Medical Marijuana

[Augustok]

At my club in Massachusetts (where it’s legal recreational and medical I guess) marijuana isn’t allowed. The theory being members or guests aren’t allowed to bring their own booze so they can’t being marijuana either. Don’t know if anyone does. But people are rubbing I don’t know what all over their hurting joints. The club elders also didn’t think it was a good look for members since there are minors around. But this might be off topic but marijuana is an issue.

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @justasgood said:

> > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

>

> You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

 

I'm genuinely curious, and this may need to be taken to PM, but do you know how this sort of thing worked 100 years ago during alcohol prohibition? States (including Michigan) banned the production and sale of alcohol years before federal Probition...so, it would've been illegal per state law, yet still perfectly legal per federal law.

[BiggErn]

How is this any different than beta blockers being banned? Legal or not if it’s a banned substance on that particular organization’s banned list then it is prohibited regardless of law.

[braincramp52]

> @Augustok said:

> At my club in Massachusetts (where it’s legal recreational and medical I guess) marijuana isn’t allowed. The theory being members or guests aren’t allowed to bring their own booze so they can’t being marijuana either. Don’t know if anyone does. But people are rubbing I don’t know what all over their hurting joints. The club elders also didn’t think it was a good look for members since there are minors around. But this might be off topic but marijuana is an issue.

 

If the owner was smart he'd be selling pot in the pro shop.

[Mikey5e]

> @wkuo3 said:

> I believe each individual case needs apply to and be approved by the U.S.G.A. and the Tournament Board. Of course, no light up, only alternative form of ingestion is allowed.

> I admire those whom are on prescription to be able to qualify and play golf tournament. Must be difficult if they already have the needs for prescription drug to function.

> Again, the rules to "protect the field" is at question here.

> If your friend is that good to have a chance of making it to the golf tournaments, have him prepare all the documentations from his M.D. whom issued the prescription and present it to the Tournament Board. Allow time for them to verify and go through the process of approving. He can't just show up at the Tournament with a note from his Doctor.

> We all know it that some of these "medical case" are borderline the grey area of whether the "patients" really needs the prescription. And there are Doctors whom will prescribe anything based on their personal believe without solid medical base.

> If any golfer could be playing good tournament golf while under the influence, good for them, because that would make it more difficult for the majority of us to play our best.

>

>

 

In the case I have been referring to, as the o p, the subject is lighting up and smoking. Also the individual, by virtue of State permission, grows his own plants.

[J13]

> @Augustok said:

> At my club in Massachusetts (where it’s legal recreational and medical I guess) marijuana isn’t allowed. The theory being members or guests aren’t allowed to bring their own booze so they can’t being marijuana either. Don’t know if anyone does. But people are rubbing I don’t know what all over their hurting joints. The club elders also didn’t think it was a good look for members since there are minors around. But this might be off topic but marijuana is an issue.

 

But they cant bring their own booze because the club sells it. That makes sense while no cannabis doesn't. Do they also say no smoking cancer stick aka cigarettes?

[wkuo3]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @wkuo3 said:

> > I believe each individual case needs apply to and be approved by the U.S.G.A. and the Tournament Board. Of course, no light up, only alternative form of ingestion is allowed.

> > I admire those whom are on prescription to be able to qualify and play golf tournament. Must be difficult if they already have the needs for prescription drug to function.

> > Again, the rules to "protect the field" is at question here.

> > If your friend is that good to have a chance of making it to the golf tournaments, have him prepare all the documentations from his M.D. whom issued the prescription and present it to the Tournament Board. Allow time for them to verify and go through the process of approving. He can't just show up at the Tournament with a note from his Doctor.

> > We all know it that some of these "medical case" are borderline the grey area of whether the "patients" really needs the prescription. And there are Doctors whom will prescribe anything based on their personal believe without solid medical base.

> > If any golfer could be playing good tournament golf while under the influence, good for them, because that would make it more difficult for the majority of us to play our best.

> >

> >

>

> In the case I have been referring to, as the o p, the subject is lighting up and smoking. Also the individual, by virtue of State permission, grows his own plants.

 

Having a State issue license to cultivate and use the stuff is not granting permission to use it in PUBLIC PLACES, certainly not in the form of smoking it .

Having a permission to grow and use is also not automatically permissible in a sanctioned event.

I seriously doubt that smoking it would be allowed on the golf course in or out of a tournament. How does it make sense if restriction on smoking tobacco in public paces is prohibited and allowing someone to light up a joint ?

He'd better start to like brownies or soft drinks laced with the THC. I had seen golfers vaping on the golf course laced with the THC, it's not difficult to figure out what they were vaping. I know one got called in after a tournament, not sure what happened to this case but his name was not on the leader board.

FWIW, would we see class action law suit in the near future against the industry for the same reason the tobacco industry is being persecuted ? You know what they say, where there is money, there would be the ambulance chasers.

[Philomathesq]

> @HappyGilmoresBoots said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @justasgood said:

> > > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

> >

> > You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

>

> I'm genuinely curious, and this may need to be taken to PM, but do you know how this sort of thing worked 100 years ago during alcohol prohibition? States (including Michigan) banned the production and sale of alcohol years before federal Probition...so, it would've been illegal per state law, yet still perfectly legal per federal law.

 

PM sent.

[BiggErn]

> @HappyGilmoresBoots said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @justasgood said:

> > > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

> >

> > You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

>

> I'm genuinely curious, and this may need to be taken to PM, but do you know how this sort of thing worked 100 years ago during alcohol prohibition? States (including Michigan) banned the production and sale of alcohol years before federal Probition...so, it would've been illegal per state law, yet still perfectly legal per federal law.

 

There’s still “dry” cities and counties that outlaw the sell of alcohol.

[J13]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @HappyGilmoresBoots said:

> > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > @justasgood said:

> > > > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

> > >

> > > You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

> >

> > I'm genuinely curious, and this may need to be taken to PM, but do you know how this sort of thing worked 100 years ago during alcohol prohibition? States (including Michigan) banned the production and sale of alcohol years before federal Probition...so, it would've been illegal per state law, yet still perfectly legal per federal law.

>

> There’s still “dry” cities and counties that outlaw the sell of alcohol.

 

Very true but those places are like relics. Old and useless. Those towns won't sell you a beer but they will prescribe the crap out of Oxy haha. The irony is mind blowing.

[BiggErn]

> @J13 said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @HappyGilmoresBoots said:

> > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > @justasgood said:

> > > > > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

> > > >

> > > > You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

> > >

> > > I'm genuinely curious, and this may need to be taken to PM, but do you know how this sort of thing worked 100 years ago during alcohol prohibition? States (including Michigan) banned the production and sale of alcohol years before federal Probition...so, it would've been illegal per state law, yet still perfectly legal per federal law.

> >

> > There’s still “dry” cities and counties that outlaw the sell of alcohol.

>

> Very true but those places are like relics. Old and useless. Those towns won't sell you a beer but they will prescribe the crap out of Oxy haha. The irony is mind blowing.

 

Pretty ignorant and baseless comment considering opioids are a problem EVERYWHERE.

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @HappyGilmoresBoots said:

> > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > @justasgood said:

> > > > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

> > >

> > > You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

> >

> > I'm genuinely curious, and this may need to be taken to PM, but do you know how this sort of thing worked 100 years ago during alcohol prohibition? States (including Michigan) banned the production and sale of alcohol years before federal Probition...so, it would've been illegal per state law, yet still perfectly legal per federal law.

>

> There’s still “dry” cities and counties that outlaw the sell of alcohol.

 

I was wondering if one could "legally" give the county the finger and open up a liquor shop governed under the State, ignoring the local laws...that'd be, of course, ignoring local zoning laws and business permits.

[Philomathesq]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @J13 said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @HappyGilmoresBoots said:

> > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > > @justasgood said:

> > > > > > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

> > > > >

> > > > > You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

> > > >

> > > > I'm genuinely curious, and this may need to be taken to PM, but do you know how this sort of thing worked 100 years ago during alcohol prohibition? States (including Michigan) banned the production and sale of alcohol years before federal Probition...so, it would've been illegal per state law, yet still perfectly legal per federal law.

> > >

> > > There’s still “dry” cities and counties that outlaw the sell of alcohol.

> >

> > Very true but those places are like relics. Old and useless. Those towns won't sell you a beer but they will prescribe the crap out of Oxy haha. The irony is mind blowing.

>

> Pretty ignorant and baseless comment considering opioids are a problem EVERYWHERE.

 

Not only that, but it is not the local governments that are prescribing the Oxy, it is individuals.

[Hawkeye77]

> @lawsonman said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @justasgood said:

> > > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

> >

> > You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

>

> Quit being a debbie downer!! :D

 

He is a-"lude"-ing to quite a bit of stuff.

[Swisstrader98]

Played a match with a guy who was lighting up a blunt just as we were about to go play 0ur match. I thought; oh great, I’m gonna kill this guy, he’s high as heck. WRONG! The guy had me beat by 12.

 

 

[Nessism]

I played with a guy a while back that sheepishly asked me if I worked for "law enforcement" while we were on the 3rd tee. No I said, why are you asking? as my response. At this point he pulls out his pipe and says he has a "card" from his doctor. Making small talk I asked him what his affliction was and he said "insomnia."

[Mikey5e]

> @Swisstrader98 said:

> Played a match with a guy who was lighting up a blunt just as we were about to go play 0ur match. I thought; oh great, I’m gonna kill this guy, he’s high as heck. WRONG! The guy had me beat by 12.

>

>

 

Sounds like to me that the weed enhanced his play?

[Dpavs]

> @Philomathesq said:

 

> Since political commentary is disallowed on this website, I will try to answer without treading into political territory. Whatever you believe the powers of the federal government should be, it is undeniable that current federal law, which supersedes state law, makes use of marijuana a crime. There is no grey area on this point. If the federal government wanted to, it could go into Colorado, for example, and shut down every single dispensary and charge the owners and operators with federal crimes. The fact that the federal government has not yet done so does not mean that the recreational use of marijuana is legal.

 

Actually, as I understand it, under current law they cannot without violating the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment which prohibits the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws.

 

As ridiculous as it appears, even though it is couched in terms of fiscal responsibility, my belief is that the amendment addressed, as a half-way solution, the failure of the fed's to come to grips with the increasing use, both medical and otherwise, and acceptance of marijuana in the U.S.

 

[justasgood]

As I sit here enjoying my gummies I Just noticed the following:

 

[Philomathesq]

> @Dpavs said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

>

> > Since political commentary is disallowed on this website, I will try to answer without treading into political territory. Whatever you believe the powers of the federal government should be, it is undeniable that current federal law, which supersedes state law, makes use of marijuana a crime. There is no grey area on this point. If the federal government wanted to, it could go into Colorado, for example, and shut down every single dispensary and charge the owners and operators with federal crimes. The fact that the federal government has not yet done so does not mean that the recreational use of marijuana is legal.

>

> Actually, as I understand it, under current law they cannot without violating the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment which prohibits the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws.

>

 

That's a misunderstanding of the amendment. It only prevents DOJ money from being spent to stop states (and not all of them) from implementing laws. It does not actually prevent the enforcement of federal laws.

[Newby]

Forget civil/criminal law. It is covered by the USGA rules.

[davep043]

> @Newby said:

> Forget civil/criminal law. It is covered by the USGA rules.

 

I agree that its covered in USGA rules regarding competitions that the USGA runs. But is there anything in the Rules in general?

[Dpavs]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @Dpavs said:

> > > @Philomathesq said:

> >

> > > Since political commentary is disallowed on this website, I will try to answer without treading into political territory. Whatever you believe the powers of the federal government should be, it is undeniable that current federal law, which supersedes state law, makes use of marijuana a crime. There is no grey area on this point. If the federal government wanted to, it could go into Colorado, for example, and shut down every single dispensary and charge the owners and operators with federal crimes. The fact that the federal government has not yet done so does not mean that the recreational use of marijuana is legal.

> >

> > Actually, as I understand it, under current law they cannot without violating the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment which prohibits the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws.

> >

>

> That's a misunderstanding of the amendment. It only prevents DOJ money from being spent to stop states (and not all of them) from implementing laws. It does not actually prevent the enforcement of federal laws.

 

That is correct as I understand it but misleading I think. While it does not explicitly prohibit the enforcement of any federal laws, per the decision of two different courts of appeal, the amendment extends to protecting dispensaries in states where marijuana had been legalized. These decisions support the contention that the amendment was intended to be broadly construed so as to protect all aspects of the states implementation of it's marijuana laws. Any DOJ enforcement effort, while not specifically prohibited, would involve the expenditure of DOJ funds, ergo it would be in violation of the amendment.

[Dpavs]

> @Newby said:

> Forget civil/criminal law. It is covered by the USGA rules.

I am curious about this... it's only covered in the context of the USGA supporting the various other organizations, (PGA, LPGA, etc.) rules regarding anti-doping correct?

 

[davep043]

> @Dpavs said:

> > @Newby said:

> > Forget civil/criminal law. It is covered by the USGA rules.

> I am curious about this... it's only covered in the context of the USGA supporting the various other organizations, (PGA, LPGA, etc.) rules regarding anti-doping correct?

>

The way I read their statement, they use the PGA policy for the Men's US Open, the LPGA policy for the Women's Open, and the International Golf Federations policy for men's and women's Amateurs. In the Committee Procedures portion of the Rules, the Committee is given specific authority to establish an anti-doping policy for a competition, so they specifically support the various tours authority to develop their own policies for their own events.

 

[Newby]

> @davep043 said:

In the Committee Procedures portion of the Rules, **the Committee is given specific authority to establish an anti-doping policy for a competition,**

>

That is the significant part.

 

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @Swisstrader98 said:

> > Played a match with a guy who was lighting up a blunt just as we were about to go play 0ur match. I thought; oh great, I’m gonna kill this guy, he’s high as heck. WRONG! The guy had me beat by 12.

> >

> >

>

> Sounds like to me that the weed enhanced his play?

 

While cannabis indica is a sedative or depressive, it's been used in several Guinness-record speed runs on a downhill skateboard. It reduces nerves and calms overt thoughts, which allows the users subconscious to take over and run by reflex. In a game as mental as golf, something that calms your inner monologue and promotes relaxation could certainly be construed as a performance enhancer.

[wkuo3]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @J13 said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @HappyGilmoresBoots said:

> > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > > @justasgood said:

> > > > > > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

> > > > >

> > > > > You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

> > > >

> > > > I'm genuinely curious, and this may need to be taken to PM, but do you know how this sort of thing worked 100 years ago during alcohol prohibition? States (including Michigan) banned the production and sale of alcohol years before federal Probition...so, it would've been illegal per state law, yet still perfectly legal per federal law.

> > >

> > > There’s still “dry” cities and counties that outlaw the sell of alcohol.

> >

> > Very true but those places are like relics. Old and useless. Those towns won't sell you a beer but they will prescribe the crap out of Oxy haha. The irony is mind blowing.

>

> Pretty ignorant and baseless comment considering opioids are a problem EVERYWHERE.

 

Unfortunately, we can't lock the children up to prevent them from harming themselves. So some of them will fall through the crack.

This is the same with any other issue in life and I argue with my wife for, if there is no real equality in rights, maybe the basic /basic. But everything else should be earned , not granted with birthright. Okay, if she sees this, dinner will be bologna sandwich.

[J13]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @J13 said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @HappyGilmoresBoots said:

> > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > > @justasgood said:

> > > > > > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

> > > > >

> > > > > You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

> > > >

> > > > I'm genuinely curious, and this may need to be taken to PM, but do you know how this sort of thing worked 100 years ago during alcohol prohibition? States (including Michigan) banned the production and sale of alcohol years before federal Probition...so, it would've been illegal per state law, yet still perfectly legal per federal law.

> > >

> > > There’s still “dry” cities and counties that outlaw the sell of alcohol.

> >

> > Very true but those places are like relics. Old and useless. Those towns won't sell you a beer but they will prescribe the crap out of Oxy haha. The irony is mind blowing.

>

> Pretty ignorant and baseless comment considering opioids are a problem EVERYWHERE.

 

How is it ignorant to point out the glaring hypocrisy of the fact that we have towns in this country that are allowing the sale of Oxy in pharmacies but not permitting the sale of a bottle of wine? Same goes for Cannabis. It's somehow ok with people that doctors are prescribing over the counter heroin but Cannabis is illegal to sell in most states for medical use. Its mind-blowingly moronic.

[rogolf]

> @J13 said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @J13 said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @HappyGilmoresBoots said:

> > > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > > > @justasgood said:

> > > > > > > If the average number of medical marijuana patients per 1,000 residents in states with legal medical marijuana is extrapolated to all 50 states (population 325,719,178 in 2017, according to the US Census Bureau), then the total number of medical marijuana users as of May 16, 2018 would theoretically be 3,514,510 [10.79/1,000 x 325,719,178 = 3,514,510].

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are missing my point. Federal law trumps state law. While something may be allowed under state law, it is still illegal under federal law. If a DEA Special Agent were to talk up to someone in Denver who is smoking pot, the civilian's possession of a legal document issued by the State of Colorado would be of no consequence to the DEA Special Agent and would not act as a shield for a violation of federal law. The fact that states are openly passing laws and regulations that are in direct contravention of federal law does not mean those laws and regulations are legal under federal law.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm genuinely curious, and this may need to be taken to PM, but do you know how this sort of thing worked 100 years ago during alcohol prohibition? States (including Michigan) banned the production and sale of alcohol years before federal Probition...so, it would've been illegal per state law, yet still perfectly legal per federal law.

> > > >

> > > > There’s still “dry” cities and counties that outlaw the sell of alcohol.

> > >

> > > Very true but those places are like relics. Old and useless. Those towns won't sell you a beer but they will prescribe the crap out of Oxy haha. The irony is mind blowing.

> >

> > Pretty ignorant and baseless comment considering opioids are a problem EVERYWHERE.

>

> How is it ignorant to point out the glaring hypocrisy of the fact that we have towns in this country that are allowing the sale of Oxy in pharmacies but not permitting the sale of a bottle of wine? Same goes for Cannabis. It's somehow ok with people that doctors are prescribing over the counter heroin but Cannabis is illegal to sell in most states for medical use. Its mind-blowingly moronic.

 

This is definitely OFF-TOPIC!