Weed Smoking in Law School? Forum

[seespotrun]

Do students get cards to avoid the concern over getting a ticket/arrested? Or is it a deal-breaker or issue for the state bar when they background check you and possibly see that you have or had a medical marijuana card?

How are they going to find out? Medical records are protected by privacy laws. And besides, it is perfectly legal, so how can they sanction you in any way for doing something that's legal?

Not in all states. I know of a few that require medical records for C&F. And, once again, it's not perfectly legal.

[TheTopBloke]

I doubt it is any more or less prevalent that in the general grad school population. However, if you're looking to do any sort of government position it is a great way to DQ yourself. Law school seems like a terrible time to run afoul of the law. Why would anyone risk it?

How can you run afoul of the law if it is legal? For example in California, you might have a prescription, and it's perfectly legal.

Lol. It's a federal crime.

So now it's a State's Rights issue.

[seespotrun]

I doubt it is any more or less prevalent that in the general grad school population. However, if you're looking to do any sort of government position it is a great way to DQ yourself. Law school seems like a terrible time to run afoul of the law. Why would anyone risk it?

How can you run afoul of the law if it is legal? For example in California, you might have a prescription, and it's perfectly legal.

Lol. It's a federal crime.

So now it's a State's Rights issue.

No, that issue was laid to rest. It's a federal crime. Gonzales v. Raich. hth.

[djgoldbe]

How can you run afoul of the law if it is legal? For example in California, you might have a prescription, and it's perfectly legal.

Lol. It's a federal crime.

So now it's a State's Rights issue.

No, that issue was laid to rest. It's a federal crime. Gonzales v. Raich. hth.

This is correct. There is legal authority to charge those in Cali even if they have authorization by the state. It is just ignored. So no, it is not perfectly legal.

[emilybeth]

My god, it's like none of you have ever even heard of the Supremacy Clause.

[Burger in a can]

My god, it's like none of you have ever even heard of the Supremacy Clause.

How does it seem that none of these fine posters have ever heard of the supremacy clause? Everyone seems to agree that since possession is a federal offense, it overpowers any state law.

Also, horse jumping is gross.

[TheTopBloke]

Here's something for you to ponder regarding C&F.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn

If this lady can teach, then you can smoke up.

[emilybeth]

My god, it's like none of you have ever even heard of the Supremacy Clause.

How does it seem that none of these fine posters have ever heard of the supremacy clause? Everyone seems to agree that since possession is a federal offense, it overpowers any state law.

Also, horse jumping is gross.

(1) Oh, please, you wanna talk gross, let's talk about Huskies. UConn sucks.

(2)

I agree if you are using a prescription drug under legal guidelines (ie medicinal marijuana in CA) then you are not committing a crime.

I believe the gov't would still reject you on the basis of using pot even if you had a legal method of using it.

How are they going to find out? Medical records are protected by privacy laws. And besides, it is perfectly legal, so how can they sanction you in any way for doing something that's legal?.

How can you run afoul of the law if it is legal? For example in California, you might have a prescription, and it's perfectly legal.

[jks289]

My god, it's like none of you have ever even heard of the Supremacy Clause.

How does it seem that none of these fine posters have ever heard of the supremacy clause? Everyone seems to agree that since possession is a federal offense, it overpowers any state law.

Also, horse jumping is gross.

(1) Oh, please, you wanna talk gross, let's talk about Huskies. UConn sucks.

(2)

I agree if you are using a prescription drug under legal guidelines (ie medicinal marijuana in CA) then you are not committing a crime.

I believe the gov't would still reject you on the basis of using pot even if you had a legal method of using it.

How are they going to find out? Medical records are protected by privacy laws. And besides, it is perfectly legal, so how can they sanction you in any way for doing something that's legal?.

How can you run afoul of the law if it is legal? For example in California, you might have a prescription, and it's perfectly legal.

What a pointless use of your time. Yes, I have heard of the supremacy clause. However, I was saying that the CALIFORNIA STATE BAR might not disqualify you on the basis of doing something legal in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DOJ has routinely shown itself to be flexible on it's "no drug policy" in regards to marijuana use. I was merely stating that I had no idea how a medical card might or might not affect that. To say that the use would be taken completely outside of the medical use contex, represents an ignorance about the discretionary nature of DOJ hiring decisions.

[BobSacamano]

Here's something for you to ponder regarding C&F.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn

If this lady can teach, then you can smoke up.

You don't have to pass the bar to teach.

Whatever your feelings about drugs and drug laws, I would recommend trying not to break the law while you're in law school. There's a time for rebellion, and your three years as a law student is not that time.

[emilybeth]

My god, it's like none of you have ever even heard of the Supremacy Clause.

How does it seem that none of these fine posters have ever heard of the supremacy clause? Everyone seems to agree that since possession is a federal offense, it overpowers any state law.

Also, horse jumping is gross.

(1) Oh, please, you wanna talk gross, let's talk about Huskies. UConn sucks.

(2)

I agree if you are using a prescription drug under legal guidelines (ie medicinal marijuana in CA) then you are not committing a crime.

I believe the gov't would still reject you on the basis of using pot even if you had a legal method of using it.

How are they going to find out? Medical records are protected by privacy laws. And besides, it is perfectly legal, so how can they sanction you in any way for doing something that's legal?.

How can you run afoul of the law if it is legal? For example in California, you might have a prescription, and it's perfectly legal.

What a pointless use of your time. Yes, I have heard of the supremacy clause. However, I was saying that the CALIFORNIA STATE BAR might not disqualify you on the basis of doing something legal in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DOJ has routinely shown itself to be flexible on it's "no drug policy" in regards to marijuana use. I was merely stating that I had no idea how a medical card might or might not affect that. To say that the use would be taken completely outside of the medical use contex, represents an ignorance about the discretionary nature of DOJ hiring decisions.

Don't get mad just because you got called out, sweetheart. If this is what you claim you were only trying to say, then wouldn't logic dictate that you actually say it the first time, instead of making a demonstrably false claim like "I agree if you are using a prescription drug under legal guidelines (ie medicinal marijuana in CA) then you are not committing a crime," and then frantically backpedaling later?

[jks289]

Don't get mad just because you got called out, sweetheart. If this is what you claim you were only trying to say, then wouldn't logic dictate that you actually say it the first time, instead of making a demonstrably false claim like "I agree if you are using a prescription drug under legal guidelines (ie medicinal marijuana in CA) then you are not committing a crime," and then frantically backpedaling later?

Ah yes, frantically backpedaling. Oh no, someone on the internet "called me out."

[albusdumbledore]

Don't get mad just because you got called out, sweetheart. If this is what you claim you were only trying to say, then wouldn't logic dictate that you actually say it the first time, instead of making a demonstrably false claim like "I agree if you are using a prescription drug under legal guidelines (ie medicinal marijuana in CA) then you are not committing a crime," and then frantically backpedaling later?

Ah yes, frantically backpedaling. Oh no, someone on the internet "called me out."

Ahh, sarcasm and eye-rolling as a last resort. They'll never take that from you!

[jks289]

Don't get mad just because you got called out, sweetheart. If this is what you claim you were only trying to say, then wouldn't logic dictate that you actually say it the first time, instead of making a demonstrably false claim like "I agree if you are using a prescription drug under legal guidelines (ie medicinal marijuana in CA) then you are not committing a crime," and then frantically backpedaling later?

Ah yes, frantically backpedaling. Oh no, someone on the internet "called me out."

Ahh, sarcasm and eye-rolling as a last resort. They'll never take that from you!

You're right. I should have said "Only ugly girls call other people sweetheart to be condescending." Or engaged in an all day debate defending what I may or may not have been responding to. Instead I chose the dismissive this is the goddamn internet and saying someone was "called out" is for retards approach. Serious business!

[emilybeth]

Don't get mad just because you got called out, sweetheart. If this is what you claim you were only trying to say, then wouldn't logic dictate that you actually say it the first time, instead of making a demonstrably false claim like "I agree if you are using a prescription drug under legal guidelines (ie medicinal marijuana in CA) then you are not committing a crime," and then frantically backpedaling later?

Ah yes, frantically backpedaling. Oh no, someone on the internet "called me out."

Ahh, sarcasm and eye-rolling as a last resort. They'll never take that from you!

You're right. I should have said "Only ugly girls call other people sweetheart to be condescending." Or engaged in an all day debate defending what I may or may not have been responding to. Instead I chose the dismissive this is the goddamn internet and saying someone was "called out" is for retards approach. Serious business!

Hmm, that was quick, I thought you would have struggled to defend the substance of your words a little more before throwing in the towel and moving to the name-calling, but I guess that's the trajectory of any sort of discussion with your average internet foe. The baseless ad hominem really lets your stellar advocacy skills shine. Keep up the good work! Though isn't it a bit paradoxical to claim you're taking the "dismissive" route by maintaining your participation in something? Oh that pesky logic, getting in your way again ...

[jks289]

Hmm, that was quick, I thought you would have struggled to defend the substance of your words a little more before throwing in the towel and moving to the name-calling, but I guess that's the trajectory of any sort of discussion with your average internet foe. The baseless ad hominem really lets your stellar advocacy skills shine. Keep up the good work! Though isn't it a bit paradoxical to claim you're taking the "dismissive" route by maintaining your participation in something? Oh that pesky logic, getting in your way again ...

You're completely right. In saying that no crime was committed without stating that yes in fact a Federal crime was, I was terribly imprecise and taken at its face value factually wrong. In the future, when commenting on the internet I will take more time to properly review all statements for accuracy, grammar, and punctuation. I can only hope we can get past this incredibly unfortunate incident by which revered internet forum poster emilybeth has lost all respect for those of us who lack even the most basic awareness of the laws of our states and country. Making a joke about stooping to some kind of "you're ugly" insult reflects poorly on my advocacy skills and I shall brush up on my humor before my next courtroom appearance. Alas, I will stop here because I have run into the absolute brick wall of emilybeth's logic. How can one both dismiss something as unimportant AND simultaneously burn precious time otherwise spent chatting frivolously with coworkers or playing bejeweled online by continuing to comment? I hereby cede the floor so the emilybeth may have the last word.

Respectfully submitted,
jks289

[emilybeth]

Hmm, that was quick, I thought you would have struggled to defend the substance of your words a little more before throwing in the towel and moving to the name-calling, but I guess that's the trajectory of any sort of discussion with your average internet foe. The baseless ad hominem really lets your stellar advocacy skills shine. Keep up the good work! Though isn't it a bit paradoxical to claim you're taking the "dismissive" route by maintaining your participation in something? Oh that pesky logic, getting in your way again ...

You're completely right. In saying that no crime was committed without stating that yes in fact a Federal crime was, I was terribly imprecise and taken at its face value factually wrong. In the future, when commenting on the internet I will take more time to properly review all statements for accuracy, grammar, and punctuation. I can only hope we can get past this incredibly unfortunate incident by which revered internet forum poster emilybeth has lost all respect for those of us who lack even the most basic awareness of the laws of our states and country. Making a joke about stooping to some kind of "you're ugly" insult reflects poorly on my advocacy skills and I shall brush up on my humor before my next courtroom appearance. Alas, I will stop here because I have run into the absolute brick wall of emilybeth's logic. How can one both dismiss something as unimportant AND simultaneously burn precious time otherwise spent chatting frivolously with coworkers or playing bejeweled online by continuing to comment? I hereby cede the floor so the emilybeth may have the last word.

Respectfully submitted,
jks289

Word.

[D-ROCCA]

Gotta love a good cat fight. Someone plz bust out the guy eating popcorn meme...

[pleasetryagain]

ITT: people who need to smoke more pot.

[liquidsword]

Opening TLS to see this in the recent threads was great. Thanks for the pickmeup.

[TheTopBloke]

Here's something for you to ponder regarding C&F.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn

If this lady can teach, then you can smoke up.

You don't have to pass the bar to teach.

Whatever your feelings about drugs and drug laws, I would recommend trying not to break the law while you're in law school. There's a time for rebellion, and your three years as a law student is not that time.

While I agree with you, I use this as an example of how silly the paranoia is over smoking weed or getting speeding tickets or even DUI's.

[Burger in a can]

My god, it's like none of you have ever even heard of the Supremacy Clause.

How does it seem that none of these fine posters have ever heard of the supremacy clause? Everyone seems to agree that since possession is a federal offense, it overpowers any state law.

Also, horse jumping is gross.

(1) Oh, please, you wanna talk gross, let's talk about Huskies. UConn sucks.

Huskies: NCAA Tournament champions
1999, 2004
NCAA Tournament Final Four
1999, 2004, 2009
NCAA Tournament Elite Eight
1964, 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009
NCAA Tournament Sweet Sixteen
1956, 1964, 1976, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009
NCAA Tournament second round
1951, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1976, 1979, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009
NCAA Tournament appearances
1951, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1976, 1979, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009
Conference tournament champions
1990, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004
Conference regular season champions
1941, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006


Horse girls: snobs with daddy issues and a thinly veiled leather fetish.

Winner: uconn

[Great Satchmo]

Horse girls: snobs with daddy issues and a thinly veiled leather fetish.

Winner: uconn

Asside from the leather fetish (which I could be open to), I absolutely love daddy issues and snobby girls.

[yhezel]

Relax people!!!

I suggest pot.

[djgoldbe]

Here's something for you to ponder regarding C&F.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn

If this lady can teach, then you can smoke up.

You don't have to pass the bar to teach.

Whatever your feelings about drugs and drug laws, I would recommend trying not to break the law while you're in law school. There's a time for rebellion, and your three years as a law student is not that time.

While I agree with you, I use this as an example of how silly the paranoia is over smoking weed or getting speeding tickets or even DUI's.

I'd say people don't worry enough about DUIs. The fact that you say people are overly paranoid about it is frightening.