Marijuana Possession

Henning said:
You can't, insurance is sold state by state.
Click to expand...

That's why it shouldn't be interstate commerce, right ?

If it WAS sold across state lines, I could see how it is interstate commerce. But it isn't.
 
weilke said:
Well, then why is it that the feds have their grubby little fingers in it.....
Click to expand...

From Gonzalez:
[T]he Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
How about where buying state regulated Insurance was interstate commerce....
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot regulate this. It can, however, tax you for not doing so.

The ACA lost in the Supreme Court on Commerce Clause grounds. It was only saved by the Taxing power.
 
JeffDG said:
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot regulate this. It can, however, tax you for not doing so.

The ACA lost in the Supreme Court on Commerce Clause grounds. It was only saved by the Taxing power.
Click to expand...

Then why is that we still have massive federal regulations that go into every little detail of individual health insurance. If that had indeed been the decision, the only part that should have been allowed to stand was the tax.

There is an easier explanation for the decision: Roberts is a whimp and didn't want to make waves.
 
weilke said:
Then why is that we still have massive federal regulations that go into every little detail of individual health insurance. If that had indeed been the decision, the only part that should have been allowed to stand was the tax.

There is an easier explanation for the decision: Roberts is a whimp and didn't want to make waves.
Click to expand...

Well, put simply, people are required to buy "qualifying health plans" or face a tax. The federal government defines what's qualifying, so the insurance companies, in order to provide these plans, must subject themselves to these intrusive regulations.

I don't disagree with your characterization of the Chief Justice, but the fact remains, the ACA was held to be unconstitutional on the basis of the Commerce Clause. It was only upheld on the Tax clause.
 
JeffDG said:
Well, put simply, people are required to buy "qualifying health plans" or face a tax. The federal government defines what's qualifying, so the insurance companies, in order to provide these plans, must subject themselves to these intrusive regulations.
Click to expand...

I wish it was just a set of qualifications. The way the law is written, it disallows a number of reasonable premium decisions typically made by insurers. The feds require the insurers to write homeowners insurance after the roof is already on fire.
 
weilke said:
I wish it was just a set of qualifications. The way the law is written, it disallows a number of reasonable premium decisions typically made by insurers. The feds require the insurers to write homeowners insurance after the roof is already on fire.
Click to expand...

Yep, but they're doing that through the taxing power.
 
Who F'ing cares!!

The whole pot thing is stupid, I can't get myself riled up over people smoking pot, it's just not a big deal, or really that hardcore of a drug for that matter.

Now to the OPs question, the Feds are not onboard with smoking yet and that's who's playground you're in when you're flying.
 
weilke said:
Wheat is a commodity that is being traded across state lines. Healthcare insurance is not traded across state lines.
Click to expand...

Sometimes people need healthcare when they're not in the state they're insured in. While the insurance itself is purchased "within a state", reimbursements and effects of the terms of the plan do result in interstate commerce.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Sometimes people need healthcare when they're not in the state they're insured in. While the insurance itself is purchased "within a state", reimbursements and effects of the terms of the plan do result in interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Everything can result in interstate commerce, so if that's the test, then there is no limit on federal jurisdiction whatsoever, and the Tenth Amendment is rendered meaningless.
 
Palmpilot said:
Everything can result in interstate commerce, so if that's the test, then there is no limit on federal jurisdiction whatsoever, and the Tenth Amendment is rendered meaningless.
Click to expand...

It already is.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Sometimes people need healthcare when they're not in the state they're insured in. While the insurance itself is purchased "within a state", reimbursements and effects of the terms of the plan do result in interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Yes, if there is an interstate transaction, it is interstate commerce. If I buy insurance in-state and see an in-state doctor, it is not interstate commerce. Not even the 'wheat in your backyard' concept would apply as that in-state doctor wouldn't be selling his services as a traded commodity.
 
I am hoping someone might be able to help me. My son who is 3 weeks away from getting his Multi put himself in a very bad situation that resulted in an infraction ticket for possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana. He was taking his friends girlfriend home from a party she was drunk. He put her in the back seat of his car, went in to get his friend and when he came out of the party there were cops outside. They could see the girl in the backseat and asked who's car it was. My son thinking he had no problems said it was his. They proceeded to get make the girl get out of the car and them searched it. Apparently she panicked and stashed a small amount of pot in the back pocket of a seat. The cop found it, my son said that it was not his and the girl played dumb. Thus resulting in the possession ticket. I don't claim to be naive I wonder if it was my son's! He has given us no reason to believe it was his. His school has a zero tolerance policy he will be kicked out of the aviation program where he has one year left to graduate. Even worse I am assuming this will affect his license through the FAA. He has never been in any trouble is an ambassador for the school and has great grades. I simply don't know what to do. I assume I need to get him a lawyer? This is in the State of CA. His ticket reads "Infraction" Marijuana Possession less than 1 Ounce Fine $100. Thank you for any information you can give me.
 
1) Yes, get a lawyer
2) Discuss with lawyer what the ground were for the search of the vehicle, and who gave permission for the search. Might be able to get this thrown out as an illegal search.
 
I assume it's been pointed that the blue states pretending to legalize marijuana when the stuff is a federally controlled substance is dangerous, dumb and will get some into trouble who don't realize and remember that.

If you are stoned and flying, you just lost your ticket. If you take some in the cockpit and get ramp checked you just got a jail ride (airfields are federal jurisdiction, so is the air).
 
Yes, definitely get a lawyer, but you may be in luck on this one.

The two ways this typically turn up are:

1) On the medical form, the relevant questions are:

18.n. (Do you have or have you ever had) Substance dependence or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the past two years, and
18.v. (Do you have or have you ever had) History of (1) any arrest(s) and/or conviction(s) involving driving while intoxicated by, while impaired by , or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug; or (2) history of any arrest(s), and/or conviction(s), and/or administrative action(s) involving an offense(s) which resulted in the denial, suspension, cancellation, or revocation of driving privileges or which resulted in attendance at an educational or a rehabilitation program.
18.w. (Do you have or have you ever had) History of nontraffic conviction(s) (misdemeanors or felonies).
Click to expand...

If this didn't in any way affect driving records, and he can honestly say he's not used marijuana in the past two years, I assume you can honestly answer "no" to those, regardless of whether an administrative penalty is considered a "conviction" in your state (I believe this wouldn't be a misdemeanor or felony).

2) On the mandatory reporting requirement, 14 CFR 61.15. By my read, the mandatory reporting here only applies if the offense includes operation of a motor vehicle. Just possession based on a car being searched doesn't look like it requires reporting, so long as there was never a driving license action.

So the good news is, there's probably no direct channel whereby this would get to the FAA. The bad news is, 14 CFR 61.15(a) still says that any conviction related to drugs is grounds for revoking all licenses (and denying new ones for a year). So it's definitely worth talking to a lawyer (who hopefully knows both federal admin law and CA law) to get an idea of whether this is a "conviction", and to fight the action in any case if you can.

Short story: Ask a lawyer, but I don't think you have to report this, it's unlikely that the FAA would find out some other way, but if this counts as a conviction, it would theoretically give the FAA a reason to revoke all current pilot's licenses and deny them for the next year if they found out and wanted to make an issue of it.

Talk to a laywer.
 
If I were in his situation (and was innocent), I would first get a lawyer; and then try to arrange to take a voluntary, supervised drug test. Then fight the ticket, and have the test results admitted into evidence.

-Rich
 
Yes, you need to get him a lawyer. In fact, two lawyers -- one criminal defense specialist to deal with the State of California and one aviation specialist to deal with the FAA. Further, you need to get him with those lawyers before he says anything more to anyone including you (since there is no mother-son confidentiality in law).

And don't for a second believe that a conviction on this offense will not be considered a reportable event by the FAA without legal advice from a qualified attorney who knows this branch of aviation law as it applies to California legal actions. I have no idea if it is or is not, but in this situation, if he is convicted, you have to be sure before you omit the reporting because the consequences of failing to report something that must be reported are the FAA equivalent of capital punishment.
 
Ron Levy said:
I have no idea if it is or is not, but in this situation, if he is convicted, you have to be sure before you omit the reporting because the consequences of failing to report something that must be reported are the FAA equivalent of capital punishment.
Click to expand...

Right on cue for the hyperbole. Many people have incorrectly answered something on an FAA form and gone back to correct it without an FAA "death sentence", whatever that means.

Follow the advice of a qualified lawyer.

The issue appears to be more with the school's zero-tolerance policy, not necessarily the FAA, which is why the lawyer will probably need to work to get the ticket thrown out entirely.
 
Get a clean DOT pee test to give to the lawyer/DA and explain the situation, this will disappear. If I was his dad, I'd approach the DA directly first.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Get a clean DOT pee test to give to the lawyer/DA and explain the situation, this will disappear. If I was his dad, I'd approach the DA directly first.
Click to expand...

Clean urine won't help with the possession charge, which is why the grounds for the search need to be questioned.
 
Gary F said:
I don't think that it is safe to assume that marijuana is equivalent in toxicity to tobacco. It may be better or it might be worse. I don't care what anybody consumes or uses as long as I do no suffer the consequences. I hope that I will not be sharing the sky with any stoner pilots.
Click to expand...

You are, and always have been, sharing the sky with stoner pilots.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Clean urine won't help with the possession charge, which is why the grounds for the search need to be questioned.
Click to expand...

It helps dispute the weed is his if he has clean pee. Whatever, it's a try that costs $30 and a couple hours of time and has no real drawback but can save a couple grand.
 
Henning said:
It helps dispute the weed is his if he has clean pee. Whatever, it's a try that costs $30 and a couple hours of time and has no real drawback but can save a couple grand.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Believe it or not, most prosecutors aren't interested in prosecuting innocent young people. This is especially true when the young person in question was doing something responsible (giving the drunken girl a ride home).

That's not to say that a lawyer shouldn't also explore the due-process angle. But clean urine can only help the case (assuming that the young pilot is telling the truth), and may end it before it even goes to trial if the prosecutor is reasonable (which most of them are).

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Exactly. Believe it or not, most prosecutors aren't interested in prosecuting innocent young people. This is especially true when the young person in question was doing something responsible (giving the drunken girl a ride home).

That's not to say that a lawyer shouldn't also explore the due-process angle. But clean urine can only help the case (assuming that the young pilot is telling the truth), and may end it before it even goes to trial if the prosecutor is reasonable (which most of them are).

-Rich
Click to expand...

Most police are like this also.

I received a phone call late one night. It was a friend, he was drunk at a bar and did not want to drive. I get dressed and head into town.

Before we get in the truck I ask him if he had any weed in his truck. He said no.

On the way home he keeps rolling don the window and yelling at people... " hookers". Guess what a cop see's this and pulls us over.

He starts calling this cop Barny bad butt and shouting at him. He gets pulled from the truck and put in handcuffs.

They ask how I came to be in this truck and if I had been drinking. I tell the officer I was home in bed when I received a phone call from this man asking for a ride home.

The officer asks if he could search the truck. I said sure, my friends said he had no drugs in the truck.

Guess what they found in the truck. I told the officer I asked him if he had anything in his truck and he said no.

Now my friend he is trying to hit the police with his elbow and he is handcuffed. My friend gets thrown in the back of the cop car. As I stand there I ask the officer what is going to happen to me. He said your buddy is going to jail, you are getting in his truck and going where ever you want.

I shook his hand and told the officer, I would be in to bail my friend out after he sobers up some. The officer winked at me and way I went. These officers where very nice to me. Not so much for my buddy. This was in the 80's this happened.

Tony
 
Henning said:
It helps dispute the weed is his if he has clean pee.
Click to expand...
Do you have some black letter or case law in the state in which this occurred to support that statement? As I said, find appropriate attorneys in that state and get their advice before doing anything or talking to anyone.
 
1600vw said:
Most police are like this also.

I received a phone call late one night. It was a friend, he was drunk at a bar and did not want to drive. I get dressed and head into town.

Before we get in the truck I ask him if he had any weed in his truck. He said no.

On the way home he keeps rolling don the window and yelling at people... " hookers". Guess what a cop see's this and pulls us over.

He starts calling this cop Barny bad butt and shouting at him. He gets pulled from the truck and put in handcuffs.

They ask how I came to be in this truck and if I had been drinking. I tell the officer I was home in bed when I received a phone call from this man asking for a ride home.

The officer asks if he could search the truck. I said sure, my friends said he had no drugs in the truck.

Guess what they found in the truck. I told the officer I asked him if he had anything in his truck and he said no.

Now my friend he is trying to hit the police with his elbow and he is handcuffed. My friend gets thrown in the back of the cop car. As I stand there I ask the officer what is going to happen to me. He said your buddy is going to jail, you are getting in his truck and going where ever you want.

I shook his hand and told the officer, I would be in to bail my friend out after he sobers up some. The officer winked at me and way I went. These officers where very nice to me. Not so much for my buddy. This was in the 80's this happened.

Tony
Click to expand...
You should thank your friend for being so belligerent with the police. Otherwise, you might have eaten the possession bust. Yes, it's possible for the driver of a borrowed car to beat the rap for possession when contraband is found in that car, but it's not guaranteed and it may take a lot of time, money, and lawyers to do.
 
MJ not dangerous per DA and Neurologist

This has been an interesting thread. In particular the venom of the anti-mj crowd who apparently bought into "Reefer Madness" long ago.

I would like to share a synopsis of a speech given to a local civic club by a former hard core state assistant da (prosecutor), the head of a 4 county district, one step below the State AG, who held that position for over 30 years.

He stated that he had thought he was doing god's work by jailing people with as little as "just a seed".

Now retired he recants his previous position. Whether it is good or bad from an individual health perspective, he believes that the social costs of mj are much less than alcohol. Many deaths and injuries from violence from alcohol abuse, none from mj. He would rather have people stoned than drunk. Of course, not for minors, or driving, and no, he doesn't want his cardiologist stoned when he is working on his heart.

He went on to discuss the extraordinary costs being spent on enforcement and incarceration, and opined that the money would be better spent on more dangerous crimes, economic job training, etc..

On another note, a discussion with a neurologist specializing in pain treatment has opined privately to me that his studies of the real medical literature (we did not discuss specifics of the articles) in states where mj is legal shows that mj would be a much better alternative treatment for pain/anxiety/sleep disorder and would have been much better for me than the hell experience I had with Lunesta.

My point is simply that not all advocates of mj are "Bevis and Butthead" potheads, and perhaps society would be better served developing an understanding of mj use and its effects on performance and an appropriate waiting time before flying/holding court/voting on Senate bills.

Hillary will take the Feds out of the equation shortly, should not we have an understanding of the effects based on science rather than "Reefer Madness"?
 
Re: MJ not dangerous per DA and Neurologist

anonymous for now said:
This has been an interesting thread. In particular the venom of the anti-mj crowd who apparently bought into "Reefer Madness" long ago.

I would like to share a synopsis of a speech given to a local civic club by a former hard core state assistant da (prosecutor), the head of a 4 county district, one step below the State AG, who held that position for over 30 years.

He stated that he had thought he was doing god's work by jailing people with as little as "just a seed".

Now retired he recants his previous position. Whether it is good or bad from an individual health perspective, he believes that the social costs of mj are much less than alcohol. Many deaths and injuries from violence from alcohol abuse, none from mj. He would rather have people stoned than drunk. Of course, not for minors, or driving, and no, he doesn't want his cardiologist stoned when he is working on his heart.

He went on to discuss the extraordinary costs being spent on enforcement and incarceration, and opined that the money would be better spent on more dangerous crimes, economic job training, etc..

On another note, a discussion with a neurologist specializing in pain treatment has opined privately to me that his studies of the real medical literature (we did not discuss specifics of the articles) in states where mj is legal shows that mj would be a much better alternative treatment for pain/anxiety/sleep disorder and would have been much better for me than the hell experience I had with Lunesta.

My point is simply that not all advocates of mj are "Bevis and Butthead" potheads, and perhaps society would be better served developing an understanding of mj use and its effects on performance and an appropriate waiting time before flying/holding court/voting on Senate bills.

Hillary will take the Feds out of the equation shortly, should not we have an understanding of the effects based on science rather than "Reefer Madness"?
Click to expand...


The most informed post on this subject that I have read. My hat goes off for you.

Tony
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top