A gleaming white Apple store of weed is how Andy Williams sees his new Denver marijuana dispensary.
Two floors of pot-growing rooms will have windows showing the shopping public how the mind-altering plant is grown. Shoppers will be able to peruse drying marijuana buds and see pot trimmers at work separating the valuable flowers from the less-prized stems and leaves.
“It’s going to be all white and beautiful,” the 45-year-old ex-industrial engineer explains, excitedly gesturing around what just a few weeks ago was an empty warehouse space that will eventually house 40,000 square feet of cannabis strains.
I guess they have started the new year on a high note.
What’s going to be interesting is the effect on *other* states.
Consider: An Australian couple in their early 30’s travels to Colorado, and while they are there they take advantage of the new laws, buying marijuana, storing it in their suitcases, and smoking it with great joy and abandonment. (By the way – does “non-smoking” areas go for marijuana as well as tobacco???)
Our fearless couple now flies back to their home in Australia, connecting in Los Angeles on way to their final destination in Sydney.
1) They are stopped by drug-sniffing dogs in Los Angeles. Their suitcases and clothes reek of marijuana. Although they do not have any visible marijuana (they smoked it all in Colorado) they are arrested for possession because of the positive “hit” from the dogs. The charges are dismissed 3 days later when a thorough search of their luggage and persons turns up no measurable quantity of marijuana.
2) Upon arrival in Sydney, they are stopped by drug-sniffing dogs. They are again jailed, charged with smuggling marijuana, and have to struggle through four days of interrogation, searches, and accusations. Since they traveled to Colorado, it is assumed that they are transporting marijuana. (And just to “liven things up a bit”, let’s say they get the “New Mexico” [http://rt.com/usa/new-mexico-cavity-search-victim-451/] kind of searches……..)
3) The people whose luggage was adjacent to our fearless couple’s suitcases on the LA/Sydney run are ALSO stopped by a hit from the drug-sniffing dogs; 12 hours of being in close proximity is enough to transfer odor……………………….
It would also come as no surprise if adjacent states set up inspection checkpoints on roads leading in/out of Colorado. California has done this for ages to search for unwanted agricultural nuisances (such as invasive species) and it seems reasonable that bordering states protect themselves against becoming smuggling routes.
There’s a lot more to legalization of marijuana than one might think at first. Unless it is globally legalized, their can and will be problems, resulting in many unfortunate legal situations. All I can say is that too many people have been taking “the mile-high State” and “Rocky Mountain High” way, way too literally.
Re # 2
Yes. No smoking means no-smoking.
In this country you cannot be arrested because of a “hit” by a drug sniffing dog. The hit does however give probable cause to detain someone while a thorough search of luggage and other effects is conducted. So yes, they may miss their flight. How common is this likely to be? My guess is not enough to lose sleep over.
I can’t comment on Australian laws. But international travelers who use recreational drugs in another country (whether legal or not) and are stupid enough to store any of it in their luggage, well they deserve every bit of inconvenience they might suffer.
Interstate checkpoints can be legal when checking for certain very specific and limited things such as agricultural products that might be dangerous. But the law is extremely narrow here. And this most definitely would not apply to searches for drugs or guns etc. Sorry, the 4th amendment has not yet been completely abrogated, despite the best efforts of George Bush, Barrack Obama and the NSA.
#3–Oregon just passed a law making it illegal to smoke TOBACCO in the presence of a child. They also passed a law allowing for sale of recretional marajuana; but the no smoking law doesn’t apply to marajuana, just tobacco. I’m not so sure you are correct about check points. They would be no different than other legal check points for drivers’ licenses, proof of insurance, DUI/DWI etc. If you smell like alcohol you probably have been drinking and may be impaired. Likewise, if you smell like marajuana, you probably have been smoking and may be impaired; and I don’t want you driving in my state on any other state if you are impaired. Keep in mind that driving is not a right in any state or jurisdiction but a conditional priviledge. Things like check points are legal because you agree by accepting the priviledge of driving on the roads that you will be subject to the jurisdiction’s driving while impaired (and other vehicular) laws.
I can tell you it’s already creating havoc in the panhandle of Nebraska. I was out doing deliveries this morning. There has already been a rise in crime from people coming over the border to sell the stuff (illegally here.) There has also already been a rise in those arrested for driving while high and fatalities due to impaired collisions from people coming from Colorado. There are also a ton of Federal agents staked out at the border, catching people coming over. As much as that is ranch country, everyone just LOVES having feds everywhere.
Addendum–That doesn’t mean you lose yur 4th Amendment right to UNREASONABLE serac and seizure. It does mean you can be stopped at a check point, so long as you are not singled out, and if there is probable cause (i.e. you smell like alcohol or marajuana) you can be further questuioned and field tested for imapirment. I am reminded of Ron While’s comment about being arrested for DUI. He claimed ihewas unconstituionally singled out because he was the only person they stopped that night for driving down that particular side walk.
Ad Orientem,
Please go to the link I cited on New Mexico “searches”. It’s truly disgusting, and if what happened in those three (at least!) cases isn’t “arrest”, then I don’t know what else you can call it. The dogs reacting to “something” generates “probable cause”, resulting in a trip to a medical center to attempt to substantiate the findings of the dog. If being forced to go to a hospital and unwillingly have a rectal exam, enemas and colonoscopy isn’t “arrest” – well, I’d sure hate to think what “arrest” allows.
And please remember that what is “legal” and what actually happens in real life have no bearing on one another. When your front door has been kicked in, a dozen or more assault weapons have been pointed at you, you’ve been slammed to the earth face-down and handcuffed, and then someone asks “is it OK for us to search your house?”, do you really believe a reasonable person would say “No”? And once you’ve given “coerced” permission, who’s going to believe you after the fact when you complain? At that point, you’re just another criminal who managed to slide through the system; the notion that you’re innocent of any wrongdoing never enters the picture.
Legalize it or make alcohol illegal. One or the other. Make the stock market illegal. Make usury illegal. Make everything illegal. Stop killing animals. Stop eating vegetables because that causes vegetable eating animals to starve. Stop using water. We need it only for drinking. Stop killing trees for toilet paper. Use the tree’s leaves instead then step out under the tree when the need arises to complete the cycle. Stop watching sports that involve the skins of animals. Stop using defamatory terms for our mascots. Okay. I’ll stop. Just legalize marijuana nationwide and build a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. There. My New Year’s rant has run it’s course. Roll Tide!
Oh my… Starting in order…
Re #4
Oregon is nuts. That aside, I think I may have misunderstood the reference to check points. If by check points you just mean show me your drivers license and let me get a whiff of your breath, that has generally been upheld as legal. Actual searches, like what can occur without a warrant at international borders, absent probable cause is not. Also the use of dogs at state borders would probably not pass muster with the courts.
Re #5
Do you have any sources for that? I am rather surprised.
Re#6
LOL
Re#7
Two observations. First I treat ANYTHING posted on RT with a grain or three of salt. RT is a state funded anti-American propaganda network that specializes in promoting bizarre conspiracy theories that one would normally have to go to World Nut Daily to find. That aside, and assuming for the sake of discussion this story is accurate, I think the US Customs agents almost certainly overstepped their authority. I expect the courts to have something to say about this and my guess is the people subjected to this might be in line for a check from the government. But it is worth repeating that legal rights for persons crossing international borders are more limited. Persons traveling abroad need to be sure they have their ducks in a row when they are crossing borders. And I strongly discourage anyone from taking laptops or any similar portable electronic device that can store data with them. These can be legally seized without explanation or warrant of any kind.
Re#8
Amen.
The Omaha World Herald has been running a series of articles on this very phenomenon.
Dear Colorado,
Driving while intoxicated is no longer a problem in your great state? Because the number of people about to be killed or injured by those who drive while baked is about to go through the roof.