Gun Rights or Medical Marijuana…You Can’t Have Both

Patients must choose: Medical marijuana or gun ownership

courtesy philly.com

This is becoming more of a problem every day . . . Patients must choose: Medical marijuana or gun ownership

The town drunk can buy firearms. So can someone who has been involuntarily placed in a mental hospital for a short stay. But anyone who wants to treat their Crohn’s disease with medical marijuana is forbidden from owning a gun.

OK, so author Sam Wood got that part about the involuntary commitment wrong (the ATF’s form 4473 doesn’t make exceptions for a short length of stay) no matter what a single court may say. Expecting mainstream media outlets like the Philadelphia Inquirer to get all their facts right in a piece bout firearms is probably asking a little much. Anyway . . .

Pennsylvania is preparing to roll out a statewide program in early 2018 that will provide medicinal cannabis products to patients suffering from 17 serious health conditions.

But some sick people will have to make a difficult decision: Is taking the medicine worth surrendering what gun-owning advocates see as an enshrined constitutional right.

You shouldn’t have to make that choice. But you do. Despite 29 states having legalized medical use of marijuana. So far.

(U)nder federal law, all forms of marijuana remain strictly forbidden. The DEA considers it a Schedule 1 drug, on par with heroin and LSD, with “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates the sale and ownership of guns and ammunition across the nation. ATF spokeswoman Cherie R. Duval-Jones said any use of marijuana is a disqualifier.

“There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law,” said Duvall-Jones.

Maybe users are planning to lie on their 4473 forms, but . . .

In Pennsylvania, firearms dealers must conduct a background check on each customer. A registry, administered by the state police, identifies medical marijuana patients.

“If you’re a card holder, you’ll be flagged,” said state police spokesman Ryan Tarkowski.

And don’t think that holding onto any firearms you already owned before qualifying for medical marijuana is OK. Certainly not in the Keystone State. Or other states such as Hawaii.

The state police spokesman strongly suggested that patients consider the consequences of holding onto their weapons.

“It’s unlawful to keep possession of firearms obtained prior to registering,” (state police spokesman Ryan) Tarkowski said. “The Pennsylvania State Police is not in the business of offering legal advice, but it might be a good idea to contact an attorney about how best to dispose of their firearms.”

It will take federal legislation to change the prohibition on gun possession by medical (let alone recreational) marijuana users. And while a proposal to do that has been kicking around Congress for years, don’t expect any movement on it any time soon.

 

comments

  1. avatar KenW says:

    I have Crohns and diabetes but have no desire to treat Crohns with it. Back then it first became legal in Colorado we were there and the group I was with purchased some . So I gave it a try.
    For some reason I became very aware of my tinnitus , to the point where it was very distracting.
    Thought maybe that was a one time deal so a few days later gave it another try. Nope, same problem.
    Now if it would keep me from losing any more colon I might decide it’s worthwhile but they are not saying it can do that.

    1. avatar Snatchums says:

      I’ve heard a great deal of anecdotal evidence that it’s a wonder drug for crohn’s disease. Sadly there won’t be any legitimate scientific research done to prove that until it’s rescheduled to something besides schedule 1.

    2. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

      Try a different strain. I have tinnitus, and some strains seem to make it worse, while others have no effect.

    3. avatar Roymond says:

      Whoa — I know a guy who has tinnitus and says that it can totally dominate his attention sometimes when he’s puffed a bit!

    4. avatar Kristen Himes says:

      I have Crohn’s as well as ankylosing spondilitis (Crohn’s arthritis) apparently I have a very aggressive form of the disease and although I’ve never been a pot user because from experience, yes, I have smoked pot and got high, I do not like it one bit. I have heard that the oil does wonders for Crohn’s and it does not get you high, I think… am NOT 100% sure, never had it. What I don’t find fair is to take a right away from me to add a right which shouldn’t be the government’s business anyway. If drug companies controlled marijuana and the manufacturing and distribution of it, this would not be an issue. It would be legal already. Cigarettes are known killers and you can legally help kill yourself but once you get cancer, you cannot kill yourself legally because suicide is illegal but you sure as hell can legally help get the cancer by legally buying those cigarettes. See how this all works? It has NOTHING to do with what is really good for people but what is really financially good for those that control and run big companies! Time to rewrite every law and take away everything that gives corporations rights to profit from the hardship of others.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        exactly spot on mate. it is all a big scam to liberate us of our liberty and our wealth. never mind what we want. the sooner the masses wake up to that the better

  2. avatar billy-bob says:

    Give them a little while, they’ll be wanting to confiscate your guns for using pain meds, epidemic and all that.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      They already started. But it’s just one pain med at the present time.

  3. avatar Kyle says:

    No, its not right.

    but, my algebra has always worked out this way.

    Gun Rights + Government = Injustice

  4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘The town drunk c an buy fir earms.’

    Hey, I resent that remark.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      You can bet your ass someplace like California (who just so happens to have a little database they have been building of what guns their citizens own, and their individual serial numbers) would *love* to change that, if you got a second DWI. Or even a *first*, for that matter. After all, if you can’t keep it together and not drive when you’re drunk, you obviously have a *problem*.

      And if you can’t produce those guns when the ‘Safety Police’ come knocking?

      Sucks to be you, enjoy prison.

      Strictly in the interests of ‘Gun Safety’, don’t ya know…

      1. avatar Ollie says:

        Persons with three or more DWI convictions should probably NOT be in possession of a firearm.
        Maybe in a decade or two, smart guns can be fitted with brainwave analyzers to determine if the holder of the weapon is in a state suitable and safe for firearm use.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Just curious about your opinion on this Ollie, if someone has had a few beers and has a BAC of 0.09% and someone comes up and stabs him – does he have a right to fight back? Or a duty to die because he was drinking?

        2. avatar Binder says:

          Why should the people around an armed individual with voluntarily diminished mental faculties incur the increased risks associated with that persons actions.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          What difference does it make if someone’s mental faculties are diminished voluntarily or not?

          But I’ll put you under ‘duty to die’ because you think that you must give up your right to self defense if you have a couple of beers.

        4. avatar California Richard says:

          Naa….. that 3 DWI thing is crap. We already have a mechanism in place to address that stuff. If that person is racking up DWI’s at that rate they will eventually land a felony hit and run or felony reckless driving or felony “drunk doing something”… at which point they become prohibited from owning firearms. We’ve established the bar at: convicted domestic abusers, felons, court identified drug addicts, and court identified crazy people. More laws because you want to lower the bar for prohibition is stupid.

        5. avatar California Richard says:

          …sorry… “unlawful user of marijuana,” etc etc etc… in ATF’s words…. i used court identied addict whoch is wrong.

        6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I believe in my state the 4th DWI in 12 years gets you a felony conviction, without any other extenuating circumstances (like hit and run, etc.). Still, a non-violent felony and if you do your time you should be eligible to have your basic human rights restored.

        7. avatar California Richard says:

          Indeed. But, the law as it stands right now = no felons allowed. Adding to the disallowed list (vis a vis 3 DUI convictions) would only only slam the door on “good citizen felons” getting their rights back.

        8. avatar InTheSpirit says:

          Where I live I can legally walk into a bar armed to the teeth and sit down and have a beer or three. So all you puritanical, prohibitionist assholes can go suck start a glock and wash it down with some nice herbal tea or a sody pop.

        9. avatar binder says:

          Gov. William J Le Petomane, let me spell it out for you, would you like your loved ones to be at a range where people are legally drunk? Why should people around you be put in increased risk if you have to use your firearm in a defensive role? I not saying you should just die, how about not drinking if you are concerned about your own safety?

        10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Way to blame the rape victim for the short skirt, binder.

          First, there’s a huge difference between shooting gu ns while legally intoxicated (a level well below the level of intoxication where most people suffer from significantly impaired judgement) and carrying a concealed weapon while legally intoxicated. Kind of like the difference between having your car keys in your pocket and driving on public roads. No one has ever been hurt by a set of car keys in someone’s pocket or a holstered weapon.

          Second, there’s an even bigger difference between a defensive g un use and shooting at the range. One involves a life or death situation and the other involves recreation. Firing a weapon defensively places innocent bystanders at risk regardless of whether or not you’re sober. You could miss or your bullet could over-penetrate and you’re likely not going to have time to fully assess the situation beforehand.

          Otherwise, what In the Spirit said. It’s 0.08% in my state, so if you don’t like it, don’t come to Iowa.

        11. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I carry while drinking. I occasionally carry (at home) when snockered. Because I *always* carry. But, if out and about and I’ve had so much as a beer, you can count on me to not interfere in *your* murder, robbery or rape (gang-or otherwise), but I am still going to interfere in my own, or my family. I am sure a beer would be a factor in an investigation, and I’m not willing to submit to that for *you*. For myself, etc, I will be planning to attend that investigation if possible.

        12. avatar Binder says:

          §46.035, Texas Penal Code states that it is unlawful for an individual who is intoxicated to carry a handgun.

          Iowa is also a State that Allows a Person to Drink Alcohol while Armed with a Firearm so as long as The Person does NOT have a Blood-Alcohol Content at or above .08%

        13. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I’m sorry Binder, I thought we were talking about rights, not laws. Yes, there are laws that strip people of their human rights. I never disputed that.

    2. avatar Nick says:

      Not in WV (at least technically). State law bars persons “addicted to alcohol” from possession.

      That said, good luck trying to enforce it.

  5. avatar Ed says:

    Burocracy at its finest. Now, I have seen,more than once, Arizona state police on Live PD release people with medical marijuana and a firearm as long as they had their medical card on them and wern’t under the influence. Seems to me that good ol’ Jeffy Sessions isn’t going to be doing either people of the bud or gun any favors this year. What a useless turd that guy is. Congress is no better….buncha double-talking useless lawyers. Is there anything worse?

    1. avatar JoeGoins says:

      Believe it or not, most congressmen aren’t lawyers.

      1. avatar BLoving says:

        Well, just because someone isn’t a lawyer doesn’t mean they’re NOT a parasitic, self-serving, underhanded, dishonest leech of society…. but it helps.
        🤠

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        Last I read, lawyer was the top prior profession (or degree) in Congress, business (there’s a broad category!) was second, and teaching was third (anywhere from elementary to university).

        Among Democrats, the count of lawyers is significantly higher than among Republicans.

        I think lawyers should be barred from Congress unless they dealt in local family-type law where they interacted with the real world and ordinary people.

    2. avatar AZgunner says:

      Sounds reasonable to me. If you’re not breaking any other laws I’m not going to arrest you over firearm possession. As a law enforcement officer, I believe in the right of all decent people to be armed.

  6. avatar Chris says:

    So, don’t get a card. Buy your drugs on the street like everybody else, keep your guns, everybody wins. There’s two problems with the federal government about the pot thing: 1. They never admit when they’re wrong, which is why they’ll never concede. 2. Power given to the government is never, ever given back.

    1. avatar Marc T says:

      Exactly. I don’t smoke weed but I would have no problem getting some from about seven different people I know. The permission slip for smoking weed is ridiculous; very much like a permission slip for owning/carrying a firearm, drinking alcohol……or being stupid. Don’t ask big brother; just do.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Yep. If they’re going to bring the hammer down on you for following self-contradictory laws, why on God’s green earth would anyone bother following the law at all? You’re much better off just quietly and discreetly ignoring it.

  7. avatar JoeGoins says:

    The problem here is that the states are subverting the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce (even if it’s for compassionate reasons) and conning people into thinking that it’s lawful. The United States Supreme Court already decided in 2005’s Gonzales v. Raisch that the federal law on the matter is constitutional sound and binding on the states. While the states are in the wrong, very few people in Congress—Republican or Democrat—want to tackle the issue of legalizing the substance as they sit back like cowards and prohibit enforcement of the law. This has led to a strong proliferation of it’s medical and recreational usage which is highly regulated. See https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/03-1454/opinion.pdf

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      To be honest, I didn’t read that whole link, in fact I more or less just skimmed the introduction. But, this being the internet, I’m not going to let that keep me from spewing a few opinions.

      It seems to me that the state of California does not have the authority to specifically legalize something that is banned federally. However, there is no obligation for a state to have laws that mirror federal laws. So if a state simply removes the state prohibition and doesn’t set up business and user licenses for the distribution and consumption of it, it should be on solid legal ground. And there is no obligation for your local PD to enforce federal law, that’s not their job. Therefore, you’re free to toke up and carry, so long as you don’t run into any federal agents. However, if you do run into one, the mere possession of the two means you’ll be spending a decade or two in a federal penitentiary.

      1. avatar What About Bob says:

        “To be honest, I didn’t read that whole link, in fact I more or less just skimmed the introduction. But, this being the internet, I’m not going to let that keep me from spewing a few opinions.”

        That’s awesome….

    2. avatar Eric Bunker, USAF, Ret. says:

      Interstate commerce my a**! Wickard v. Filburn was a fatally flawed decision that turned everything into interstate commerce. Basically a mortal wound on the 10th Amendment.
      Currently I’m on a ton of opiates for chronic back pain. Still I carry. My body adjusted to the load.
      Fed has no reason to prohibit my 2A right if pot is legal in my state. I’ll mark that ATF form so that I can purchase a weapon. Never should have form (Or ATF) in the 1st place.

      1. avatar JoeGoins says:

        So you are willing to commit perjury just to carry a gun because you believe the laws are stupid. Boy! You’re a great representation of the gun community.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          If I’m on the jury for Eric Bunker’s trial for lying on the Form 4473, I’m going for nullification.

          I’ll go for nullification for any firearms law violation that wasn’t committed in the act of committing another crime (robbery, rape, etc.).

          …. shall not be infringed.

    3. avatar AZgunner says:

      This battle between state/federal law needs to be resolved in the near future. The legal gray area it exists in right now is unacceptable. Too many people don’t understand the conflict between state/federal and assume that with a medical card they’re doing nothing wrong.

    4. avatar Roymond says:

      No, what the states are subverting is an interpretation of the commerce clause that is almost 180° opposite of what it was meant for. Its purpose was to keep the feds from meddling within the states, limiting them to being a referee between the states do states couldn’t put up trade barriers, and (arguably) to help with infrastructure for letting commerce flow freely — because that’s what “regulate” means there, to make it flow freely.

  8. avatar strych9 says:

    Just end the WoD FFS.

    You can’t be pro-Constitution and pro-WoD. Nor can you be pro-2A and pro-WoD. It’s really that simple.

    1. avatar AZgunner says:

      I definitely believe in marijuana legalization. On a philosophical level, I believe in all drug legalization. But on a practical level, I’ve seen first hand what Meth, Heroin, and Crack do to people. I’ve no problem with most drug usage, but those 3 really turn people into monsters.

      It’s a tough issue and I don’t claim to have the answer. In fact, there’s probably not one good answer where everyone wins.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        The issue with meth and such only came about because government created it by the simple measure of making substance after substance illicit, driving people to invent new substances.

        It’s something marijuana gets a bad rap on; I know quite a few people who have only ever touched harder drugs because they couldn’t get their hands on what they wanted, which was marijuana. Government says marijuana is a gatewal drug, but the reality is that government built the gateways.

  9. avatar Frank says:

    Guns are in the constitution, pot isn’t!

    1. avatar ai338 says:

      Pursuit of happiness, liberty, etc.

      1. avatar Nick says:

        That doesn’t exactly disprove his point. You’ve quoted the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.

        1. avatar I read it somewhere says:

          Hahaha. You internet people make me chuckle.

    2. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      Some of the founding fathers grew hemp as a cash crop. I’m sure they knew what the leaves could do.

    3. avatar Toni says:

      i agree but i will make a good point. George Washington had wanted to make pot the legal drug and tobacco illegal. there were several reasons for this A) hemp fibre, B) those smoking weed are less likely to cause trouble than most other drugs and yes they knew heroin, cocaine and ephedrine at the time though all were far more natural at that time than any you will find on the street, C) growing tobacco destroys the soil, weed improves the soil.

      now given all this why did it not turn out that way? because the tobacco industry of the time already had too much power for them to be able to make it so. also have to ask why it was made prohibited in the first place considering the relatively low risk it poses. well there are a couple reasons for that. dupont could not break into the rope market unless it was banned as hemp rope was a far superior product and then there was big pharma who did not want a natural drug available to people that they could not patent and make money off. who runs most of big pharma behind the scenes? the Rockerfellers and that includes having control of the AMA and now the FDA

      BTW i dont smoke weed though i have in the past and for certain medical conditions i would choose to use it rather than touch mainstream medicine but for those i would not be smoking it but rather preparing it in a certain way and having it in metered doses with food. i would also in those circumstances be using the low THC varieties so getting stoned would not be an issue.

      I’ll leave joining the rest of the dots you you guys. there is a lot more info than what i have just said out there and it can all be proven

    4. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      But the 10th amendment it is and that makes it clear that the constitution was an enumeration of the governments powers not a complete list of the peoples rights. They are also not encouraging interstate commerce by making recreational drugs illegal.

    5. avatar ArC says:

      And the feds were never enumerated the power to control drugs or weed.

      Yesterday I reached the point where I decided that ending the war on drugs is more beneficial than the border wall. If Bernie sanders runs in 2020, hes got my vote, I don’t give a squirt of piss how old he is or that hes a socialist. This farce of a war needs to end.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        Bernie is an admitted and confirmed socialist.
        Socialist do not want less government, they want more government.
        If you think Bernie would get rid of the DEA, dream on. If you think Bernie would let you keep more pf the money you make, dream on. If you think Bernie would restore any of your freedoms, dream on.
        That’s just not what socialists do.

    6. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Correct, pot is not in the constitution, notably missing from the powers allocated to the federal government, and as such reserved to the states, or to the people.

    7. avatar Mad Max says:

      See the 9th Amendment.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    As mentioned get high without the gubmint. Don’t involve the feds. Has EVERYONE reading this ALWAYS been 100% truthful on their tax returns?!?

    1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      Better yet, move somewhere where it’s legal to imbibe for any reason. Oregon has relatively friendly firearms laws, other than zero reciprocity of any kind with any state.

      And just lie on 4473. It’s not like they’re going to make you piss in a jar right then and there.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        Until, of course, you are involved in a DGU that the local politicians / grievance mongers want to fry you on. “He’ll beat the rap by proving self defense / stand your ground / etc. But hey, we can prove he’s been a regular stoner, so we can get him for lying on the 4473. That’s the ticket!” (Ask yourself: if the Feds could have prosecuted George Zimmerman on this kind of a claim, is there any doubt they would have done so?)

        I don’t like either the federal MJ laws or the current format of the 4473. But until one or both are changed, lying on the 4473 is a recipe for disaster.

  11. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    You folks that want to imbibe, go ahead.
    I’ll keep my firearms, thank you.
    When the cold sets in, like this last week, and my previously shattered ankle reminds me of how many birthdays I’ve had, I’ll pop a couple of Advil. And go shooting.

    1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      In Oregon, you can do both. Legally, with no “medical” provision at all. Not even a prescription.

      But in my opinion, shooting sports and weed don’t mix. Still, that does not mean you should not carry for protection. I doubt you would be more likely to shoot someone while high than not high.

      Unless it’s really good weed, and you’re the paranoid type.

      1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

        And just lie on 4473. It’s not like they’re going to make you piss in a jar right then and there.

        1. avatar MLee says:

          @ IdahoBoy
          I lie all the time on (f) Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

          What am I going to say, YES? I mean DUH! Of COURSE I’m a mental defective! Aren’t we all??
          I like guns, I have a beat up truck and I jerk off. I think that pretty much settles it.
          😉

        2. avatar IdahoBoy says:

          Great sentiments, but TMI, Dude.

  12. avatar Vanareb says:

    Medical marijuana is an oxymoron. It’s popularity aside, no national medical association endorses/recommends smoking marijuana as a safe or effective treatment for anything. They don’t endorse chewing willow bark as a headache remedy, processing molds in your basement to make your own antibiotics, or making paste from poppies to use as a pain-killer either. Voters deciding to call something a medicine does not really make it medicine. Good grief “Voters” have also elected Obama, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi. How about using rigorous medical research to determine what can be used from this plant and what can be discarded, that way if we get a drug that’s as bad as Nancy Pelosi, at least we have someone to sue! Certain chemical extracts from the cannabis plant have proved safe and somewhat effective for treating specific illnesses, but these are not included in the 4473 related prohibition. I get a bit tired of pot heads trying to climb over the backs of people with serious illnesses and pain in order to legitimize their recreational drug use. Obtaining a pot card is a joke. Drug use is a voluntary choice with consequences. Don’t want the consequences? Don’t use the drug. Simple.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Doesn’t your head hurt when you spew such nonsense?

      1. avatar Vanareb says:

        Not quite as eloquent a response as “Oh Yeah?” But keep trying.

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          I have a degree in pharmacology. I also spent 14 years as a hospice nurse and observed the therapeutic benefit of cannabis many, many times.

          What references do you have for your assertions?

          If YOU don’t like cannabis, by all means avoid it. You can’t choose for anyone else.

        2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          Yup. I’ve met a couple cancer survivors who swore chewable so with thc in them helped them immensely during chemo.
          Additionally, my moms neuro doc recommended pot for her nerve pain. He seemed to be well versed on it, down to a specific strain. (It’s just too bad it didn’t treat her nerve pain, but she swears it gets rid of her osteo-arthritis pain.)

        3. avatar Ebvan says:

          So MAMALIBERTY if my assertion was false it should be easy to expose. What you seem to be saying is that despite your considerable education in pharmacology and experience in the medical field you are unable to cite a single national medical association that recommends/endorses smoking marijuana as a safe or effective treatment for anything and that your comparatively limited anecdotal information gleaned from your (very important and admirable) work with Hospice [which I could never imagine myself doing] trumps all of the combined education and experience these national associations can summon to support their positions. You also seem to be saying that there has been research in other countries that conclusively supports your position, even though you are unable or unwilling to name the country or identify the research. Please understand, I have NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER to providing terminal patients with anything that even might make them feel better from marijuana to Bromptons Cocktails to Heroin, or psychedelic drugs. They are terminal, they can’t suffer long term consequences by definition and their behavior will have little impact on the rest of the population. But that is not the focus of the discussion at hand. Just for fun, try asking pot proponents a hypothetical question. Are you willing to make marijuana illegal for everyone else if it meant that it could be used by terminal patients to ease their suffering? My answer is an unequivocal YES! But when I have asked this question before the proponents start waffling like crazy.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Alcohol doesn’t have much in the way of medicinal use either, but I regularly mix gin and tonics. I make a remarkable top shelf margarita nicknamed “The Truth Serum.” None of these affect my gun rights (living in CA does, but that’s a different story).

      Personally, I think weed sucks, but it shouldn’t destroy gun rights. I guess I just like liberty.

    3. avatar DaveR says:

      So how long have you been a shill for the pharmaceutical industry? If pot could be patented, it would be just as legal as all the other drugs you seem to have no problem with.

      1. avatar Vanareb says:

        Patented? Do you mean like patent number U.S. Patent 9095554 or U.S. Patent 6630507? There are dozens of marijuana related patents pending by both growers and pharmaceutical companies. It still doesn’t mean that smoking pot cures anything! Some chemical derivatives of the plant show Real promise.

        1. avatar Toni says:

          the natural plant was already shown to have promise against cancer back in the 30’s by a leading researcher of the time. his work was covered up and it was quickly classified as an illegal drug. there is however big money in the chemical versions but they do not have the same effect as the whole plant. using whole plant there is far less harm and there is other greater benefits in the added effects that components that they dont deem “active constituents” in balancing what they deem “active constituents” preventing them from causing harm…… such as the harm done by chemotherapy etc where it kills your immune system, often long term, and does organ damage which is often the actual cause of death in most cancer patients rather than the cancer itself.
          personally i would take my chances with the cancer rather then their drugs for it….. and so would many oncologists believe it or not

      2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Dronabinol (Marinol®) is a gelatin capsule containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) that’s approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy as well as weight loss and poor appetite in patients with AIDS.

    4. avatar Snatchums says:

      “no national medical association endorses/recommends smoking marijuana as a safe or effective treatment for anything”

      Largely because it is schedule 1 and doing any kind of research to prove or disprove ANYTHING about it has been illegal for decades. It’s a catch 22, can’t do the research because it’s illegal and it’s illegal because no one did the research.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        Plenty of research done in other countries. The medical use is no longer in question among serious, ethical scientists.

        No, it’s “illegal” because it gives power and job security to those who control the non-voluntary government. The relative usefulness or safety of the plant or its derivatives is not the question, nor the motive for the prohibition. And as long as those controllers can continue to inspire fear, hate and reinforce their bogus “authority,” cannabis and a great many other things will continue to be “illegal,” controlled by the state.

        Those who would control – and forbid as much as possible – lose sleep each night because they obsess about the fact that someone, somewhere might still be enjoying their life on their own terms. The horror…

      2. avatar Ebvan says:

        Snatchums, Clinicaltrials.gov lists over 400 scientific Cannabis studies ongoing and in varying stages of completion in the United States alone. If, as you claim, research were illegal, it probably wouldn’t be listed on that website.

    5. avatar Big Bill says:

      And Planned Parenthood doesn’t tell anyone (voluntarily) of the downsides to abortion. Especially if you’re black.
      But then, you’d expect that, wouldn’t you?

    6. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      “How about using rigorous medical research to determine what can be used from this plant and what can be discarded”

      They have, but the parts they discard is the part that gets people high, so few of the ‘medical’ users are interested.

    7. avatar Roymond says:

      Vanareb, medical marijuana is an entity created by the federal government by the simple process of declaring it not merely illegal but illegal to STUDY. So when you say how about researching it, you’re barking against the very tree that brought on the situation you think is wrong.

      If racists hadn’t cooperated with certain capitalists to get the stuff prohibited, by now there would be several dozen different medications made from marijuana, or from some other plant with the gene transplanted from marijuana. The fact that there are so many strains with so many different effects proves that! As a result peoplewouldn’t be reduced to having to ingest or inhale dozens of psychoactive compounds they don’t need in order to get the one they do need.

      It’s time all the states with the stuff decriminalized to whatever extent ordered their U.S. senators to change the status in federal law — that’s the only way we’re going to make progress, if universities could grow their own varieties and research on them.

      1. avatar Ebvan says:

        Again Roymond…Clinicaltrials.gov lists over 400 scientific Cannabis studies ongoing and in varying stages of completion in the United States alone. If research were illegal, it probably wouldn’t be listed on that website.

  13. avatar Cam says:

    They will keep lowering the bar until no one qualifies to own a gun.

  14. avatar Joatmon says:

    Medical marijuana cards are a joke. Yes, you are legal to buy from a grower but that grower will sell to anyone. I’ve seen it personally.
    I don’t smoke and don’t really care what others do. You want to smoke and own a firearm? More power to you. I know the people I shoot with don’t and that’s all I need to know.

  15. avatar Stop the Garbage says:

    Yes, because Cannabis is so widely known to make people aggressive, violent and confrontational.

    There needs to be a law that lawmakers cannot make laws on subjects that they have zero information on. Better yet, we need an amendment that allows the People (via referendum) to revoke laws that are bullshit. Make us like the Delegislative Branch. Congress sets em up, we knock em down. The Supreme Court doesn’t do anything proactive, only reactive (i.e. they only look at laws that reach their desks via court cases).

    This garbage has to stop.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “There needs to be a law that lawmakers cannot make laws on subjects that they have zero information on.”

      Who’s going to pass that law? Especially since the people who might pass it have no information about it.

  16. avatar Jason says:

    Legalization on a federal level is an inevitability, though it will take a few more decades. Eventually people of my generation and younger will be the primary demographic of Congress.

    Congress as of now, due to increased life spans, largely consists of men born way back in nineteen-clickety-two whose obsolete mindsets absolutely will not accept anything other than Refer Madness propaganda. They’re old, but not immortal, so they will eventually finally age out of leadership and let fresh ideas in.

    Also, if enough states legalize it, maybe the feds will realize they cannot afford to enforce prohibition without the help of state and local law enforcement and will finally give up.

    I’m not a weed guy myself, but I see the prohibition of it as creating way more problems than it solves. The safety concerns and environmental damage created by illegal grows (which are typically major cartel operations) are absolutely horrifying. Legalize it, regulate the fuck out of how it’s grown and sold, and in so doing make it safer to go hunting on public land in Northern California.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Another way to look at it — the anti-establishment hippies wanted to force everyone to do things their way back when they were young, and that hasn’t changed now that they’re old and ossified.

      What has changed is that they are now the establishment, and they have access to the levers of power. They used to say “question authority,” and now they’re the authorities who will brook no questions. They’ve always been profoundly hostile not only to diverging viewpoints but to the founding ideals of America. Our freedom is in mortal danger as long as these people remain in public life.

    2. avatar Pg2 says:

      Life spans are decreasing.

  17. avatar paul says:

    Nixon included marijuana in his anti drug law and war on drugs because the people that smoked it did not like him(he also open up China-which has ruined our economy).
    I stopped using pot when I was about 25 or so, because I witnessed someone pull a gun and rob someone for a $10 bag of pot.
    I did not own firearms at the time, but that made pot serious business(as far as I was concerned) and it just wasn’t worth it.

  18. avatar Roymond says:

    “OK, so author Sam Wood got that part about the involuntary commitment wrong”

    No, he got it right — he said “placed”, not “committed”. There’s a big difference. Being placed involuntarily has nothing to do with the courts; it can be a 48-hour hold if the police think you’re suicidal, for example. Commitment is when you’ve been adjudicated mentally ill, i.e. some medical yahoo drug you to court and got the judge to lock you up for treatment.

  19. avatar Pg2 says:

    A number of posters here seem to agree with individuals being forced to choose between medical freedom and going to public/private schools. We are own worst enemy.

  20. avatar adverse5 says:

    As I open my 12th beer and fondle my firearm…….

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email