legal marijuana just outside Primm, Nevada

First of all, I think it is very unlikely that the California ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use will win in November 2010. California has millions of conservative suburban voters who are uncomfortable with the idea of legalizing a mind-altering substance. But I'm not ruling out the possibility that it could win in 2014 or 2020.

The 2010 ballot initiative is worded to allow local county governments decide whether to allow sales in their counties and how to license & tax retailers. So if the local politicians in San Bernadino County choose to do so, they could allow a marijuana retailer (or dozens) to open up a few hundred yards from Whiskey Pete's Casino, Buffalo Bill's Casino, and those other fine establishments in gorgeous Primm, Nevada.

That particular location would be a gold mine. There is an enormous market of Vegas tourists who come to town to party, not to learn basic strategy. How many Vegas bachelor parties would designate one of the guys to rent a car and drive 38 miles to legally buy pot for their Vegas bachelor party weekend?

I'd bet it would be like the fireworks stores on the NJ/PA border. You'd have to show an ID proving you were a resident of that county to make a purchase. Not saying there wouldn't be "under-the-table" attempts like selling cigs to minors, but I'm sure there will also be stings and heavy fines.

Isn't possession of pot illegal in Nevada?



If so, regarding pot, what happens in Cali stays in Cali.

Quote: cclub79

I'd bet it would be like the fireworks stores on the NJ/PA border. You'd have to show an ID proving you were a resident of that county to make a purchase.

I just read the initiative and it says nothing about limiting retail pot sales exclusively to California residents. It limits sales to "persons 21 years or older". Nevada law enforcement might not be happy about the idea of Vegas tourists purchasing pot at the stateline, but how could they stop it? Set up roadblocks with police dogs sniffing every eastbound car on Interstate 15?

I would happily vote in favor of that if I still lived in California. There was an article in the LVRJ today about the illegal northern California growers lamenting the fall of prices if it does pass. Tough!, I say. Indeed, a store in Primm would seem like a good idea. I'm sure there would be a Nevada law about carrying across the state line, but don't know if the Nevada police would bother enforcing it.

Article: Calif. pot vote isn't just hippies versus cops.

Quote: reno

Nevada law enforcement might not be happy about the idea of Vegas tourists purchasing pot at the stateline, but how could they stop it? Set up roadblocks with police dogs sniffing every eastbound car on Interstate 15?

I understand you are making a point that such a checkpoint would be impractical. I would also point out it would be unconstitutional.

It's not like unconstitutionality has ever stopped authoritarians in the past. I won't go into any specific situations, but I'm sure a situation comes to mind for everyone.

If California "falls" I'm pretty sure the rest of the west coast will - Washington's eastern part of the state might hold it back for awhile but Oregon would fold pretty quickly. What do you guys think about Nevada? I mean obviously they have a reasonably large libertarian slant... but then again you guys did vote in Reid so I'm not too sure about the state of politics over there. Adding marijuana could give "Vegas" another boost of being special, especially for some of the midwest/south where weed probably won't be legal for awhile.

A Hypothetical:

The police set up a roadblock to inform the public heading into Nevada that Marijuana is illegal in the state of Nevada as part of a public information programme. The cop stops a car and smells marijuana,or happens to have a drugs dog with him who starts barking. As they were not stopeed with the intention of searching the car for drugs, would the cops have probable cause enough to be able to execute a search of the car based on either the smell of drugs or the conveniently located drug dog?

Nevada has a deserved reputation as the most liberal state in the union regarding personal behavior. Nevada is so closely linked economically to California, that I can't imagine that it won't legalize marijuana if California does. It is likely to become a "zona de tolerancia" as people say in Mexico. For instance people are often surprised that it is illegal to drink in public in Las Vegas. So is soliciting. But you never hear of arrests of tourists for drinking in public, and you never really hear about clients of prostitutes being arrested. They are tolerated crimes.

I also agree that the ballot won't win. The public desire to legalize marijuana has been growing weaker over the decades. The time has come and gone.

Although I haven't smoked a joint since I was a kid, I know that plenty of adults do so today. I am in favor of decriminalizing weed, but like cigarettes there should be severe limitations on advertising and marketing. At most, the marijuana should be permitted to be sold in different color packages and they should permit websites for people who want detailed information. No television, newsprint, or magazines. No sponsoring of public events like booze.

It should also be sold in only in brownie form since we have enough lung cancer patients already.

Quote: pacomartin

. The public desire to legalize marijuana has been growing weaker over the decades. The time has come and gone.

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

Between 1969 and 2005, no national poll had ever shown more than 36 percent of Americans in favor of pot legalization. But a lot has changed in the last 5 years!

Three recent polls show that Americans are more sympathetic to the idea of legalizing marijuana than ever before. The first poll, conducted in February 2009 by Rasmussen Reports, has 40 percent of Americans in support of legalizing the drug and 46 percent opposed. The second, conducted in January by CBS News, has 41 percent in favor of legalization and 52 percent against. And a third poll, conducted by Zogby on behalf of the marijuana-rights advocacy group NORML, has 44 percent of Americans in support of legalized pot and 52 percent opposed.

Check out the graph at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

Quote: pacomartin

It should also be sold in only in brownie form since we have enough lung cancer patients already.

Wouldnt solve the so called obesity problem though.

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY

But do you know what would? Legalising Heroin. When have you ever seen a fat junkie?

Well, everything should be legal. Can you imagine how much hype Vegas would get if you could buy an eightball while smoking dope in clubs? I'd make a visit every month...

What really needs to happen is a very small, libertarian state (Maybe some NE state or Hawaii/Alaska), needs to legalize marijuana. California can never get away with it, as previously explained you have too many authoritarians and misinformation in such a large state. After a couple of years, people will realize that the world hasn't come to an end and that life there is just the same if not better than it was before. I mean, as we all know, marijuana is obnoxiously easy to get ahold of and anyone who's willing to smoke even though it's illegal is already smoking. Anyone who's not smoking because it's illegal but would if it was legal is going to be safer than people who are already smoking. Legalizing it would curb alcohol abuse (conjecture, but I've heard it elsewhere) as well as make my life better.

Quote: Croupier

A Hypothetical:

The police set up a roadblock to inform the public heading into Nevada that Marijuana is illegal in the state of Nevada as part of a public information programme. The cop stops a car and smells marijuana,or happens to have a drugs dog with him who starts barking. As they were not stopeed with the intention of searching the car for drugs, would the cops have probable cause enough to be able to execute a search of the car based on either the smell of drugs or the conveniently located drug dog?

This type of roadblock would also be unconstitutional, and therefore not allowed. However, assuming that an officer is detaining someone lawfully, yes the mere odor of marijuana or the indication that drugs are present by a drug dog is probable cause enough to search the car.

What could happen is that you have a "driver safety" checkpoint on the freeway. Now this would be unorthodox on an Interstate, but it happens all of the time for drunk driving. You might even build an "agricultural inspection" checkpoint on the freeway like on I-15 coming into California. Everyone pulls in and they check your driver's license with the occasional dog sniffing around. Not that difficult actually.

Quote: pacomartin

It should also be sold in only in brownie form since we have enough lung cancer patients already.

I believe the folks on the other side of this argument (shall we call them the Authorities?) have always been dismayed that proponents insist the marujuana must be smoked. Oddly, to do what they want, like restoring appetite for cancer patients, this may even be true.

Ideas about only allowing prescription of THC pills have not prevailed.

I quit using as a young man for a number of reasons, being unsure what had been put in the cigarette probably being #1.

looks like you already have a form of Legal Marijuana in Vegas already.

Quote: Croupier

looks like you already have a form of Legal Marijuana in Vegas already.

Two birds with one stone...

That shop is almost next door to Gold & Silver - the pawn shop featured in Pawn Stars.

Admin note: removed image www.djteddybear.com/images/pawn_stars_weeds.JPG

Quote: EnvyBonus

This type of roadblock would also be unconstitutional, and therefore not allowed. However, assuming that an officer is detaining someone lawfully, yes the mere odor of marijuana or the indication that drugs are present by a drug dog is probable cause enough to search the car.

Maybe not... the case law you linked to earlier says that roadblocks being unconstitutional under the 4th have limited exceptions. That is, the courts have upheld roadblocks to (a) catch illegal immigrants (b) catch drunk drivers, & in theory (c) check for licenses to uphold general road safety. These roadblocks stop people arbitrarily & are considered legal

You might argue that setting up a roadblock to catch people under the influence of drugs would be about the same as DUI roadblocks. The big question is whether it's too much of a stretch to set one up to catch people trafficking. The police might get away with saying they were checking for people under the influence (that is, they assume people are buying & consuming in CA), and they just happened to stop someone who was trafficking a large amount because their dog went bonkers.

Quote: pacomartin

I also agree that the ballot won't win. The public desire to legalize marijuana has been growing weaker over the decades. The time has come and gone.

Couldn't disagree more on this comment. One, I actually do think the ballot measure will win...polls have shown upwards of 60% of Californians support it. Two, the overall public opinion has been swinging big time in the last 5 years or so. I attribute this to demographic shifts. The only demo in the country that strongly opposes legalization seem to be the pre-baby boomer generation, and that group is obviously starting to "shrink". Every generation from the baby-booomers on up have grown up with marijuana, and have no strong objection to it. The Zogby poll referenced was correct, except the poster got the numbers swithced. It was a full 52% of Americans support legalizing and taxing, while 37% were opposed (11% undecided) - this poll was done last spring.

Quote: dwheatley

You might argue that setting up a roadblock to catch people under the influence of drugs would be about the same as DUI roadblocks.

Yes, you could make that argument and draw a comparision to the checkpoints to enforce traffic laws, which have been held constitutional. However, the post I was responding to when I referred to "this type" of roadblock began:

Quote: Croupier

A Hypothetical:

The police set up a roadblock to inform the public heading into Nevada that Marijuana is illegal in the state of Nevada as part of a public information programme.

So I was pointing out a checkpoint to provide public information would be unconstitutional.