Quote of the Day: Gun Owning Medical Marijuana Users Are Confused

Joe Eaton, Southwest Ohio spokesman for the Buckeye Firearms Association (courtesy buckeyefirearmsassociation.org)

“We are confused as everyone else at this point.” – Joe Eaton, Southwest Ohio spokesman for the Buckeye Firearms Association quoted in No guns: Ohio’s medical marijuana users won’t be able to have firearms [via daytondailynews.com]

comments

  1. avatar Bill says:

    Be less confusing if the potheads would quit trying to blend medical uses for weed with recreational uses for weed.

    The same arguments can be made for heavy pain killers, it makes people feel better, why cant I use it to feel good too?

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Why in hell is it any of your business what others do? By what authority do you, or anyone else, determine what is right and good for others who are not harming anyone?

      The desire/compulsion to control the lives of other people is the ROOT of all evil.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Everyone has the right to have and voice opinions. Forcing others to conform to those opinions on others is another thing. But pretending that being an opioid addict is fine and dandy or recreational pot smoking isn’t going to shave a few points of your IQ isn’t helping anybody. Personally I think the War on Drugs is a colossal failure and the organized crime and heavy handed enforcement are far more pernicious than the drugs themselves, but I still think you’re stupid to do the drugs. So there you have another opinion, deal with it.

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          An opinion isn’t the same as support/acceptance of the drug war. Everyone certainly has the right to an opinion. Nobody has a right to force others to comply with that opinion – which is what electoral politics is all about.

          If people want to take drugs to excess or otherwise destroy their lives and kill themselves… one less damned fool underfoot. But nobody should be making that decision for them.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          If drug addicts only hurt themselves, there wouldn’t be a problem. However, drug addicts are the #1 cause of violent crime in this country, directly or indirectly. The problem with the “drug war” is that we’re trying to deal with the supply problem by locking up dealers rather than the demand side by executing addicts.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Mamma L, you must have read something in Bill’s comment that I don’t see. Looked like a standard expression of opinion to me.

          Serge, it’s not the drugs that are the cause of the violence, it’s the black market for them created by their prohibition. We found the same thing when we banned alcohol. If drugs were legal you’d still have people who couldn’t hold down a job or take care of their children, but the gang violence – well it wouldn’t be gone, the gangs would find other illicit means of income but the violence – would no longer be associated with the drugs.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          The problem with our society is that we have a social safety net. Legalizing drugs would exponentially increase the strain on said net. The reality is that you can have a social safety net or you can have legal drugs, you can’t have both. If you look at history, I can point to at least one perfect example of what happens when you legalize drugs. Look at what happened to China after the Opium Wars.

        5. avatar Big Bill says:

          Legalizing drugs wouldn’t do away with violence connected with drugs for a very simple reason: legalizing drugs doesn’t make them free. Addicts still need to get money for the drugs.
          Unless you want the government (that’s us) to pay for the drugs?

          Guns are legal, but last time I checked, they cost multiple $100 bills.
          Same with cars, and TVs, and phones…

        6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          We don’t have a social safety net, we have a social safety hammock. It’s not designed to catch people when falling into economic distress and helping them back on their feet, it’s designed to make the poor comfortable in their poverty. A century ago if you lost your job and couldn’t feed your family you first, didn’t go to the government for help, you went to your church. And then they’d get everyone together and you’d get a box full of potatoes, dried beans and rice, some butter, bacon, flour, etc. Now the government just gives you a card and gives you 8 times as much so you can buy microwave dinners and so you don’t have to suffer the indignity of people knowing that you’re taking compulsory charity. Then you get a free smart phone, free housing, free energy assistance, etc.

          That said, the addicts seem to accept all sorts of discomfort (homelessness, joblessness, etc.) if they can just keep getting their next fix, so I’m not sure that even matters.

        7. avatar Joe R. says:

          No, drugs ARE the problem. Impairment, for any reason, is IMPAIRMENT.

          Drugs are a huge part of the reason for crime, the drugs that don’t immediately cause it are the eventual and proximate cause. The people that use drugs are a huge part of the reason for crime, the people that don’t immediately cause it are the eventual and proximate causes of it.

          The idiots selling “my favorite drug is ok” will get F’d up permanently by me if I catch them pitching that to any of my kids, and any other kids if I hear about it.

        8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Bill, legalizing drugs would make them much cheaper, so if the root of the violence was the need for the junkies to fund their habits it would make the problem abate.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          I don’t disagree, but the reality is that legalizing drugs will make this problem far worse. Now the poor won’t just be fat and comfortable, they will be stoned, fat and comfortable. That gives them exactly zero incentive to go out and get a job.

        10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Serge, the solution is to get rid of the hammock. Then if someone chooses to live in a micro-bus down by the river, smoke dope and beg passersby for food money, that’s his choice. It’s just my opinion that the present strategy is like cutting off your finger to get rid of a wart. It’s not that warts are desirable, it’s just the cure is worse than the disease.

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          Again, don’t disagree, but while the hammock is still there, legalizing drugs is retarded. Thanks for the PIGS reference. I’m going to use that one in the future.

        12. avatar Defens says:

          I do have my own opinions on this but, instead, just wanted to comment on what a great, urbane discussion is taking place here among regulars to the comments section. Nice job, folks!

        13. avatar Icabod says:

          If only it was so. Drug use impacts far more then the person using the drugs. The “micro bus by the river” reminded me of the massive clean up following the removal of the homeless occupation along a river. Literally tons of trash and hazardous waste had to be removed. While the social workers offered places to stay, many of the offers were refused. (Too many rules, afraid, paranoid were some of the reasons.) a couple just said they’d move to another location and come back later. We have a Facebook group for our neighborhood and county. It’s a daily occurrence that people report prowlers, thefts, and drug use. Then there are the homeless encampments that suddenly appear. These bring reports of more of the same problems. We had one individual that moved in outside a municipal building. He started harassing children as they walked to the school bus or daycare. The police said there wasn’t much they could do.
          The reality is that most drug abusers and most homeless haven mental health issues. Years ago the “insane asylums” were emptied out. The arguement was that patients could be treated as outpatients and the new medications would make this possible. The first problem was people didn’t like to take the pills. Then there was the lack of support.

        14. avatar george in RI says:

          when folks equate opiods with MJ, they lose all credibility. Can’t have it both ways folks, either make alcohol illegal (not even close in terms of impact to society/deaths/any damn metric you want to use) or make MJ legal. The hypocrisy on this issue is mind blowing and to argue status quo is to maintain one of the most bizarre institutional brainwashing examples in the history of this country.

          if you want to argue that you should not use MJ while brain is still developing fine, that is backed up by actual science. This “weed is bad, alcohol (and any other old white guy drugs)” is good is so bizarre. and I am an old white guy. open your minds people. same rules apply. don’t shoot while under influence of anything. after that, freedom is a GOOD THING.

        15. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          pwrserge, that is as inaccurate as any anti-gun statement. The theft, robbery, etc. is the crime. What they are doing otherwise doesn’t usually come into it.

          Given the “war on drugs,” most of the actual violence being perpetrated is by those attempting to control the lives of other people… cops and other government parasites.

          The drug doesn’t make people violent, any more than guns do. The antis of all stripes use the same arguments, just with different inanimate objects.

        16. avatar pwrserge says:

          MamaLiberty “drugs don’t make people violent”…

          Ok… you’ve clearly never seen a crackhead. Drugs have demonstrable chemical effects on your brain. Guns do not.

        17. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Icabod, you’d be making a great argument if drugs were currently legal and you were arguing to make them illegal. But drugs are not only illegal but we’re fighting a ‘War on Drugs’, and yet we still have an infestation of dirty hippies. What makes you think that legalization would make the problem any worse? And what’s the price of the War on Drugs? If someone busts my door in at 3:00am my first thought is it’s probably a SWAT team with the wrong address. So we now have a society where I fear the cops more than I fear the criminals. I’d gladly trade this society for one with a few more dirty hippies if I don’t have to fear the police.

        18. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “We don’t have a social safety net, we have a social safety hammock.” Agreed with the comment, loved the line.

      2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Evil is when drug intoxication user believe they can operate a car, boat, oil tanker, train, airplane or any heavy equipment while under the influence, and murder someone when they crash or smash into other people.

        You have no human right to murder death kill any person while under intoxication of any substance.

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          May want to rephrase that a bit, Chris. 🙂 Nobody has a “right” to harm another in any way except self defense -intoxicated or not.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Except that the end result is what matters. Drugs like cocaine, to pick an example out of a hat, make people far more violent. The fact that they don’t have a “right” to be more violent is irrelevant. Basically, it’s like saying that it’s ok to shoot in the air so long as your bullets don’t hit anyone.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “You have no human right to murder death kill any person while under intoxication of any substance.”

          Really, Chris?

          The person home on a weekend after a long week at work, enjoying a beer while watching auto racing, has no right to self-defense if someone kicks his front door in?

          Are you *serious* about that?

        4. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          Geoff PR
          I have previously said I don’t care if you get intoxicated IN your home. You know I’m referring to the intoxicated who drive.

          You are a silly one Geoff. Do you really think you are not responsible when you are defending against a home invasion and you shoot at the invader, and miss and the bullet goes into your neighbors house wounding or killing someone???? And this all happens when YOU are intoxicated, inside your own home?????

      3. avatar American Idolator says:

        When it comes to drugs people shouldn’t be controlled at all! All drugs should be legal, and I do mean all. That way all of the degenerates and weak willed would kill themselves off in short order. Yeah the crematoriums would be running full time for 6 months or so but we’d end up a better stronger nation.

        I feel no sorrow for junkies, it’s not like people weren’t told about how absolutely dangerous drugs are since Nixon was in office. They made the choice to be junkies. Why do we have an exploded drug epidemic? It’s bitch baby parents that tell their children that they’re special and believe that their little tards deserve trophies for just showing up. They raise their children there are no winner or losers and no consequences.

        Their children deserve to die, it’s called natural selection. Mother Nature is trying to implement “Survival of the Fittest” any way she can, we should legalize all drugs and help her out!

        None of this was written as sarcasm, I’m deadly serious.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      They shouldn’t have to. If an adult wants to smoke a plant, they have that human right.

      Didn’t James Madison smoke cannabis?

      Smoking herbs was done in North America before the Europeans came up with the concept to create what is now the USA.

      Liberty means you can smoke whatever you want and own a firearm. Are you going to be one of those “freedom lovers” who tells indigenous North Americans they can’t smoke and own a weapon?

      1. avatar Me says:

        Hey, good reply sir, nice. That one will make people stroke their beard “hopefully” haha.

        Guys, we do realize though that there are different classes of drugs though right? I mean, the War on Drugs is outrageous in some of it’s consequences, but MJ isn’t going to hurt people (yes, maybe make some more lazy), HOWEVER, do we want meth heads running around in public legally? Just a question, I’m honestly torn in ways on aspects of this issue. Thanks

  2. avatar No one of consequence says:

    This isn’t that hard. When a federal and local law conflict, the Fed law usually wins.

    The feds say medical marijuana users are prohibited persons. You may disagree with the law, in which case work to change it; but it’s pretty simple.

    1. avatar Cody says:

      Sure it is. The state is choosing to give the finger to the feds on the legality of marijuana…so, why stop there?

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        “Sure it is. The state is choosing to give the finger to the feds on the legality of marijuana…so, why stop there?”

        The problem is rather obvious: states pick and choose which parts of the federal law they want to enforce.
        “Sanctuary cities” refuse to enforce immigration laws.
        Hawaii decides to ignore federal MJ laws, but enforces gun laws against legal (in the state’s eyes) MJ use.
        If anyone expects sensible actions by politicians, they live in a fantasy world.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          Neither states nor municipalities have any obligation to enforce any federal laws at all — the feds made things illegal, it’s their job to enforce them.

          Provinces would have to enforce federal laws, but we don’t have provinces.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Neither states nor municipalities have any obligation to enforce any federal laws at all…”

          Not quite true. If presented with an obvious violation, they will enforce the federal law.
          In the case of Hawaii, the locals have decided to enforce federal law based on their own philosophy. They were not presented with an obvious violation, they had to mine databases to find the offenders.
          Like I said: they pick and choose which parts of federal law they decide to enforce.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Doesn’t matter what the law is, or its effect on your RTKABA. Fix yer shit, people on drugs have proven themselves to be worthless if not down right dangerous to the rest of Society, but at the very least users become the “THEM” that require more of a watchful eye and monitoring in our shared relationships than the average non-user. And THAT’S A FU<kING TAX.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        That depends on the drug, and the user.

        The vast majority of marijuana users create no problems at all for anyone else. Even cocaine isn’t as bad as the government propaganda wants us to believe.

        Read _Saying Yes_ by Jacob Sullum — he debunks all the myths using the government’s own data.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      There is the noisome stench of red herring all over this.

      The problem is not, necessarily, does the federal government have the authority to determine that marijuana should be illegal for personal use. That is any ENTIRELY different question.

      The red herring throwing everybody off the trail is that the entire CONCEPT of the government creating a list of things that in their opinion should prohibit citizens from exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, then using the NICS system to enforce that diktat, is unconstitutional INFRINGEMENT.

      Stop chasing the damned fish. Keep your eye on the target!

      NIX NICS! Support the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “NIX NICS.” Clever.

  3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    Not confused at all. Furious, terrified and mostly helpless.

    Resist, do not comply.

  4. avatar Docduracoat says:

    The law says that users of illegal drugs cannot buy guns from an FFL using form 4473
    Even if your state allows medical marijuana, the ATF has taken the position that marijuana is illegal under Federal law and you are prohibited from buying from an FFL holder
    There is no law about giving up your previously legally acquired guns
    If your using legal drugs from a doctor.. go ahead and buy all the guns you want from a gun store!

    1. avatar MadeInUSA says:

      Federal laws says users of illegal(federally) drugs may not possess firearms of ammunition.
      A 4473 is a Federal form, not a State form. So if you use marijuana in a State where its legal and check No on the illegal drug question, you just lied on a Federal form.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Federal law also says that selling and using marijuana is illegal. Yet the feds allow large marijuana growing operations and stores that sell it for recreational use. The feds are inconsistent and need to go one way or the other. As an layman, to me this seems like an easy win in court and I don’t know why this stuff isn’t being challenged. I’m sure there is a reason, but I can’t figure it out.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes, we should raid all these illegal dispensaries and lock up all the people involved. Drugs are the #1 cause of violent crime in the US. Legalizing weed has not caused the reduction in violent crime that the drugfiends have claimed. In fact, Denver has seen crime skyrocket. We tried the hands off libertard approach. Time to the boot on the neck approach. You get caught selling drugs? Public execution. Get caught using drugs? Public flogging. The problem with the drug war is that we are treating it as if drug abuse is not an existential threat to human civilization.

        2. avatar Dev says:

          Well, except for the fact that you’re wrong about Denver. And making blanket statements like saying “legalizing drugs is going to strain our society and increase crime” is exactly the same as the BS coming from the gun grabbers.

          http://www.denverpost.com/2016/02/17/marijuana-legalization-unlikely-to-blame-for-denver-crime-increase/

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… deflect, deflect, deflect.. the fake news industrial complex will never admit that their political masters’ glorious ideas are retarded. Simple fact is, weed became legal, crime went up. You never see the same correlation with guns.

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          They haven’t done anything about it “YET”. You talk as though your city Streets Department never lets a pothole even open up in the street. What do you want them to do to prove it to you? Burn people alive? OK.

        5. avatar Roymond says:

          Denver’s own figures show that marijuana legalization has not added to crime. The FBI’s figures show the same thing.

  5. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    “…Marijuana Users Are Confused.”

    Well, duh. 8>)

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      It’s like ignorance.

      Ignorance is bliss, unless you’re aware of it.

    2. avatar tmm says:

      Right. That would be as obvious as stink on a hippie. (I wonder what made me think of that..)

  6. avatar william ashbless says:

    Do what you want. Just be aware that there is potential for you to lose your right to possess a firearm over this issue.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      This is a silly hobson’s choice.

      1) They either own a gun illegally, and have drugs.
      2) They have drugs illegally, and have guns.

      Better choice: Create an avenue to have both guns and drugs legally. Otherwise you just are playing hot potato with what kind of criminal you get.

  7. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    I have to take the side of the medical marijuana user /gun owners side. This is nothing more than “Creeping Incrementalism”.
    Where the Government and Law Enforcement community blur the lines of “What’s legal and ILLEGAL…” Without Due process, these soon to be new age leaders in “Authoritarianism”. Will be adding to this ever growing list of “so-called prohibited persons…” Soon it will be alcohol users, doctor issued anxiety medications, because your old, because YOUR a racist Alt-Right, etc., etc., ” The US Constitutional-Bill of Rights be damned in the “Name of public safety!” You KNOW, “The Enemy of the State….” In some states, medical personnel are still demanding to know if a patient has guns, or weapons in the home…This can be for simple workplace anxiety, panic attacks, the elderly, etc….All without Due process, a justified law enforcement intervention with an arrest, or adjudication through a court of law…Come people , enough is enough! We’re still fast tracking toward authoritarianism here! When are we all going to take a stand ! Turning back the clock, to Freedom, life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!

  8. avatar G says:

    Most gun owners i know are against gun control. Mainly on the basis that they making guns illegal, wont keep anyone bad from getting them, so therefore we should all have access to one for defense. But most gun owners i know think marijuanna is a terrible drug, and making it illegal is the only way to keep anyone from getting. You cant really have it both ways in my opinion.

    Are alcoholics required to give up gun rights when they get arrested for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th time for dui or public drunkenness

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      There is no constitutional right to get stoned out of your gourd. Also, guns don’t cause changes in behavior. Drugs do.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Don’t go wedging your stupid “I like drugs” issue into the pile of our shared assertions for 2nd Amendment rights. Hide your sh_t elsewhere. Most everyone views drug users as a detriment, or else most use wouldn’t be illegal and vilified. It’s not an ignorant opinion, most people have at least some experience for how f’d up drug users are. It doesn’t just let you ‘escape from reality’ for a while, it bends (then breaks) your thinking. And worse, it’s absolutely a form of ENSLAVEMENT.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Thank you.

        2. avatar george in RI says:

          and by “drug users” I assume you are lumping alcohol users into the mix right? because you are aware alcohol is not only a drug, but MANY times more harmful to body/society than MJ. pick any metric you want and you will lose this argument. deaths, overdose, rage/violence, harm to body, harm to families. alcohol is the one detox you can actually die from. try OD’ing on weed sometime…you fall asleep. lets not be lazy and give alcohol a pass. thats hypocritical, intellectually disingenuous, and therefore quite lame.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          George, that’s a dumbest shit I’ve ever seen. It’s less harmful because it is exponentially less common. Again, “muh’ alcohol” is not a valid reason to legalize marijuana.

        4. avatar george in RI says:

          I am simply saying alcohol is a drug, and a much stronger one. do you not know this?

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, Alcohol is a much WEAKER drug. It takes a far larger volume of alcohol to cause inebriation than THC. Do you even chemistry bro?

        6. avatar george in RI says:

          so you are going to the parts-per-million argument now? how is that relevant when the user can ingest enough alcohol to kill themselves(let alone impairment) very easily but are unable to do the same with MJ? ever know someone who took so much MJ they choked on their own vomit and died? me neither. and as for impairment, it is also not even close. ever drive a car faster unsafely while stoned? me neither…with booze, embarassed to say but you bet. it is the nature of the drug and it’s effects that are the critical factor here. your argument would make sense if they sold alcohol in tiny vials that equated to the PPM dosages of THC. but…..they dont. or do they in your world? look I just dont see why you want to defend alcohol so vehemently but don’t apply the same rules to another drug. freedom is good. selective freedom without logic not so much.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, they effectively do. Even a bottle of hard liquor does not constitute a lethal dose of alcohol for most adults. To give you an idea, my intoxication dose for alcohol is about 600mg / kg. What’s the intoxication dose for THC? Do you even know?

        8. avatar Joe R. says:

          George in RI likes weed better than reality. When we’re all needing each other to come together in the moment, we’ll have to wait (not just for him to sober up, but) for him to detox before we’re sure he’s actually ‘joined the huddle’.

          It’s not something everyone can partake in with George in RI, either. If / when George in RI needs brain surgery, or to take the train to his dealer in west CT, he doesn’t want his brain surgeon or his train conductor ‘partaking’.

        9. avatar george in RI says:

          ok so we are assuming I am a stoner because I am pointing out a simple hypocrisy you two can’t seem to see? I am not advocating for eliminating alcohol, simply saying you can’t say one is fine and another is not. and to talk PPM is pure gibberish and deflecting the fact that your drug of choice destroys lives and families at a rate far exceeding anything else this side if opiates. I don’t want my airline pilot stoned just like I don’t want him to hit the jack before a flight, same goes for the guy at the range next to me. impairment is impairment, chemical composition means nothing….and if you want to have an argument about what each chemical does to you, fine. excessive drinking is responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working age adults between 20-64. excessive alcohol ingestion increases aggression. excessive weed intake results in a short nap followed by a trip to the fridge. come on guys. picking and choosing what drug you think is kosher and which is not is exactly what the antis do with regard to the constitution. I am very sorry to inform you that alcohol is in fact a drug. just because institutionally you were raised to ignore this fact doesn’t change things. generational brainwashing is a thing, I get it. try to grow out of it.

        10. avatar The Punisher says:

          Get ’em George.

          It’s topics like these that really make the Statist hypocrisy come out.

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          No dumbass, it’s the basic fact that it is possible to drink and not get drunk while it is not possible to smoke weed and not get stoned. If you don’t see the difference there, than you’re just a libertardian cretin who’s not capable of understanding that certain things are rights and others are not. For the last fucking time, “muh’ alcohol” is not an argument.

        12. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I have not once read Serge state that alcohol was fine and should be legal, so saying he is a hypocrite for supporting alcohol or critiquing what he call’s the “muh alcohol” argument is irrelevant to his point that drugs are bad, m’kay?

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        Of course there’s a constitutional right to get stoned: no authority over such substances is granted in the Constitution, and thus it is reserved to the people.

        Arguing there’s “no such right” is doing the same things liberals do when they want to regulate something in every detail: it almost always is just an expression of the notion that the Constitution means what one wants it to mean.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “Are alcoholics required to give up gun rights when they get arrested for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th time for dui or public drunkenness” – In Texas no, yes, yes, no, no, and no. <—That's one reason you shouldn't ask compound questions.

  9. avatar DerryM says:

    The medically valuable compounds that can be extracted from cannabis do not require the intoxicant compound to be effective medicines, and do not contain the intoxicant, but since the Feds do not distinguish between the two, moron Politicians perpetuate the Marijuana Boogeyman meme and deny Americans both effective medicines and firearms rights. Using the whole plant by various methods provides the user with medicinal benefits as well as intoxication. So, between idiot Politicians and idiot Pot Users you have this “confusion” in Ohio and, likely, elsewhere. Once again, ignorance of facts wins and people suffer.

    1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      ^ This

    2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      THC and CBD are only two of many cannabis components, and ongoing studies demonstrate that they can be used in many combinations. Lots more study is needed, but the benefits of many sorts of cannabis is already very clear. Except to the prohibitionists and the puritans, of course – those who sit up nights terrified that someone, somewhere is actually enjoying life…

      The idea that pleasure, “recreational” use of things is somehow evil and to be prevented is idiotic. Take that to a good many other things and see how much sense it makes. Do you enjoy eating your dinner? Shame on you.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah. Because there are plenty of medical uses for opium and therefore recreational use of said opium caused no social problems whatsoever. Just ask the Chinese.

        1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          I think the best weapon to use against the pot heads is to teach the American public about what happened when the “drug utopia” of the opium wars occurred in China. I only started reading about it two years ago.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Agreed. Mind altering drugs are an existential threat to human civilization. History has proven this time and time again.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          “Mind altering drugs are an existential threat to human civilization. History has proven this time and time again.”

          Abuse has proven detrimental. However the drugs themselves really aren’t a problem. Just ask the Coptic Christians of yesteryear.

          Or look at the Romans, famed for their drinking. Booze didn’t bring down the Republic or the Empire. Hubris, shitty policy and greed did.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Booze has strong societal checks to prevent rampant abuse. In addition, most Europeans have evolved a resistance to alcohol. Neither exists to the same extent for other drugs.

        5. avatar Cliff H says:

          Mind-altering drugs are NOT “…an existential threat to human civilization.”

          They are Nature’s way of weeding non-survival mutations out of the gene pool.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… maybe in animals. Humans tend to not react well when a good chunk of society is suddenly rendered non-viable.

        7. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          pwrserge, if you would honestly study the documentation on the “opium wars,” etc… you would find that the problems occurred when the governments decided to get involved – for their own profit and control of course.

          Human beings have been using all sorts of things, plants and chemicals, to alter their minds and enjoy themselves. The problems come with attempts to control.

          Those who wish to kill themselves, or damage their own lives and families have that absolute natural right. If they infringe on other’s lives, there is good reason to resist them, self defense.

          Locking up thousands/millions of non-violent people for any reason does not translate to less violence or fewer problems… well, except the terrible problems of the innocent people and their families.

        8. avatar Roymond says:

          no, serge, the only problem with opium in China was that the British government decided to destabilize China by making opium abundant and cheap due to shipping in vast quantities. Before that, it was not an issue.

          So your argument would be valid only if the government is supplying vast quantities of marijuana in order to make it plentiful and cheap.

        9. avatar Roymond says:

          strych9, add to your list for weakening Rome the fact that they used lead pipes. That decreased their health and thus lifespans, and effectively lowered the IQ of the ruling city. If you’re farming your own plot, dropping your IQ a few points is no big deal, but when your job is running an empire stretched to the limits of communications technology, it’s huge.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        You’re either Jewish or Catholic. I can’t tell which.
        But guilt is strong in you.
        That’s said in jest. 🙂
        But the idea you project isn’t actually given as a reason for making drugs (including MJ) illegal. It’s an attitude assigned by those who want them legalized.

      3. avatar Joe R. says:

        We get it, Mamaw L likes pot. She probably thinks it’s a “help”, she just can’t see it from here.

      4. avatar DerryM says:

        You might want to view this interview with a Neurologist concerning findings about the harmful aspects of THC:
        https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/marijuana-good-or-bad-doctors-weigh-in/

        Personally, I do not care if people use “recreational substances” as long as they do no harm to anyone else. No one should be forced to get high to obtain the Medicinal Benefits of cannabis extracts, and no one should use cannabis to get high while claiming they “need” the Medical Benefits. Use Cannabis for medicinal purposes or use it to get high, but don’t fucking conflate the two and give the idiot Politicians cause to deny people their Second Amendment rights at the cost of the medical benefits of CBDs .

        And yes..I do enjoy my goddamned dinner every goddamned night… and sleep perfectly well.

        One thing I’ll agree with you on is that more investigation and scientific study needs to be done on cannabis, both to confirm beneficial extracts and identify potential harmful effects, as I have seen/read plenty of information on both. The meme that THC is a “harmless” drug is as idiotic as the meme of the Marijuana Boogeyman.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    Get high the traditional way…and to all those holier than thou types-do you speed when you drive? Drink and drive? Ever fibbed on a TAX form?!? Quit giving .gov anything. Read “3 felonies a day” sometime…

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The problem is with that logic is that you assume that there are no long term societal repercussions for rampant drug abuse. Given the history of the 19th century and opium, we can already state that this is pure libertardian bullshit.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        That is an apples to oranges comparison.

        You’re better than this serge.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Chemical dependency is chemical dependency. It does not matter if it’s weed or opium. Honestly, I’m not too thrilled about alcohol either, except that there are strong societal checks to help combat rampant chemical dependency on it. At best, you’re introducing something just as dangerous as alcohol abuse to society without any checks that would prevent abuse. Look how well that worked out for numerous native populations in the Americas.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “Chemical dependency is chemical dependency.”

          I won’t argue this point because you’re correct about this. However…

          If you troll around the internet there are a shocking number of couples who “swing” and like to snort crank when they do. Generally speaking, so far as I can tell from the lack of these folks getting arrested for what they’re doing, they pose no threat to anyone (unless you’re dumb enough to join them for an STD party I guess).

          On top of that, shall we ban guns for folks who are addicted to adrenaline? You know, skydiving junkies or something? They’re chemically dependent they just get their fix in a different way. How about runners or serious cyclists? Again, chemically dependent, they just get their mind alterations in a different manner.

          To me a drug is like a gun in a lot of ways. The gun makes no decisions. It’s an inanimate object. The drug is inanimate too. It’s the user that makes decisions in both cases. If they make bad decisions we can and should punish them for those decisions regardless of why those decisions were made.

          So, if you want to sit in your house with a pistol and harm no one, something Shannon Watts hates, how is that different from sitting on your couch smoking a joint, drinking or taking other drugs? Where’s the harm to anyone else? Don’t we make the argument about criminals vs. responsible gun owners on this site every day? We do make that argument and we get mad as hell when someone does something stupid and that stupid/criminal action is used to paint the rest of us as people who should have our guns taken away.

          My personal point of view is that if you’re not harming anyone then carry on. If you want to sit there, puff a joint and clean your M1A… well, go ahead. In fact, after I properly check it, will you clean mine too?

          My view of this comes from my view of how society functions and how fucking retarded liberals are in regards to “group rights”. As a society we are a group of people with certain individual rights and responsibilities. We cannot bestow any rights or responsibilities which we do not have onto another person, such as a police officer, and since I have no right to tell you what to do in your own home neither does the group (society). It doesn’t matter how many people you get together. 20 billion people with no individual right to do something don’t magically obtain that right by virtue of being part of a large group and they sure as fuck don’t get the ability to create that right and then pass it on to someone else so that the person in question can go fuck with people the 20 billion have decided they don’t like. Therefore, I would argue that society has no ability to bestow upon the police (or anyone else) the ability to fuck with you in your own home when you’re not harming anyone.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Simple. The gun doesn’t have an influence on your decision making process once used. The drug does. Not malicious != not dangerous. Once the drug is in your system, all bets are off. As for adrenaline junkies, etc… Come now… You can’t seriously consider that a viable argument.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          For adrenaline junkies I certain do consider it a viable argument. They push boundaries in ways that can, and often do, become unsafe to other people. Skydivers have a thing they call a “suicide”. Throw the chute out of the plane, jump out after it, catch it, put it on and deploy it. If they make a mistake that’s a very serious threat to be people on the ground and they’re doing this because of a chemical dependency.

          Rally racers push the limits of cars in turns and sometimes take out whole crowds of people (you can argue the people shouldn’t be standing where they are but then the driver should be within the limits of his/her car and skill too).

          So yes, I would say there’s a connection here.

          As for the gun not changing brain chemistry I would say that argument is shaky. For some people it certainly does change brain chemistry in significant and noticeable ways. Hoplophobes freak the fuck out if you display a gun. That’s an immediate and obvious fear response which is based on a change in brain chemistry. Other people say “Oh cooooool!”, again a change in brain chemistry. Every stimulus we encounter changes brain chemistry to one degree or another.

          Millions of people smoke weed every day and harm no one. It’s the same with gun owners; every day millions of us harm no one. However, in both cases the object in question does, without a doubt, change our brain chemistry and in both cases there will be people who just “can’t handle” that change responsibly. They’re a small percentage in each case and therefore, in my mind, there is no reason to go after millions of people for the irresponsible actions of a few.

        5. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Skydivers have a thing they call a “suicide”. Throw the chute out of the plane, jump out after it, catch it, put it on and deploy it.”

          No cigar, since most drop-zones are in relatively rural areas…

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          “No cigar, since most drop-zones are in relatively rural areas…”

          Check out the online videos of people doing this in Cali lots-o-buildings in those videos. Also, these folks rarely skydive alone which means they’re a threat to their fellow sky divers and collisions during skydiving kill people every year. No matter how you cut it, unless they’re skydiving alone AND in a rural area they’re a potential threat to someone other than themselves, which is my point.

          Further, the locale is not germane to the argument at hand. It’s akin to saying that if a weed smoker lives in a rural community they can own a gun but if they live in a suburb they cannot.

        7. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “As a society we are a group of people with certain individual rights and responsibilities. We cannot bestow any rights or responsibilities which we do not have onto another person …” What about the power to tax?

          I basically agree with you, and others, about the whole non-aggression principle, but adhered to strictly, civil society cannot exist. (No taxes, traffic laws, etc.) I think we are much better off with civil society. Without it, we don’t have freedom; we have anarchy. I fundamentally believe in well ordered liberty, but the borders between over-regulation, well ordered, and disorder are hard to define in a meaningful way.

  11. avatar David says:

    I’m still looking for the Amendment to the Constitution that makes any drug illegal. We had to do it for alcohol, didn’t we? How’d that turn out? Oh, yeah, violent crime went through the roof and then subsided when Prohibition was repealed. And people drank less! Probably wouldn’t happen the same way with drugs now, would it? And, no, I don’t use drugs. It’s just human nature to want what you’re told you can’t have. Portugal legalized all drugs years ago and they don’t have any issues.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Portugal doesn’t have a large population of welfare leeches. Drugs cause the collapse of empires. Just ask the Chinese.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        ‘Portugal doesn’t have a large population of welfare leeches.’

        I think what you meant to say is that Portugal doesn’t have a large population. The country is the P in PIGS. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIGS_(economics)

    2. avatar Jim B says:

      Portugal did not legalize drugs in 2001 they decriminalized them. Big difference. Drugs are still illegal in Portugal and being caught with them means a fine and possibly referral to a drug rehab program. This is not much different that how marijuana is treated in some jurisdictions in US where it is still illegal but not criminalized.

    3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “We had to do it for alcohol, didn’t we?” Did we? We had one, but was it required? Of course Prohibition was before Wickard v. Filburn, but had it been after, I doubt a constitutional amendment would have been required for the courts to uphold a ban on alcohol.

      The point is that the argument that the Feds can’t regulate basically everything under the Commerce Clause isn’t going to get you anywhere. Even if I am sympathetic and think Wickard v. Filburn belongs in the SC Hall of Shame right next to Dredd Scott.

  12. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Quote of the Day: Gun Owning Medical Marijuana Users Are Confused”

    Of course they are, they’re stoned…

    1. avatar Wade says:

      Goddamn you are slick tell your cousin that joke next time you fuck him.

  13. avatar Defens says:

    Wait until National Reciprocity passes if you want to see confusion and uneven enforcement!

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    Oh man, this is a topic where the misconceptions fly fast and furious (see what I did there?).

    Irregardless of the medical/anti-inflammatory purposes of certain compounds in pot and irregardless of how people choose to take it pot really isn’t dangerous unless the users are driving and therefore have a slowed reaction time which isn’t good on a highway. It’s not fucking crank for Christ’s sake. I personally know dozens of people who are pot smokers and they’re far safer about handling a gun than your average libtard is when the libtard is dead-nuts sober. I know a bunch of people who like to have some drinks and snort some nose-candy on Friday nights too. Again, I’d hand them a gun when they’re less-than-sober long before I’d hand it to some of the morons I’ve had the “pleasure” to work with even if my co-workers/former co-workers were sober.

    The overarching question here isn’t about “guns” or “drugs” or “guns & drugs”. Crackheads will still use the latter and steal the former no matter what the law is. The real question is what the proper role of government is when it comes to these three topics. That’s a question that each person is going to have a slightly different answer to.

    Personally I tend to err on the side of personal freedom but that’s just me. There are a lot of other issues that *could* be drug/intoxication related where I don’t think anyone would argue someone should lose their gun rights unless they’re consistently being irresponsible with their meds/condition and showing a predilection for dangerous behavior. Diabetes comes to mind; here in Colorado there was a class action lawsuit over diabetes/DUI/DWAI because the cops killed dozens of people who had low blood sugar by locking them up for DUI and not feeding them (“Fucking drunks, they get what they deserve” was the mantra). Does the fact that someone failing to fully match their meds to their food intake to their activity level results in them acting drunk mean they shouldn’t have a gun? You’d basically have to be a retard to argue that but the overall results of their situation are the same: they are effectively heavily intoxicated by taking their medication.

    This is one of those places where there is just too much grey area for my taste. Let people do what they want and, if they display threatening behavior, deal with that in-and-of-itself. The fact that someone is high on meth isn’t really meaningful if they don’t do anything else. If they break into your house waving around a machete, well, isn’t that why you have a gun?

    The drug really isn’t the issue. Behavior is the issue and if we let nature take it’s course the behavior will rapidly settle out who’s a responsible user and who isn’t because the irresponsible users will display behavior that gets them locked up or laid out on a slab.

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      Strych,

      That part about meds and food, and might be intoxicated..yeah, been there. Never arrested, but definitely jacked up a vehicle. My old man, has had police intervene with it. It’s more like tripping shrooms, than being drunk.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        It depends on the person.

        I start to get the shakes around 70mg/dl and mild hallucinations (shadows, auras and the like) around 50. I haven’t gone lower than that while awake. My friend OTOH is totally normal down to 30(!!!!). His sister turns into a combative “drunk” around 80. (God I feel bad for Type 1’s).

        Regardless, I’ve never met anyone who believes diabetics are dangerous and should be prohibited persons due to a reliance on insulin or a drug like Metformin.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          The difference is that diabetics don’t have a choice about their incapacitation and, in most cases, can prevent it with proper medication. Stoners are the exact opposite of that, they DELIBERATELY induce intoxication. It’s like people who deliberately drink until they pass out every time they take a sip of alcohol.

          In a rational society, we punish people for things within their control.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          The problem here serge is that there isn’t a difference in many states legally speaking.

          Dozens of people got a death sentence from the police for their diabetes. Dozens in two years and that’s only what’s been documented because the cops try to cover this shit up. That certainly sounds like a punishment for the diabetic and their family to me. Now, you can write it off as “untrained” or “dumbass” cops but that doesn’t change the result. (Personally I lean towards the latter since I wonder how the fuck you find someone “drunk out of their mind” yet they don’t smell like booze and you think “drunk” rather than “medical emergency”.)

          Further, in many states it doesn’t matter if the intoxication is intentional or not. DUI and DWAI laws don’t make a differentiation. It’s not IDUI or IDWAI (Intentinal DUI/DWAI) it’s simply DUI/DWAI. You drove while intoxicated or impaired and that, in and of itself, is the crime and you will be punished circumstances be damned.

          Here in Colorado if you survive your interaction with LEOs it’s gonna cost you $12K-$20K (or more) and you’re going to lose your license for at least year with no recourse to get it back (DMV Court, so Constitutional). Again, I’d call that a “punishment”, er… well, a series of punishments actually… And again, circumstances do not matter. Drunk, diabetic, roofied, taking drugs your doctor gave you and having a bad reaction and rushing to the hospital, head trauma, whatever. It doesn’t matter. It’s a crime no matter what because your ability to operate that car was “impaired” and you got caught. The State needs your money and just calling you an “irresponsible asshole” is easier than raising taxes.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, STRYCH, a lack of intent is a viable defense against a DUI charge as far as I am aware. If you can show that the intoxication resulted from variables beyond your control, I don’t see how the prosecution can show the requisite mens rea to make a prima facie case. I agree that the situation with diabetics is fucked up, but that’s a non-sequitur to “we should legalize weed”.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          Good luck satisfying a court with that argument. I’d like to think it would work but I’m not aware of state where it will. I know for a fact that even if you beat the criminal case in Colorado you’re not getting your license back because that’s a separate court (DMV) where an accusation is a conviction. As I said, in that case there is no recourse. So, if you have a longish commute, kiss your job goodbye.

          Here’s Ohio’s (a state I’ve lived in for a number of years) DUI/OUI laws. Note there are no exceptions for “circumstances out of your control”. Test positive and you’re fucked. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.19

          The simple fact is that the laws don’t require you to have mens rea. Otherwise DUI laws would be unenforceable when someone said “I didn’t mean to get drunk Your Honor!”. I mean, how many people who get a DUI start out the night saying “I’m gonna get wasted and drive!”? I would wager virtually none.

          With regard to diabetes, Colorado is kind of a special case, however states do have laws under which they can go after drivers who have the problem I’ve described.

          In fact, in reference to Ohio, this is such a problem there are actually websites devoted to “DUI or Diabetes” telling you how to legally defend yourself against a DUI if you’re a diabetic who had a hypoglycemic event while driving. Whole fucking websites from everyone from the ADA to lawyers. All recommend a vigorous defense to try to get the case dismissed noting that a “Diabetic DUI” defense in court is a very, very risky legal move.

          Ultimately my problem here serge isn’t with you. It’s with the hardnosed attitude you’re promoting. Personally I’m no fan of drugs but I am 1) a fan of freedom, real freedom including the risks that come with it, and 2) very well aware that the attitude you’re promoting, while probably not a problem in your hands rapidly becomes a problem in the hands of stupid people, bureaucrats (but I repeat myself) and “by the book” type cops. Innocent people/those who have harmed no one get ensnared and their lives are ruined.

          On top of that the “War on Drugs” has already been used nationwide as an excuse to shred the BoR. Your 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment rights go right the fuck out the window as soon as the word “drugs” is even whispered. Cops fucked up? Well they can use that word retroactively to justify just about anything. You don’t have to do anything wrong. Cops get the wrong address, shoot you and your dogs (if you have any) confiscate all your guns and then say “Whoops, sorry, wrong address. Drugs though man, drugs are bad, so yeah, we kick down doors and dish out bullets”. You’re shot, your dogs are dead, you’re gonna need tons of money and years of time to get your shit back… because of a four letter word that amounts to a “get out of jail free card” for the police no matter how bad their behavior was.

          Sorry, I just can’t support this level of tomfuckery.

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.” I don’t see a mens rea element. Now maybe if you could prove that you weren’t voluntarily intoxicated, you could get off, but good luck with that.

          In Texas, intoxication means “not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body.” It doesn’t matter if it is prescribed medication taken in accordance with medical direction.

          “The problem here serge is that there isn’t a difference in many states legally speaking.

          Dozens of people got a death sentence from the police for their diabetes.” – I’m pretty sure that shit ain’t legal. (Though, yeah, as stated above, there is no legal difference between accidental and intentional intoxication in DWI/DUI law that I’m aware of).

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          I have never parcariced not intend to practice criminal law. I want to part of that clustefuck, so I’ll leave that judgement to you. It seem odd to me, however, that any offense can exist without a mens rea component at some stage. By the strict reading of the law, someone who got slipped a date rape drug would be guilty of a DUI if the drug kicked in while they were on their way home. That seems… odd…

  15. avatar Jon in CO says:

    I’m trying to understand why so many people here are trying to equate pot heads with “drug addicts”. They are not even on the same planet. Yes, so many robbieres have occurred cause they just needed to get that dime bag for a quick fix…/sarc

    Come on people. This is weed we’re talking about. Most of the people completely against it have never done it. Don’t talk about regulation and how people act on drugs if you’ve never done them. Hearsay doesn’t hold up in court, so it shouldn’t hold up anywhere either. Just ‘cause you “heard it on the news”(seriously?) or “my cop buddy told me” (again…) that makes it 100%?

    Grow up people. This is pot. Give the stoners their weed, and buy stock in Frito-Lay, Coke, and Hostess.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I’m also against child molestation… I don’t need to have diddled little Timmy to know it’s a bad thing. The reality is that stoners are stupid and stupid people are dangerous. I went to high school with a guy who was stoned out of his gourd for most of the day, every day. He went from weed as a freshman to shrooms as a sophomore, to heroin as a senior. It did not end well.

      1. avatar cmac890 says:

        Thats a false equivilence. The difference between you diddling little Timmy and potheads, is that potheads aren’t malicious. Which is more than can be said for you on a regular basis.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… Because obviously having people walking around not in control of their faculties is a great idea… what could possibly go wrong?

        2. avatar cmac890 says:

          I used to go to bars and clubs to do specifically just that, only with alcohol. And I, like many other people, was perfectly willing to accept any and all consequences of my actions. I’m just wondering who died and appointed you czar, thats all. Live and let live, and all that jazz

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Simple, just because one particular brand of borderline criminal stupidity is allowed is a non-sequitur to we should legalize other brands of criminal stupidity. It is possible to drink without becoming dangerously intoxicated. This is easy due to the dosage levels of alcohol involved. It is much harder to do so with drugs like THC where intoxication dosages are measured in milligrams.

          I’m a 200lb adult man. It takes a good half bottle of scotch to make me seriously drunk to the point where my faculties are significantly impaired and I become a danger to myself and others. To give you an idea that’s an intoxication doze of ~600 mg / kg. With HTC, that’s a LETHAL dose.

        4. avatar cmac890 says:

          ‘Criminal stupidity’ is subjective.

          1.) If being stupid were a crime anyway, I know a whole bunch of people who’d have been hung ages ago.

          2.) What you call ‘stupid’, some people call ‘pain relief’, and to be honest, their argument is more compelling.

          3.) You are literally the same person who goes around talking about throwing people out of helicopters. Dont give me or anyone here this bullsh*t righteous indignantion about pot use, because it might hurt people. Thats just hypocritical. You might think we’re stupid, but we’re not as stupid as you think we are.

          I’m simply suggesting you let other people make their poor decisions freely, and I have a hunch that future legislation will reflect people’s desire to do just that.

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          No, it’s argument ad absurdum. He is stating that doing a thing is not required to judge or know a thing, and it isn’t as his example proves. I always went with “I don’t need to eat shit to know it tastes bad.”

      2. avatar Jross says:

        My neighbor used to get drunk and beat the living crap out of his wife.

        I don’t look down on people enjoying a beer when they get home.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Having a beer will not impair your faculties. Using any amount of THC or drinking beer like water will. I don’t look down on people who retain control of their faculties. I deliberately despise people who do.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Having a beer will not impair your faculties.”

          Yeah, it can. There’s plenty of software out there to measure your own reaction times that will prove that to you.

          Real, measurable data.

          The bitch of ETOH is, at mild levels of impairment, you are completely oblivious to it.

          To the point where you become convinced you’re better able to preform ‘with a few drinks in you’ than stone sober.

          Then put ’em in a driving simulator and watch the problems they have…

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Some people CAN perform better with a few drinks in them than stone sober. For example, people with certain neurological disorders often self-medicate with alcohol because it’s an effective way of reducing anxiety. The results in response time from one beer are in the noise band for most healthy adults. You’d be surprised how much your body chemistry can vary just over the course of a day.

          The bottom line is that it is possible to drink alcohol and suffer no measurable impairment, the same cannot be said for THC.

      3. avatar MDC says:

        Serge, the fact that you keep bringing up China and saying ‘stoned out of gourd’ just goes to prove you’re an antiquated out of touch dinosaur. Every single argument you’ve made here is invalid and based on feeling and opinion. I burn the herb. Every night before bed. Never before. Every efin night. I also own a very successful fireplace business. No problems, no worries. You sir are Red Foreman. An antiquated old douche stuck in reefer madness, afraid of change. I mean shit, while douche bags, like yourself, the last 3 sitting presidents, outside of my man the Don, openly admitted to consuming cannabis. Douches, yes. Presidents, yes. Go fuck you serge. Your argument, like you, is old, out of touch and invalid. Get with the times, man

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      Dude, this one time in college I go SO high that I couldn’t figure out how to open this bag of Doritos to dip into my Large Size Stouffer’s Mac & Cheese. So, I pulled out my .40 cal blaster, blew the bag open with it and then proceeded up to 7/11 and, using my high capacity murder-machine magazines and underbarrel chain-saw/RPG/atomic bomb bayonette, I killed 27 bajillion people just to get to the soda fountain!

      Cottonmouth brah, it’s real.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        I have been so baked before, I ordered a pizza, and literally couldn’t get off of the couch to answer the door. That struggle is real.

        Those are the people we are worried about owning guns and doing dumb things with them.

        And earlier post, I’ve been walking around at 30 before, completely coherent. 65, seeing rooms completely change dimension, colors are completely inverted. Depends on the day and what’s in my system. Luckily, most of the times when that happens, I’m at work and there are people that recognize what’s happening and help me out. It’s certainly scared the ever living shit out of me a couple times.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Jesus, that’s pretty scary. I’ve never had anything like that happen.

          Fortunately I don’t dip fast unless I’ve had a sugary soda, which I don’t drink anymore, so from the time I get shaky to the time I start having mild hallucinations is usually 30-45 minutes. I’ve never gone past mild hallucinations but I’ve been in that “zone” for up to an hour.

          So from the time that I start to notice symptoms I generally have well over an hour to eat something before it becomes an actual problem.

          The one area I do worry about, and carry an 8oz can of Coke for, is when I go lift weights. 99% of the time there is no issue but there have been times where I’ve gotten shaky very rapidly and that worries me that it could go farther very rapidly. Something like tuna and crackers has always fixed it but I keep the Coke on hand just in case. I really don’t want someone calling the po-po about a drunk in the gym and then I end up getting shot by some rookie cop while I’m reaching into my bag for something to eat. (If that DOES happen they better kill me though because my retaliation for getting shot is not going to be minimal.)

          Since I almost always have a gun in that bag (it’s in a locked locker when I’m not around it) while at the gym they would certainly get away with shooting my ass, CCW permit be damned.

          Do you carry anything like sugar tabs/Skittles or something? I generally keep 4-6 of those 4g tabs in my med kit as well as the Coke (I don’t keep the Coke in my kit obviously, it’s in a pocket on my backpack).

    3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “I’m trying to understand why so many people here are trying to equate pot heads with ‘drug addicts’. [sic]” – Because most people are saying that being a user of marijuana makes you a prohibited person (because it does). A couple of people, maybe a few, are saying that pot is terrible.

      “Don’t talk about regulation and how people act on drugs if you’ve never done them.” – That’s a stupid argument.

  16. avatar Jross says:

    Since weed is a schedule 1 substance then alcohol sure as hell should be as well.

    And they may as well bar alcohol drinkers from buying firearms.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      #notanargument

      Alcohol has intoxication dosages measured in hundreds of mg / kg. It is quite easy to drink and not get drunk. Try smoking pot and not getting stoned.

  17. avatar Behind the lines in the PRK says:

    Individual liberty requires personal responsibility. It doesn’t matter if you drive a car, shoot a gun, do a drug etc. If your action injures another, it is your responsibility and the consequences should be appropriately dire. Something long missing in this Nanny State we live in.

  18. avatar EJQ says:

    Anybody here want to be a passenger in a car when the driver is stoned because he/she’s allowed, due to a medical problem? Or on the road in a different vehicle, close by?

    Recreational use of marijuana is totally different than medical need, in my mind. Medical use to relieve severe pain means I’m not well enough to shoot for recreation. I should not be at the gun range if I choose to get stoned for recreational purposes, either.

    Since there are other shooters living with me, guns should not be confiscated, but, hopefully, kept away from me while I am incapacitated, just as if I was drunk.

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      I’ve ridden with both drunk and stoned drivers. I’ll take the stoner every time. No doubt, no hesitation. I’ve also possibly may have done both, but I can’t say for certain. I personally would rather drive drunk than stoned. That’s just me. Weed, just like alcohol, affects everyone differently. Some drink and be come happy and loving, some become very aggressive and violent. When I smoked, I got very annoyed, very easily. We all talk about freedom, yet there’s no freedom if we disagree with it.

  19. avatar Silentbrick says:

    I’m sorry but while I don’t give a flying rat turd what people do in their homes, when they leave it and become a danger to me and mine, it’s an issue. I have no problem with people caught on the job or driving while intoxicated by anything (I’m talking deliberate and willing use) being put up against the wall and ventilated. I work in the oilfield and a moment’s inattention can lead to not only death of that person but others. I’ve been on the rig when an impaired idiot caused thousands of dollars of damage to our equipment because they were using something. It was pure luck nobody died or was seriously injured. These people directly put my life and my co-workers lives in immediate peril. I don’t care what they used but it doesn’t belong on our jobsites. I’ve had friends die due to stoned drivers, my wife was hit by a drunk driver and there simply is no excuse. Using any substance and driving impaired is basically deliberate murder. They chose the circumstances that lead to those actions.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The interesting question is the duration of impairment from THC. With Alcohol, our bodies have evolved to filter that garbage out within a few hours. With THC… not so much.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        My family/people do not do well with alcohol. Some people say that’s because we haven’t had much exposure to that substance. Banning that drug didn’t stop alcoholism. The thing that stopped us kids from being like our parents is seeing what the alcohol did to their life. The law did nothing to deter consumption, but it does give the government the power to break up the family and imprison.

        I am still for liberty even though my family didn’t make the correct decisions in life. If they were ever negligent and caused harm, I would be the first person to call for them to be punished appropriately.

        By the way, about 4 different occasions a drunk person has smashed into my families’ cars and they all ran away. We have yet to have a person under the influence of cannabis cause harm to us or our property. It never crossed my mind to take away the human right to own a firearm from people who drink alcohol.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          1. Cana is use is orders of magnitude less common than alcohol use. Your personal experience more or less lines up with those numbers.

          2. Would you feel the same about taking away the 2nd amendment rights of a habitual binge-drinker? Because that would be an apples to apples comparison. 25ml of alcohol, a standard dose from 1 “drink”, has no measurable impact on the actions of an adult human. I can’t seem to find a dose of THC with the same lack of effect.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Stupid apple autofill… *canabis

  20. avatar matt o (in ohio) says:

    i came because ohio, i stayed for the comments. wow.

  21. avatar Quest says:

    It is really sad that to see the comments here supporting Obama’s federal overreach, in which one’s gun ownership is forfeited as soon as one consumes a molecule which has been broadly scientifically demonstrated to alleviate multiple ailments. Y’all are pathetic.

    Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable of the law could comment, but I don’t know of a plain text law that states that one who uses a controlled substance is automatically denied ownership (or possession) of one’s guns or ammunition. As I see it, this was a clear as day federal power grab, intended to further deny fundamental second amendment rights. This is true whether or not you are pro or anti-drugs.

    With a Republican Senate, House, President, and Justice Department in place, these unlawful infringements of our rights, which were enacted under the previous administration should not continue to be enforced.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      It’s 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). If you google prohibited person, I’m sure it wouldn’t have been hard to find. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) goes:
      “It shall be unlawful for any person— …
      (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); …
      to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

      Based on case law, I believe on molecule is probably insufficient. Based on high school chemistry, I don’t thing anyone that anyone here is talking about consumed just one molecule.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      The principle is simple. Do you want people who deliberately induce deminished mental capacity in themselves on a regular basis to have easy access to a firearm? Honestly, I don’t think people like that should be allowed in public any more than habitual drunks, but that’s just my opinion on mind-altering substances in general. Do I drink? Yes. Does that make me a hyppocrite? No. Because I don’t drink enough to be impaired. I’m one of those weirdos that will nurse a single glass of scotch or Armagnac older than I am for an entire evening because I like the way the taste blends with my cigars.

  22. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    You must take pwrserge with a large grain of salt. I have nothing against the man, but when he casually mentions that he can drink a half fifth of Jack Daniels before he feels intoxicated, you know he has a high alcohol tolerance and is an alcoholic.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I have an absurd alcohol tolerance. I also regularly drink in small amounts to deliberately build it up… it’s one of those learned behaviors that your pick up when regularly dealing with Japanese salarymen. Well… that, and I like the tase to 30yo scotch and Armagnac.

      Did I mention I’m Russian? I think that might be important in this discussion, but I’m a half bottle of schnapps down at this point to prove a point. Gölles elderberry brandy to be exact. Good stuff. Goes great with Cohibas.

  23. avatar John says:

    You know Portugal legalized drugs they treat it as a health issue rather than a criminal one they haven’t experienced a mass of issues as a result.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      You mean other than the ballooning of their national debt to pay for the social welfare programs necessary to accomplish this?

  24. avatar Kyle says:

    you people make me long for the 1911 vs Glock arguments.

    America is suppose to stand for freedom to choose, backed up by amendments to the constitution that say we have speech, arms, etc.

    But the underlying document was suppose to represent freedom.

    So…toke up, drink up, AND keep your powder dry.

  25. avatar adverse5 says:

    Smoking pot can confuse one.

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