Choosing Between Medical Marijuana and Gun Ownership

Illinois marijuana attorney general

Bigstock

As more states legalized medical marijuana — let alone recreational use — the Congress will face more pressure to ease federal laws prohibiting gun ownership for those who use weed.

Across the country, states have incrementally embraced legalizing medical marijuana despite its federal classification as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Federal law enforcement has largely looked the other way, deferring to state legislatures when it comes to medical cannabis — but not when it comes to guns, which are illegal to buy under federal law if you use marijuana.

And nowhere does this hit harder than gun-loving Texas, where advocates like (Joshua) Raines lined up to call for expanding the list of conditions eligible for medical marijuana during the legislative session but are now thinking twice about whether they’re willing to give up their ability to purchase a firearm.

“To tell Texans you can’t purchase a firearm if you have a compassionate use card is unconscionable,” said Rachel Malone, Texas director for Gun Owners of America. “We should not force people to choose between gun ownership and taking care of themselves.”

– Rebekah Allen and James Barragan in Will Texans give up gun rights to get medical marijuana? Federal government says they have to

 

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    If you are taking opiates under prescription is your RKBA suspended?

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Only if various felonies stemming from misuse apply and secure conviction. Gotta love well thought out laws.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Well since they aren’t contraband, no. Doctors don’t have to authority to make contraband legal, however, and since marijuana hasn’t been formally delisted as contraband by the federal government, it remains contraband. Yes it’s dumb, yes it’s the facts of life, no it’s not a very important issue (the ‘medical’ aspect of the issue, anyway) to anyone but potheads, yes that lack of import is a good reason for decriminalizing the stuff in the first place.

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        What you are not seeing is the number of aging gun owners being directed to medical marijuana by main stream Doctors. I have a family member using medical marijuana under orders of a neurosurgeon. Should he loose gun rights?

        1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

          From experience I can tell you, do not trust doctors !

        2. avatar StLPro2A says:

          Doctors are largely….there a few exceptions…..an anti-gun tool of the Leftard/Progressive/Socialists. Do not trust them abiut anything involving 2A rights.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          You can trust doctors, as long as you understand who they are and what they do. It’s your responsibility to be as an informed consumer of their services as possible. If you don’t, you’ll be a medical/pharmaceutical statistic.

        4. avatar Anymouse says:

          From what I’ve seen historically, few medical marijuana cards are given to people when marijuana is their best or only choice. Typically, 70%+ of the card holders find a lenient doctor and get prescriptions for anxiety or such. Most of the rest want a natural alternative to pharmaceuticals, despite there being few controlled, peer-reviewed studies that show marijuana as effective. Funny how that stops in the states where recreational marijuana becomes available. Med card drops after recreation legalized: Oregon 2/3, Colorado 19%, Alaska 63%, Nevada 40%. I’m sure we’ll see the trend continue as CA, MI,IL, and others legalize recreational. Med cards give a 15% tax break in some Colorado, so they aren’t going away as fast there.

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        Marijuana is so easily available and generally of such high quality that obtaining limiting oneself to medical marijuana is as much an impediment as an advantage.

      3. avatar Dan in Detroit says:

        You might want to look up Dronabinol/Marinol and Epidiolex. They’re FDA-approved medications with active ingredients … THC and CBD, respectively. Those are the the same “active” ingredients in weed.
        So the federal government is simultaneously saying that (A) marijuana is dangerous with a very high potential for abuse and no medicinal uses, and (B) marijuana is safe, effective, and has multiple medicinal uses.
        This makes no sense, and yet they’re using it to strip people of their rights and put people in prison.

    3. avatar burley says:

      Not at all because it’s a RIGHT.
      That doesn’t mean that someone with some sort of clout who thinks otherwise isn’t going to try and disarm you if you exercize some other liberties.

    4. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      Opiates. As long as they are legitimately proscribed do not force you to chose under Federal law. Unlike marijuana does.
      Realistically most if not all patients legitimately on some form of opioid. Don’t get high from what they take.
      I know I cant if I wanted too. I have tried to take a reasonable dosage a time or 2 to see what the heck some who misuse the stuff are talking about and have failed every time. Im assuming I can overdose but I cant catch the proverbial buzz. At this point and age in my life. I no longer care what the buzz may be about.

  2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    A medical patient should have whatever medicine is necessary to take care of their ailment. However the pothead has never been an ally of Second Amendment civil rights.

    In the 1970s the potheads said that if they could just make marijuana legal, “there would be no reason for black drug dealers to have guns”. And they said by making marijuana legal “the government could tax it like cigarettes” and have a new Revenue source.

    As far as I can tell marijuana smokers have always been socialist Progressive in their political orientation. They have never been about individual and personal Liberty and personal responsibility.

    They have actually ignored evidence of drivers impairment under marijuana influence.

    At one time it was said Libertarians were just Republicans who wanted to smoke dope.

    Now today in 2019 a Libertarian is really a socialist progressive who wants to smoke dope. See Gary Johnson and former Governor William weld.

    In San Francisco there were no protests to keep High Bridge Arms the last gun store in San Francisco open. But they will protest over having sex toys being banned. The store was forced to close by the city government. And it was announced that a “free” marijuana clinic would be opened in that location.

    Black marijuana dealers always knew they needed to have guns to protect their Cash and Carry business. It seems interesting that white marijuana dealers in California Colorado and elsewhere never thought about this???

    Until they had a gun stuck in their face demanding their money and marijuana product. Now they want THEIR guns.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Older one for what is a conservative, a liberal that got robbed.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      I have a theory that the Libertarian Party was co-opted a decade or more ago, and is currently merely a foil to normalize the idea of marijuana-legalization and anti-police sentiment inside the Democrat Party, so they can suddenly pull the anti-drug plank from their platform & clinch a presidential election. I see the issue as a ticking time-bomb, and whichever party finally jumps on the issue is guaranteed an election cycle, but at the expense of giving up a lot of federal police power & funding –quite the conundrum for our budding tyrants, I’m sure. Very similar to the segregation issue, in that respect (and as we saw, the end of segregation was hardly the end of suffering for the black community; I expect pot legalization would be no different)

    3. avatar Tom T says:

      I don’t dispute or disagree with anything you wrote until your final conclusion. From my observation it is not the stereotypical “pothead” wanting to own firearms. It is conservatives (frequently gun owners) who want to smoke weed legally.

      I stopped when I joined the Navy in ’81. Then came fatherhood, second career, etc. But I have always said that the day after I retire I am firing one up. I would prefer to do so legally and without jeopardizing my 2nd Amendment civil rights.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        “Conservatives” don’t want to smoke pot. The label is used by all & sundry opposed to insane Democrat/leftist policies any more, but an actual ‘conservative’ doesn’t want to smoke pot. They want mom & apple pie, and a Quixotic struggle to return to a previous era they have romantic notions about but which never even existed in the first place. In practice, they simply oppose change and are happy enough with the way things are that they make little or no progress toward their stated goals, so long as they occasionally stymie the progressive agenda. Therefore, they have great respect for existing laws & missions, including the drug war, and always have, even though the institution has become a front for cementing the state’s power in the hands of leftists. It’s the status quo, and therefore they are comfortable with it; and that’s ‘conservativism’ –the unambitious seeking of quiet comfort, in the face of a determined & motivated opposition. Not the guys Henry spoke about when he referred to the “animating contest for freedom.” In practice, ‘conservatism’ has existed to frustrate & give false hope to freedom-minded “radicals” interested in results, causing them to waste their energy & become disillusioned that our system is redeemable.

        1. avatar Tom T says:

          “Conservative” is a political preference, not a mandate on every detail of your life. What you describe is identity politics where your affiliation dictates every aspect of your life. Your comment reminds me of the folks on the left who are scared to death to voice their own opinions because it might get them labeled as “not progressive enough”. I don’t allow politics (or political identity) to dictate how I live, and I don respect anyone who does.

          Every redneck country boy I know has smoked weed (or still does). It isn’t taboo like it used to be. Passing one around after the BBQ is done and the kids have gone to bed does not make any of them suddenly turn into crazy liberals in pink hats screaming “Resist!”.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          By the same logic, it doesn’t make them conservative either just because they go to church or disfavor abortion.

          Conservatism is nothing; it’s not a coherent ideology, it’s not a political affiliation, and it’s a different “vision” for almost every person you can ask –like I said, it’s more of a fatalistic excuse to not be politically or socially effective, while cursing the changing times.

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          barnbwt says: “Conservatism is nothing; it’s not a coherent ideology, it’s not a political affiliation, and it’s a different “vision” for almost every person you can ask –like I said, it’s more of a fatalistic excuse to not be politically or socially effective, while cursing the changing times.”

          Can’t argue with that.
          Of course, that applies equally well to any political faction you can come up with.
          Even those on the left side of the political spectrum are constantly complaining about how things are changing. (Their drive to impeach Trump is a well-publicized desire to go back to the way things were.)

          To be on topic, I’m one of the few for whom pot has little to no effect, so I just don’t do it (and haven’t for over 50 years). But from what I’ve read, alcohol is far more injurious to both individuals and society in general. (I don’t drink, either. I also don’t drink coffee. Not for any philosophical reasons, I just don’t like them.) Yet alcohol is legal, somewhat controlled, and taxed, while pot is a Class 1(!) substance. That makes no sense; why the feds haven’t acted to correct this is a mystery to me, as the results of making it like alcohol legally seem rather obvious to me.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          Conservatives don’t want to smoke pot? What planet do you live on?

        5. avatar Tom T says:

          I think barnbwt needs to go back to facebook. They love that level of trolling there… telling other people what they “really” are, what they “really” think, nice tidy stereotypes, etc. Your self proclaimed enlightment would be more at home there. This forum is more geared towards adults having rational conversations.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        TomT and company. You idiot potheads need to STOP hanging out with other idiot potheads that you can “friends”. Find a better/acceptable/normal class of assoicates.

        “Everyone I know is an idiot, therefor everyone is an idiot” says Barry..

    4. avatar Barn Animal says:

      I think you make some good points. I think weed should be legal for moral reasons, but it becoming legal wont be the huge benefit to society many people believe it is. One, to start off with, the common statement, “make it legal and put the drug dealers out of business”, is fantasy. Drug dealers make plenty of cash on other drugs, and since weed will likely be heavily taxed, there will be a demand for cheaper tax free stuff. That’ll put a damper on the revenue. Think about it this way, when the feds started putting taxes on everything last century, did it even come close to creating surplus revenue? No, the government simply had more money to spend on stupid shit. Another common thing is it will “empty the prisons of all the peaceful pot smokers”, it won’t do that, either. Although it might make a small dent in the prison population, most inmates have rap sheets a mile long, with tons of felony convictions beyond anything drug related. That being said, I think it will have a great impact in medicine. It’s a far better alternative for people with chronic ailments instead of things like oxy, Valium, and morphine. I imagine it could have a successful use in mental health too, why mess with people’s brain chemistry (a knowingly dangerous idea), when instead they can take something that will make them tired, lazy, hungry, and calm.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        I’ll leave the rest alone just to concentrate on this: When the penalty for unlawful production, trafficking or possession can be years in prison, while any product, production equipment and even vehicles and real estate used in the process, as well as any proceeds be they cash or otherwise, can be seized, there is just no way at all for black market weed to compete economically with that which is lawfully produced until the tax rate is so high it simply puts legal weed out of business and we defacto return to where we were before legalization. Stating otherwise demonstrates an understanding of economics so poor as to throw suspicion on anything else you might say….to the point I didn’t even read further to see if you said anything even more completely ridiculous.

        1. avatar Barn Animal says:

          Moonshine and stolen cigarettes are still a thing. So get down off your high horse. I’ll assume that since you didn’t read the rest of my post you assume I was bashing your beloved weed. I wasn’t. I in fact pointed to a very important use for it. But you’d rather let your own childish rage blind you.

    5. avatar Kendahl says:

      The Libertarian Party is no longer libertarian. They are just Democrat Lite.

    6. avatar burley says:

      whatever you do, do NOT conflate what anyone from San Francisco thinks with what the average legalization proponent thinks.
      People who understand liberty know that the homosexual couple should be allowed to protect their marijuana crops with full auto firearms.
      Otherwise, you’re just picking your favored liberty and being judgemental of folks who are different.
      IF we’d legalize all drugs(in other words, restore liberty), gang warfare would all but disappear since they’d have nothing to fight over. It’s really not a difficult concept: ban something and a black market WILL appear. Regular folk protect their markets with police, smugglers must do it themselves.

    7. avatar Anymouse says:

      Colorado storefront dealers are very aware. Since they can’t use bank, there are specialized armored truck services with heavily armed guards. 1/6 are robbed or burglarized. Some consider it a cost of doing business, and others install security and have guards.

  3. avatar barnbwt says:

    Well right or wrong, considering that it’s currently a choice between the two, and considering that only one of them has been shown to actually save lives…

    But as far as recreation goes, I have to assume weed is a lot cheaper than firearms, considering the sorts of folks that indulge in it to excess.

    1. avatar Chier says:

      Weed is expensive these days. In the good old days, it was $10 a lid (ounce) discounted if you bought ten or more. Now it’s twenty or more times that. The weed of today is supposedly much more powerful and puts you on the floor faster than a fifth of gin. The human brain does not really need any stimulants or depressors, your thought processes are much clearer without them. They make you think you are smarter, but you are not. If you are armed and stoned or drunk, you are a disaster waiting to happen.

      1. avatar Arc says:

        No, you being armed while stoned or drunk is a disaster waiting to happen. Do not project your deficiencies onto other people who may have greater control over themselves.

        Depending on what course people were in at the time, some would draw weapons while drunk and hungover. During UDP in Japan, just about all of us stood armed guard over weapons and ammo. We had a communal chow hall with the GSDF and every other night there was some activity, show, and always drinking. No one ever got shot while standing their post tipsy or drunk. It didn’t matter if you got drunk, post is post, go stand it.

        Now if someone got absolutely shitfaced and couldn’t speak or stand, no, they would probably be pulled aside for some creative punishment. I doubt they would get more than 15 minutes into watch without passing out anyway.

        Tales from the USMC…

        The worst

      2. avatar burley says:

        There is so much ignorance here. $10 an ounce?! “in the old days…”?!
        WTF do you consider the old days?! 30 years ago a lid was $100!
        A quarter oz was generally $40, if it was decently seedless! Where and when the heck were you buying grass, from the easter bunny in 1950?!
        Furthermore, weed is more widely used than you probably have any idea of.
        Just about everybody knows somebody that smokes it on the regular, even if they don’t know then know.
        Finally, using firearms or any other device that has the potential to maim or kill is just as stupid now as it has ever been. That’s no reason to continue stopming on people’s liberties.

        1. avatar burley says:

          what I meant to say was: “using dangerous machines WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY KIND OF DRUG has always been stupid”…

    2. avatar Tom T says:

      I dont smoke it, but I know folks & have family who do. It goes for over $200 an ounce. Buying a joint off the street runs about four bucks. The people I see (30 somethings) smoke one in the morning, and at least one in the evening. Maybe a third on days off. They smoke “blunts” which is a joint mixed in a cigar or cigarillo wrapper with tobacco. That increases the cost.

      So you are looking at about $10 to $15 a day for regular users. Which explains why so many have jobs but can’t seem to support themselves.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      The cost depends on how you look at it. A gun is, if you take care of it, a big up front cost but pretty much a one time investment. Yeah, there’s maintenance but it’s pretty cheap compared to actually procuring the firearm.

      Feeding a gun, these days, is expensive. How that compares to a pot habit depends on a number of factors, how much the pot costs, where you live, how much you use, how much you shoot etc.

      If you can’t afford a joint a day you very likely can’t afford a gun and you certainly can’t afford to stay sharp with the current cost of ammo.

      It kinda dovetails with my comment the other day to Geoff that younger gamers will say things like “Guns are cool but…”. There are a lot of reasons for that “but” ranging from personal preference to social costs to ability to afford such an item. Regardless of the reason we form a heck of a lot of our lifetime habits from 18-30 years of age which means if the attitude is “Guns are cool but…” up until age 31 or so we very likely didn’t win that person over. They didn’t buy a gun and change their habits and so if something that they don’t own becomes illegal or difficult to own they really don’t care that much since it doesn’t affect them. They have no “skin in the game” and therefore don’t care who wins or loses. At best we’re holding steady with that person, they may not vote against us specifically but they’ll be unlikely to join us unless our interests dovetail with theirs on another topic which is where that whole “culture war” comes in.

      Which is also kinda why someone like Elizabeth Warren should be concerning to us, really quite concerning, but that’s a chapter in a book by itself.

  4. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    We already have ‘under influence’ laws for drinking and driving so it seems like it would only take a minor change to the laws to expand them to include things like pot.

    1. avatar Jim from LI says:

      If only it was that simple. Alcohol is water soluble; when it metabolizes out of your blood you are quite clearly sober; any amount in your blood over a definite limit and you are under the influence. THC is fat soluble; trace amounts can be detected days or weeks after the high is long over. That leaves behavioral observations that are far from precise.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        And yet, behavior is what actually matters behind the wheel. If you can truly drive safely and react as well as a sober fella while high or wasted, I say go for it. If you’re so uncoordinated or oblivious while sober that you’re swerving in your lane & driving ten miles under the limit, I don’t want you on the road. The door-to-door drunk testing stuff is where we’ve screwed up on the enforcement side…but it sure makes cops’ jobs easier.

      2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “..THC is fat soluble; trace amounts can be detected days or weeks ”

        The key in that statement is ‘trace.’

        X amount in the blood stream is Intoxicated, Less than X is not. How long it takes to metabolize out of your system is a separate measurement.

        I know I am oversimplifying a complex issue, the point I am aiming at is the fact that we already have a system of laws in place that isn’t too horribly fuxed up and that could be modified pretty easily, no one needs to reinvent any wheels because OMG! Pot!

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          The real issue that a lot of legislators crafting these laws have is that they don’t understand the chemistry.

          I’ve covered this kinda in depth here before, which resulted in my being told not to describe sandwiches anymore, but the jist is this: The tests for many drugs (and other things) don’t test for the actual substance but rather metabolites of it. The metabolites are not psychoactive and are processed by different people at different rates under different circumstances. As such a positive test, even an expensive one that gives us a concentration is generally worthless for telling us the current concentration of the psychoactive substance.

          As such the after effects of many drugs can be found in your system long after their effect has worn off. The only way to really know if they’re still affecting the person is very, very expensive lab testing of their blood that tests for the active substance and screens out the metabolites. We’re talking thousands of dollars per test and needing to run them multiple times to be sure. No one is going to do that for someone accused of “driving while high” because, mostly, DUI/DWAI/OVI/OUI are revenue generators and it would cut into the revenue if we did things right.

        2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “…DUI/DWAI/OVI/OUI are revenue generators”

          True. And the revenue of making things a crime is a very thorny issue and best carried out elsewhere on the internets. Or over beers in meat-space.

          As for the testing and it’s costs….. if they put a profit motive into the test kits the technology will drop from thousands of dollars down to dozens of dollars very much the same way the DUI testing items have become simple commodity items.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          “… if they put a profit motive into the test kits the technology will drop…”

          This actually won’t happen. There’s no way to make a “test kit” for this cheaply. We’re talking bench chemistry using multiple multi-million dollar machines. Yeah, if states demanded a huge number of the machines the price would come down by a bit but not enough to make it worth doing the testing and employing the chemists to do it.

          You’re just not going to make a testing regimen of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and high performance liquid chromatography run by skilled chemists who are capable of also separating things out of the sample to avoid false positives from similar compounds (the metabolites you want to eliminate in this case) a cheap thing to do.

          You can bring down the costs a bit with scale but you’ll rapidly hit the point of diminishing returns on your cost cutting due to the nature of the machines and the work involved to do this. There’s really no way to turn this kind of thing into a LabCorp type of model employing lab monkeys for $15/hour.

  5. avatar daveinwyo says:

    Y’all talk about “God given rights” as it pertains to the 2nd, then in the next breath condemn the God given plants. Using that as the baseline, then we should be using wooden clubs and drinking only water. God did not invent guns nor did He invent alcohol. Man, using his God given brain, invented both.
    God gave us 10 laws, man made up the rest.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      People’s understanding of religion tends to be a continual process over time unless it stalls somewhere. That’s usually the fault of whoever is teaching them rather than the pupil.

      1. avatar daveinwyo says:

        Man makes laws to control other men. (or whatever pronoun you like)
        God gave us laws to protect man from man.
        @9 Your other comment ref. freedom is correct, and right on.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          Man wrote God’s rules and tells you stories on how they got the information. That’s why they are inconsistent. Religion is hypocrisy. Evidence starts in Genesis once your god started making mistakes, becoming displeased with the “image of himself” and due to knowledge at the time, only the star and moon were created on a certain day.

          It’s all just man controlling man.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      Man didn’t “invent” alcohol, he discovered it.
      Most organic liquids that include some sort of sugar, when stored, will ferment naturally. They don’t need yeast to be added, as yeast spores are virtually everywhere.
      Even fruit on the tree will ferment (one of our favorite pastimes when we were younger was watching the birds try to fly after eating fermented cherries from a large cherry tree.)
      Once the mechanics behind fermentation were understood…

    3. avatar jwtaylor says:

      There are 11 commandments and the 11th is the hardest. John 13:34

    4. avatar burley says:

      Thank you! Rights are rights. I’m sick of 2A Hypocrites talking out of both sides of their mouths where drug laws are concerned. The formula should be simple: no victim, no crime. Anything else must be unconsitutional.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        Should rights be limited? Or controlled?

        1. avatar burley says:

          nope, and the word you need here is INFRINGED. The spirit of the law of the land is that my rights end where the others’ rights begin.
          That means that it should only be illegal if someone is actually being hurt. Being scared of being hurt is insufficient grounds for the enforced infringement of a right.

      2. avatar Jon in CO says:

        This. x100. Leave people alone. IF they hurt someone else or someone’s property, deal with it accordingly.

      3. avatar Pg2 says:

        2A hypocrites are a dime a dozen on this forum.

      4. avatar neiowa says:

        So you idiots are in favor of potheads on the highways etc ?

        1. avatar burley says:

          So, do you have to be an idiot to conflate pro-lberty with pro-stupidity?!
          There are already laws in place for driving under the influence. What part of that don’t you understand?! You are either for Freedom, or you arent’.

  6. avatar strych9 says:

    Eh, freedom is won and lost in steps so none of this has ever particularly surprised me since it takes awhile for the general public’s understanding to catch up to reality.

    Either you support freedom, even the freedom to do things you don’t approve of, or you don’t support freedom. It’s that simple.

    1. avatar burley says:

      yes, THIS, so much THIS!!!!

  7. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Choosing Between Medical Marijuana and Gun Ownership

    One is a Constitutionally protected right, and the other is still a Federal crime, regardless what states do…

    I’ll choose to keep my Constitutionally protected right…

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      You do realize that the authors of the constitution were not making a list of rights, that they were instead describing the form and limiting powers of a federal government? The bill of rights came after the constitution and included the 9th and 10th amendments to address the very notion you expressing here.

      9th: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      10th: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      1. avatar daveinwyo says:

        @ Vic; True. Then came the 17th which negated the 9th and 10th.

        1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          daveinwyo – 1913 was not a good year.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          1913 was the end of US sovereignty.

    2. avatar arc says:

      Both are natural rights, otherwise we are nothing but the property of the state if it can dictate what we can and can’t eat, drink, and smoke.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Or Inject, or not inject….

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      Were the RKBA to cease being Constitutionally protected and guns were to become a federal crime, would you have the same opinion of following federal law?

      [Serious question btw, just from a bit of a Devil’s Advocate point of view.]

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    Meh…in another time I smoked a LOT of pot. Haven’t done that in some 35 years. I do not support legal “recreational”pot . SEE: Colorado. I have some sympathy for medical marijuana use. Stay the he!! off the highway pothead. Perhaps not coincidentally we had TWO auto accidents a half block away yesterday at the corner. One black guy was yelling,screaming and swearing. He was arrested. By a black cop…it’s that simple strichnine😏

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Your anecdote doesn’t mean anything outside the specific occurrence. Some guy can’t handle his weed, some other guy can’t handle his whiskey while some other guy dead sober can’t handle a gun. My wife has paradoxical reactions to many anesthetics. So what? The first three don’t form a basis for the negation of people’s freedom any more than my wife’s reaction means that morphine shouldn’t be used for post-surgery recovery pain management.

      None of these things is a legitimate argument that no one else can handle the item in question, they’re an argument that the person in question has an issue. Unless, of course, you’re a grabber looking to enforce your own particular set of beliefs on other people. This is the classic “I believe in freedom but…” argument which is no different than “I support the 2A but…”. Regardless of what words follow the “but” the meaning is always the same and it’s “I’m the one who gets to choose what you are allowed to do and what you are allowed not to do and that is based entirely on my own opinion”.

      You’re free to have your own opinion and, within itself, it’s entirely valid. It may be valid outside of itself too depending on how it interacts with reality. That doesn’t mean you’ve got the right to enforce your opinion on other people or manufacture the imaginary power to do so and then bequeath that power on other people to go out and enforce your opinion for you. That’s exactly how we got the NFA.

    2. avatar burley says:

      “i only support the freedoms that I agree with…”
      There, fixed it for you.

  9. avatar FedUp says:

    I’m still waiting for somebody to show me the constitutional amendment that gave the feds the power to ban marijuana.

    I found the 18th amendment, but that only gave them the power to ban ethanol, and it looks like the 21st amendment repealed it already.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Both (most) conservatives and progressives think it is the ‘commerce clause’. That is the go to justification for nearly all unconstitutional legislation.

      1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

        Yet, The Commerce Clause was designed to PROTECT Interstate Commerce and prevent States from Tariffing one another, not hinder and stymie interstate commerce as the Stalinist Progressives say.

        The Commerce Clause, also, doesn’t prevent the Federal Government from imposing high-cost and draconian IMPORT TARIFFS ON FOREIGN GOODS, as ignorant (PHONY) ‘Conservatives’ say.

        This Country is probably doomed and broken beyond repair, because 85% of the USA Population is “Civic Inept” and ignorant of the Civic Structure of our Society, i.e.;……we are a Constitutional Representative Republic,……not a Democracy.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          “This Country is probably doomed and broken beyond repair, because 85% of the USA Population is “Civic Inept” and…”

          Nah. The problem contains it’s own solution. The only question is how much pain it will take for people to arrive at the correct answer. I suspect that we’re going to find that the amount of discomfort is more than is reasonable but less than we can bear.

    2. avatar arc says:

      Hint hint, its not there. The war on drugs is really an unconstitutional war on American’s God given rights and civil liberties.

  10. avatar possum destroyer of arachnids says:

    , weed or gunms. That’s the nice thing about Freedom , the government gives you a choice.

  11. avatar BobS says:

    When California’s then-LtGov Gavin Newsom was campaigning heavily in 2016 for the Governor’s Mansion and for both Proposition 63 (criminalize guns) and Proposition 64 (legalize marijuana), I asked in a live-on-Facebook “town hall” whether he would work with Federal authorities to remove marijuana from the US DEA’s scheduled narcotics regime, and thus from the roster of disqualifying substances on ATF Form 4473 question 11(e).

    He ignored the question then, and he ignored my followup attempts to contact him with the same question.

  12. avatar Mad says:

    Most of the doctors I’ve encountered are just practicing medicine I got a flu shot at 54 which almost killed me in 2000 was on morphine for ten years now at 71 and glory to Christ morphine free and except for age related pains feel pretty good about life lessons learned never got another flu shot and now ask many ?s

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      But vaccines are safe and effective, just ask all the pro Bill of Rights people here who want to mandate these products.

  13. avatar Eric O says:

    Wickard v Filburn claims that “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” is equivalent to ALL commerce. Meanwhile, no matter how expansive ANY federal power, the preamble to the Bill of Rights started in no uncertain terms that it is a “misconstruction or abuse of power”:

    The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

    There is no such thing as a legal federal gun control law; felony, marijuana, or otherwise, any more than there could be a legal law making POTUS the adjudicator of disputes between the states, or making SCOTUS the commander in chief. Throw in the 14th, and that extends as well to Jim Crow States.

  14. avatar B.D. says:

    Freedom is pretty straight forward.

    Still doesn’t make you smart for putting toxins in your body and calling it medical. They need to drop that bullshit and just treat it like alcohol and tobacco. Which, oddly enough, you are not free to do until they want you too.

    Ain’t ‘freedom’ great? Praise jeebus!

  15. avatar Jon in CO says:

    In this state, CBI (see FBI but swap Federal for Colorado) blacklists anyone in the BGC’s if they hold medical cards. Explain to me how it’s ok for Gov to tell Doctors what they’ve recommended isn’t right, only when it comes to what you believe in or don’t believe in.

    A lot of people on here are pressing the issue of “potheads on the highways” or whatever, and in the same breath complaining about things like 10rd mag limits. If people aren’t bothering you, leave them the F*** alone.

    “They’ll end up hurting someone, or doing something stupid while they’re high!”

    Anti-gunners say the same thing about you and your guns. Yet, here you are defending gun rights.

    In the immortal words of South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker :”it’s either all ok, or none of it is ok.” Support other people, and you might find them supporting you.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “Support other people, and you might find them supporting you.”

      Funny how that works, or doesn’t.

  16. avatar Bruce says:

    Talked to an old friend Sunday, and the discussion went in this direction. He was using some OTC CBD medicine, and could easily get a pot prescription. But won’t, since all it would take to get him in trouble was for the feds to crosscheck concealed carry permits to medical marijuana cards.

  17. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    GK Chesterton pointed out the main business of liberals seems to be to pass bad laws, and the main business of conservatives seems to be to prevent bad laws from ever being repealed.

    As long as you aren’t harming other people or their property it is no one else’s business what you are doing. If you have to lie to evil government to do it, go for it, but be careful.

  18. avatar Jonathan Stiles says:

    If there’s anything in the world that will make someone with a gun not want to use it, it’s smoking pot. Show me a guy with a gun, a joint, Doritos, and cartoons, and I’ll show you someone who’s not going to be causing any problems.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      The same “science” that brought us manmade global warming.

  19. avatar Dude says:

    Wasn’t this Oliver North’s thing to sell Marijuana on the streets to help pay for arming people with more bump-stocks ? or something like that.

  20. avatar Will Drider says:

    The first paragraph almost nailed it. There may be some pressure but the political bias supporting ever increasing gun control would never give up any current Law that restricts gun ownership/posession.

  21. avatar sarky says:

    There are more alcohol related shooting than is reasonable, BUT it is still ok to drink and own a gun, WHY? Because it is legal? Well then, why is cannabis, a product that was common in many products, illegal? Who pushed to make it so? Was there a valid reason to make it illegal? And why is it a class one drug, like opium?

  22. avatar Anonymous says:

    Congress will NEVER change the federal laws and people are not being informed well enough about it; I have spoken to many people in Colorado who work in Marijuana shops and I am confronted many times with people who are simply naive who tell me that the standards and laws are not the same for them. One girl told me that she is not allowed to carry a firearm while driving the Lyft at night because she works in a pot shop, yet she is not aware that the laws also says that she may not be able to ever carry again in her whole life most places in the whole USA. I also spoke to a gun salesman in a pawn shop who was not aware that anyone who has came there from a marijuana shop and purchased a firearm has done so illegally.

    The serious problem with recreational Marijuana is that upon entering a marijuana shop people will be profiled (AKA “rewards profile”) using a drivers license. There are too many on the extreme left who do not want guns to be legal at all and there are too many on the right who do not want marijuana to be legal. There is NO WAY this going to change, at least, in the next twenty years. The government in Colorado is extremely leftist. Smoke marijuana and you will not legally carry, own or possess a firearm for any reason. The big question is; “who controls the marijuana shops” with a 21.5% tax on recreational marijuana?

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