If Prop 19 passes do you think you'll be allowed to ship marijuana in Cali?

[wtfent]

What do you think?

[baddog]

Not a chance

[wtfent]

Originally Posted by baddog

Not a chance

Can you elaborate a bit more why you think that? You can ship beer, wine and cigarettes mail order so perhaps marijuana would somehow be allowed as well.

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by wtfent

Can you elaborate a bit more why you think that? You can ship beer, wine and cigarettes mail order so perhaps marijuana would somehow be allowed as well.

This little matter of federal law.

Pot is illegal under federal law and Obama opposes legalization.

Figure it out.

[DateDoc]

Federal laws will not allow it and I doubt you will find any carrier that would ship it. Heck some states will not even let you ship beer or wine to them.

[wtfent]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

This little matter of federal law.

Pot is illegal under federal law and Obama opposes legalization.

Figure it out.

Well if youll be able to buy joints in 7-11 why wouldnt you be allowed to ship within california, not sure what the difference is.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by wtfent

Well if youll be able to buy joints in 7-11 why wouldnt you be allowed to ship within california, not sure what the difference is.

oh man, wow.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by wtfent

Well if youll be able to buy joints in 7-11 why wouldnt you be allowed to ship within california, not sure what the difference is.

What makes you think you can buy joints at 7-11? Try to be a little reasonable.

[wtfent]

Originally Posted by DateDoc

Federal laws will not allow it and I doubt you will find any carrier that would ship it. Heck some states will not even let you ship beer or wine to them.

Carriers dont like beer because all the mess it could make it bottles broke, I also heard that UPS has a dont ask dont tell type deal with shipping beer. They say you cant ship beer but yet my beer club beers come from UPS every month.

[Vendot]

Is it nice living in California?

All of a sudden this state in America has become quite appealing. Im thinking this is the only place in the world I want to live in.

Fuck, can you imagine the effect this will have on tourism?

[czarina]

ship within the state? if it's legal to buy and consume, it'll probably be legal to ship

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by czarina

ship within the state? if it's legal to buy and consume, it'll probably be legal to ship

asked & answered!

[wtfent]

Originally Posted by baddog

What makes you think you can buy joints at 7-11? Try to be a little reasonable.

Just dropping a name people are familiar with, that is all. If I owned a store in cali and pot becomes legal whats to stop me from selling joints in it? Yea 7-11 might be different cause its a big corporation but how about small ma and pop shops? How is that not reasonable?

[american pervert]

not with the post office. they are a federal gov't branch and the postal inspectors will be in your ass. stick to fedex.

[wtfent]

Originally Posted by czarina

ship within the state? if it's legal to buy and consume, it'll probably be legal to ship

Finally, somebody in this post that seems to make sense!

[wtfent]

Originally Posted by american pervert

not with the post office. they are a federal gov't branch and the postal inspectors will be in your ass. stick to fedex.

Yea def agree with you on that one!

[baddog]

I have a feeling this law is not all you think it is. We shall see.

[JLB]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

oh man, wow.

It's somewhat of a valid point. Say you want to send a nice bottle of wine to a friend in a neighboring city, where's the harm in that? Now let's say pot is completely legal to buy, sell and consume. Why can't you send that same friend a nice big spliff.

Just trying to get into the poster's mindset.

[Ayla_SquareTurtle]

The way I read it, the law would make it legal for personal consumption and cultivation, but leave it up to local government to legislate retail sales laws. Shipping probably wouldn't be very feasible if that's the case as every town would no doubt have their own rules.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by american pervert

not with the post office. they are a federal gov't branch and the postal inspectors will be in your ass. stick to fedex.

postal inspectors have jurisdiction over ALL shippers.

[nsacm]

so if this passes, is it law? or does it have to go over another hurdle?

I know in nv it passes the first time, but the second vote it never gets through

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by JLB

It's somewhat of a valid point. Say you want to send a nice bottle of wine to a friend in a neighboring city, where's the harm in that? Now let's say pot is completely legal to buy, sell and consume. Why can't you send that same friend a nice big spliff.

Just trying to get into the poster's mindset.

any comment starting off with *pot being sold at 7-11* fails the validity test eh.

[american pervert]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

postal inspectors have jurisdiction over ALL shippers.

not unless the package is being handled by a postal employee. fedex does have a contract to fly mail, but the inspectors don't over see fedex packages.

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

postal inspectors have jurisdiction over ALL shippers.

No they don't.

That's why they call them postal inspectors instead of UPS inspectors or FedEx inspectors.

Postal inspectors can however, investigate wherever leads may take them.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by american pervert

not unless the package is being handled by a postal employee. fedex does have a contract to fly mail, but the inspectors don't over see fedex packages.

that's incorrect.

[wtfent]

Originally Posted by Ayla_SquareTurtle

The way I read it, the law would make it legal for personal consumption and cultivation, but leave it up to local government to legislate retail sales laws. Shipping probably wouldn't be very feasible if that's the case as every town would no doubt have their own rules.

Thanks for your two cents, you do bring up a very good point.

[american pervert]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that's incorrect.

can you please post links to where you get your info. mine is from my father who worked for the post office for over 35 years and retired a post master.

[Vendzilla]

Right now you can't ship cigarettes, thanks to Barry, so shipping marijuana ain't going to happen for a while

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by american pervert

can you please post links to where you get your info. mine is from my father who worked for the post office for over 35 years and retired a post master.

i stand corrected, i was misinformed many years ago and also going on obscenity prosecutions, which i believe, also include shipping obscene material via private carrier.

apparently there is no governmental agency that enforces the laws on private carriers.

[SpongeBub]

Originally Posted by wtfent

Carriers dont like beer because all the mess it could make it bottles broke, I also heard that UPS has a dont ask dont tell type deal with shipping beer. They say you cant ship beer but yet my beer club beers come from UPS every month.

UPS won't even accept a box that has alcohol labeling on it, regardless of what is actually packed inside.

[cherrylula]

There is a guy here in Louisiana who has medical card from Cali and they send it to him in the mail somehow, maybe not US mail but it gets here. They tried to bust him and he got off and now they leave him alone. I doubt I can dig up the news article but it is true.

[candyflip]

Originally Posted by SpongeBub

UPS won't even accept a box that has alcohol labeling on it, regardless of what is actually packed inside.

I just shipped some shit today UPS in an old wine box. It was obvious there was no wine in the box, based on the weight...but they had no issues with the box. I didn't even think about it being an issue, so I just used to box as I normally would.

[amateurbfs]

This law is nothing but a mistake.

[baddog]

The wine club I belong to ships me wine via UPS all the time. The only condition is that someone over 21 has to sign for it.

[Quentin]

The short answer is "no."

If Prop 19 passes, it will not have the effect of simply rendering all marijuana-related activities in California legal.... not by a long shot.

A few things of note from the language of the Act:

(c) ?Personal consumption? shall not include, and nothing in this act shall permit, cannabis:
(1) Possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 11301.
(2) Consumption in public or in a public place.
(3) Consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat, or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator.
(4) Smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

and.....

11301. Commercial Regulations and Controls.
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit, or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) The cultivation, processing, distribution, safe and secure transportation, and sale and possession for sale, of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized.
(b) The retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale.
(c) Appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21.
(d) Age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older.
(e) Consumption of cannabis within licensed premises.
(f) The safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis.
(g) Prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or Section 11300.
(h) Appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs, and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.
(i) Appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by.
(j) Appropriate controls to restrict public displays or public consumption of cannabis.
(k) Appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to Section 11302.
(l) Such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under subdivision (a) of Section 11300 for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation, and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section.
(m) Any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

In other words, passage of Prop 19 is not what a lot of people seem to imagine it to be -- the end of any and all marijuana-related prosecutions within the state of California.

And I haven't even touched on the clear continuing authority of the federal government to enforce the Controlled Substances Act. As it stands now, there is nothing to protect recipients of medical marijuana from prosecution by the feds. The courts have been quite clear on that point. (See Gonzales v. Raich among other cases)

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Quentin

In other words, passage of Prop 19 is not what a lot of people seem to imagine it to be -- the end of any and all marijuana-related prosecutions within the state of California.

Bingo. People have completely misinterpreted what this allows. Even though I voted for it, I am not convinced that was the best vote.

[SallyRand]

[QUOTE=dyna mo;17665061]i stand corrected, i was misinformed many years ago and also going on obscenity prosecutions, which i believe, also include shipping obscene material via private carrier.

apparently there is no governmental agency that enforces the laws on private carriers.[/QUOTE}

Sorry, I did not mean to give you that impression by a long shot.

The FBI, DEA, ICC, DOT,BATFE, EPA and a real plethora of federal agencies can and do investigate sommon carriers. I once shipped an engine from Kansas to California and although the engine had been drained of all fluids and sealed up in plastic held in place with copious amounts of duct tape, it still smelled of oil and a bit of gasoline.

BATFE showed up at my door the next day to make inquiries. They actually pulled the oil pan off to see what explosives might have been inside. It did my heart good to see those guys all greasy and smelly in their business suits.

[SetTheWorldonFire]

Did Obama ever go though with stopping raids on medical maijuana user and suppliers?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

Sorry, I did not mean to give you that impression by a long shot.

The FBI, DEA, ICC, DOT,BATFE, EPA and a real plethora of federal agencies can and do investigate sommon carriers. I once shipped an engine from Kansas to California and although the engine had been drained of all fluids and sealed up in plastic held in place with copious amounts of duct tape, it still smelled of oil and a bit of gasoline.

BATFE showed up at my door the next day to make inquiries. They actually pulled the oil pan off to see what explosives might have been inside. It did my heart good to see those guys all greasy and smelly in their business suits.

eh? this wasn't from you, this was from an attorney i hired years ago to advise me on the legalities of shipping adult material.

[Penthouse Tony]

The post office won't allow it for sure until it's legal federally. FedEx and UPS probably wouldn't want to touch it either. Especially since people might try to ship it out of the state.

[Tickler]

On a side note: Medical MJ in Canada can be consumed anywhere, the same as any other medical prescription.

[Kiopa_Matt]

If legalization passes, of course you'll be able to ship WITHIN California. No chance of shipping from an outside state / country though.

But of course, you'll need a government issued license to ship weed around, same as liquor distribution centers need a license to ship alcohol around. Don't worry, if you're not already in line for a license like I'm sure MANY are, you're not going to get one, so don't worry about it.

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by RDFrame

If legalization passes, of course you'll be able to ship WITHIN California. No chance of shipping from an outside state / country though.

But of course, you'll need a government issued license to ship weed around, same as liquor distribution centers need a license to ship alcohol around. Don't worry, if you're not already in line for a license like I'm sure MANY are, you're not going to get one, so don't worry about it.

Bullshit!

Obama's DEA will drop a 55 gallon drum of prosecution on the heads of those who even try!

Obama opposes this legislation!:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...p_19_marijuana

The Obama administration publicly opposes Proposition 19, the California ballot measure that would legalize pot. But the White House, perhaps fearful of angering the already frustrated Democratic base, is being conspicuously careful not to draw too much attention to its own stance on the issue.

Attorney General Eric Holder went on the record earlier this month in a letter to former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administation saying that the Department of Justice "strongly opposes" Proposition 19. And drug czar Gil Kerlikowske was in the state last week criticizing the measure.

But as far as the administration's active opposition to the measure goes, that's about it.

"It seems like they feel compelled to shake their finger at California. [But] they haven't been super forceful," Tom Angell, spokesman for the group "Yes on 19," tells Salon.

There has been speculation that Proposition 19's presence on the ballot will promote turnout among progressive voters, helping California Democrats -- even though statewide candidates Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown, like the Obama administration, oppose Proposition 19. That theory could explain why the White House is not eager to talk about its stance on the issue.

When Salon contacted the White House, a spokesman repeatedly declined to criticize the initiative, instead referring all inquiries to the Justice Department. A DOJ spokeswoman referred us to Holder's letter on the issue. And when we called the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (led by the drug czar, Kerlikowske), a spokesman was careful to point out that Kerlikowske went to California last week only after he was invited there by a local group. That's a distinction without a difference, but it's another sign that the administration is not eager to broadcast its opposition to the measure.

Angell, the Yes on 19 official, characterizes the administration's opposition as lukewarm. He points to a plea from a group of former DEA administrators, who, in the event Proposition 19 passes, want the federal government to sue California, asserting the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. (This is what the administation did in the case of Arizona's immigration law.) In his response letter, Holder pledged that federal drug law would be "vigorously enforced" and that the DOJ was mulling its legal options in case the initiative passes. But, Angell notes, Holder fell short of promising to sue California over the measure.

As for the president himself, he has not commented publicly. When asked about the measure at an MTV youth forum earlier this month, he seemed to play down the idea of prosecuting people for possession of small quantities of drugs:

QUESTIONER: So my question for you is this: When Arizona passed a law, the Justice Department said it infringed upon their jurisdiction and struck it down. However, when California passed the legalization of marijuana, an issue with drugs -- which also ties into federal policy -- the federal government said that they would stay out of the way. How do you reconcile those two things, particularly how they relate to the border and the security of our country?

OBAMA: Well, let me first of all be clear. When it comes to our approach to federal drug enforcement, we take federal drug enforcement extraordinarily seriously, spend a lot of money on it. But obviously we have to figure out who is it that we're going after, because we've got limited resources. And so decisions that are made by the Justice Department or the FBI about prosecuting drug kingpins versus somebody with some small amount in terms of possession, those decisions are made based on how can we best enforce the laws that are on the books.

Support for Proposition 19, meanwhile, has in recent weeks been rapidly losing support in the polls after months of maintaining a small lead. It would be supremely ironic -- and would suit the Obama administration just fine -- if supporters help propel anti-Proposition 19 Democrats to victory in California, even as the measure itself falls.

* Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin

[Dead]

They are the biggest mule to date..............might as well get paid, legally speaking

[Barry-xlovecam]

Can you mail a bottle of liquor legally — no. Same answer ...

[wtfent]

Well I got http://www.thechronicshop.com/ if 19 passes ill be talking to a lawyer this week to see if this is possible at all.

[potter]

1. USPS is a federal entity, they abide by federal law.

2. It's still illegal under federal law, and FedEx/UPS won't risk committing a federal crime.


Basically, it'll be just as legal as it is now to ship pot.

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by wtfent

Well I got http://www.thechronicshop.com/ if 19 passes ill be talking to a lawyer this week to see if this is possible at all.

Feel free to waste your money!

[baddog]

Originally Posted by wtfent

Well I got http://www.thechronicshop.com/ if 19 passes ill be talking to a lawyer this week to see if this is possible at all.

That explains that. If someone agrees with your plan then they "make sense." The rest of us are screwed.

[wtfent]

Oh well, there is always 2012!