Humanities desk
< December 17	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 18

Does colorado amendment 64 prevent marijuana from being carried out of the state?

[Posted by] Special:Contributions/67.83.184.207|67.83.184.207]] (talk) 7:23 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

I don't think any individual state's laws can have any effect outside of the state. So, while it might be legal to have or use marijuana in Colorado, once you cross a border to, perhaps, Nebraska, then Nebraska's laws, and the federal laws regarding interstate travel and commerce, whatever they are, become the relevant laws. Considering that Colorado is basically a landlocked state, there is really no way for Colorado's laws, which are only relevant to internal matters, would have any effect once one leaves the state or crosses its borders to other states.

Short answer, I would have to say that the amendment wouldn't apply to interstate matters, and the existing federal laws and laws in other states would almost certainly make any attempts to transport marijuana problematic. John Carter (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But does the Colorado Amendment 64 say that marijuana can't be carried out of the state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.184.207 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the amendment is available here. There is nothing specifically addressing taking any marijuana out of state, because a state law, by definition, applies only within the state. However, there is also nothing in the amendment which indicates that the amendment is to apply to transport of marijuana over state lines, which legally indicates that the existing laws of those other states and the US government would apply.

In all honesty, the only circumstances I can see the question, as asked, applying to is whether a person could be arrested in Colorado for the intention of taking marijuana across state lines or for having done so in the past. The answer there would be "no." However, that would apply only to specifically law enforcement agencies whose purview does not cross state lines, and would not apply to law enforcement agencies in other states or federal agencies. :I also note that you are apparently, so far as I can see, more or less requesting legal advice from editors here. It should be noted that we are not in a position to offer such. If you have real, as opposed to strictly theoretical, concerns regarding this particular law, your most reasonable course of action would be to ask a lawyer in Colorado familiar with the amendment and its specific legal implications. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no border patrols on the states, so there would be nothing to stop someone from taking some across the line, no matter what the amendment might say. However, if you get caught with it in a state where it's still illegal (which is nearly all of them), you're fair game for arrest in that state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some states do have border inspections - and most assuredly many states inspect vehicles for carrying cigarettes, alcohol, agricultural products etc. (either for tax purposes, or for preventing transportation of illegal agricultural products or pests - note this is also enforced on entry to the US as a rule) So yes - a state can restrict import and export of certain classes of goods - specifically including agricultural products.
This is also established by the 21st Amendment (The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. depending on the definition of "liquors" by a current court). Collect (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are there interstate border inspections on highways? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a map showing where they are in California. Here is an article for such border stations in Florida. Nearly every state has stations on major highways for inspecting commercial vehicles, some called "weigh stations", some called "inspection stations", and probably some other names. --Jayron 32 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes CA probably has the most border inspection points. In my experience, they're the only state that checks regular personal vehicles. When your state grows ~200 different export crops, you tend to be picky about what kinds of plant material (and associated pests and pathogens) you bring in. I recall being questioned mainly about fruits/vegetables and houseplants my last time through... SemanticMantis (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So that's for cars coming in, not leaving, right? In a somewhat less high-profile situation, Wisconsin sells a much wider (and more dangerous) variety of fireworks than Minnesota does, for example. The places that sell them are often near the state borders. Rumor has always been that cops will sometimes station themselves near these places and watch for neighboring states' license plates. Then they will notify their buddies waiting in patrol cars in the bordering state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: yes my experience with CA is that they are more concerned with what comes in than what goes out. There are some examples to the contrary - if you own a plant nursery in CA, you may have to deal with APHIS (or similar federal agency) to export a rhododendron to NC (because it would be horribly tragic if sudden oak death crossed the Rockies.) In that case though, east coast states still have their own procedures for inspection and quarantine of plant material. The fireworks thing is very common - IN has different rules than OH and IL, and they have giant fireworks stores on both borders. Interestingly enough, there was a time in OH when you could buy fireworks only if you signed a statement saying that you were leaving the state with them! SemanticMantis (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong on this, but I thought the California ag stops were voluntary, at least for non-commercial vehicles. Last time I went through one, if I recall correctly, there was a bypass lane where you could just drive on by it if you so chose. Of course they don't go out of their way to tell you it's voluntary, and there's a significant intimidation factor (not to mention that most people probably don't want to be the cause of an agricultural disaster). --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update on this — a web search suggests that you can't just drive around unless they wave you around. The stop is "voluntary" to an extent; your remedy if they want to search your car and you don't want to let them is to drive back out of California (which could be some distance). I have trouble believing this is really constitutional — some of the stories I found are frankly infuriating. See this one for example. --Trovatore (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?? Has any court ruled that "liquors" refers to non-alcoholic products? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the interstate commerce clause reserves to Congress the right to regualte interstate trade--no state has the right per se to prevent you from taking you property from it. The case of alcohol falls outside this by effect of the 21st amendment's second clause: "Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." That means that by Federal law, states may regulate the import of liquor. Pennsylvania does this. While it is not illegal to purchase liquor in NJ and to take it out of state, it is illegal to bring liquor into PA in order to avoid Pennsylvania's liquor taxes. In PA liquor is sold only by "state stores" Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and their prices are usually significantly higher than out-of-state liquor, but sometimes are also at below-market prices (see previous link). My understanding is there are exceptions for things like small amounts for gifts, but that is going by memory of a discussion from 20 years ago. Given it's not specifically relevant to the marijuana question, I won't go hunting for the current law. But Pennsylvania has in the past fined individuals for bringing in liquor. In the case of marijuana, the only deterent to taking it out of state would be getting caught be the feds and the authorities of states where it's still illegal. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any individual state's laws can have any effect outside of the state. This is actually incorrect. There's an entire regime by which conflicts of laws are decided in the United States. Though if you want to talk about criminal law, the territoriality question can be complex. Especially once you start talking about the internet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link conflicts of laws doesn't say anything about the US, the point is valid, so maybe there's a better link? Of course the Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Jurisdiction Supreme Court has jurisdiction in suits between one state and another or the citizen of another. But the commerce clause is usually determinative, except where the 21st Amendment contradicts it. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a report that some of Colorado's bordering states are filing suit in the federal court system, about Colorado's legalization of weed in their state. Presumably, at least in part, due to the extra burden this places on those bordering states, to try to keep it out of their states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust:

Hi, I have three questions relating to the Holocaust.

Regarding the expropriation of Jewish assets and their redistriution to German people, is there any information regarding the effect this had on the german economy? For instance, many businesses had been in Jewish hands for generations and were successful, did the new owners have the same degree of business acumen?
Is there any evidence of Synagogues and other Jewish institutions destroying registers of their congregations, so that Jewish people could not be easily identified? (This question relates more to occupied territories during the war, as I appreciate in Germany many Jewish communities wanted to see how the situation developed, as opposed to doing anything drastic).
If there is evidence of this, how then did the Nazi intelligence services identify people who met their racial criteria?

Thanks in advance --Andrew 18:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of your last two questions are addressed in this previous thread from March 2011. Alansplodge (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first question, I spent a bit of time searching and couldn't find a study addressing the impact of expropriation on the German economy. It seems likely that a forced restructuring of Jewish-owned businesses would have hurt the bottom line, but it would be difficult to isolate the negative impact of expropriation on economic growth, since the German economy was experiencing a number of countervailing positive impacts at that time, such as recovery from economic depression and the stimulus resulting from rearmament and creation of a wartime command economy. Regarding the last two questions, besides the responses to the thread that Alansplodge linked, you might take a look at our article Kennkarte. Everyone in German-occupied countries was obliged to obtain a personal identity card and to show it whenever authorities demanded. When registering for an identity card, people had to produce identification documents such as birth certificate and marriage licenses. Christian birth and baptismal certificates were generally issued in Poland, for example, by parish priests, as were marriage certificates, so Jewish documents would have been distinctive. Also, Jewish surnames were often distinctive. That said, our article on Kennkarten indicates that some Jews managed to survive the war by obtaining false documents "proving" that they were Christians. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish/Russian border map question

I was idling away on Google Maps and came across this island which appears to be divided between Finland and Russia. However, it looks like separate islands on Bing Maps.

I've searched for Vanhasaari, the Finnish name on Google Maps, but can't find any mention of a divided island. The ice coverage on the Bing image could conceal that it's one island, but does that mean that Google is showing the border incorrectly? Any insights would be much appreciated. Dalliance (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you change the satellite view to the regular view in the first link you provided, it shows that they are two different islands. This source also shows two islands. Th4n3r (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the satellite view pretty clearly shows something connecting the two treed areas. The obvious guess is that there is an isthmus connecting the two islands and creating a land border, but only at low tide. Maps don't generally show that sort of thing, and different satellite photos may have been taken at different states of the tide. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Russian island in the Russian wikipedia says that is "connected by a shoal/sandbank" (соединён отмелью) with the Finnish island.--Cam (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no tide in Baltic sea, and this region of the world still constantly gains a lot of land over sea, since the heavy load of ice from ice ages is gone (example the castle of Turku not long ago was still an island, example the city of Vaasa was on the seaside now it's 6 km away from the sea, etc). Anyway, this kind of landscape in this area of the world, typically works the same way it would work if this was one big island. Especially in winter when everything is covered with ice so you can walk through the sea from island to island. Akseli9 (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the principle of Occam's razor. The map mentioned above is a Land Survey.[1]. So not showing the orthometric height of the sea (and water bulges at the equator on the geoid sphere and lower at the poles). The Google and bing images both clearly show land and shore line (one under a cover of snow) Therefore, there is a permanent land bridge as shown in the two images.--Aspro (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds of me of this website, where this woman will go anywhere in Europe to investigate any questions you have from Google Maps. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]