ATF says medical marijuana users can't buy guns of any kind

[SHNOMIDO]

Im pro legalization, but i dont think medical marijuana users should be treated any differently from "street" marijuana users until the whole shebang from top to bottom is decriminalized.

Its better for a medical marijuana user to say, OK, i know, i cant carry or own firearms, than for him to get arrested and say "but but but...i have a prescription!"

just my opinion. I also agree on the prescription pills comment. I know a handful of people that are pretty whacked out on legal, prescribed for illness pills. I wouldnt go shooting with them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

BTW, this topic was extensively discussed here and here.

I wonder, does it make any difference if the people get their pot directly from the federal government? Not like this would be the only example of the feds violating their own laws or anything.

http://news.yahoo.com/4-americans-pot-us-government-070245907.html
Only four patients still qualify for the program.

Those four people are the only ones left in a long closed formal clinical trial. And they are now the only lawful users of marijuana.

Federal law allows for limited, lawful prescribing of drugs that can't otherwise be lawfully prescribed. It must be done under a formal research protocol and subject to oversight by an Institutional Review Board, as part of the clinical trial and investigation of new and novel drugs and therapies.

That what was done with marijuana in this case, and it's done all the time with other drugs. Are you suggesting that the government doesn't have a sufficient interest in the testing of new drugs to provide for a legal means for such drugs, which could not otherwise be lawfully distributed, to be used for investigational purposes?

...So in your universe when the opinions of the courts compleatly trump the second amendment to the constitution that will be OK because that is what will be happening in practice in the real world?

Is it OK that much of what the fourth amendment originally encompassed has been slowly eroded but most do not even know it because it started many years ago and slowly became the norm for what now happens, in practice, in the real world?

First, understand that your opinion about these things is just your opinion. Everyone might not agree with you about what is right and what is wrong. If there's a disagreement about the way a law should be applied, the matter is resolved in court. That's what courts are for and what they do.

Second, it is a fact that in the real world your conduct will subject to the laws as applied by courts. You may think they are wrong, and you may object; but at the end of the day you will bump up against reality.

Third, if you don't like the way things are, our system includes means of changing things. Legislatures can change the law, and court decisions can be challenged. But there's no guarantee that your view of the way the world ought to be will hold sway.

Fourth, if you think you will want to change things, you will first need to clearly understand the way things are, how and why they got to be that way, the mechanisms available to try to make changes and how to effectively use those mechanisms. You need to understand the real world.

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?

And if you have a script for the weed then the answer to the above quote is NO...

But that would be the wrong answer, unless you are one for the last four lawful users under the now closed clinical trial. Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is a Schedule I drug and may not, under federal law, be lawfully prescribed, so no one, except one of those four people can be a lawful user under federal law.

 

[BGutzman]

legal to deny someone with a lawful prescription of cannabis to purchase a weapon for self-defense

The research from the most apolitical labs indicates it has no medical revelance, it seems only labs with a certain leaning have found other evidence.

It is illegal, being popular doesnt change the facts..

 

[jibberjabber]

don't bogart those rounds

I don't want to see anyone mix firearms with something which may lead to a non-sober state. Accuracy may suffer as a result.

 

[Chaz88]

First, understand that your opinion about these things is just your opinion. Everyone might not agree with you about what is right and what is wrong. If there's a disagreement about the way a law should be applied, the matter is resolved in court. That's what courts are for and what they do.

Second, it is a fact that in the real world your conduct will subject to the laws as applied by courts. You may think they are wrong, and you may object; but at the end of the day you will bump up against reality.

Third, if you don't like the way things are, our system includes means of changing things. Legislatures can change the law, and court decisions can be challenged. But there's no guarantee that your view of the way the world ought to be will hold sway.

Fourth, if you think you will want to change things, you will first need to clearly understand the way things are, how and why they got to be that way, the mechanisms available to try to make changes and how to effectively use those mechanisms. You need to understand the real world.

I apologize I just noticed you have a larger post count than me. You win!

 

[orangello]

I would agree with the comparison between the status of marijuana users and those who are prescribed an interesting array of mind-altering "medications" in pill form. There were some very medicated persons at my last job who were probably not any more competent to safely handle a firearm than either Cheech or Chong's stereotypical characters would be. It would be nice if the laws could match reality or "common sense", but i doubt that will ever happen.

Federal law allows for limited, lawful prescribing of drugs that can't otherwise be lawfully prescribed. It must be done under a formal research protocol and subject to oversight by an Institutional Review Board, as part of the clinical trial and investigation of new and novel drugs and therapies.

LOL, I am reminded of "do as we say do, not as we do" here, the role of government.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I would agree with the comparison between the status of marijuana users and those who are prescribed an interesting array of mind-altering "medications" in pill form. There were some very medicated persons at my last job who were probably not any more competent to safely handle a firearm than either Cheech or Chong's stereotypical characters would be. It would be nice if the laws could match reality or "common sense", but i doubt that will ever happen.

There are multiple issues here that consistently get garbled.

[1] Should marijuana be legalized in some way or another? And of course a subset of that question is whether it should at least be legal for a physician to prescribe it. I may (and do) think it should be legal, but there are also people who think it shouldn't be. In fact there are still folks who think alcoholic beverages should not be legal.

But the current state of affairs is that it is not legal under federal law. There are ways to change that, but for now the law is what it is.

[2] Then there's the question of federal law preempting state law. It creates a lot of confusion and consternation. One may be kosher under state law using marijuana under a state medical marijuana program but still be violating federal law and be a prohibited person who may not then lawfully, under federal law, possess a gun.

It's highly unlikely that the judicial rulings that form the foundation of that state of affairs will be reversed. However, it would be a simple matter for Congress to make the issue go away with a couple minor tweaks to the Controlled Substances Act and the GCA of 1968. Whether such changes would be politically viable is another matter.

[3] Of course an all out Second Amendment challenge to the 18 USC 922(g), the list of "prohibited persons" could, if successful, resolve the gun possession side of he equation, but it wouldn't resolve the marijuana use issues.

[4] Then of course there is the issue of an impaired person handling a gun. But that is really the same issue whether the impairment is caused by marijuana, some other drug (legal or illegal), alcohol or just plain old stupidity. And it's a similar issue whether it involves guns, cars, power tools or anything else that can hurt anyone.

 

[orangello]

On 1, I do think the time has come for a change in the law/perception that the government should have such control over a citizen's intake & output (next they will be complaining about the color of my poop).

On 2 and 3, I think the best resolution for that problem would be a MASSIVE reduction of the size and power of the federal government in all areas other than defense. Of course, step-by-step reductions in federal over-reach such as an elimination or MAJOR retooling of the GCA of 1968 and the Controlled Substances Act would be an excellent start. If a citizen is free to choose his/her own food & "supplements" AND is allowed the freedom of self-defense currently limited by the GCA of '68, the chafing of other federal restrictions might be less of an annoyance.

On 4, there can be no arguement that an impaired person shouldn't be using dangerous tools or heavy equipment. The question of the definition of "impaired" is the only sticking point; some would consider any detectable trace of an intoxicant to show "impairment". Current "impairment" measurements for alcohol and driving would indicate that the majority opinion doesn't support a zero detectable trace-tolerance policy.

Overall, the right to self-defense and the right to control one's own body are both freedoms that should be protected from further government infringement by any means available, IMO.

Of course, laws such as these did not come about in a vacuum. It could be argued that they came about due to citizens' failures to limit themselves safely or to exercise "good judgement", but i'm not sure the twisted history of the GCA or CSA support that theory of their origin.

 

[ltc444]

For what it is worth I have no problem with prohibiting MJ users from purchasing firearms.

As an Army Officer who began his career in 1973 I know first hand the problems MJ and other drug use caused in the Army. I know what it took to clean it up and mold the Professional force we have today.

I suggest reading the Phoenix Solution. It is a book which had a profound impact on my antidrug Zero Tolerance stance.

 

[pnac]

So, according to ATF, allowing medical marijuana users to buy firearms BAD.

Furnishing drug cartels with firearms GOOD.


Nothing like being consistent.

As an Army Officer who began his career in 1973 I know first hand the problems MJ and other drug use caused in the Army. I know what it took to clean it up and mold the Professional force we have today.

Things have changed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNqIrDKnNE8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChIF6yvTL6k&feature=related

 

[Chaz88]

As an Army Officer who began his career in 1973 I know first hand the problems MJ and other drug use caused in the Army. I know what it took to clean it up and mold the Professional force we have today.

I remember when the Navy started moving to a zero tolerance policy. It had its good and bad points. On the plus side there is no room for impairment on a flight deck or around aircraft operations in general, weather the substance is legal or not. The flight deck and planes are already trying to kill you as it is. On the negative side we lost some of our best people because of what they did on their own time, they were never impaired at work. On the plus side we got rid of some people that were impaired on the job and basically just useless POS'S.

 

[csmsss]

I know it's very popular and very simple to equate alcoholic beverage consumption and the use of marijuana, however, I don't see them as analagous at all. The ONLY reason anyone smokes/eats/whatever marijuana is for the mind-altering effect. This is not the case with alcoholic beverages, necessarily. Many people enjoy fine spirits, wine and beer for the taste, not to get stoned or high. So all of the inevitable comparisons between legal alcohol use and illegal marijuana use that don't allow for this very real fact are, inherently, flawed.

 

[Chaz88]

I know it's very popular and very simple to equate alcoholic beverage consumption and the use of marijuana, however, I don't see them as analagous at all. The ONLY reason anyone smokes/eats/whatever marijuana is for the mind-altering effect. This is not the case with alcoholic beverages, necessarily. Many people enjoy fine spirits, wine and beer for the taste, not to get stoned or high. So all of the inevitable comparisons between legal alcohol use and illegal marijuana use that don't allow for this very real fact are, inherently, flawed.

That is slicing the bread very thin. Put aside the legalities and cultural acceptance for a second. Alcohol is a drug by nearly every accepted definition of what a drug is. If it did not have such a long history of use in our culture it would be a schedule one drug.

 

[dogtown tom]

pnac So, according to ATF, allowing medical marijuana users to buy firearms BAD.

Furnishing drug cartels with firearms GOOD.

ATF didn't pass a law making marijuana a controlled substance....Congress did.

ATF deserves to get blamed for the stupid stuff they do. In this case the blame or credit goes to the Congressmen you elected.

 

[Chris_B]

I know it's very popular and very simple to equate alcoholic beverage consumption and the use of marijuana, however, I don't see them as analagous at all. The ONLY reason anyone smokes/eats/whatever marijuana is for the mind-altering effect. This is not the case with alcoholic beverages, necessarily. Many people enjoy fine spirits, wine and beer for the taste, not to get stoned or high. So all of the inevitable comparisons between legal alcohol use and illegal marijuana use that don't allow for this very real fact are, inherently, flawed.

That is slicing the bread very thin. Put aside the legalities and cultural acceptance for a second. Alcohol is a drug by nearly every accepted definition of what a drug is. If it did not have such a long history of use in our culture it would be a schedule one drug.

Well, hang on a second. I enjoy a glass of scotch

If I have a steak dinner, I drink only scotch with my meal. Has nothing to do with the effects of alcohol making me drunk or giving me a buzz. Has everything to do with the fact that my palate is 'opened' by the scotch and the meat tastes better to me as a result. The point is valid, even if it's a small one. Meals are often times prepared with a wine, or even another spirit. Menus can be arranged around which spirit goes with what dish. Alcoholic beverages actually have slight- but measurably detected by studies- health benefits

By contrast, pot doesn't go with a meal, does it? I haven't heard of any gourmands starting the custom of cannabis braziers in private restaurants. Inhalation of a substance for an altered perception is a step removed- a baby step if you like but still a step- from the act of drinking a liquid, and the custom of drinking alcohol sprung up among other things because water was unsafe to drink. Nobody breathed pot because they couldn't breathe the air. Drinking alcohol and smoking dope are in two separate orbits, even if they can be argued to be similar ones.

The ATF should no more be permissive against 'legal' pot smokers than they should about a potential gun owner that has a doctor's note which says the person must regularly engage in some other "medicine" which can lower the ability to reason well.

 

[Edward429451]

This is not the case with alcoholic beverages, necessarily. Many people enjoy fine spirits, wine and beer for the taste, not to get stoned or high.

Uh, no. Whether you realize it or not, your body wants to 'get high'. If you have ever been inebriated, your brain will remember and ask for more. Saying I just like the taste is denial. Perhaps you don't care to get intoxicated to the same degree as others, but now were just talking detail, semantics if you will.

That sense of well being that you feel after a glass of wine is not some wine tasters feel good that comes from the taste, it's called intoxication. You don't have to be drunk or tipsy, it's just low level inebriation.

Call me a liar and have another lump of sugar in your coffee, it's not a drug either, or the coffee.

 

[Carry_24/7]

Pnac; great point! (ATF, Congress, who cares....it was somebody in DC)

But now back to the real world...

 

[Al Norris]

Of course, the real point (two points, actually) is that 1) until and unless the Congress removes pot as a schedule I drug, or 2) Until the SCOTUS overturns Raich and narrows the scope of the Commerce Clause, the ATF, in this case, is acting wholly within the law.

 

[Roger Ronas]

Government claims no medicinal value in Marijuana, yet they have held a patent on the medical BENEFITS of marijuana on Neurological symptoms. They just haven't figured a way to rape the public if it gets legalize or it already would be. Colorado here is collecting tax and fees to the tune of multi millions from patients and stores that sell it. The state even stole 9 million from the patient fund to help balance the budget, against the state constitution.
Marijuana is SAFER then aspirin, alcohol and any Rx drugs. PERIOD. No deaths caused by marijuana, can't say that about the other legal drugs.

Rant over,

Roger

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While wine and beer can taste good, please compare the sales of nonalcoholic versions of such vs. the standards.

The legal question about alcohol vs. marijuana is clearly that one has a federal law against such and the other does not in the same way.

One wonders if prohibition had stayed in forced, in that alternate universe, would we be debating those who had an Rx for alcohol (which did exist then) could have a gun.