cops police weed marijuana
Previous Post
Next Post

Federal law, it’s very, very clear that if you use Schedule 1 drugs, based on the federal guidelines, you’re not allowed to have a firearm. That’s very clear. And then New Jersey law is you cannot be a police officer without having a firearm. So in the case of a police officer doing something that results in, let’s say, injury or death and a lawsuit is filed after that, the city is responsible for tens of millions of dollars in liability because they’re obviously going to be in that lawsuit. The question is, why did the city allow the police officer to have a gun contrary to [federal] law?

Every other state has a carveout except for New Jersey. So we asked the attorney general to intervene. He didn’t. We asked the civil service to intervene. They didn’t. So we had no choice but to file a federal lawsuit. …

Look, I assume they support cannabis and, and being able to do whatever they want in their free time. But I don’t think that’s in the public’s best interest. And we shouldn’t be compromising standards of police officers, certainly in today’s day and age.

I mean, the standards to carry a firearm and be a police officer should be very, very high. And so just because there’s issues around recruiting, which is broader than allowing somebody to smoke cannabis or not, I don’t think that’s a valid reason why they should be allowed to [use cannabis], and I think a reasonable person would agree with me on that.

— Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop in Federal law says pot users can’t have guns. Jersey City mayor says that must mean cops, too.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • can an off duty copper leavehis gun at home and walk downtown, into a bar or tavern, and drink a few shots of rum or whiskey, and still be a cop?

      If so there is no VALID reason he cant leave his gun in the safe at home and light up a doobie or two and still be a cop.

      Face it: cannabis is NOT in reality a true schedule one substance. It is nowhere near as addictive nor disabling as alcohol AND it des indeed have valid medical uses, thus is not, by definition, a Schedule One substance.
      How many well known situtions have we seen written up in the news cncerning cops, and ship’s officers, having issues with misuse of alcohol that has led to serious problems? (anyone else remember Exxon Valdez, or Fitro On the Rocks in Bainbridge Harbour? Those trades have very clear and strict regulations about “bottle to throttle” times. So do commercial vehicle drivers.
      But NONE of these are sumarrily removed from their positions for, on their own time, using good ol ethanol in any quantity.
      And no I don’t use that weed stuff at all. Nothing to do with my continuing desire to have and use and carry firearms, only to do with my own personal preference. BUT were my preference on the other side of this ussue that SHOULD NOT dusarm me by law. Thus the law itself must be scrapped.

      • I have no desire to debate the benefits of cannabis.

        A cop is a cop until their not. The nature of 2A rights in itself means not leaving the gun in the safe (no matter who you are). The nature of being a LEO is in conflict. A cop cannot be effective at enforcing the law when they are actively breaking it. That breeds corruption and makes them susceptible to manipulation and extortion. We see this every day with the headline issues from government in general. Cops getting high become useless as cops. If this is what they want then they have no business being in law enforcement. It’s no different from being an armed resource officer that refuses to go into the school to take down a school shooter killing children. He can certainly make that choice but it’s the cowards way and makes him untrustworthy and useless.

  1. And, while on the subject of cops being armed even though a law says a person can’t be in possession of a firearm under certain conditions ….why are off duty cops allowed to be armed with a firearm while drinking alcohol at a bar if the law says no person shall be armed with a firearm while doing so?

    Almost every state (but not all) has a prohibition against a person being armed with a firearm while drinking alcohol at a bar – yet I’ve been in states where there was such a prohibition and seen off duty cops, armed with a firearm, drinking at bars in restaurants that had bars and being ‘could-not-stand-up’ type of drunk and the cops that show up to handle it don’t do anything but take the off-duty cop outside or take them home. But If I were armed and was drinking at the bar and the cops showed up I would be arrested and charged criminally.

    I rarely drink alcohol. Nothing against it, its just something I prefer not to do as a standard thing even though there are some alcohol beverages I like. I don’t hang around the bars in a restaurant, but in some states if I were armed and simply sitting there eating my meal I could be arrested and charged criminally for simply being in the place armed because they happen to serve alcohol at the bar or at the table in the rest of the restaurant if a person orders it with their meal. While at the same time an off duty cop armed with a firearm is at the bar getting drunk and they would not be arrested and charged criminally even though the law says they should be.

    • Would that still apply if the cop was at a bar far from his jurisdiction where the local cops wouldn’t know him or her?

      • Would it? This is not uncommon for local cops to give such consideration where there is some sort of training or conference or convention of some sort going on in local area with cops from out of state or out of jurisdiction attending.

      • and yes, once they say “i’m a cop” and get checked out to verify it …. a lot of times even if in their own jurisdiction or not, the other local cops not knowing them tend towards the free pass for being armed in such a situation.

    • which is WHY I do not go into bars in Washington State.Except for one where a good friend of mine worked, most all the staff and nearly every customer would sit there drinking whilst armed… and no ne cared. It was a small off the track jointm very low key, and cops enver came round. No need to. Staff would 86 anyone getting “three sheets to the wind” for everyone’s safety, armed or not.
      It also explains why so many cars parked in bar parking areas get bromen into.. cause the theeeeeves kNOW every car in that lot has a high likelihood of containing a handgun. So the thieves look for the NRA sticker, the browning Buckmark, the S&W logo, the Ruger logo… knowing a gun owner also owns that car, that there will be NO arms inside the bar, so the gun guy will have left his hardware in the car somewhere…..

      On the other hand Oregon does NOT prohibit guns in bars. They DI prohibit consuming alcohol whilst armed. Which is why I WILL go with friends into a bar in Oregon. because I can legally bring in My Little Friend and no one cares.

    • Dang! When I was a youngin’ say 50 years ago the po-leece got their pot from the kids they busted🙄 Officer Whitehead in Kankakee,ILLANNOY🤓

  2. Fulop is a fool. Holding significant portions of the population to a “higher standard” is a sure recipe for those standards to be ignored. Not only ignored, but the “violators” will have nothing but contempt for the standards-setters, not to mention the contempt from impartial observers.

    Fulop needs to go down to the piers, pick a short one, and take a long walk off of it.

  3. Everyone should be able to own and carry guns and use whatever substance they want to.

    If they misuse the gun (or the car, or the chainsaw, or the can of gasoline…) then they should be punished for the misuse and not the item.

    Of course at work your employer can set the standards. If you don’t want to adhere to the employers standards then you can find another job. Show up drunk or high or incapacitated due to hangover and get canned. It’s a voluntary relationship which should have nothing to do with what you do when not at work.

    • On a private level, yes. But if a community is going to hire specific individuals to serve in a capacity that involves carrying a deadly weapon, then yes the standard of conduct needs to be held higher.

      If an electrician chooses to smoke pot on his free time, I support his liberty to do so. But I can exercise my own right to decline his services if I need work done on my home, and choose another electrician that better meets my personal standard.

      If I get pulled over by a police officer, and he was smoking weed before his shift in *any* amount, I don’t want him approaching me with a questionable capacity and a deadly weapon on his hip. Much like it may be generally legal to drive (in CA, at least) with a BAC of 0.07, but I don’t want that person to be next to me on the highway.

      • Not on a private level either. The libertarian fantasy of doing whatever your heart desires is at complete odds with making the world a better place. That pervasive, ignorant philosophy is part of the reason this country is a mess.

      • strict standards, ENFORCED with “unpleasant” consequences if violated, can guard against this sort of scenario. But to mke a blanket prohibition against an individual doing certain things because he POSSESS certain “substances” is flat wrong.

        I know from my study of history that those of our founding era had and used various “substances” that are considered illegal today, and others that are not outlawed now. I also know that misuse of those “substances” could being unpleasant consequences at law, and in society. But NOWHERE was possession and/or moderate use of those substances was not per se a crime, nor did it ever become grounds for denying/prohibiting possession/use of other items, such as firearms.
        this sort of thing is nanny state stuck in high gear at full throttle.

    • “Show up drunk or high or incapacitated due to hangover and get canned.”

      Guess which employees never show up high or smoke/eat weed on the job? Why worry about it if you’re an employer? Don’t hire pot heads. Ask me how I know. They ALWAYS use drugs on the job at one time or another.

    • Armed cops en mass start showing up drunk and it would be a matter of milliseconds before the MSM would be on TV yelling for Biden, city mayors, and state governors to do something.

  4. Massachusetts House passes big anti-gun bill and gives the finger to Bruen Decision.

    The Massachusetts House has passed a comprehensive gun bill aimed at tightening firearm laws, including cracking down on unregistered “ghost guns” and strengthening the state’s assault-style weapons ban.

    The bill now awaits the Senate’s version before it can become law.

    The bill would also prohibit carrying a gun into someone’s home without permission and require serialized registration of key gun components. (Poll: Is the U.S. Heading in the Right Direction? VOTE)

    It expands the state’s ban on assault weapons, prohibits carrying firearms in certain locations, and creates an enhanced system to track firearms used in crimes.

    • Oh cool by the time they get the challenge to the circuit level either the 2nd, 3rd, or 9th should have precedent on how they are wrong.

    • Thank you for helping to sell another million guns, dacian. Ron White was right. You can’t fix stupid.

      Glad to have you serving the pro gun side. Even if that is not your intent.

  5. Even though they are not suppossed to do do, many cops use drugs while undercover to make their jobs easier. There are many places cops used to go to “clean up” and then get back on the force or another force. These guys got used and dumped when their use was over, similiar to the female cops that got used in prostitute stings and the like.
    Later in life, many of these ex-cops are addicts, running from other cops – sometimes they get a pass, sometimes they do time. Don’t act like this is something new.

  6. Where I live I can walk into a bar with a concealed firearm and drink. Of course, if I drive and get stopped and am over the limit I go to jail for the driving and the gun.

    • That makes sense. Don’t get drunk in public. Don’t drink and drive. Some places won’t allow you to carry and have a single sip of alcohol. That doesn’t affect me personally, but I still think it’s an absurd law.

  7. Jersey City, NJ Sues to Block Cops From Using Marijuana

    Probably a good idea if you expect your cops to arrest people for smoking, possessing pot or being under the influence while in possession of a firearm…

    • Otherwise, they’d be like noted hypocrite Que Mala who tossed people in jail for possession while she was cackling about getting high and time traveling to listen to future rap albums.

  8. How about, and I’m just spitballin’ here . . . no special allowances for cops of any sort if that allowance is not given to all other citizens. No gun law carve-outs, no drug law specials, no brass pass ticket breaks. They are not a special group worthy of more rights than every other citizen deserves.

  9. Cheech and Chongs Up in Smoke comes to mind.
    We need more cops that forget about why they pulled you over and only want a bite of your hot dog.
    Marijuana is safer then alcohol.

  10. I’m more concerned about the LEO’s that smoke banana skins then pot.
    Ringo turned me on to that and I’ve been living in a yellow submarine and looking through a glass onion ever since. Back in the U.S. back in the U.S. back in the USSR.

    • “Back in the U.S. back in the U.S. back in the USSR.”

      You don’t know how lucky you are, marsupial, back in the USSR.

      Don’t they eat posssums in Russia? (And not the way possums like to be eaten, if you know what I mean… 😉 )


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here