Buying Legal Pot Will Get You On The Federal Database

A 42-year-old pipe-fitter told police she took sleep and pain medication Saturday night and then drank a beer and vaped a cannabis-type oil the next day before allegedly crashing her SUV into five pedestrians in Revere, killing a 5-year-old girl and leaving her 2-month-old sister with life-threatening injuries, prosecutors said Monday.
 
10thSFFD said:
A 42-year-old pipe-fitter told police she took sleep and pain medication Saturday night and then drank a beer and vaped a cannabis-type oil the next day before allegedly crashing her SUV into five pedestrians in Revere, killing a 5-year-old girl and leaving her 2-month-old sister with life-threatening injuries, prosecutors said Monday.
Click to expand...
Fatal "marijuana-related" automobile accident studies nearly always implicate poly-drug abuse as a key factor, a common thread in these deaths appears to be mixing alcohol with THC.

TJL said:
Thread title: >> Buying Legal Pot Will Get You On The Federal Database
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting to hear exactly what this "federal database" is, and how people will "get on" it for simply making a cash purchase at a "legal pot" shop. Loads of FUD, no substance.

Dench said:
Let me know when someone OD's on pot and we can bring it into the debate.
Click to expand...
Even the DEA is skeptical about the feasibility of dying from marijuana OD.
 
Kevin_NH said:
Fatal "marijuana-related" automobile accident studies nearly always implicate poly-drug abuse as a key factor, a common thread in these deaths appears to be mixing alcohol with THC.


I'm still waiting to hear exactly what this "federal database" is, and how people will "get on" it for simply making a cash purchase at a "legal pot" shop. Loads of FUD, no substance.


Even the DEA is skeptical about the feasibility of dying from marijuana OD.
Click to expand...
Hawaii becomes first state to put gun owners in database
 
Kevin_NH said:
Fatal "marijuana-related" automobile accident studies nearly always implicate poly-drug abuse as a key factor, a common thread in these deaths appears to be mixing alcohol with THC.


I'm still waiting to hear exactly what this "federal database" is, and how people will "get on" it for simply making a cash purchase at a "legal pot" shop. Loads of FUD, no substance.
Click to expand...

CBD might have made her drowsy, but it wasn't psychoactive.

Here's the thing about the 'database':

Here is a standard scanner used: Panasonic FZ-N1 Complete Mobile ID/ Passport Scanning Solution

It also has a subscription, upstream, to a company. To scan ID's at a state level. To assume there isn't cohesion with big data and fedgov is...silly.
 
JayMcB said:
It also has a subscription, upstream, to a company. To scan ID's at a state level. To assume there isn't cohesion with big data and fedgov is...silly.
Click to expand...

In the same way that an IP address doesn't necessarily correlate to a person, a visit to a legal pot shop doesn't necessarily correlate to you buying there. I know some people who visited a pot shop in Oregon and they had to scan their IDs to go in, but didn't buy any. To think that those people are prohibited persons simply for visiting is...silly.

Furthermore, Oregon now has a law specifically preventing the feds from getting your info from state-legal pot shops: Smoke pot in Oregon? Your name now protected from feds

I know that doesn't apply in MA yet, but someone earlier in the thread said that, specifically at NETA Northampton, your ID is only scanned upon entry, not purchase. The feds therefore cannot make you a PP because there is no proof that John Doe purchased an eighth of grandaddy kush, just that John Doe went to a place where that is sold.
 
crispnipz said:
In the same way that an IP address doesn't necessarily correlate to a person, a visit to a legal pot shop doesn't necessarily correlate to you buying there. I know some people who visited a pot shop in Oregon and they had to scan their IDs to go in, but didn't buy any. To think that those people are prohibited persons simply for visiting is...silly.
... your ID is only scanned upon entry, not purchase. The feds therefore cannot make you a PP because there is no proof that John Doe purchased an eighth of grandaddy kush, just that John Doe went to a place where that is sold.
Click to expand...
Does possession inherently make you a PP? The wording in (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is "user of", so was Bill "I never inhaled" Clinton a PP for admitting possession?
 
Last edited:
Greg said:
Seeds here in CA cost $200 for 4 individual seeds at the weed stores.Also sold are immature plants,I would imagine they are expensive.
Click to expand...

Plants seem to run 15-40 each depending on what variety.

So far in CA, there is no tracking requirement for purchases from weed shops. I've asked every store when my friend has gone in to buy. They verify that your I.D. is legit, and you are of legal age, and that's it. I haven't even heard of this "1oz per day" thing that you guys mention on page 1 of this thread.
 
rmn2018 said:
Plants seem to run 15-40 each depending on what variety.

So far in CA, there is no tracking requirement for purchases from weed shops. I've asked every store when my friend has gone in to buy. They verify that your I.D. is legit, and you are of legal age, and that's it. I haven't even heard of this "1oz per day" thing that you guys mention on page 1 of this thread.
Click to expand...

The shop enters your name in their database,that is fact in CA.

Most people with nothing to fear just hand over their ID without question.

The verifying legal age is just to get in the door,before you can actually see what's for sale they take your ID again and enter it into their system,and that system is tied to another system (statewide I'm guessing) that tracks purchases so you cant buy over the daily amount,which is a lot.

Under AUMA it is LEGAL for any adult 21 or over to:
(1) Possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 or older, not more than one ounce of cannabis or 8 grams of concentrated cannabis [HSC 11362.1(a)(1) and (2)].

(2) Cultivate, possess, plant, harvest, dry or process not more than six live plants and possess the produce of the plants [HSC 11362.1(a)(3)

PROVIDED:

(a) Any cannabis in excess of one ounce is stored in the person's private residential property, in a locked space, and not visible from a public place. HSC 11362.2

(b) No more than six plants are planted at any one residence at one time.

(c) Local governments may impose reasonable restrictions on cultivation, but may not forbid cultivation indoors in a residence or accessory structure that is fullly enclosed and secure. Locals are free to prohibit outdoor cultivation altogether until such time as adult use is made legal under federal law. (HSC 11362.2(b)).

Violation of restrictions on personal use cultivation is a $250 infraction for six plants or less [HSC 11362.4(e)].
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Greg said:
The shop enters your name in their database,that is fact in CA.

Most people with nothing to fear just hand over their ID without question.

The verifying legal age is just to get in the door,before you can actually see what's for sale they take your ID again and enter it into their system,and that system is tied to another system (statewide I'm guessing) that tracks purchases so you cant buy over the daily amount,which is a lot.
Click to expand...

Odd, they specifically said that no information is tracked, registered, or otherwise after the transaction is complete.
I will take some time to look into this and see if I can come back with a firm answer written in to the penal code or otherwise
 
rmn2018 said:
Odd, they specifically said that no information is tracked, registered, or otherwise after the transaction is complete.
I will take some time to look into this and see if I can come back with a firm answer written in to the penal code or otherwise
Click to expand...

I just did it for you...

I guess a person can go to another shop and buy more,but a shop cant sell you more than 1oz and 8 grams at one time.

Doesn't really allude to daily limits...maybe the database is for each store.

You show ID 3 times here to purchase..1st to get through first door,2nd to actually get to sales area,3rd when you purchase when they add what you have purchased to their records.

Maybe your buddy has medical,I think different.But when I go with my sister,this is what she does for recreational weed.
 
Greg said:
The shop enters your name in their database,that is fact in CA.

Most people with nothing to fear just hand over their ID without question.

The verifying legal age is just to get in the door,before you can actually see what's for sale they take your ID again and enter it into their system,and that system is tied to another system (statewide I'm guessing) that tracks purchases so you cant buy over the daily amount,which is a lot.
Click to expand...


AB-2402, which passed and was signed into law

And see the actual text in the link below

From the amended law, which is the version that actually went into force

It states a key point

26161.5.
(a) A licensee shall not disclose a consumer’s personal information to a third party, except to the extent necessary to allow responsibility for payment to be determined and payment to be made or if the consumer has consented to the licensee’s disclosure of the personal information. This section does not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information to the State of California or a city, county, or city and county to perform official duties pursuant to this division or a local ordinance.
Click to expand...

This seems to prohibit disclosure of consumer information to anybody, without the explicit consent of the consumer, with an exception made for the state of CA.

AND

26162.5.
(a) Identification cards issued pursuant to Section 11362.71 of the Health and Safety Code are hereby deemed “medical information” within the meaning of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 56) of Division 1 of the Civil Code) and shall not be disclosed by a licensee except as (1) necessary for the State of California or any city, county, or city and county to perform official duties pursuant to this chapter, or a local ordinance, or (2) to a contractor providing software services to a licensee for the purpose of conducting a transaction or verifying eligibility, provided that the contractor does not use or retain medical information for any other purpose or share information with any party other than the contracting licensee.
Click to expand...

Seems to consider medical MJ cards to be confidential medical information, which means the feds would like a subpoena, or whatever the technical term for the court order to produce documents is, to access them.

Of course, the gov always seem to wiggle its way into all kind of bullshit no matter what level they are, so who knows what workaround there will or wont be to this from the feds

EDIT: to respond to your post above,
That law covers both Medical MJ card holders and general consumers, as the law APPEARS to be written. This, of course, requires you remain vigilant, and don't accidentally agree to "We will disclose your info to the feds. Is that cool?"
 
vicorjh said:
"Organic" is not necessarily safer with, perhaps, an exception to pesticides/fungicides. Which is where many of the safety concerns lay.

Pretty much any type of labeled pesticides are administratively banned by MA unless it is specifically approved for use on such crop by the feds. And, as you can imagine, the feds aren't looking to approve labeled use for a prohibited crop.

“Currently, EPA does not allow the use of a registered pesticide on marijuana or hemp,” according to a letter dated April 30 from Mr. Lebeaux, “Because of this, the use of pesticides on marijuana or hemp is prohibited in Massachusetts.”

It's probably a good thing but it would cause production costs to increase by a significant amount. You are now talking about highly controlled "clean room" environments and the use of beneficial predator insects. Whether an outright ban is a good thing is a matter of perspective. Add other regulatory costs, taxes, reduced production potential due to pests/disease, government uncertainty = expensive.
Click to expand...
I miss my Paraguat from the 80’s
 
The state of Massachusetts respects the Second Amendment and will ensure that your rights will not be violated.

You have nothing to fear by purchasing pot.

The state of Massachusetts or any police chief has never worked with any federal agency to take away the rights of its citizens.
 
How much privacy do you have when you buy pot?

Looks like you are right,and I was mislead..the state does not require tracking of purchases.

I would go buy an ounce now,but random urinalysis helps me make my mind up lol,plus just not into pot anymore.

Legally,all a shop has to do is check ID,but they cant sell you more than 1oz of weed and 8 grams of concentrates not because there are purchase limits,but because it's illegal to possess or transport lol
 
Last edited:
Kevin_NH said:
Does possession inherently make you a PP? The wording in (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is "user of", so was Bill "I never inhaled" Clinton a PP for admitting possession?
Click to expand...

Lets go to the videotape:

When I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two -- and didn't like it -- and didn't inhale and never tried inhaling again.​

The references to inhalation lead me to infer that the Former Rapist in Chief's "experimental protocol" involved setting the pot on fire and producing smoke. Hence some pot got used up. Hence he "used" it.

Greg said:
Under AUMA it is LEGAL ... PROVIDED:

(a) Any cannabis in excess of one ounce is stored in the person's private residential property, in a locked space, and not visible from a public place. HSC 11362.2

(b) No more than six plants are planted at any one residence at one time.

(c) Local governments may impose reasonable restrictions on cultivation, but may not forbid cultivation indoors in a residence or accessory structure that is fullly enclosed and secure. Locals are free to prohibit outdoor cultivation altogether until such time as adult use is made legal under federal law. (HSC 11362.2(b)).
Click to expand...

Can I get me a smelly hippie picket line,
protesting arbitrary capacity and storage laws?
 
Just saw on Fox News that lawmakers want a change in the field sobriety tests for impairment other than alcohol....

If you are suspected of driving while impaired and a cop just thinks you are high it is being proposed that you have to submit to a saliva swab and blood test or risk losing your license...

So a new way for law enforcement to bolster their DNA database without a warrant and probable cause.

If I can find an article about it I will post it...
 
robjax said:
Just saw on Fox News that lawmakers want a change in the field sobriety tests for impairment other than alcohol....

If you are suspected of driving while impaired and a cop just thinks you are high it is being proposed that you have to submit to a saliva swab and blood test or risk losing your license...

So a new way for law enforcement to bolster their DNA database without a warrant and probable cause.

If I can find an article about it I will post it...
Click to expand...

Easier just to wave a bag of Doritos under the guys nose and see if he grabs for it.
 
robjax said:
Just saw on Fox News that lawmakers want a change in the field sobriety tests for impairment other than alcohol....

If you are suspected of driving while impaired and a cop just thinks you are high it is being proposed that you have to submit to a saliva swab and blood test or risk losing your license...

So a new way for law enforcement to bolster their DNA database without a warrant and probable cause.

If I can find an article about it I will post it...
Click to expand...
No, you are not getting my dna, period. If they try to push this I foresee a lot more dead cops on the side of the road than we already have. And I’m a law abiding citizen. Imagine how the criminal illegals will react to this.
 
robjax said:
Just saw on Fox News that lawmakers want a change in the field sobriety tests for impairment other than alcohol....

If you are suspected of driving while impaired and a cop just thinks you are high it is being proposed that you have to submit to a saliva swab and blood test or risk losing your license...

So a new way for law enforcement to bolster their DNA database without a warrant and probable cause.

If I can find an article about it I will post it...
Click to expand...

If they get a way to field sobriety test for marijuana, it's one step closer to a better argument for making it federally legal.
 

Similar threads

1977 Colt Python legal to own/get shipped to MA from GunBroker?
Replies
24
Views
758
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
How do you get into hunting with no experience whatsoever?
2 3
Replies
81
Views
1K
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Federal 7MM Backountry
Replies
15
Views
170
PappyM3
PappyM3
New Kimber, will it ever get to Mass?
2
Replies
30
Views
725
Bud R
Bud R
Federal override of state restrictions..........
2 3
Replies
84
Views
2K
expedition03
expedition03
Back
Top Bottom