Buying Legal Pot Will Get You On The Federal Database

I called Sanctuary in Gardner MA regarding their policy on showing ID to make a purchase. They said scanning ID is company policy, but the data "doesn't go anywhere". The clerk followed up by saying "We do have a thumb drive that the ID data will save to in the event the PD accuses us of selling to someone under 21." This is the first place I've heard of that has actually confirmed they save the data!

All it would take to get the info on anyone who's ever shopped there would be a cop saying "Hey. I think you sold pot to a minor last week", which is pretty disturbing, but not surprising. It would be pretty easy for the PD to check the scanned information against LTC holders!
 
Last edited:
Amerry223 said:
I called Sanctuary in Gardner MA regarding their policy on showing ID to make a purchase. They said scanning ID is company policy, but the data "doesn't go anywhere". The clerk followed up by saying "We do have a thumb drive that the ID data will save to in the event the PD accuses us of selling to someone under 21." This is the first place I've heard of that has actually confirmed they save the data!

All it would take to get the info on anyone who's ever shopped there would be a cop saying "Hey. I think you sold pot to a minor last week", which is pretty disturbing, but not surprising. It would be pretty easy for the PD to check the scanned information against LTC holders!
Click to expand...

Pay your deadbeat friend to buy for you, easy solution.
 
NHTSA approved standardized field sobriety tests are the linchpin. That happens, you’ll see legalization real fast.

NB: My own OPINION is that it should be legalized right now. But my rational presumption, or assumption, whatever TF, is that FST’s are the key to it.
 
Oh....after so many years we now have the pleasure of seeing and hearing the word bong on the news as though it were an everyday household gadget. Smoke a bong while driving and you should not be able to get a permit to do much of anything. We are f...kin doomed. He said he was out of it after taking hit from bong. NO, he was out of it before he took the hit from his friggin bong.
 
NH House, 4/4/19, on HB481, the legalization bill. Rep. Chris True expounds at length about why he favors legalization, but then comes down to this final bit about why he doesn't support the bill:

 
smokey-seven said:
Hmmmm... so ... I guess it all depends on your definition of, "are" is.
Click to expand...

Yup. But I think it’s fairly safe to say that if you could piss hot on a drug test, the answer is yes, you “are”. Another test could be if you already plan to use again in the future.
 
smokey-seven said:
Urine goes back 30 days. Head hair goes back 90 days. Body hair goes back more than 90 days.
So to legally answer no on a fed form you need to be 4+ months clean.
Click to expand...
Or at least squeaky clean and freshly Nair'd.

That said, despite the 2011 "ATF Open Letter", so far the only case law we have is Wilson v. Lynch, which is more about 18 U.S.C. §922(d)(3) (dealer cannot deliver) than about 18 USC § 922(g)(3) (buyer cannot possess).
 
Woodsy said:
Very easy, if you break the federal law you can be classified as unsuitable. Similair in the way if you work for a Company in Mass who’s HQ requires a drug test. Doesn’t mean shit if Mass allows it. Plus if you lie on a transfer form it’s done in the state and again you could be found unsuitable. Frankly I could give a shit less about who and who doesn’t smoke but I could see them using it as a Trojan horse to restrict more. But like I said go for it.
Click to expand...

No it's not easy- it's only "easy" if someone is stupid enough that they have to remember how to breathe.

The entire pot thing is "transient" per federal law if you actually read the 4473. I doubt they're going to bother fleshing this out much
more, so none of this matters outside of a few corner cases (which really suck if you're in one of those corners, but I digress. )

-Mike
 
Woodsy said:
Duuuudddde. If you smoked and bought at anytime and didn’t say you did then you violated federal law. It’s really clear.
Click to expand...
It is not "really clear" and you demonstrate a lack of actual understanding of the issue by making such a declarative false statement.

The question is "Are you an unlawful user....", not "Have you ever been an unlawful user". The ATF does not consider persons who have used drugs in the distant past (I think it may be 6 months) to be prohibited persons, not does it require an affirmative answer to this question in order for it to be truthful. This is also demonstrated in the job applications of many armed federal agents who admitted to smoking weed in their youth.

By your inapplicable standard, I would have to answer "yes" to "Are you a user of penicillin" because I was given some for strep throat as a child.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It is not "really clear" and you demonstrate a lack of actual understanding of the issue by making such a declarative false statement.

The question is "Are you an unlawful user....", not "Have you ever been an unlawful user". The ATF does not consider persons who have used drugs in the distant past (I think it may be 6 months) to be prohibited persons, not does it require an affirmative answer to this question in order for it to be truthful. This is also demonstrated in the job applications of many armed federal agents who admitted to smoking weed in their youth.

By your inapplicable standard, I would have to answer "yes" to "Are you a user of penicillin" because I was given some for strep throat as a child.
Click to expand...

The point is everyone is an unlawful user if you use it since they do not discern between prescription pot and that bought on the corner near your house. Frankly I don’t give a shit if someone smokes or not, I just choose to follow the law as it is written and until it changes. As for Governement work you are incorrect, as depending on the agency and clearance it is have you ever used it and many of the drug tests go much beyond 6 months.

So smoke away dude, Hand over your license so they can track you. I’ll pass.
 
The point is everyone is an unlawful user if you use it
Click to expand...
True, but you use "use it" in the present tense. You previous error was use of the term "at anytime".
As for Governement work you are incorrect, as depending on the agency and clearance it is have you ever used it and many of the drug tests go much beyond 6 months.
Click to expand...
I never made the claim that 6 months was the standard for all govt jobs, so I was not incorrect. My point is that many armed federal positions do not require a lifetime of abstinence from the heathen devil weed.
 
9BC76EB2-00A1-4325-9E47-953D4D9B5C02.jpeg
Rob Boudrie said:
True, but you use "use it" in the present tense. You previous error was use of the term "at anytime".

I never made the claim that 6 months was the standard for all govt jobs, so I was not incorrect. My point is that many armed federal positions do not require a lifetime of abstinence from the heathen devil weed.
Click to expand...

I really don’t care if you want to get stoned all day. The fact is I choose not to lie on federal forms and if you choose to, that’s your choice. Federal positions are one thing and actual position where you need a secret or above clearance is much different. So here we go again with the devil weed comments etc. As I’ve said a 100 times I don’t give a shit if you smoke, really not one shit. I have many friends that smoke it and eat it, I don’t care. I do choose not to lie on federal forms, and if that is what you have an issue with, then you have that choice to put down false information.
 
Woodsy said:
View attachment 280052

I really don’t care if you want to get stoned all day. The fact is I choose not to lie on federal forms and if you choose to, that’s your choice
Click to expand...
A person who smoked years ago and answers no to "Are you a user of" rather than "have you ever been a user of" is not lying or putting down false information.

You seem to have difficulty grasping that concept.
 
CC09669E-791F-4FCC-9535-FE62177967E7.jpeg
Rob Boudrie said:
A person who smoked years ago and answers no to "Are you a user of" rather than "have you ever been a user of" is not lying or putting down false information.

You seem to have difficulty grasping that concept.
Click to expand...

I’m guessing You can put down what you want if you smoked in the past day or month or year.
 
Woodsy said:
So smoke away dude, Hand over your license so they can track you. I’ll pass.
Click to expand...

Operative word is "they" since the only entity that might be "tracking" is the dispensary, not MA.

Full text of Question 4 from 2016 begins on Page 14 of this: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2016.pdf

Regulations made pursuant to this section shall not:

(3) require a customer to provide a marijuana
retailer with identifying information other than identification
to determine the customer’s age and shall not require the
marijuana retailer to acquire or record personal information
about customers other than information typically required in
a retail transaction
Click to expand...

So really it's up to the dispensary whether or not they retain your information, but MA isn't doing it. At least, they're not admitting to it and I can't find anything in this text nor in the 2017 amendment to this law that suggests MA knows who bought what from a recreational dispensary.

I'm sure some dispensaries keep personal information and others don't. It doesn't hurt to ask!
 
crispnipz said:
Operative word is "they" since the only entity that might be "tracking" is the dispensary, not MA.

Full text of Question 4 from 2016 begins on Page 14 of this: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2016.pdf



So really it's up to the dispensary whether or not they retain your information, but MA isn't doing it. At least, they're not admitting to it and I can't find anything in this text nor in the 2017 amendment to this law that suggests MA knows who bought what from a recreational dispensary.

I'm sure some dispensaries keep personal information and others don't. It doesn't hurt to ask!
Click to expand...

Sorry I can’t reply to a non green Member
 

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
728
Bud R
Bud R
Federal override of state restrictions..........
2 3
Replies
84
Views
2K
expedition03
expedition03
Back
Top Bottom