Originally Posted by
TXagogo
Thank you sir - but if I may, just one more question and an anecdote which causes me some concern. If this is not the right venue for this question I totally understand and we could converse via message.
Question - Considering what you wrote above, how is it possible for the federal government to turn a blind eye to a state's law that violates a federal law? It would seem that this act would, by default, be a violation of the Constitution. If one state can make a law like this about weed, then why can't another state make up their own law about something else?
Anecdote - I know someone who is a federal LEO. This person told me that despite the medical MJ licenses issued by California, they arrested holders of this card who were caught in possession of MJ IN California. How could that be? It would seem that we have a huge discrepancy here.
Re Question - Two words: prosecutorial discretion.
Re Anecdote - Two words: prosecutorial discretion. The Department of Justice and individual United States Attorneys have very wide latitude in deciding whether to prosecute an arguable violation of United States Code. When I was an assistant prosecutor at the state level, law enforcement officers would occasionally apply for warrants on arrests that the U.S. Attorney's office declined to prosecute.
My gut instinct is that TSA would moan and groan over this proposed Colorado statute that would require full disclosure. A proposed statute or ordinance in the vicinity of New York City (I do not recall whether it is a New Jersey bill or a New York City proposal) seeks to prohibit use of NoS. Again I predict that TSA would seek to nullify any such proposal enacted into law. How dare the serfs question the omniscient TSA which keeps us safe from the hordes of evil terrorists in our country!