nail you for anything else, they may report you for possession to the feds just to make your life difficult, or get you arrested/fined/imprisoned. Think in terms of "We can't get Capone for alcohol distribution, but we can nail him to the wall for income tax evasion."

So even if the proposal is passed and signed into law, it hardly gives everyone free reign.[/QUOTE]

Bigger jurisdictions can police smaller ones aka a state police can arrested people in cities, and city police can arrest people on campus.

 

[sixpackshaker]

If prop 19 passes, there will be a lettuce shortage, due to farmers plowing under fields to plant grass.

 

[AshburnerX]

If prop 19 passes, there will be a lettuce shortage, due to farmers plowing under fields to plant grass.

Maybe in the short term the local growers might, but the big corporate farms can't afford to retool overnight because of commitments with their clients. Then again, the small, local growers might want to stay out of it for moral/ethical reasons or to avoid losing their land in potential interstate trafficking busts.

If ANYONE is going to see an upscale in business, it's going to be from the small gardening shops that are selling supplies to people who want to grow their own at home. If ANYTHING is assured in this proposal it's that the market will be flooded with weak, low quality product that is going to make the new people wonder what the big deal was and the old guard pissed that they can't get high as easily anymore. This will make them try and cut out the middle man and try to make something that will actually do the job.