-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Buying Legal Pot Will Get You On The Federal Database
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
As boy genius does it again.
namedpipes
NES Member
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Is this an auto reply too? Lol
Without having read the thread, I just wanted to chime in to ask whether your ID is scanned regardless of whether a purchase is made. Meaning, do they scan at the door even if you've decided you aren't purchasing anything? At the register when just before you make your purchase? Is a purchase recorded and tied to your ID?
If the ID scan is required for entry, then the only thing gov't will prove is that you were present. After all, you can always decide *NOT* to purchase.
Let's assume that a camera IDs you and sees you make a purchase. Still the only thing gov't can prove, at best, is temporary possession. And that isn't the same as using.
Even if you go out to your car and smoke from there, and it's all captured on video, the gov't can only prove a one time use and my understanding is that one time use doesn't meet the federal definition of 'user'.
All that said, I wouldn't want to be in a position where I would be facing all this evidence. I think there's likely to be probable cause to search your house if your ID is recorded - even at the door (unless they tie purchases to IDs and you don't have a purchase record, then it might be tougher). Still, it's probably difficult to prove that someone is a 'user' all said and told.
IANAL, though.
If the ID scan is required for entry, then the only thing gov't will prove is that you were present. After all, you can always decide *NOT* to purchase.
Let's assume that a camera IDs you and sees you make a purchase. Still the only thing gov't can prove, at best, is temporary possession. And that isn't the same as using.
Even if you go out to your car and smoke from there, and it's all captured on video, the gov't can only prove a one time use and my understanding is that one time use doesn't meet the federal definition of 'user'.
All that said, I wouldn't want to be in a position where I would be facing all this evidence. I think there's likely to be probable cause to search your house if your ID is recorded - even at the door (unless they tie purchases to IDs and you don't have a purchase record, then it might be tougher). Still, it's probably difficult to prove that someone is a 'user' all said and told.
IANAL, though.
crispnipz
NES Member
That depends on the dispensary but from what I've seen, the answer is yes.
Way in the beginning of this thread I believe someone specifically references the dispensary NETA and being told by them that they only store your information for a day to enforce their daily purchase limit per-person. As I said before, to get a definite answer just call and ask the dispensary, but whether they retain records of who bought what is up to them as a company.
Only checking for age at the entrance is required by Mass Cannabis Control Commission, unless they're showing a medical card (e.g. to save on the ~20% sales tax), any further ID check would just be the store collecting data for the heck of it.
Last edited:
namedpipes
NES Member
It isn't defined.
KBCraig
NES Member
"Current user"? Nope, I quite about five minutes ago. "Addicted"? Nope, can't get addicted to cannabis.
I always caution people about the ways to get trapped in this. If someone was addicted to legally prescribed painkillers, never using them off schedule or acquiring any of them illegally, they're still a prohibited person. And under the 12 Step theory, once you're addicted, you're an addict for life, even in recovery. That would make someone a lifetime PP over some post-surgery Vicodin used 30 years ago.
The more states come into conflict with the Feds on this, the more opportunity for somebody to unwittingly volunteer to be our first real test case for 18 USC § 922(g)(3).
OTOH, "12 Step theory" isn't Federal law, isn't codified in 21 U.S.C. 802.
The term “addict” means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.
easy fix, make MJ not a Narcotic on the list. also seems like a hard bar to get over using MJ
namedpipes
NES Member
So what you're saying is, if I ever develop a drug addiction problem, I should kick it on my own and NOT leverage official or unofficial resources to stop, like the 12-step, for fear the government could later use that to define me as a PP. That's alarming because it discourages people with problems from SEEKING help, which seems counterintuitive. Shouldn't our priority be to help people that desire help, to stay healthy in all ways?
Oh, I know that's not what you were promoting, but it's a logical takeaway from "once an addict, always...". The state should not have that much knowledge about or control over our lives...
crispnipz
NES Member
They seem to be looking the other way until marijuana is either exempted from that statute via the STATES Act or removed from CSA entirely via some other law. There is statistically no chance that, given it is legal in 10 states (20% of states!), that hundreds, if not thousands of people have not already violated this statute.
KBCraig
NES Member
It's not a narcotic in any medical sense. It's only a narcotic "because they say so". It's not even law, it's just an administrative finding.
Your logical takeaway was exactly my point. I've given up trying to make a friend understand it. He's 100% convinced that marijuana is a gateway drug, because he's been in recovery for 30+ years and everyone he meets at AA/NA meetings says they also used marijuana. He ignores the fact that they also used alcohol, and that 90% of them are actively addicted to caffeine and nicotine.
I tell him that by proclaiming himself an addict, he's confessing to being a PP, but he's got his blinders on. It's a shame, because otherwise he's a solid small government low tax Liberty Republican vote.
KBCraig
NES Member
Isn't it?
21 USC 802:
(1) The term “addict” means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.
Twelve Steps: 1. We admitted we were powerless over (our addiction)—that our lives had become unmanageable.
My impression of Twelve Steps has always been that the program assumes everybody is (potentially) an addict, and that all addicts are powerless over their addiction, whereas the Federal law leaves wiggle room for somebody to be a non-habitual dabbler of a user.
So if Mr. Herb Pothead is not personally participating in a 12-step program, it's arguable that Herb himself is not "so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction".
MachineHead
NES Member
Mr. Herb Pothead sounds like competition to Herb Chambers.
I won't even buy CBD oil because they are still being idiotic about it in some places despite it supposedly being legal if based on hemp. (If I did decide to buy it, I would only do so in person using cash. No online records!)
Controlled Substance Violation INA 101(f)(3) 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iii), (iv) Violation of any law on controlled substances, except for simple possession of 30g or less of marijuana.
just keep oz or less, hasn't that been the rule along? I state "rule" not law. and don't have it broken up into small bags, don't get caught for distribution
Sabougolden
NES Member
I was in Vegas last week and decided to visited a ‘store...’
I asked, “what are you going to with my License Information if I choose to enter...?”
The answer was terrific!
“We destroy all scanned licenses after 24 hours, so you don’t have to worry about your Gun License!”
Hmmm wonder if that’s what MA is doing?
I asked, “what are you going to with my License Information if I choose to enter...?”
The answer was terrific!
“We destroy all scanned licenses after 24 hours, so you don’t have to worry about your Gun License!”
Hmmm wonder if that’s what MA is doing?
