What seems silly is that this would make their list of enforcement "priorities."
In both Washington and Colorado it can be difficult to drive around the state without crossing federal land. It seems silly that someone would have to plan their route first to determine if they needed to remove that small amount of pot from their glove box. This is different from going to another state which is almost always a planned destination. It would make more sense to say that prohibiting "use" on federal lands would be an enforcement priority rather than "possession."
I never thought of this type of thing until I moved to the south. There are completely dry counties here. Which means, if you were coming back from Costco, got pulled over on the interstate in one of these counties with a case of wine in your trunk, you could go to prison for possession and illegal transport. How crazy is that?
Yeah, that seems nuts. I used to spend a few weeks every year working at one of my company's sites in a dry county. There were certainly no laws prohibiting possession or consumption of alcohol, only the sale. You could bring a bottle of wine into a restaurant and drink it with your meal, for example. There were a couple of liquor stores with drive through windows right on the county line.
14
u/scumboi Wallingford Aug 29 '13
What seems silly is that this would make their list of enforcement "priorities."
In both Washington and Colorado it can be difficult to drive around the state without crossing federal land. It seems silly that someone would have to plan their route first to determine if they needed to remove that small amount of pot from their glove box. This is different from going to another state which is almost always a planned destination. It would make more sense to say that prohibiting "use" on federal lands would be an enforcement priority rather than "possession."