pro climber marijuana survey

Craig Childre wrote: I am often wrong, but I believe you are mistaken here. Knowing The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers. As for Marijuana. The Feds have never passed any law declaring it illegal. Instead they established the FDA and deemed that all substances would be classified under that administration. FDA then classified MJ as having no practical medical application and banned its sale, along with a long list of others. Feds can come in and try to break it up... but these states will not lay down. Too much money in taxes coming in. I predict massive legal battle to reach the Supreme Court. Which I have zero confidence in when I consider some of their recent rulings.

You are definitely wrong this time.

The Controlled Substance Act directs the FDA to create schedules of compounds subject to the act. The fact that the FDA, an agency of the federal government, defines precisely what is illegal doesn't mean there isn't a law.

And the Supreme Court ruled in 2005, in Gonzales v. Raich, that the federal government could regulate (including prohibiting) marijuana, even in a state that had legalized it. The Colorado Supreme Court has also recognized that marijuana use is illegal under federal law, even though it is legal for Colorado purposes.

Craig Childre wrote:Smith Rock?

Meh.

I live two hours from Smith and I will only go there once or twice a year, if that. That place is like the Buttermilks during spring break! Don't get me wrong, it is a cool spot but you need to be able to be okay with a gym climbing scene.

Dylan B. wrote:What's even more interesting, however, is the intersection of the marijuana federalism issue with the Fourth Amendment. As most of you probably know, the Fourth Amendment prevents law enforcement from conducting searches or seizures of yourself, your effects, without a warrant sworn on probable cause. There are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement, including an officer's observation of probable cause that a crime is being committed. Well, for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and officer that observes you with marijuana has probable cause that you are committing a federal crime. It would be constitutional under the Fourth Amendment for the Colorado officer to arrest you and search you, even though Colorado does not criminalize possession of marijuana. That said, Colorado (and the other states), may have stripped their law enforcement officers of authority to conduct searches and seizures based on marijuana possession. Just because a search would be constitutional, does not mean a State has to authorize its law enforcement to conduct such a search. I haven't read Colorado's statutes on the matter, so I don't know what they've done in this regard. But it's an interesting conundrum, no?

Seems similar to sanctuary policies. Federal law not enforced by cities or states.

Why go to Smith Rock when you can go to Trout Creek?

OR avoid the gym atmosphere at smith in the lower gorge.

Ashort wrote:Why go to Smith Rock when you can go to Trout Creek? OR avoid the gym atmosphere at smith in the lower gorge.

+1 Trout Creek

Dylan B. wrote:What's even more interesting, however, is the intersection of the marijuana federalism issue with the Fourth Amendment. As most of you probably know, the Fourth Amendment prevents law enforcement from conducting searches or seizures of yourself, your effects, without a warrant sworn on probable cause. There are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement, including an officer's observation of probable cause that a crime is being committed. Well, for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and officer that observes you with marijuana has probable cause that you are committing a federal crime. It would be constitutional under the Fourth Amendment for the Colorado officer to arrest you and search you, even though Colorado does not criminalize possession of marijuana. That said, Colorado (and the other states), may have stripped their law enforcement officers of authority to conduct searches and seizures based on marijuana possession. Just because a search would be constitutional, does not mean a State has to authorize its law enforcement to conduct such a search. I haven't read Colorado's statutes on the matter, so I don't know what they've done in this regard. But it's an interesting conundrum, no?

Where that is really going to play out is if a a drug dog "hits" on your car but has been trained to hit on MJ.
The entire premise and case law on the allowance of dogs not being an invasive search is that illegal drugs have no legit purpose and thusly don;t enjoy protection... so... if indeed the dog might also hit on something that has become legal (IE federal MMJ) then the search may not be allowed based on that anymore, and it can notbe used as a probable cause generator until you have all new dogs...

Hey fat girl:

Smoking weed is my definition of traditional climbing, since every traditional climber 20 years ago smoked weed.

And shiit, Tony finally said something funny: we need new drug dogs.

I actually have a drug dog.

It can smell and find anything; in the perfect environment, without too much stimulation, etc, etc...

It also has missed a fatty spliff of skunk that I dropped on the peak of Maple even after I took him over it four times. Two days later I found it myself, so he is a piece of shit that is prone to mistakes.

I want a new one.

Let me know when they are available, I will take a medium in black.

It's called getting high for a reason.

Dylan B. wrote: I'm not sure I follow your point. But on a related note, there's growing body of evidence that drug-sniffing dogs are bullshit. washingtonpost.com/news/the… Dogs are given an incentive to make a positive response, even if it's a false positive. So naturally, there are lots of false positives, undermining claims that the dog supports probable cause. Not only that, but the dogs are racist--with more false positives for latinos than for any other racial group. npr.org/sections/thetwo-way…

The point is that the entire jurisprudence on drung-dog sniffs will no longer enjoy exclusion from constitutional limits if MMJ is federally legalized.
The cops will, in time, train their dogs to look for other stuff and NOT MJ, but meanwhile, we might see some nice over-turns in court and some people passing by mindig their own business whilte the cops try to react...

If you want to understand more about this, read the court decision as written for Illinois v. Caballes, and about the court's doctrine of the privacy interests of contraband. It will get easier to understand.

J Q wrote: Tony finally said something funny: we need new drug dogs.

Some things never change.
Like JQ misunderstanding the point entirely and attempting to flip a message on it's head.
What we need is a total end to the drug war.
But until certain dip-shits stop making drug users look bad, it isn't going to stop.
You gettin' me JQ? You are hurting the cause.

Tim Lutz wrote:all this legal stuff interesting, but I again i ask: Why are climbing companies scared? Liability, the Feds? Many are based in Europe anyway. I would love to see a comapny 'come out of the closet' and state they support their athletes that use MJ (in states where it is legal, of course). They can even cover their butts by stating it is for medical use, after climbing, recovery, etc.

Probably afraid of image problems and boycots... but perhaps they should speak for temselves.
A few companies/figureheads are starting to grow up and show some courage:
huffingtonpost.com/entry/me…

I think that's the kind of spokesman that can make a positive impact. I don't care so much for Obama overall, but I'm glad he stepped up and said he did it. I don't like his flippant responses on the topic of legalization, however. It's not a joke, and people shouldn't be laughing about it. It is a serious matter long due for reform and probably the #1 problem (and likely the roots of #2,3,and 4) in our legal system.

Dylan B wrote: Well, right. I guess that's self-evident. If marijuana was fully legalized, then evidence of marijuana possession in the form of a drug dog sniff (or in any other form) would no longer be probable cause for a search or arrest.

Actually not totally self-evidenant, and much more nuances that you seem to be getting. If does not have to be "fully legalized" - partially legalized, as in MMJ, would to the trick. If there is a legit use for it, legally, then it isn't really contraband.

The articulated suspicion thing for a only works to call a dog specifically because of the contraband doctrine (SCOTUS) which would fall apart if there was a single legit use for it.

So if it becomes a medicine, then the presence of it in and of itself enjoys a constitutional protection of privacy, as detection of it is not necessarily detection of a crime, but perhaps detection of a medical condition that does enjoy a constitutional expectation of privacy. THe sniff of a dog becomes "invasive" at that moment.
All the sudden the dogs can't be used anymore.
And until they can differentiate Aderol from amphetamines, pain killers from heroin, etc - again, then the whole thing falls apart.
I am totally waiting for this.
And so are the cops. That's why they do NOT want legal MMJ. I personally don't care what they want. The drug war should have never been started. I think Leary and crew were responsible in part for it (A' La Hunter S. Thompson at the end of Fear and Loathing in L.V.), but it still never should have happened.

"What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create... a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody... or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel."

ConnerM555 wrote:It's called getting high for a reason.

HURRRRRRR!!!!

Back to the mountaineering/athletes usage of Marijuana...

I recall rock climbing history being sprinkled with examples of weed being around. Look up many Alpinist magazines, read any number of books, or just watch this Rab video at 1:53 and see what climbers do on belay ledges...(and no, that's not a piton he's getting ready to pass)

vimeo.com/118686290

j-dub wrote:Back to the mountaineering/athletes usage of Marijuana... I recall rock climbing history being sprinkled with examples of weed being around. Look up many Alpinist magazines, read any number of books, or just watch this Rab video at 1:53 and see what climbers do on belay ledges...(and no, that's not a piton he's getting ready to pass)

I can't see him getting ready to pass anything! I watched it full screen and still didn't see it, If you can tell that's not a piton in his hand, my hat is off to your telescopic vision.

FrankPS wrote: I can't see him getting ready to pass anything! I watched it full screen and still didn't see it, If you can tell that's not a piton in his hand, my hat is off to your telescopic vision.

Don't know what to tell you.
The scene:

cold ledge.
2 dudes hunkered down.
smoking blowing out one dudes mouth.

And you think he just happens to have a piton in his hand and decides to hold it or potentially pass it? lol, ok. It's a piton, sure...

Dylan B wrote:Ah, I see what you're getting at now. You're right that "full legalization" is not a prerequisite, only that some lawful possession exists. However, for now, it remains unlawful for anyone to possess marijuana in any quantity. Once that is no longer the case, and it is lawful for some people to possess it, then the presence of marijuana is no longer probable cause that a crime is being committed, even if it remains unlawful for some people. I would point out, however, that for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, even possession of lawful items, in conjunction with suspicious circumstances, can be probable cause. For example, crimes such as "possession of burglarious tools," or "attempted burglary," can be evidenced by possession of bolt cutters, at night, near a locked gate. Even though none of these specific pieces of evidence are per se criminal, taken together they may constitute probable cause. The same could be true for possession of marijuana in a "medical only" regime. Say, for example, a positive dog sniff along with visible scales and baggies--that could be probable cause of unlicensed sales, justifying a search and/or arrest.

Now we are talking - you've got it, or at least the first pretense.
The second one is that one does not need PC to walk the dog, and so if you can't walk the dog, which was the PC generator, then more people get to mind their own business and a part of the modern drug war dies, or at least goes into remission.

The dog has been the PC generator - if MMJ happens, the case law that allows it is dead. While "a positive dog sniff along with visible scales and baggies" could be PC, yes, but so could just visible scales and baggies since you can't just walk the dog... which they do WITHOUT PC already when they want to get PC. Then they trigger or incentivize a hit to get it.

Lots of interesting studies on this show that when a cop is walking the dog, even unintentional cues tell the dog when to hit. IE: in controlled studies when the handler is told who had the stuff (but doesn't) the dog hits on that bag/car/person more than on the (also) clean control group. And in that case, for the study, the cop was not trying to get the dog to hit intentionally... he thought the dog would find it since he thought it was indeed there... but it wasn't. (Repeat for many handlers/dogs).

Mike Brady wrote: Meh. I live two hours from Smith and I will only go there once or twice a year, if that. That place is like the Buttermilks during spring break! Don't get me wrong, it is a cool spot but you need to be able to be okay with a gym climbing scene.

So True it was the cradle of sport climbing way back but now it is the poster child of the outdoor indoor gym.

Mike, I knew you were spot on
and hope I did not piss you off
Seems I'm in rare form today
No tubers for three days ,
#jonsin' #scrapedtheglass

Mike Brady wrote: That place is like the Buttermilks during spring break! Don't get me wrong, it is a cool spot but you need to be able to be okay with a gym climbing scene.

This is the most accurate description of Smith I've ever heard. You're right though, I live in PDX and rarely make it to Smith and only go during the week to avoid the crowds. WA is certainly where the best climbing in the NW is.

Funny topic.

Just watch any old bouldering video with Chris Sharma and it's clear he's baked off his ass.