Legal pot map (courtesy washingtonpost.com)

“Federal law already makes it illegal for someone to possess a gun if he or she is ‘an unlawful user of, or addicted to’ marijuana or other controlled substances,” the AP reports, accurately enough. “A Sept. 21 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, issued in response to numerous inquiries from gun dealers, clarifies that medical marijuana patients are included in that definition. ‘There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law,’ said the letter by Arthur Herbert, the ATF’s assistant director for enforcement programs and services.” Uh-oh . . .

A large number of sheriffs have signed declaration stating that they will not enforce unconstitutional federal gun regulations. A few states have passed so-called “Firearms Freedom” laws, claiming the feds have no jurisdiction over home-grown firearms (e.g. Kansas’ Second Amendment Protection Act).

When the Manchin-Toomey “expanded background checks” bill died on the Senate floor, the possibility of a state vs. federal showdown on guns decreased significantly. By the same token, the odds that a federal court will exempt a state’s firearms from the Interstate Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution are about as high as the odds that Lisa Dergan Podsednik will be my new next door neighbor.

That said, there remains an inherent tension between states’ interpretation of gun rights and those of the federal government. You’d think this conflict would be most volatile in the gun-friendly “free states” and center on issues like “high-capacity magazines,” “assault rifles” and background checks. And you’d be right. But, once again, the inevitable confrontation could be one of those “it’s the bus you don’t see that kills you” deals.

To wit: the ATF’s decision to ban guns for residents with medical marijuana cards. It’s a potential flash point for a surprisingly large number of states. Sixteen in fact. Not to mention all the gun buyers within their boundaries.

Applying the ATF’s decision that a medical marijuana card establishes an addiction to  Form 4473, if a [state] legal pot smokers ticks “yes” on the little box that asks “Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to, marijuana or any other depressant, stimulant or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” they can’t buy a gun. If they tick “no” they’d be lying.

Lying on form 4473 is a federal beef. As in fines, prison and the permanent loss of gun rights. It’s also a federal crime for a drug addict to possess a firearm. Section 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) of the Gun Control Act of 1968 bans firearms possession for anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

Obviously, states that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana use aren’t about arrest registered marijuana smokers for attempting to buy, own or carry a gun. Or are they? Back in 2012, Oregon sheriffs tried to rescind registered marijuana user Cynthia Willis’s concealed carry permit. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Leaving Willis with her guns and millions of Americans with a big problem . . .

It’s one thing for a state to forget to enforce a federal law. It’s another to decide whether or not to surrender the names and addresses of registered marijuana users to the federal government, so the feds can enter the data into the FBI’s instant background check system. Or, indeed, an ATF database.

And if the ATF feels free to categorize registered marijuana users as “addicts” what’s to stop them from labeling the 30 million or so Americans who take antidepressants addicts? Or the 10 million or so who take sleeping pills? The times may not be ripe now, but there’s no getting around the fact that massive civilian disarmament is but an ATF letter away.

This is what happens with all “gun safety” legislation: it gets abused by the people in charge of enforcing it. The camel’s body follows the camel’s nose as surely as bureaucrats seek to extend their power to justify their existence. Quite how this particular issue is going to be resolved is anyone’s guess. But one thing’s for sure: these are not the criminals the ATF is looking for. Assuming they’re looking for criminals at all.

Recommended For You

168 Responses to ATF to Pot Smokers: No Guns for You, Dude

  1. Now what about all the boozers out there. How is that any different? And most would say alcohol can get you more fycked up.

      • Excuse me I should have said anyone with experience in both categories would say.* And I don’t mean first time smokers. I mean a habitual smoker. Like an alcoholic, maybe.

      • Everyone with the appropriate knowledge and no bias would say that. It’s not even remotely close, alcohol is FAR worse. People just let the government brainwash them since the timber industry paid the right people enough money to make it illegal.

        • So on form to buy gun if says illegal drug not a legal perscribed substance so would i be lying if i checked no still guess it depends on the atf agents reading comprehension level

      • Take your chances on how u aprouch the subject its guns wier talking about hier. My example for u would be my spelling, unprofessional right. (ps, i used spell check for imperfeshinal)

    • I gave no problem with banning pot smokers as i suspect the vast majority voted for obama in the first place.

    • Weed smokers are no less or more likely to abuse a fire arm; in fact the studies show people who over indulge in booze are more likely and have been known over the years to get drunk and kill people they feel hurt or pissed them off or did them some wrong and that’s just the fact.

      I am a pot smoker and I like to drink a cold beer; but if I were mentally unstable for whatever cause; it would take neither for me to become a mass murderer; it’s the mental capacity or the lack there of to deal with life’s crap without the need to kill someone. Because you go get drunk don’t mean you will kill someone your pissed at the same goes for pot, pot will never be the reason anyone kills someone else. The reason someone abuses firearms is because they are mentally unstable and lack the abilities to deal with what is without violence. If your violent your violent if your not your not…This law is total BS and just more fucking control of our free choices or what should be our free choices.

  2. This is why gun laws are stupid, people who are deciding to commit crimes don’t do so because of guns, they do so because they are criminals. But all of this stupidity needs enforced on a constant and consistent basis so everyone can see how stupid they really are so they can get off the books for good instead of DA’s using selective prosecution.

    • Don’t realy think we should enforce stupidity….it would certainly deepen the gene pool. Personally think that warning labels should also be removed from all products…this too would help.

  3. While I don’t agree with weed being considered a Schedule I controlled substance,that does not change the facts of matters.And the fact of matters are that weed is still banned in the US.

    So called “Medical Marijuana” cards are just IDs which serve as localized exemptions on enforcement by state and local LEOs.The DEA can ruin a MM cardholders day with Federal charges at will,and that goes for the ATF if they so desire.

    To wit,it would also be a slam dunk case.The Federal prosecutor will have state issued evidence in the form of ID that their defendant is an unlawful user of Marijuana: talk about “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

    • You’re quite wrong. And here’s the defense.

      At the time of purchase, one must answer the following question: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

      The phrase “user of” means what, exactly? If someone has used one of the drugs in the past, but no longer does so, is he a “user” within the meaning of that term as it is used on Form 4473? How long in the past? A month? A week? A day? Hours? When is long enough in the past long enough? Is the signatory’s sincere belief that he is not a user sufficient to defeat a claim of falsification on the form?

      That lack of clarity is exactly what gets a case kicked out before it sees a jury. It’s the same for “addicted to” insofar as it pertains to marijuana — that drug is widely regarded as not being addictive in and of itself. Is someone who uses every day an addict? What if he can quit easily, and often goes weeks without smoking?

      The lack of a temporal referent or limiting factor renders the question vague enough that a “No” answer if you smoked yesterday would be a credible defense. Compare some of the other questions on 4473 — they have temporal referents: “have you ever been convicted of…” or “are you subject to a court order…” The absence of that language with respect to the timing of the act underlying the question (along with the vagueness of “addicted to”) is exactly the sort of issue on which successful defenses are predicated.

      Same thing for the underlying 922(g)(3) violation — having the card and buying marijuana doesn’t invariably demonstrate use or addiction. At most the firearms violation would be a tack on to an underlying federal possession case. Unless, of course, when the door is kicked in you’re caught actively smoking a joint or something.

      I’d be perfectly comfortable making the above arguments on behalf of one of my clients. The 922(g)(3) case is stronger, but it’s not what I’d call a lock for the feds absent seeing actual use.

      • Playing the role of a politically motivated anti gun prosecutor,I’d just as quickly cite current US Federal statute naming Marijuana as a controlled substance .As such ,there is no federally recognized lawful purpose for the drug.Which means a person with a medical marijuana card is a documented lawbreaker-and if they marked “no” on the pertinent question on the Form 4473,they’ve also committed perjury by lying on the form.

        • I don’t mean to be terribly rude, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from your proposition. It does not matter that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. The question is at which point the phrase “user of” is implicated. Unless a prosecutor can establish specific instances of use and demonstrate that the the phrase isn’t so vague that enforcement would be unconstitutional, he’s going to lose the case. And possession of a medical marijuana card does not establish that one is a “user of” marijuana within the meaning of the way the phrase is used because the phrase isn’t defined sufficiently. One can very easily possess a card and not be a “user of” marijuana. I know people who have cards who have never used marijuana, just like I know people who have licenses to carry that have never used them. So, simply having a card doesn’t mean your a user, nor does possession mean you’re lying.

        • You say there are no Federally legally documented purposes for Weed. Than why does the federal government hold so many patents for it’s use for medical purposes.

      • I am quite confident in saying I have gone YEARS without using weed at all. (And without getting laid, but this isn’t the place…)

        Other times, every day, for days at a time. WHEN IT’S AVAILABLE and WORTH THE MONEY. IF I have the money.

        See what I’m saying? It’s like anything else…

        An encouraging note: a Spanish government study revealed last week what many already know from other studies: CANNABIS OIL (a concentrate of THC and analogues derived by evaporating via solvents) CURES CANCER. It’s already proven to SHRINK CANCEROUS TUMORS.

        NO WONDER they want to keep it illegal, HUH? Because there IS no “Cancer cure industry”: there is only a “Cancer TREATMENT industry”!!!

        A CURE would cause BILLIONS in losses…. in the long term, TRILLIONS.

  4. Wasn’t it Joe Stalin who said “what use is an honest man”? It is much easier for the government to manipulate and control people if they can make everyone an “unarrested criminal”.

    • The abundance of law already does that…

      But;
      “For who has ever been sectified by the law? For sanctification can come by only one means…”

    • Yeh, there’s a sort of see-sawing of contraband going on in the U.S. between pot and guns. Pot’s becoming more accepted just as the feds are ramping up fears about guns (& gun owners) . . . Do I sense a prison industry grasp at keeping x amount of products illegal?

  5. I literally don’t give a shit about what the ATF thinks in this regard.

    Pot is now legalized here in Washington state. As far as I’m concerned, my interaction with the ATF is completed once I’ve filled out that 4473 – and during the time that I was filling out the form, I was not “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” marijuana in this state.

    • 4473 is a Federal Form not a state form. From Federal perspective, yes you are an unlawful user of marijuana and you lied if you ticked off the wrong box. If 4473 was a state form, you would be correct.

      Just like the stupid gun laws, it does not matter it is the law. You don’t like the law you say? To bad, go make sure the proper people are voted into office that can change the laws.

      • I seem to recall that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Feds cannot prosecute criminals for lying on the 4473 form, because that would be self-incrimination. Anyone familiar with that?

        • The entire NICS is a violation of the right against self incremination.

          By having to fill out the form the Government is saying you are “guilty” of something, some how, so you can not buy this or that and until we make sure you are indeed “not guilty” of something we need to have you fill out this form and we need to check to make sure of your “statement” of “presumed” innocence.

      • I’m aware of the status of the 4473 as a federal form.

        I didn’t lie on the form if I wasn’t using marijuana at the time of signing it (are you still a “user” if you used it weeks ago? months? years?), nor is it even possible to be addicted to marijuana.

        • Look, I’m not anti-pot; but it is entirely possible to be addicted to marijuana. Just because it does not contain an addictive chemical as certain drugs do; psychosomatic addiction to any upper/downer/depressant/stimulate can be just as powerful as physical addiction.

        • Agreed, except, you can be additcted to marijuana and just about anything else. For example, gambling and video games. In China and Korea there are documented cases of people who have died from playing video games because they have gone days on end playing without sleep, water or food until they literally fell down and died.

          There is a book named The Science of Marijuana (2008). They looked at studies and research over 30 years from several countries including the USA. About 10% of users will form a dependency problem.

          Compared to other substances, marijuana is not very addicting. It is estimated that 32% of tobacco users will become addicted, 23% of heroin users, 17% of cocaine users, and 15% of alcohol users. Cocaine and heroin are more physically harmful and nicotine is much more addictive.

          The study said the occasional joint at a party is not going to matter, just like many social drinkers. But used on a fairly regular basis, about 10% in just about every study showed an additction.

    • i dont give a shit either.

      if i get cancer or some kind of horrible illness, then im NOT forfeiting my rights to protect myself and throw off a tyrannical government because I choose pot as my medicine. THE MOST EFFECTIVE medicine.

      At this point in my life, the stasi can go f^ck themselves.

  6. As weed becomes legalized (and that seems to be the direction we’re going) it needs to be treated like alcohol as far as guns are concerned. Zero tolerance while carrying, but on your own time, an adult can do what they want. Frankly, I feel sure alcohol is a worse problem as addiction goes. But the feds will resist giving up power at every turn.

    • ” Zero tolerance while carrying, but on your own time, an adult can do what they want.”

      This statement is ripe for abuse. Marijuana, or more precisely, the metabolites that are detected in urine tests can remain in your system up to 30 days depending on your metabolism and body fat percentage. 2-10 days in blood and oral swabs. So, to prove that someone is under the influence at the time of the alleged crime is nearly impossible.

      • Right; the effect is gone in a few hours. Evidence of the “crime” can remain for a month.

        What if nitrite traces on your hands (which can also come from paints and solvents, among numerous things) could be used as “proof” of “illegal gun possession”?

        How does THAT grab ya, darlin’?

  7. Now that the chemical & oil companies have made their hundreds of billions since Hemp was made illegal it is time to make it legal again.

    At the turn of the 20th century it was the 3rd largest cash-crop. It has over 30x’s the energy output/acre than corn when converted to a fuel.

    We want energy in the form of a renewable resource the Hemp is the answer. Old crops were in the 5-7% THC content. Now with modern grow techniques THC content can be over 30%. Tetrahydracannibinol is a very clean and energy rich compound. It is also a very odd type of compound that can be used to create special multi-handed compounds, or complex compounds that can appear to be mirror images of each other. These are especially useful in many disciplines of chemistry.

    • Sen. Wyden (D-OR) introduced an amendment to the farm bill that would allow farmers to grow industrial hemp. It has bipartisan sponsorship.

      • Define “Industrial” over “Recreational”, now try & have legal enforcement there-of. Talk about a bill resulting in a potential mountain of red-tape…

        • This distinction is actually very easy–trivially so–to make. Cannabis that has been selectively bred to be resinous, and for which pollination hasn’t been allowed, looks very different from hemp plants.

        • The Resin is where the energy is… so if it were me I would make it as potent as possible in regards to that of the THC content.

          Yes, genetic frustration is the precurser to high levels of THC & if it is to be used for a renewable resource of the best energy input/output ratios, then by all means that is what should be grown.

          You see that is still the issue here. Why would people want to make clothes or rope or parachute material, now that we have no shortages in those areas, when what we need is more in the form of renewable fuel sources.

    • IF the EROEI ratio is adequate enough, you could use hemp oil as a edifice in place of petroleum. 😀

      • Funny how call girls use the same line……………..or not……..

        At least when you get screwed by one, there is a modicum of pleasurable experience involved, while the other one leaves you sore…………

  8. I’ve had this talk with co workers here in California. We worked for a government agency, a school district. Some of my co workers were bragging about and showing off their MM cards. I could not convince them that just because the state ok’s it means the feds will ignore the violation of the law and by getting the MM card they put themselves in a data base of known drug users. Not cool.

    I support making weed legal. I do not use it myself, or tobacco or alcohol. But I told these guys if I did use weed I’d buy from a traditional drug dealer so I could conceal the fact I was using it.

    • +1
      Legalize, regulate and tax. The war on drugs would be won, huge drains on law enforcement would be gone, able to do other things and funding for terrorist and cartels would get tighter and tighter since their cash crop just got put to work giving farmers a job in usa.

        • +1000. You can brew your own BEER, up to certain limits (they’re pretty high!); you can grow your own TOBACCO (same deal; limit’s pretty reasonable.)

          I’ve done both; the tobacco experiment was one summer, and only a couple plants. I had no knowledge of drying and curing, so it was just to do it, see what it was like. Beautiful plant, like weed. (Weed is way more beautiful, though, I HEAR).

          WHY in the WORLD would something that grows by ditches and railroad lines be ILLEGAL, not to mention TAXED? If they taxed RAGWEED, would you seek it out on every corner of your property? Or would you LAUGH, as many people do at pot laws?
          Remember, your beer was illegal once… many times, THE LAW IS AN ASS.

          GOD gave us weed, as MEDICINE. It is just being understood as to how useful it is in treating intractable pain, preventing migraines… the list is almost endless, ALREADY.

      • Which is why there is no moonshine anymore, and illegal trade in cigarettes is nonexistent, and why prostitution in Nevada is confined to brothels?

        Wait, you say, there is still illegal activity? Well dang

        I am in favor of decriminalization of marijuana, but to think even legalizing it would be a cure all, or anywhere close, to the illegal drug trade is, well, naive.

        • It’s still illegal to make hard liquor without federal approval. Cigarettes are heavily and disparately taxed. Prostitution is still illegal where most people would want a prostitute.

          The key is that partial legalization means there’s still a partial demand for a black market. It’s full legalization alone that kills illegal markets by definition.

        • you dont have to fix the whole problem with the illegal drug trade. you never will. just like loosening restrictions on gun laws will never end all violence.

          a drop from the current level would be awesome. the gain in freedom and protection of our constitution would be even better.

  9. “an unlawful user”
    it’s just more of a trick question than it already was. At least at the state level, they are lawful users of weed.

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

    Marijuana is not chemically addictive (assuming that hasn’t changed since school). If your lawfully using via a medical card and it’s not an addiction then a No answer would be truthful. I understand that the feds don’t recognize it as lawful but the states are making a stand against unjust federal intervention anyway in other areas.

  11. Rob, Lisa may not end up being your neighbor, but it is Austin; there’s a plethora of beautiful women, some who might end up actually being a neighbor. =0)

  12. And how is keeping guns out of the hands of drug users a bad thing? If you are going to handle a weapon, you need a clear head. This will probably tick off a bunch of you, but if you are apprehended for DUI/DWI you should lose your license and CCW/CHL. I would go even farther and say confiscate–yes, confiscate–your guns for a cooling off 3 month period. No way I would trust you to use proper judgment if your mind is messed up.

        • I suspected it from the tone of your post. What do you suggest we do about all other substances that may inhibit judgement – e.g. caffeine, prescription medications, anti-histamines? Do firearm owners need to start taking blood tests to demonstrate absolute sobriety at all times?

        • So what do you suggest that we do about all other (legal) substances that can affect judgement and mental clarity? Do firearm owners need to start taking blood tests to demonstrate absolute sobriety and clear-headedness at all times?

        • If you are “loaded” in a car, you’re an “active driver.” Jeff, how can you defend mixing guns and alcohol? If your judgment is so skewed that you get in a car while intoxicated, you shouldn’t have access to guns. You are not to be trusted. If you are a law-abiding gun owner, then abide by the laws. Don’t skirt the laws. Don’t try to be on the fringe of the law. Don’t break the law. Don’t place yourself in a situation that can cause you to harm others because of your behavior. With rights comes responsibilities.

        • Not saying this applies to you but here goes. If someone has never even drunk or stoned than they have no business talking about it

        • Using your logic, then any law passed by legislators who had not first engaged in said prohibited behavior would be null and void. I guess you wouldn’t stop someone from beating their wife for the first time because a) you’ve never done it or b) they needed the experience to know it’s a bad idea.

        • Bullshit. I don’t need to beat the bag out of my wife to know its the wrong thing to do. That’s why I’ve never done it. And legislators should leave drugs alone because its really none of their concern. My point was you have no ground to stand on for your argument. You don’t know how either one effects you so you cannot say honestly that you would be to impaired to do something. And you’re also saying the lives of smokers families shouldn’t be protected because they use. Real nice.

        • Lol. I was wondering how long it would take before you played “It’s for the children” card–“if one child is protected by their pot smoking parent with a gun, then it’s worth it.”

          If “legislators should keep out of stuff that’s not their concern”, then we should have no laws regarding domestic violence–it’s a family matter. You most certainly can make judgment calls regarding if something is right or wrong even if you’ve never done it. Lets see–I’ve never been drunk while driving and carrying concealed, but uncommon sense says that’s an invitation to disaster. Correct me if I’m wrong.

        • You are incorrect about domestic violence. That is something that can inhibit someone’s pursuit of happiness can’t it. How can someone using drugs? And don’t talk to me about how people steal to support their habit(sometimes kill). It’s a rare pothead that does that to support their habit. Other drugs that’s an absolute factor and I hate most drugs because of it. But until someone starts resorting to crime to get their fix then it should be none of the government’s concern. But really, give me a different example other than spousal abuse. Apples and oranges. and I don’t appreciate your relating substance use and violence against a loved one.

        • By your last sentence, you show you have come around to my way of thinking, but you just don’t realize it yet. Glad to finally have you on my side.

        • How so. That makes no sense. Your way of thinking says if you’re a drug user(coffee included) than you have no business around firearms or any rights to them. I’ll never think like that because I don’t like to paint with sig a broad brush.

        • I am proudly not “law abiding”. My ancestors were proudly not “law abiding”. I am honest. I do not cause harm to others. There is a big difference.

        • What you’re actually asking for seems sort of cloudy. Specifically what law governs alcohol in relation to firearms, and what is it that you wish to happen when a firearm user consumes alcohol? You seem to be making the claim that drinking and driving is the same as drinking and carrying, which I would agree with in theory – carrying at a bar where you plan to drink a few is probably not a great idea, and is illegal in many places. Or, is it drinking and owning firearms at all that you don’t really agree with? Do you think there is a problem if I’m sitting on my back deck enjoying a whiskey and water, while there is a firearm accessible within the house? Please clarify.

        • The key word was “apprehended.” Perhaps I should have stated “found guilty of” of DWI/DUI. If your guns are locked up while you are enjoying a whiskey and soda (is that really enjoyable? I don’t know–doesn’t sound like it), you would be acting responsibly. To exercise your 2A rights while intoxicated or to drive while impaired is irresponsible. I would go farther where drugs are concerned. Anybody who uses drugs should not be trusted with a firearm. I know the arguments surrounding marijuana, but there must be a clear line of delineation between acceptable and unacceptable social behavior. MJ is a great starting place. Allow me to prove my point. Who in their right mind would follow a known drug user into D.C. while carrying a loaded firearm?

        • “Who in their right mind would follow a known drug user into D.C. while carrying a loaded firearm?”

          Maybe most of the secret service and congressional bodyguards?

    • mixed feelings, but at the very least DUI is a clear indication that the offender is capable of being irresponsible.

    • I’m not going to tell you coffee is a drug, because it’s clear you will not believe it. ASK AN AUTHORITY.

      Stop restricting your world so much. Openness leads to knowledge.

    • who says your mind is messed up on marijuana?

      Its another “milage may vary thing”. Why do you think the best college papers are written after a smoke session?

      😉 im strictly kidding as there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

      Personally, i believe in individual responsibility and accountability. if you are stoned, then that probably isn’t a good time to go shooting. /shrugs shoulders

    • There is a difference between keeping guns out of people who are under influence of drugs, and keeping guns out of people using drugs. As with alcohol, you shouldn’t be carrying while drunk (or drinking while carrying), and the law should enforce that. But at the same time we don’t want a law that would deny the ability to own & carry to anyone who had ever consumed a drop of alcohol in their life, which is what the present federal prohibition on drugs amounts to.

  13. This pisses me off so much. Obama used to smoke pot A LOT! Like, heavy, heavy marijuana use. Articles have talked about how he used to teach other people how to hold the smoke in really long until, when you exhaled, nothing came out. Preferred smoking in a van with the windows up so, when your joint was done, you could put your head up by the ceiling and suck in the smoke up there. Some details http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2013/05/obama-and-marijuana-then-and-now.html

    Anyway, it obviously didn’t prevent him from being successful! He jokes about it constantly! Joked about his pot use at the Correspondent’s Dinner just a few weeks ago. Then, on the other hand, he leads the charge in prosecuting it. He’s just fine with peoples’ rights being taken away because of it. He stated explicitly that Federal agents would continue to make arrests regardless of State laws. He is HARD on marijuana crime.

    Penn Jillette said it best. We SHOULD be pissed off about his stance on drugs. It’s criminal! Watch: youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk

    • So, by his own admission, Obama is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. Wonder if he packs? I know if I was President I’d have something on me 24-7, secret service or no. Hmm, did his former smoking make it illegal for him to possess a shotgun while shooting skeet? Regardless, I’m sure the David Gregory exception would be in full force.

    • Not only that: he was known for reaching for the joint before it was his turn, grabbing it and saying, “INTERCEPTED!”. To say that he was a major weed hound would be an understatement!

      And I don’t know about weed, but I’ve heard tell the cocaine use is going on. “Recreationally”, of course. Heard this was on his “solo” vacations.

    • i thought it was funny how the pot smoking hippie crowed crawled to his feet like he was the messiah and then when he responded back to a question, “oh legalize? hahaha, i dont know about that!”, a lot of people were pissed off.

      Its further proof of the hypocrisy of the ivory tower crowd.

  14. The resistance to making pot legal shows that the liberals running Washington are not the counterculture movement of yesterday (or that power has changed them, perhaps). Modern liberals are not about freedom.

    Regardless, once most of the states legalize, congress will probably follow. Pretty silly to have alcohol and tobacco be legal when pot is schedule I. Cocaine and opium-based drugs may be a bit more questionable, but I can’t imagine that many people who want them have much trouble getting them as it is. Legalize, with regulations comparable to those involving alcohol regarding what activities are prohibited while under the influence. More tax revenue, less crime (and far fewer shootings), fewer people crowding the prison system, fewer cases clogging the courts, more time for law enforcement to do other things. One could even make an argument for throwing a bone to the Federal employees unions by applying the same safety and purity standards that are applied to foods and over-the-counter drugs, and thereby cut down on accidental over-doses and poisonings.

    • “Accidental overdoses and poisoning a” because of pot? That’s funny stuff. I feel like as bad as it could get it getting some pot that had toxic weed on it. Otherwise no go on overdoses or poisonings. But + 1 to everything else you said.

        • You can’t fault the weed for what is added to it. Lead was found in milk that got people sick. You fault the maker, not the type of product. In this case the weed didn’t hurt them, it’s the lead that it was tainted with. It is 100% impossible to overdose on weed if it is not altered. You would need to smoke about 150lbs of very strong weed in 5 minutes to get enough cannabinoids in your system to overdose. That is obviously not feasible.

          Hell, Canadian health officials even concluded recently that MDMA(ecstasy) is actually perfectly safe, it’s actually only the impurities that people cut into it that cause harm.

          http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/06/14/155033464/canadian-health-official-says-pure-ecstasy-is-safe

        • [q]recently that MDMA(ecstasy) is actually perfectly safe[/q]

          No, it’s not even the impurities – it’s the fact that the drug is used in environments which lead to severe dehydration and tends to dull any pain or natural stimulus to relax, cool down and have a drink. I’ve seen a number of friends almost kill themselves dancing to death on E. It’s when it’s mixed with alcohol that it’s at it’s worst.

          [q]problems in fetal development.[/q]

          If you’re pregnant – you should stop all sorts of behaviors. SCUBA, sky diving, doing drugs and drinking. That’s common fucking sense.

    • Can you imagine a more effective way for the federal government to reduce the number of anual deaths involving a firearm each year than to end our war on drugs? I’m sure it would eliminate several thousand murders each year.

      We spend billions, incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people and everyone who wants to buy drugs can get them. All we do is make organized criminals here and in the surrounding countries rich.

      • No, you see, it’s the gun’s fault that people get shot with guns. This is why they want to outlaw guns. Why bother asking ourselves why people choose to kill eachother, because it’s just the guns doing the killing. Without the guns, these people wouldn’t kill eachother.

        Sort of in the same way that it’s the drugs’ fault that people decide to start using and get addicted to hard drugs. Which is why we throw people in prison for being caught with these drugs, even if they’re not selling them – hell, they may only have the drugs in their bloodstream. Without the drugs, these people would just be perfectly happy in life and wouldn’t have any problems at all.

        Nope, there is no precursor to drug use. It just happens all of a sudden, magically. Same as when people get shot.

        Cause and effect is completely reversed, both in the war on drugs and in the proposed war on guns.

    • To my personal way of thinking, the ONLY drug that has no legitimate use is amphetamines. They used to be considered legit by medical science (“Mother’s Little Helper” by the Rolling Stones is a critique of them from 1966); that’s no longer the case. They are by far the most dangerous of all drugs, more so than even alcohol. They RAVAGE the health of the user in very quick fashion. Meth and ALL the amphetamines should be illegal as hell. All the others should be considered carefully, impartially, and with full access to information about them.

      • I used to be prescribed adderall as a ute for my ADHD. That stuff worked wonders. Incredible for helping stay focused. The active ingredient was dextroamphetine. The downside to it was the nasty mood swings. So there’s at least one legitimate use for those. But for anyone who didn’t need them I hear they affect them differently than they would have for me.

      • Eh, amphetamine salts are among the most widely prescribed drugs out there (and were at one time THE most widely prescribed) and the vast majority of users don’t experience any issues at all. There’s a big difference between Dexadrine/Adderall and Desoxyn.

      • You’re wrong about amphetamines if you’re talking about the carefully controlled dosages of pharmaceutical amphetamine/methamphetamine/dextroamphetamines. It’s processed and experienced differently by those with ADHD as opposed to those without. For someone with ADHD, it calms overactive processes and excites underactive ones, so they’re able to focus. For those without ADHD, the same dosages would produce a mania-like high. At very small, controlled dosages it’s not addictive or harmful to those who have a legitimate need for it.

        If you’re referring to the home-cooked variety or off-label use/abuse by those looking for a study drug, weight loss, or a way to deal with “spirited” children, then yes, I totally agree with you. Amphetamines at the wrong doses, or when used by people without the physiological differences present in ADHD are extremely dangerous and wreak havoc on health.

        • Actually, something like adderall will produce the same effect in (most of) those without ADHD as in someone with it, lol. Common myth. =p Same with ritalin (more similar to coke). There are those with dispositions to like or dislike certain drugs though, that’s for sure. I cannot stand adderall or most any other stimulant, the only exception being caffiene. All others make me feel *miserable*. I don’t understand how someone could do amphetamines or coke and have fun/enjoy them. But some people love them so much they destroy themselves. So, go figure.

  15. “Dude, where’s my gun?”

    “Whaa? I thought you had it.”

    “Oh, yeah. I forgot. I traded it for a box of Mallomars.”

    “Cool.”

  16. Okay some how I got logged out while typing my last comment and it never posted so of this is a repeat then sorry.

    I support legalization but do not use and will not if legalized. That said I say let the ATF tell weed users they cant have guns. PLEASE HOLD THE FLAME!!!

    My point is we already know what happens when the government tells people they cant have something. This last attempted gun grab put sales through the roof and companies like magpul on serious back orders. Prices and stock are still abnormal.

    I have no doubt there are plenty of good law abiding people who smoke weed. So let the ATF tell them to FOAD and swing some more people to our side of the fence.

    Eventually the government will run out of people to dictate.

  17. The question is vague, the law is vague. I can understand “unlawful user of”, but just what is “addicted to”? And when is your “addiction” sufficient cause to disallow the ownership of weapons? Here is the concern I am focused on. There are millions of people who, for one reason or another (illness, injury, etc.) are prescribed narcotic medication that is used daily to control pain. Without pain medication, many of these folks would be bedridden. Obviously none of them are “unlawful users”, but the medical fact is that one cannot suddenly discontinue use of narcotics without serious, possibly fatal consequence. Are these people “addicts” who are barred the possession of weapons? Is the ATF saying that people with such disabilities cannot exercise a right to self defense through the use of a firearm? Might I suggest that pain control is usually accomplished without mental deficit, and that pain control and getting high are two different things all together.

  18. Too bad everyone who fought so hard to legalize their “right ” to smoke weed doesn’t fight so hard to make sure our governmental babysitters do not trample our other God given rights. We sure could use their determination.

      • Yes but exactly 50% of marijuaja users(not one pothead more or one pothead less) are the progressive hippie types who “won’t” own weapons.

        • Citation, please.

          Suggesting that half of all cannabis users are “progressive hippie” types is ludicrous.

          You forgot about the gang bangers, the yuppies, the country bumpkins, the college kids, the club kids, the grandmas with glaucoma, the rockers, the crooners, the anarchists, and the aboriginal peoples!

    • Many do. More than you would imagine. HIGH TIMES infuriates me with their anti-gun stance, but many readers and subscribers disagree, and tell them so.

      Memo to self: DO THIS every month.

        • I’m thinking In Memphis meant: “Liberty for all, not just liberty for those who enjoy the same things we do.”

          I don’t smoke weed either, but I don’t want to see anyone get punished for doing something that hurts nobody but themselves (driving, operating heavy machinery, or handling a gun while stoned being different, of course).

        • Unless I missunderstood, it seems your point is that it dosnt affect you so your not worried about it?

          So if a restriction from the government does not affect you then its okay? Well there are a lot of people out there voting for politicians with anti gun agendas because that dosnt affect them.

          Also this is a restriction against gun owners whether you smoke weed or not.

  19. Does it stipulate “addiction” as being separate from use – if not, it should? How else can you justify no such prohibition for alcohol. But come to think about it, if your are an alcoholic, are you considered a “prohibited person”?

    • Similar to weed, there is no useful, widely-agreed-upon definition of “alcoholic”. At what stage does one become an “alcoholic”? How does a society of non-drinkers decide? Or a society of drinkers, for that matter? The problem is that it describes a very wide range of sometimes dissimilar behavior. Is it the beer in the morning? Done that, check, camping trips. Is it the slurring of words, or is that just a “drunk”? What is the difference between a “drunkard” and an “alcoholic”? Even clinicians disagree widely.

      So… in the absence of a commonly-accepted definition (like “gun-toting hick”?), what’s the use of it?

  20. Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to, marijuana…
    Depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
    It does not ask if you have used, past tense, but are you a user… not at the moment of checking boxes on my 4473.
    Are you having sex with your girlfriend?
    YES, on a regular basis, but not at the moment
    NO, She is not under the table right now, but maybe later tonight
    Does my medical card make me a lawful user?
    Are theyasking if we are a federal or state unlawful user? I am not the one to determine “unlawful. If I am charged, tried and only after the verdict could it be determine that the use is unlawfull. Even then, I quit last week.
    How can asking my opinion on the 4473, and me giving it, be enforcable.
    Restraining order? That’s binary. Hell, they don’t enforce it against violent felons that try to buy.
    Perfect example how screwed up gun laws are in the first place. All made by the TOP 535 people of our nation. 536 if signed
    Of course the real problem is states giving up the data to NICS.

  21. Well, one things for sure, Lisa didn’t let her body go to pot. The pot users I see are not impared enough to hurt anyone with their gun. Same old sh.t different day on dissarmament, Randy

  22. Weed is the easy target for the ATF. As they get more desperate they will start to include other factors. Heck look at the IRS!

  23. The ATF doesn’t have to *look* for criminals when they have the power to create all the criminals their dark little hearts desire.

    • Might be “dirty” pictures next, Robert! Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…

  24. “We hate you enjoying yourself, hate you treating pain and so we’re going to take your gun rights away.”

    All over a ****ing plant. FOAD, ATF.

    • SIGH. How can “smart” people not get it? It’s GOD-GIVEN. He didn’t say you had to USE it.

  25. Come on , people!!!

    Why always confuse the obvious???

    “…shall not be infringed.”

    Not

    “…shall not be infringed.*”

  26. Ending drug prohibition would be a great thing in general and a huge plus for gun rights:

    1. Dramatic reduction in drug/gang related crime = less fear mongering by anti-gun politicians

    2. Less erosion of civil liberties and fewer minor “crimes” that can be used to strip people of their rights

    3. Less militarization of the police

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

    No, I am not. Is that required?

    • I don’t know if marijuana is considered to be physically addictive, I have serious doubts that it is, but it’s the “controlled substances” part of it that is the catch-all in this context. At the federal level, pot is still considered a controlled substance. The hypocrisy of which, is the acme of lies told by our government. 20 years ago, the anti-Mary Jane crowd decided to include pot in the Fedgov’s alcohol-related automobile death statistics, as though the two had anything to do with each other. With this level of outright fraud and deception, is it any wonder that they can’t deal honestly with the pot issue? An alcoholic with guns: no problem. A medical user, or the recreational user of cannabis sativa with guns: total loss of gun rights.
      The way I see it, anyone who is so morally bereft, and logically perverse that would support such a flagrantly dishonest position, while they collect a taxpayer funded salary, should be declared as unfit, and untrustworthy of enforcing any laws. They are all accessories, before, during, and after the fact, to the Fedgov lie. The prohibition of marijuana is nothing but a dishonest, Fedgov sponsored, law enforcement employment act. If our repealing of the 18th amendment was sound reasoning for alcohol, then such would be the reasoning for repealing the federal law against growing and smoking pot.

  28. “what’s to stop them from labeling the 30 million or so Americans who take antidepressants addicts? Or the 10 million or so who take sleeping pills?”

    Because those are legal drugs, used by prescription only. If they’re used w/o a prescription, the person is an illegal user & therefore prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or using firearms or ammunition.

    This argument is a long-standing problem. The biggest example so far was the civil war – state’s rights vs federal powers (vs civil rights).
    I’d say that if a person is legal under his state’s law, he’s not an illegal user & therefore not a prohibited person. Obviously the feds feel differently.

  29. I didn’t read through all 120 posts(as of the time of my posting) so sorry if this is a repeat. But.

    Has anyone who has been high ever, in the history of the world, committed a violent crime? Stealing donuts or pizza; sure. Armed robbery, assault, B&E?

    My guess is no.

    • Sorry man but I would disagree. Weed doesn’t affect judgement. If you’re a good person that will show when you’re stoned. If your a dirtbag that’ll show when you’re stoned. I’m sure a gangbanger would puff down a blunt on the way to a B and E, you know, if that’s where they were heading.

  30. Ever wonder how many of our fellow citizens have been murdered by the a.t.f?How many have been thrown in prison,lost everything to fuel the agencys “need to exist”?A great many.Anyone remember Waco,Ruby Rige,Id?2 fine examples of these “heroic 1st responders”.What these bastards are doing is demonizing one group,its called divide&conquer. the atf is the American gestapo.

  31. Until the end of WWII hemp was the best product that many different items where made from. Then when WWII ended and our government brought the German scientist and their formulas for plastics, nylons, and all the others that could be made from their formulas immediately weed was made illegal. Why ? Because they recognized the billions of dollars to be made from these petro based products. Hemp can be grown on a 1 acre tract while on a 1 acre tract next to it can be planted with trees to be harvested after 10 years to make the many products made form wood. The 1 acre tract next to it planted with hemp can be harvested not once but twice a year and make the same amount of paper for instance that the wood will be made into BUT ONLY after 10 years. I’m sure most here see where it is that I am going with this. Hemp can be planted and harvested not once but twice per year therefore making twice the amount of paper the 1 acre tract planted in trees which will take 10 years to produce the same amount of paper of just once crop of hemp. Hemp is also one of the few things that when burned actually contributes to the good of the environment. Spend a couple of days or weeks doing the research and see for yourself the many ( thousands ) things that can be made from hemp from food, medicine, bio fuel, clothing, etc. etc. etc. By doing your own research you will not only educate yourself but will then have the facts and figures to give when having a discussion/argument with another person when it comes to hemp and it’s many uses all of which are good. Had it not been for our winning WWII and bringing the German scientist and their formulas ( which require petro-chemicals to produce ) hemp would still be legal. There is a difference between hemp grown for producing many products ( little to no THC in regular hemp ) and the hemp that is grown for smoking to get high. This is evidenced by the high amounts of THC in hemp grown today versus what was being grown and sold during the very early years especially the 60’s to early 70’s when it was discovered that if a good quality variety was grown and not pollenated ( removing the males ) the THC content was much higher thereby producing a much greater high from smoking it. One would think that by applying the thoughts about alcohol and making it illegal it created an underground business that was very violent and dangerous for the consumer and the same apply’s to hemp whereas if it were legalized it would remove the criminal element as well as the lowering of prices as well as increasing the THC content. It could be to a certain degree be sold the same as alcohol with one having to be 21 yo to buy and possess. The taxes alone from the city, state, and federal governments would bring in hundreds of millions and possibly even into the billions which we all know that the different levels of government can certainly use. Make it legal, take the big money out of it being illegal ( it will stop the cartels as it will no longer be the cash cow it is now ) and free up more space in jails and prisons which we need for the more serious criminals.

  32. The answer to the question

    “Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to, marijuana or any other depressant, stimulant or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” they can’t buy a gun. If they tick “no” they’d be lying.

    depends on the court’s interpretation of “unlawful user”. Local courts like Oregon consider medical use lawful.

  33. First of all.. whether weed is addicting is of no consequence.. besides youd have to cover to many different types of people in alotta case studies & even then you would only get a percentage because peoples bodies react differently when given the same medication.. Second.. Im sick of hearing bout how bad our government is an blah blah blah.. You people think your free just because you dont feel as enslaved as certain people in other certin countries.. wake the fuck up seriously.. our government sold us out decades ago.. Your constitutional right gives you the GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHT to carry a gun.. So the fact you have to ask the Governments permission to do so is a violation of your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.. The constitution says ALL MEN were created equal.. not some me.. or only ones you like.. or only non weed smokers.. ALL MEN.. Our Government has soo much blood on ther hands they can & will never be wiped clean.. Take 911 for exaple.. EVERYONE who has half a brain knows that was done by George W. Bush.. shit even canada knows that.. but what has ANYONE done about it?? NOTHING!! What about a false war in IRAQ that has cost thousands more Americams their lives?? What about the concentration camps in America.. or the mass grave sites.. or the testing of different deceases on American troops without thier consent or approval.. or the lies told to greaving widows when their Soldier husband doesnt come home because he actually died from being injected with a decease by the US Government but to cover it up they tell her he was killed in action.. What about the murders that every president over the last 20 years has committed?? Cause no senator let alone president has clean hands.. anyone who thinks otherwise is in the dark.. So whats bein’ done?? Nothing!! Yall to busy arguin’ over whose right about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS that have already been taken away.. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Did anyone catch that.. IT IS YOUR RIGHT to alter or abolish the Government of the united states when they take away your RIGHTS.. But nobody wants duh be that guy. Yall to busy fussin’ over a bad government but yall dont have the guts or nuts duh do anything bout it.. Our founding fathers would have called yall cowards.. Soo please, if you aint willing to bleed for freedom & actually stand up to the oppression of the government & throw off the chains of tyranny that they have placed us under, then your no better than the liers killers & puppets masters on the hill.. so do us all a favor.. sit down & SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU COWARDS.. Critics of a bad government who do nothing will never be patriots.. Ohhh but the government has an army.. I might get killed or imprisoned or tortured.. I dont have the education to go against the government.. Shit.. yall are pussies.. Our founding fathers were mostly tradesmen.. & most of the Soldiers who fought in the continental army were farmers & tradesmen as well.. & look what they did.. they didnt all have a harvard education but they fouvht against what they believed to be wrong.. cause they had balls.. yall are mostly a bunch of bitches whining over spilled milk.. your rights have already been taken.. so my question is this.. what are you pissoes expecting to accomplish by bitching about it.. Oh lets elect the right people into office.. Yeah thatll do alotta good.. when yall gunna learn that elections are rigged by the us government.. whose gunna serve next is decided by those on the hill not by you simple hard working everyday Americans.. Oh not not in America!! Were the land of the free & home of the brave.. Please!! More like the land of the talkers & home of the soon to be enslaved.. Its time sumone stands up.. Cause freedom has always been worth life or death.. unfortuantely most you so called americans just dont have it in you to give up your life for the rights you bitch bout them taking away.. sad.. Freedom wasnt about the founding fathers.. it was always about the generations that would come after them.. the constitution was just the blueprint for the standard they set.. hopefully america will wake up soon.. otherwise one day she will be no more..

  34. I’m amazed, I must say. Seldom do I encounter a blog that’s both educative and amusing, and let
    me tell you, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
    The problem is an issue that too few people are speaking intelligently about.
    Now i’m very happy I came across this in my search for
    something regarding this.

  35. How Edward physically handles her is like a mere child.
    The leader feels that they need to serve their followers rather than force upon them
    what they want. This means that it can be used in any number of
    productions; common uses for stock footage are documentaries,
    television programmes, news items, sports reviews, independent films, commercials, and movies.

  36. It’s actually really simple, in almost 30 years in L.E. I have never met a pot user that ever was a success or had anything positive about them. They use all types of reasoning for their behaviour, none which have any real value. I would never trust a drug user, scum of the earth. If you are not suffuring some type of terminal disease, why are you using drugs? Simple, your a peice of human waste. It’s really that simple.

    • And who the fuck are you? I smoke cannabis every single day. I have my own business that allows me to live very comfortable. So I would say that I’m successful. You know why I smoke weed every day? Because there’s nothing wrong with it all its a god damn plant it’s time to stop listening to your grandpa because this is the new generation. Cannabis is a great thing and people are to blind to see that. Alcohol and FED man made drugs are the real killers. But no they’re legal so it’s okay but a fucking plant made by God himself is illegal? Fucked up world but that will change soon and when cannabis legal I’ll will be there along with all the perfectly normal human beings that consume cannabis to say fuck you and fuck the bull shit cannabis prohibition. You can pretend like cannabis is a drug all you want but nothing will change the fact that it’s a harmless plant. If marijuana is so bad why haven’t there been any deaths? Vending machines have killed more people that marijuana. It’s a gate way drug? So you’re telling me that a plant made you stick in a need in your arm and shoot up? Bull shit it’s human curiosity. If anything alcohol is the gate way drug.

    • Looks like someone gets a reach-around from the “War on Drugs” funding. How is all the dog-shooting and no-knock raiding going? You and your buddies having fun playing with your nightsticks and snorting the thin blue line off each other’s backsides?

      Stereotypes aren’t very nice, are they?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *