Pot smokers in law school Forum

[sundance95]

I'm going to start a grassroots campaign to ban cowboy boots because there is a higher instance of gout and it hurts the ponies when you kick them with it.

That's right. Ponies.

And what about the kids?

Just wanted to respond to a couple points in this thread. First, if one gets a mmj card, that information is protected by doctor-patient confidentiality. The only way that information could 'leak' is if one's doctor decides he doesn't much like his license to practice and blabs anyway, or the cardholder tells people about the card to people outside the privilege (e.g., friends, etc).

I think I have raised a credible objection to the doctor-patient privilege in this context. I don't think the law will ever recognize a confidentiality privilege when the purpose of a conversation is to violate the law. That doctrine certainly applies to attorney-client privilege, so I am assuming it applies to the doctor privilege as well. I could be wrong, and I have not taken health law. I'm just throwing it out there that privileges are not iron-clad like they said on LA Law or whatever. Courts can determine when to recognize a privilege.

Perhaps, but how are you going to prove that the purpose of the conversation is to violate the law? The doctor is bound not to reveal any conversations between him and his patient per his code of professional responsibility (or whatever the AMA terms it; that fact slips my mind), and presuming the patient doesn't just blab anyway, there's virtually no way to establish even a prima facie claim that the purpose of the conversation was to violate the law.

Understood re privileges not being 100% ironclad-but they are pretty damn close, at least in California where I worked as a paralegal on some privilege related cases.

[JazzOne]

Perhaps, but how are you going to prove that the purpose of the conversation is to violate the law? The doctor is bound not to reveal any conversations between him and his patient per his code of professional responsibility (or whatever the AMA terms it; that fact slips my mind), and presuming the patient doesn't just blab anyway, there's virtually no way to establish even a prima facie claim that the purpose of the conversation was to violate the law.

Understood re privileges not being 100% ironclad-but they are pretty damn close, at least in California where I worked as a paralegal on some privilege related cases.

The purpose of a suspect conversation with an attorney could be proven the same way it's proven when attorneys and clients conspire to break the law. The doctor's professional oath doesn't really matter. The court can order a physician to disclose information, but they generally don't because the law recognizes a privilege. But if something shady were to go down (like you getting caught by federal authorities with an illegal prescription), then it would be obvious that you and your doctor conspired. Your doctor wouldn't be able to claim a privilege if a federal court ordered him/her to disclose what he knows. Plus, conversations with physicians are only privileged if they pertain to actual medical care. If federal courts determine as a matter of law that marijuana is not a valid medical treatment, then your discussions with a doctor about obtaining a marijuana prescription might not fall under the privilege.

Plus, as I mentioned before, privilege doesn't apply to your bar application. You have to answer every question, including the ones about drugs. You can lie, as I'm sure many others have done, but I'd really hate to lie to the bar knowing that there is documented evidence of my lie floating around somewhere out there in the medical world. I know that I'm perceived as ridiculously paranoid in this thread, but I just don't understand why people are willing to take chances with their bar admission. Unless you've contacted a bar attorney and he gave you the go ahead to obtain a medical marijuana prescription or card, I'd think twice about it. The political pendulum seems to be swinging one way for now, but who knows how that will play out in the near future, and I'd sure hate to be on the wrong side of this issue when the bar examiners come calling.

[URMdan]

can somebody pass the motherfuckin blunt already??

[invisiblesun]

IMO the government should err on the side of increased freedom, so the burden of justification should be placed on those wanting to outlaw something, not those wanting to legalize it. Marijuana prohibition was not in effect for the majority of human history, and marijuana was a widely used drug historically (largely for painkiller/anti-anxiety purposes). It was also outlawed for pretty poor reasons. A justifiable reason to outlaw a drug is that access to the drug causes substantial harm to the individual and/or causes substantial negative externalities, either of which outweigh any benefit derived from allowing people access to the drug. It's a perfectly reasonable and "intellectually forceful" argument to compare the harm/externalities of a drug to other drugs that our government has chosen to allow. Since research has shown that marijuana is inherently less harmful and has fewer negative externalities than both tobacco and alcohol, the onus to provide a justification is on those who want to keep it illegal.

Unfortunately, that's not how our legal system works. The onus is always on the proponents of changing the law. And since marijuana is illegal according to federal law and a majority of states' laws, we have a major burden to overcome. Those who favor prohibition of marijuana have no burden whatsoever since the status quo means they win. The arguments presented here have achieved only limited success in decriminalizing marijuana, which is why I think we need more intellectually forceful arguments. We not only have to convince the legislatures that we're right, but we also have to convince them that this issue is important enough to take action. A simple comparison of the harms of marijuana and other legal drugs will not suffice. We have to go the extra step of showing that the current policy violates civil rights. Thus, I propose targeted law suits on behalf of sympathetic plaintiffs attacking the constitutionality of the current ban on marijuana. A comparison of marijuana's dangers might be a part of that argument, but the comparison alone cannot achieve the goal we desire.

I agree with you in practical terms. That being said, I think the argument I mentioned is pretty intellectually forceful, although probably not sufficiently politically effective. Unfortunately, there can be a pretty wide divide between those two.

[JazzOne]

IMO the government should err on the side of increased freedom, so the burden of justification should be placed on those wanting to outlaw something, not those wanting to legalize it. Marijuana prohibition was not in effect for the majority of human history, and marijuana was a widely used drug historically (largely for painkiller/anti-anxiety purposes). It was also outlawed for pretty poor reasons. A justifiable reason to outlaw a drug is that access to the drug causes substantial harm to the individual and/or causes substantial negative externalities, either of which outweigh any benefit derived from allowing people access to the drug. It's a perfectly reasonable and "intellectually forceful" argument to compare the harm/externalities of a drug to other drugs that our government has chosen to allow. Since research has shown that marijuana is inherently less harmful and has fewer negative externalities than both tobacco and alcohol, the onus to provide a justification is on those who want to keep it illegal.

Unfortunately, that's not how our legal system works. The onus is always on the proponents of changing the law. And since marijuana is illegal according to federal law and a majority of states' laws, we have a major burden to overcome. Those who favor prohibition of marijuana have no burden whatsoever since the status quo means they win. The arguments presented here have achieved only limited success in decriminalizing marijuana, which is why I think we need more intellectually forceful arguments. We not only have to convince the legislatures that we're right, but we also have to convince them that this issue is important enough to take action. A simple comparison of the harms of marijuana and other legal drugs will not suffice. We have to go the extra step of showing that the current policy violates civil rights. Thus, I propose targeted law suits on behalf of sympathetic plaintiffs attacking the constitutionality of the current ban on marijuana. A comparison of marijuana's dangers might be a part of that argument, but the comparison alone cannot achieve the goal we desire.

I agree with you in practical terms. That being said, I think the argument I mentioned is pretty intellectually forceful, although probably not sufficiently politically effective. Unfortunately, there can be a pretty wide divide between those two.

Yeah, I've been mulling over this problem for years, and I continue to think about it as I gain more legal knowledge. The proposal that I have made in previous posts is a model that Thurgood Marshall used to bring down segregation laws. I understand that the liberties at stake here are not as pressing as those of the civil rights movement, but I still think that Marshall unlocked a very clever strategy for dealing with draconian morality laws. The key is finding sympathetic plaintiffs whose lives have been harmed substantially by enforcement of marijuana laws. But I don't know enough about con law to really develop the argument that these harms constitute deprivations of protected liberties. If I thought I could get away with it, I'd write a law review article about this. I just don't know if I want that following me around on my CV.

[TheHeat]

Gotta take a puff at least once a day...

[URMdan]

As much as I love smoking pot, I don't think it'd be a good idea to keep a stash while at school. Pot makes me sooooo lazy that I would definitely slack off a bit.

[Vronsky]

IMO the government should err on the side of increased freedom, so the burden of justification should be placed on those wanting to outlaw something, not those wanting to legalize it. Marijuana prohibition was not in effect for the majority of human history, and marijuana was a widely used drug historically (largely for painkiller/anti-anxiety purposes). It was also outlawed for pretty poor reasons. A justifiable reason to outlaw a drug is that access to the drug causes substantial harm to the individual and/or causes substantial negative externalities, either of which outweigh any benefit derived from allowing people access to the drug. It's a perfectly reasonable and "intellectually forceful" argument to compare the harm/externalities of a drug to other drugs that our government has chosen to allow. Since research has shown that marijuana is inherently less harmful and has fewer negative externalities than both tobacco and alcohol, the onus to provide a justification is on those who want to keep it illegal.

Unfortunately, that's not how our legal system works. The onus is always on the proponents of changing the law. And since marijuana is illegal according to federal law and a majority of states' laws, we have a major burden to overcome. Those who favor prohibition of marijuana have no burden whatsoever since the status quo means they win. The arguments presented here have achieved only limited success in decriminalizing marijuana, which is why I think we need more intellectually forceful arguments. We not only have to convince the legislatures that we're right, but we also have to convince them that this issue is important enough to take action. A simple comparison of the harms of marijuana and other legal drugs will not suffice. We have to go the extra step of showing that the current policy violates civil rights. Thus, I propose targeted law suits on behalf of sympathetic plaintiffs attacking the constitutionality of the current ban on marijuana. A comparison of marijuana's dangers might be a part of that argument, but the comparison alone cannot achieve the goal we desire.

I agree with you in practical terms. That being said, I think the argument I mentioned is pretty intellectually forceful, although probably not sufficiently politically effective. Unfortunately, there can be a pretty wide divide between those two.

Yeah, I've been mulling over this problem for years, and I continue to think about it as I gain more legal knowledge. The proposal that I have made in previous posts is a model that Thurgood Marshall used to bring down segregation laws. I understand that the liberties at stake here are not as pressing as those of the civil rights movement, but I still think that Marshall unlocked a very clever strategy for dealing with draconian morality laws. The key is finding sympathetic plaintiffs whose lives have been harmed substantially by enforcement of marijuana laws. But I don't know enough about con law to really develop the argument that these harms constitute deprivations of protected liberties. If I thought I could get away with it, I'd write a law review article about this. I just don't know if I want that following me around on my CV.

Why do you think it would be harmful to you or your career at some point in the future? Do you have an interest in working for a state or federal prosecutor, or some other position in the state or federal government? Do you want to be a judge? Are there any other positions you think this might have a negative impact on your career?

I'm only guessing, but I figure aside from being a prosecutor or working for the federal government, it shouldn't be regarded as a red flag if you work for a firm or go corporate. In fact, many of my law professors spoke frequently and with interest about marijuana laws last semester during orientation and the semester. There was a seminar/dialogue/debate thing with a district attorney and a professor to discuss the legalization (this was before CA voted down prop 19). I was not able to attend, but the fact that the school sponsored such an event suggests that is not quite a career death wish to write a note. Furthermore, several professors mentioned that they signed the petition with other professors around the country in favor of Prop 19.

In fact, it's a great new field to explore that hasn't been developed yet, with major state/federal/federalism issues. The whole debate over MMJ, regulation, and legalization isn't going away. It's only going to get bigger and more important, and there will be landmark cases about things related to it in our careers. It implicates everything from employment law (ie when a CA-resident is fired because of a positive drug test despite being a card-holder... does this not abridge a substantive right as determined by the state of CA?), medical research, patent law for certain strains, etc. etc. Don't you think Montsanto will use legal avenues to protect their "property" if they deem it profitable to start engineering strains just as they do for corn?

IMO the demand for lawyers with expertise in MMJ law will increase over the next 10-20 years. A note like that could be a future career benefit, not a detriment, depending on what field you go into.

[JazzOne]

Why do you think it would be harmful to you or your career at some point in the future? Do you have an interest in working for a state or federal prosecutor, or some other position in the state or federal government? Do you want to be a judge? Are there any other positions you think this might have a negative impact on your career?

I'm only guessing, but I figure aside from being a prosecutor or working for the federal government, it shouldn't be regarded as a red flag if you work for a firm or go corporate. In fact, many of my law professors spoke frequently and with interest about marijuana laws last semester during orientation and the semester. There was a seminar/dialogue/debate thing with a district attorney and a professor to discuss the legalization (this was before CA voted down prop 19). I was not able to attend, but the fact that the school sponsored such an event suggests that is not quite a career death wish to write a note. Furthermore, several professors mentioned that they signed the petition with other professors around the country in favor of Prop 19.

In fact, it's a great new field to explore that hasn't been developed yet, with major state/federal/federalism issues. The whole debate over MMJ, regulation, and legalization isn't going away. It's only going to get bigger and more important, and there will be landmark cases about things related to it in our careers. It implicates everything from employment law (ie when a CA-resident is fired because of a positive drug test despite being a card-holder... does this not abridge a substantive right as determined by the state of CA?), medical research, patent law for certain strains, etc. etc. Don't you think Montsanto will use legal avenues to protect their "property" if they deem it profitable to start engineering strains just as they do for corn?

IMO the demand for lawyers with expertise in MMJ law will increase over the next 10-20 years. A note like that could be a future career benefit, not a detriment, depending on what field you go into.

That's an interesting perspective, and I appreciate the counterpoint. I think the academic world is much less conservative than the professional world. I have a job lined up with a corporate law firm. I don't know if a note such as this would necessarily hurt my chances of getting a full-time offer, but I do know that corporate firms try to present a very polished image to current and prospective clients. I really don't think they would want that kind of thing on my attorney profile. There will be a time in my career when I can write whatever I want, but for now, I feel obliged to play the game their way. These firm jobs represent life-changing money for someone with my background. I can forgo a writing interest for the sake of my career. I'll keep thinking about it, though. I've already written one note on a constitutional law issue (war powers), but I am feeling motivated to submit a second note for publication next year. I'll see if I can come up with a credible marijuana topic. What I really want to write about is the high error rate of eyewitness identification in criminal cases and how dogs can be used as investigative tools to identify perpetrators of crimes when their identities are not otherwise known. Dogs are currently being used in studies to diagnose cancer by scent, and I believe that dogs can become a powerful evidentiary tool used to corroborate or falsify eyewitness identification.

[20160810]

I don't post here much but saw this and felt like responding. I know you are a vehement anti-smoking dude, so I think you're a little off-track just as you point to pot-smokers who are a little off-track as well.

1. It has been said again and again here and elsewhere that alcohol is a more dangerous drug - both inherently and in terms of social effects - than marijuana. Personally I enjoy both smoking and drinking, sometimes in moderation and sometimes not. I'm just telling you the same thing anyone else could, but you can't die from getting too high. You don't get a hangover after smoking the night before, or choke on vomit. etc. etc. etc.

2. The dangers inherent in marijuana are present, but are IMO insubstantial. It is my firm belief that smoking marijuana is no more harmful than smoking paper... both are inhaling smoke, and over time exposure is not healthy for the lungs. But there is little tar in marijuana like there is in cigarettes. Furthermore, smoking out of a vaporizer reduces almost all the negative effects of inhaling smoke, since there is no smoke but only vapor. Smoking marijuana is unhealthy only because you are smoking SOMETHING, not because you are smoking marijuana itself. It would be just as unhealthy to smoke you casebook, and it is much more unhealthy to smoke cigarettes.

ETA - smoking your casebook is actually probably worse than marijuana because of the ink. my point got a little lost there....lol

3. Regarding psychological issues, there is no causal proof that marijuana induces something like depression or schizophrenia, but marijuana may speed up whatever a person is pre-disposed to, or there may merely be a correlational effect. I'm sure you're familiar with this by now - sky-diving does not make someone prone to taking risks. rather people who go skydiving are already willing risk-takers. Likewise, marijuana likely attracts individuals prone to psychological disorders such as depression, and it may exacerbate whatever is already happening. But I do not believe that marijuana is a source of psychological disorders in otherwise healthy individuals.

OTOH, I believe that alcohol can turn otherwise law-abiding individuals into harmful people. They harm others in a million ways that pot-smokers just don't do. How many stoned-driving deaths have you heard of? I'm sure there are some, but a fraction of alcohol related deaths. How about marijuana-induced domestic violence? Child-molestation or child-abuse? Date rape? the list goes on an on.

The most that can be said for marijuana is that it makes people less ambitious/more lazy. I believe this to be true.

4. the other dangers associated with marijuana are a by-product of it's criminality. I was surprised that this issue did not get more pub during the california legalization campaign. The fact is a large amount of money eventually goes to mexican drugs lords, and this contributes to social problems on both sides of the border, including illegal immigration, gun trade, and organized crime in general.

5. IMO marijuana probably does affect your ability to drive, but not in the same way that alcohol does. alcohol makes your body physically incapable of doing what it can when sober, whereas driving stoned is like talking on a phone while driving. it is a distraction, but does not affect risk-calculation or body movement significantly. in general, however, we can agree that driving stoned is not a great idea.

All this adds up to make your statement - "marijuana is one of the most dangers drugs available" - really absurd. inherently there are several drugs more dangerous... heroine, cocaine, crack, meth, oxy, LSD, ecstasy.... pretty much any other drug you can think off. including alcohol and tobacco. marijuana does not kill people from overdose.

marijuana MIGHT be the most dangerous drug because of its criminality simple because it is the most popular illegal drug, thus a huge demand, thus huge criminal networks that supply it. but this was also true during prohibition - which made an already inherently dangerous drug more dangerous because of organized crime. Marijuana is NOT dangerous - illegal marijuana is dangerous.

Finally, I'm sure this has been said before but I just wanted to say it again. Medical marijuana is absurd. I'm sure there are people who actually have advanced cancer, etc. and it does serve a purpose. but for 97% of users, "medical" is totally bogus. This is absolutely crazy because I don't need to go to my doctor with a fake back pain issue to get a presciption to buy a bottle of liquor, nor should I.

/diatribe

+1000

If you really want to see marijuana legalized, we need arguments with more intellectual force. Just screaming, "but alcohol and cigarettes are worse!!!!," isn't going to cut it.

It should cut it. If we as a society wish to make a substance illegal, then it makes sense that that substance should be more harmful than ones we already allow, unless you want to try and argue that cigarettes and alcohol are only legal due to decades of detrimental reliance on their prior legality by the companies which purvey those products (which actually might effectively serve to explain the continued legality of tobacco tbh).

[mrmangs]

If you really want to see marijuana legalized, we need arguments with more intellectual force. Just screaming, "but alcohol and cigarettes are worse!!!!," isn't going to cut it.

It should cut it. If we as a society wish to make a substance illegal, then it makes sense that that substance should be more harmful than ones we already allow, unless you want to try and argue that cigarettes and alcohol are only legal due to decades of detrimental reliance on their prior legality by the companies which purvey those products (which actually might effectively serve to explain the continued legality of tobacco tbh).

Jazz isn't making a normative point. I think he'd agree that it should cut it--he's simply pointing out that, nevertheless, it's not cutting it. Using the courts a la Thurgood Marshall and segregation is an interesting idea, but I still think that fundamentally, attitudes just need to change for pot to have a shot at legalization. I guess Jazz would say I'm putting the cart before the horse... I dunno though, California had a somewhat compelling marketing campaign for legalizing marijuana and I could see legalization via referendum if a similar sort of thing was better orchestrated.

[JazzOne]

Did anyone catch the National Geographic special this evening: Drugged: High on Marijuana? Very interesting, and I think it supports many of the points I have made in this thread.

Also, this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRtNfb6D3Mc

[SwampRat88]

Let's get this rolling again. Is anyone planning on changing their routine now that school is starting up?

[Borhas]

Let's get this rolling again. Is anyone planning on changing their routine now that school is starting up?

If I were a stoner I wouldn't be changing any routine unless I get drug tested or have kids or move back to one of the less enlightened states (not California)

[Oban]

If I get an offer: Smoke more
Strike out: Smoke more

[SwampRat88]

I'm planning on sticking with the routine of a hit or two before bed most nights to unwind. Incidentally, has anyone here had a chance to watch Terrence Malick's film Tree of Life high yet? Good stuff.

[Papa Smurf]

I doubt I'm gonna smoke 4-5 days a week like I did my last semester of undergrad, but I'll still partake on occasion (probably just won't buy as much). I'm going to a pot-friendly school in a state north of California, so hopefully I make at least a couple stoner friends

[AffordablePrep]

If smoking worked for you while prepping for the LSAT and undergrad (you still got your work done), no reason to think you'll bomb law school because of it.

However, if you aren't in Cali it's a risk/reward thing. You would probably need to be extra careful not to get caught as the minor fine may kill your scholarship/bar chances.

[cofc2008]

I've been smoking pot for about ten years now (I'm 25). Most of that time, it was a daily thing. While I don't think it negatively affected my performance in undergrad, it did make it harder to motivate myself. For this reason, I am quitting for a while. I have been a chronic procrastinator most of my life and motivating myself is a chore in itself. With rigors and stress of 1L life fast approaching, I figure that I shouldn't do anything that could make me less efficient.

However, to each his own. I will most likely smoke a few times in my first semester, but those will be "game-time decisions."

[in my eyes]

All this talk about denial of bar admission because of one minor marijuana charge (which is a citation rather than an arrest in like 15 states) is laughable.

Have you guys ever looked at what folks actually get C&F pwned over?? Generally SERIOUS offenses constituting "moral turpitude" or a pattern of slightly less serious offenses.

The question about drug use isn't there to deny admission. It is there to offer people help prior to gaining bar admission. I dare you to find me a single case in the US where someone was denied bar admission (for any serious length of time) over misdemeanor marijuana possession.

[savagedm]

I've been smoking pot for about ten years now (I'm 25). Most of that time, it was a daily thing. While I don't think it negatively affected my performance in undergrad, it did make it harder to motivate myself. For this reason, I am quitting for a while. I have been a chronic procrastinator most of my life and motivating myself is a chore in itself. With rigors and stress of 1L life fast approaching, I figure that I shouldn't do anything that could make me less efficient.

However, to each his own. I will most likely smoke a few times in my first semester, but those will be "game-time decisions."

You'll likely smoke more than ever, actually. Just wait for late November or finals

[cofc2008]

You'll likely smoke more than ever, actually. Just wait for late November or finals

I really hope not. At one point I was blazin' about an ounce a week, and I'm not talking schwag either.

[rummya87]

i just wanted to throw in my 2 cents circa page 5. Jenkum clearly is the worst drug with the worst withdrawals. Side effects: sh*t breath and seeing dead people? Sounds pretty bad to me. Chronic is for the kids, real men (and ladies) hit the jenknasty.

[cofc2008]

speaking of page 5, that "I do not freebase cocaine" video might the funniest thing I have ever seen.

[savagedm]

You'll likely smoke more than ever, actually. Just wait for late November or finals

I really hope not. At one point I was blazin' about an ounce a week, and I'm not talking schwag either.

You might have less from that amount, but you definitely will not be smoking almost nothing like a lot of people think happens. There is a reason lawl school and med school have the highest substance abuse rates.