There’s so much you don’t understand about law and reality it’s incredible. |
Who cares? Are you really that sheltered that you don’t understand that most people do not work for the Feds? |
|
Ok. Please explain to me what I don’t understand. |
I’ll be charged with prior possession of one gram of cannabis with no evidence other than the word of someone else? You think this is the kind of stuff that federal drug officers will ever be spending their time on? |
|
I like that states are thumbing their noses at the federal govt when it comes to stuff like weed legalization and sanctuary city polices.
Refusing to cooperate with the feds on matters like this sets a fantastic precedent for other states to reject any future federal gun laws and bans. The funny part is how the very same people who are applauding Colorado and California for legalizing weed and refusing to cooperate with ICE are also the very same people screeching about Missouri and other states refusing to abide by any future federal gun bans. Thanks for the precedents!!!! Love ya! |
You told me that there was something that I did not understand about the law. But you have not actually said anything that would enlighten me about my lack of knowledge. The point I made in reference to your friends and your response underscores that you don’t understand how federal security clearance investigations work. Regardless of whether or not your legal liability will be realized, this conduct may have future ramifications related to employment and ability to obtain public benefits. It is behavior indicative of someone that should not receive a position or benefit related to public trust. While it may not be a significant cost-benefit in terms of investigatory resources to go after customers of these businesses. It is not impossible, particularly where there may be records of transactions that could corroborate eye witness testimony, accompanied by cell phone locational data. But beyond that, you have a lot of confidence in the idea that if you were ever criminally charged with limited circumstantial evidence that somehow you would prevail. It’s quite naive. |
Around the DMV, a lot of people work for the feds. And there are also a lot of private contractors whose employees need to hold security clearances. And even if you don’t work for the feds or a contractor now, you may want to do so in the future. |
Again, most people do not work for the Feds. Or Fed contractors. Your endless harping on clearances is so bizarre. Get out of your gov bubble. |
Still mad that people who use weed can be more productive members of society than you? |
It’s the contractor jobs that are the real killer. Want to work in IT in the entire region? Better not smoke weed. |
It’s not impossible, but it’s about as unlikely as can be. It’s just not worth it to law enforcement to go after those who possessed small amounts in the past. Reality. |
|
Subpoenas for cell phone data? For charges of personal use?!
GMAFB |
Nope. Plenty of IT jobs at real tech companies in this area. I know you’re desperate to cling to your clearance, but that s irrelevant to most people in this area. |
Exactly. Mr Clearance joins every thread about marijuana with dire claims of loss employment and a complete lack of understanding of the law. |