Legal Question Regarding "That" Topic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sinistar

Sinistar

En-Route
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
3,734
Display Name
Display name:
Brad
So any lawyers here willing to explain something which seems rather relevant in the coming month or so. Maybe a hypothetical is best:

Amy lives in state A. In A the possession and use of pot is illegal. So she travels to state B where it is not illegal, tokes up, enjoys herself, sleeps in and comes home the next day. Can state A arrest her for possession and/or use of pot if there is some credible record of it?

What if Jenny (who also lives in state A) helped Amy by purchasing the pot while in state B. She didn't light up with her friend but she was in possession. Can state A prosecute Jenny as well given the same credible evidence is made available?

If Amy or Jenny can be prosecuted in their home state A for a crime that was committed in another state where that action is legal...what term or name is given to this precedent or process.

Very curious for proper legal answers if possible?
 
State ‘A’ laws are limited to state ‘A’s territory/jurisdiction.

An easier way to look at is whether Texas can enforce it’s traffic law requiring a front license plate when that vehicle is in Oklahoma. The answer is no, because Texas doesn’t have jurisdiction to enforce Texas laws in Oklahoma.
 
Matthew said:
Used to be that buying beer (or liquor) on Sunday was illegal in KS, so the proper course of action was to drive across the street into MO and buy it there.
Click to expand...


edit: however, unlike Amy and Jenny, in THIS case it wasn't illegal to transport unopened alcohol in a vehicle back into KS (I forget all the liquor tax arguments that went on at the time). Remind Amy and Jenny that driving back into State A from State B they need to make sure they don't "accidentally" transport anything into A that's illegal there.
 
If Amy or Jenny hold an FAA medical, they will need to report any consumption on the next application, regardless of state law.
 
If Amy and Jenny buy 12 beers, but drink 3 each on the drive back, how many hours will pass between the time they are pulled over for DUI and one of them posts here explaining how state law is the reason they're going to lose their pilot's certificate?
 
TCABM said:
If Amy or Jenny hold an FAA medical, they will need to report any consumption on the next application, regardless of state law.
Click to expand...
Amy and Jenny will be heading straight from State B to their closest doc-in-a-box for a Basic Med.
 
Also important to be sure that there is no "aroma" in the car, in case they are stopped for a trivial traffic offense. I knew a guy that had 3 such stops, lost his license for a year the last time, employer fired him for not having the mandatory drivers license.

MJ must really be a major thrill, for so many people to have to have it to live. Three employees where I worked lost their jobs for use, and none were tested. They were all fired for events resulting from impaired mental processing. None were fired for first, or second offenses, the were persistent users.

They all put the public or fellow employees at risk due to their fuzzy thinking. Many users underestimate how long they are impaired, as they are not in a mental condition to be objective.

Two of those guys worked with me personally, and I had days that my productivity was about half, as I was constantly keeping an eye on them, to be sure they did not get killed. Our work environment was very hazardous. Their use was recent enough I could smell it on their clothes.

Legal issues, versus the future of life are both important. Some people, such as Elon Musk, seem to be fine with it. Paul died in a car collision while under the influence. He was OK at work, but "relaxed a bit" before leaving for home, 15 minutes after going out the door. My kids knew Paul, they went to school with him.
 
Wonder if Angel flights will start supporting this?
 
I completely understand why a billionaire would support it. I'm not suggest he does, but influential people can view 'regular people' a bit like ants. A substance that reduces stress and intelligence makes the ants less of a problem, and potentially easier to control. The loss of a few isn't a big deal to some people.

That said, I'm ok with it for a different reason. I don't think it's our responsibility to protect adults from themselves. I'm good if my neighbors buy things rappers like - drugs, guns, hookers. Just as long as they don't leave any of them on my lawn.
 
If Amy and Jenny meet three POAers and let them have a toke or two, as pilots, will the POA board ban the three POAers, or will they get a second chance?
 
I entered this discussion assuming “that” topic would be abortion services. Angel Flights relevant?
 
You can get in trouble for transporting women across state lines for debauchery purposes.
 
TCABM said:
State ‘A’ laws are limited to state ‘A’s territory/jurisdiction.

An easier way to look at is whether Texas can enforce it’s traffic law requiring a front license plate when that vehicle is in Oklahoma. The answer is no, because Texas doesn’t have jurisdiction to enforce Texas laws in Oklahoma.
Click to expand...



Yes, but....

If Amy is pulled over for some offense and tests positive for cannabis she’s probably toast regardless of where she used it. And Amy will test positive for a long time after consuming, likely weeks.
 
texasclouds said:
You can get in trouble for transporting women across state lines for debauchery purposes.
Click to expand...

Rumor has it, we lost a governor that way. Second part of the rumor is that it's a bad idea to p**s off your own protection detail.
 
Rcmutz said:
If Amy and Jenny meet three POAers and let them have a toke or two, as pilots, will the POA board ban the three POAers, or will they get a second chance?
Click to expand...
Only if they went thru HIMS.
 
Matthew said:
Amy and Jenny will be heading straight from State B to their closest doc-in-a-box for a Basic Med.
Click to expand...
So you can smoke pot with basic med ? Not sure how that works…
 
Warlock said:
So you can smoke pot with basic med ? Not sure how that works…
Click to expand...
It's an interesting question. The exclusion for BasicMed requiring a one-time Special Issuance is for "substance dependence" (FAR 68.9(a)(1)(iv). In turn, 67.307 says:
“Substance dependence” means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by—

(A) Increased tolerance;

(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;

(C) Impaired control of use; or

(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning.​

"Substance" includes just about everything from alcohol and cannabis to hard drugs."

So there's nothing in the reg that prohibits BasicMed absent dependence. (If there is a drug conviction, that's a different story). I can certainly see physicians from a cannabis-legal state, who know of it's limited dangerousness absent dependence (and even if they don't smoke a bit themselves regularly see patients who do) saying no problem and signing off.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Technically, the feds have not decriminalized marijuana yet. So...
Click to expand...

not technically at all. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level.

in the OP’s example, both Amy and Jenny could be prosecuted under state B’s laws. State A would not care.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Here's the question on the form. It's the same as the one on the FAA Medical application. "Illegal" substance kind of begs the question. It is not defined.
Click to expand...

not defined, but I would not want to try to argue that marijuana was not illegal.
 
So what if Amy and Jenny smoke it while traveling in Canada, where it's completely legal at the national level?
 
Amazing how many people think this topic is about Marijuana. I think maybe 2 others can see the real purpose of this thread.
 
Sinistar said:
So any lawyers here willing to explain something which seems rather relevant in the coming month or so. Maybe a hypothetical is best:

Amy lives in state A. In A the possession and use of pot is illegal. So she travels to state B where it is not illegal, tokes up, enjoys herself, sleeps in and comes home the next day. Can state A arrest her for possession and/or use of pot if there is some credible record of it?

What if Jenny (who also lives in state A) helped Amy by purchasing the pot while in state B. She didn't light up with her friend but she was in possession. Can state A prosecute Jenny as well given the same credible evidence is made available?

If Amy or Jenny can be prosecuted in their home state A for a crime that was committed in another state where that action is legal...what term or name is given to this precedent or process.

Very curious for proper legal answers if possible?
Click to expand...
How about a hint of what's coming in a month or so?
 
NJP_MAN said:
Amazing how many people think this topic is about Marijuana. I think maybe 2 others can see the real purpose of this thread.
Click to expand...
We're not stupid, but the OP did specifically ask the question about marijuana use. That said, it's a question of jurisdiction. There's the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". Since the crime wasn't committed in State A, then State A can't prosecute. I think Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution also covers it, but I'm no lawyer.
 
DaleB said:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". Since the crime wasn't committed in State A, then State A can't prosecute. I think Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution also covers it, but I'm no lawyer.
Click to expand...
This will get interesting. Wouldn't be surprised to see more attempts to try to include prosecution in state B for actions committed in state A.
 
NJP_MAN said:
This will get interesting. Wouldn't be surprised to see more attempts to try to include prosecution in state B for actions committed in state A.
Click to expand...
I don't think any such attempts would be successful. It's really pretty well settled. That's why people can go to neighboring states to gamble, ride motorcycles without helmets, drive faster, buy booze on Sundays, smoke weed, get married, get divorced, and all manner of other things.
 
NJP_MAN said:
Amazing how many people think this topic is about Marijuana. I think maybe 2 others can see the real purpose of this thread.
Click to expand...
He did say that Marijuana was just an example. He was trying to avoid political hot topics. But we're gonna get there soon enough anyway, so. It's basically about state sovereignty. There's been a couple recent Supreme Court decisions that could fit. Roe and the concealed carry thing. So what's on the agenda for the next month or so?
 
I’d ask a CFI who actually reads the regulations before expressing an opinion rather than believing someone on YouTube.

or better yet, read them myself.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
not defined, but I would not want to try to argue that marijuana was not illegal.
Click to expand...


It’s a federal form. Marijuana is federally illegal.

The conclusion is left as an exercise for the student.... ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top