I saw this in the newspaper, but forgot to set aside the article, so a webpage article will have to do:
Senate Doubles Pot Brownies Penalty: Tougher sentence for Marijuana Food Products!
Quoting the piece: "The Senate has doubled down on pot brownie penalties! Dianne Feinstein’s “Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2009″ targets pot brownies and its no joke. The Senate approved the pot brownie act and is on board with the effort. ...
Here is a summary of the act:
'Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2009 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act to make it unlawful for any adult (at least 18 years of age) to knowingly and intentionally manufacture, create, distribute, or dispense, or to possess with such intent, a Schedule I or II controlled substance that is: (1) combined with a candy product; (2) marketed or packaged to appear similar to a candy product; or (3) modified by flavoring or coloring with the intent to distribute, dispense, or sell it to a person under 21 years of age.
Imposes enhanced criminal penalties for violations. Exempts any controlled substance that has been approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the drug approval process or that has been altered at the direction of a medical practitioner for a legitimate medical purpose.'
Perhaps these fines will deter the making of marijuana food products. Realistically though, that's probably not going to happen."
Proposed 2009, passed by the Senate in 2010 by unanimous consent: read here. Can be found on Congress' homepage here, which I mention with the warning that links to "thomas" tend to rot very quickly.
Heads up: the Pot Brownie Act of 2010
-
Here and there
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:30 pm
- Location: Nowhere I want to be
- Contact:
-
Here and there
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:30 pm
- Location: Nowhere I want to be
- Contact:
Good to know that Congress has something to do with its time. This law will probably affect a few of the people on this board, who I hope will be smart enough to not identify themselves in a public forum. The motivation behind the passage of the bill seems obvious enough: desperation. By now, somebody has figured out that the decades long "war on drugs" is being lost, and still hopes to win it. This won't happen, but a lot of people will have their lives damaged by the refusal of some in government to accept this. Try not to be one of them.
If one burns marijuana, smoke is released, the smoke will have a distinctive chemical composition, so a sampling of the air might reveal the nearby presence of burning stash to law enforcement. Candy, once it is made, will encase the molecules that would otherwise break free and drift into the surrounding air, making detection far harder, especially if the people passing out the contraband should coat the candy with a layer of something not doped in the controlled substance, meaning that the controlled substance will barely be present on the surface of the candy at all, and its molecules will have a far harder time finding their way out of it. Law enforcement is wise to that trick, I'm guessing, and has prevailed on congress to deter the use of it through an increase in the criminal penalties for possession.
Obvious question: do brownies count as candy? Answer: look up the phrase "creative prosecution". Until this gets tested out in court, nobody knows, which is a lousy way for a criminal justice system to work. One might well wonder what has happened to the ex post facto rule, and I'm told that many lawyers do. That, and the fourth amendment (search and seizure). So, be careful, very careful.
Obviously, I can't suggest to anybody that he commit an illegal act in a better way, because that could be seen as conspiracy, I understand. What I can say is that if you insist on handling controlled substances - and I hope you won't - that you'll not make matters worse for yourself by adding sugar or other sweeters to what you make. Making savory baked goods using such ingredients is still a very, very bad idea, something that you can get caught doing, and you can spend serious time for having done. It's just not as bad an idea as making sweets using them.
If one burns marijuana, smoke is released, the smoke will have a distinctive chemical composition, so a sampling of the air might reveal the nearby presence of burning stash to law enforcement. Candy, once it is made, will encase the molecules that would otherwise break free and drift into the surrounding air, making detection far harder, especially if the people passing out the contraband should coat the candy with a layer of something not doped in the controlled substance, meaning that the controlled substance will barely be present on the surface of the candy at all, and its molecules will have a far harder time finding their way out of it. Law enforcement is wise to that trick, I'm guessing, and has prevailed on congress to deter the use of it through an increase in the criminal penalties for possession.
Obvious question: do brownies count as candy? Answer: look up the phrase "creative prosecution". Until this gets tested out in court, nobody knows, which is a lousy way for a criminal justice system to work. One might well wonder what has happened to the ex post facto rule, and I'm told that many lawyers do. That, and the fourth amendment (search and seizure). So, be careful, very careful.
Obviously, I can't suggest to anybody that he commit an illegal act in a better way, because that could be seen as conspiracy, I understand. What I can say is that if you insist on handling controlled substances - and I hope you won't - that you'll not make matters worse for yourself by adding sugar or other sweeters to what you make. Making savory baked goods using such ingredients is still a very, very bad idea, something that you can get caught doing, and you can spend serious time for having done. It's just not as bad an idea as making sweets using them.
