Philando Castile traffic stop shooting
Video image taken from a camera in a police cruiser captures the July 6, 2016, police shooting of Philando Castile during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights, Minn. (St. Anthony Police Department via AP)
Previous Post
Next Post

The marijuana that alarmed [Officer Jeronimo] Yanez also figured in public comments about the [Philando Castile] shooting by Dana Loesch, a conservative radio host who at the time was a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association (NRA). Castile’s death seemed to be a clear case of an innocent man who was killed for exercising his Second Amendment rights. But the NRA, which initially called the incident “troubling,” never took a position on whether the shooting was justified. Several journalists thought they had an explanation for the NRA’s reticence when Loesch brought up Castile’s marijuana use, which made it illegal for him to own a gun, let alone carry one in public.

Loesch rejected that interpretation of her comments. But it seemed plausible in light of the NRA’s longstanding support for the federal bans on gun possession by illegal drug users and people convicted of drug-related felonies. The organization’s enthusiasm for enforcing those restrictions illustrates a blind spot shared by many right-leaning critics of gun control, whose concerns about overcriminalization, law enforcement abuses, and violations of civil liberties usually do not extend to the war on drugs.

That inconsistency is the mirror image of attitudes among progressives, who readily recognize the injustice and racially disparate impact of drug laws while enthusiastically supporting gun laws with strikingly similar historical roots and contemporary consequences. In addition to overlooking their potential common ground, both sides tend to miss the perverse interaction between the twin crusades against guns and drugs, which combine to inflict double damage on people like Castile. …

Republicans are much less inclined to support drug policy reform than Democrats. According to a 2022 Gallup survey, 51 percent of Republicans think marijuana should be legal, compared to 81 percent of Democrats. Partisan differences on gun control are even starker: While 86 percent of Democrats favor stricter regulation, just 27 percent of Republicans do.

Although Democrats overwhelmingly see the folly of banning marijuana, they are much more optimistic about the government’s ability to protect public safety by limiting gun sales and possession. Republicans, by contrast, are far more likely to support marijuana prohibition than they are to support new gun restrictions.

It nevertheless seems clear that the ongoing de-escalation of the war on weed, including recreational legalization in more than 20 states so far, has made an impression on Republicans, who are more than twice as likely to support legalization as they were at the turn of the century. Even among self-described conservatives, nearly half want to end pot prohibition, according to Gallup. Support for legalization rises to 59 percent among conservatives in their 30s or 40s, then rises to 65 percent among conservatives in their teens or 20s.

This is the context in which prominent conservatives such as [former NRA president David] Keene, [Gov. Ron] DeSantis, and [Rep. Alex] Mooney publicly criticized the federal ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers. It is also the context in which the NRA, after decades of silence on the issue, was willing to agree with them. Such objections, while modest in themselves, could open the door to a broader recognition that drug control, like gun control, is a menace to civil liberties.

— Jacob Sullum in The Drug Exception to the Second Amendment

 

Previous Post
Next Post

177 COMMENTS

  1. Prohibition just doesn’t work. So-called ‘victimless crimes’ laws don’t work in general, and prohibition laws specifically don’t work. From my military background, I’ll state that only a fool will issue an order that he knows won’t be obeyed. That makes all of our leaders a pack of fools. It often seems that all of them want to prohibit something, or support the continued prohibition of something else. Show me any nation that has successfully prohibited prostitution, for instance. It ain’t happening, now, or any time in the future or the past.

    It’s past time to trash a couple truckloads of prohibitionist laws.

    • Prohibition ended saloon culture.

      The victimless crimes everyone wants legalized come with a huge price tag that everyone in favor of drug legalization conveniently ignores.

      But then Lolbertarianism is really just a way of weakening the right wing and giving those who like drugs, money, and degeneracy more than anything else a political platform.

        • Meh, Daytona Beach area has The Iron Horse “Saloon”, Broken Spoke “Saloon, Boot Hill “Saloon”, Last Resort “Saloon” Froggys “Saloon”, No Name “Saloon” and others…. The Saloon culture is alive and well in the motorcycle world…

      • Sorry, but the enforcement of laws against victimless crimes costs more than the cost of the use. How many billions with a capital B has the war on drugs cost the country since its inception sometime in the 1930s? When one considers not just the enormous cost of the actual law enforcement interface, DEA, and all the other alphabet agencies, national, state and local, then add in the administrative costs, deputy DAs, deputy PDs, probation officers, judges and all the administrative support such agents require, plus the incarceration costs, all of which I think probably are not included in the cost because, “We gotta have judges anyway”. I would submit the true cost of the war on drugs is significantly higher than the reported cost. Remember what Mark Twain said about figures.I worked in CA courts for 25 years and it has been m opinion since my very first drug case that we were wrong. Lest anyone mistake my post, unlike several recent U.S. presidents, I have never used illegal drugs in my life. Never even just puffed but didn’t inhale. I also believe in long prison terms for true felons and the death penalty expeditiously carried out.

  2. people really need to stop calling it “Marijuana”. that’s nothing more than a nixonian buzz-word adopted by bureaucrats because it sounds foreign and exotic to scare Bible thumping teetotalers away from liberating their minds and bodies.

        • only a dope condemns something without either experience or facts.
          Now, dope, go drink your 5th of booze and ponder the stupidity of your comment.
          BTW more people are injured by drunks than ‘dopers’, behind a firearm or a steering wheel.

        • Kind of hard to do when I don’t drink. So you’re thinking I need to go get high in order to know it’s not a good idea? How about meth? Should I go and try that to in order to know it’s a stupid thing to do?
          So just because more people are injured by drunks, that somehow makes smoking dope virtuous?
          I’d be in favor of legalizing dope with one provision- if someone gets injured or killed as a result of someone being doped up, the doper then forfeits his or her life. How about that?
          BTW, I’d do the same for drunk drivers.
          I’m all in favor of personal freedom, as long as that personal freedom does not interfere with another person’s life.

        • dave wants his dope/pot/ditchweed/shit/janga/____

          Wy big on pot or do you drive to Colofornia to buy it?

    • “Bible thumping teetotalers“

      It’s just more evidence that those who claim to follow the Bible haven’t really read it.

      God specifically granted cannabis to mankind in Genesis 1:29:

      “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.“

      • “For meat,” which is something that nourishes the body.
        Smoking dope doesn’t fall under that definition.

      • gee whiz Miner49er… for someone who practices the religion of atheism and thinks they are their own god, you sure do borrow from the Bible a lot for your stupid out of context snarkey and ignorance of the bible.

        “to you it shall be for meat” > you don’t understand the context here. The bible was talking about food for nourishment.

        No, God did not specifically grant cannabis to mankind in Genesis 1:29.

        • “religion of atheism“

          Atheism is not a religion, it is merely the disbelief of the God claims.

          Theists make the claim that a god or gods exist, I haven’t seen any credible evidence to indicate their claim is correct so I currently disbelieve the claim.

          Atheism makes no claims, has no doctrine or dogma and is a personal disbelief held by individuals.

          Do you believe Bigfoot or unicorns exist?

          The default position on any claim is disbelief until sufficient evidence is presented to warrant a belief in the claim.

          Most “herbs bearing seed” have medicinal benefits for humans, including cannabis.

          And as to your claims cannabis is not “nourishment” I’ll just sit here and quietly enjoy my pot brownies.

        • Do you believe Bigfoot or unicorns exist?

          The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence/non-existence…

          You are correct about “medicinal benefits”, pharmaceutical companies used cannabis as the basis for a number of medications as far back as the early 1900s and indigenous groups around the world have acknowledged certain “healing qualities” in cannabis for centuries…

          As for the brownies, I prefer hashish for cooking, more potent with less intrusive flavor…

        • Lemmee see….marajuana grows naturally out of the earth….just like tobacco, corn, etc….now…If God made ALL plants and placed ALL of them on Earth for mankind, then please explain how he singled out several for us NOT to partake of. (Marajuana, coca, and those used to make alcoholic beverages) We’re NOT talking about pharmaceutically made/processed drugs here.
          As far as alcohol, wine was the sustaining drink for many if not all, in biblical times and even Jesus drank it. Even at “The Last Supper”.
          But as with all things God gave us, he expects it’s use to be in moderation. Remember he says not to be a drunkard? Also..How can something God created be evil?
          IMO many believe marajauna is bad, because they have been brainwashed by their corrupted politicians, who ,by the way, are often instrumental in these “illegal drugs” being shipped here to begin with and sit in the White House ,their offices, and homes doing the very drugs they’ve told us we cannot do .
          Perhaps many here need to do a little “logical thinking”. And learn to believe everything the Bible tells us…all of it, not just the parts you agree with. I know it’s hard, but you must try. Just my two cents….

        • @Miner49er

          your pot brownies have ingredients that are ‘foods’ or simply ingredients, the pot its self isn’t a food but rather an ingredient.

          yes atheism is a religion.

          Atheism is a religion religious worldview because it claims to know something fundamental about reality that hasn’t been—or can’t be—proven. Like theists, atheists operate out of a foundational faith or belief that shapes their perceiving, thinking, and living in the world.

          you idiot, you don’t even realize you embrace and practice a religion.

        • @Miner49er

          “And as to your claims cannabis is not “nourishment” I’ll just sit here and quietly enjoy my pot brownies.”

          just because its an ingredient and you can eat it does not mean its nourishment food as the Bible verse you so ignorantly quoted means.

        • “pharmaceutical companies used cannabis as the basis for a number of medications”

          They’d probably still be selling it if they could patent it. Follow the money. Always.

        • “because it claims to know something fundamental about reality“

          As an atheist, I make no claims.

          You are the one claiming the existence of a God(s), the burden of proof is upon you to support your claim. Otherwise, it’s empty speech.

        • MinorLiar,

          Like most of your Leftist/fascist idiot ilk, you remain incurably stupid and ignorant. Your bullshit claim is NOT true; what you describe is called “agnosticism” you idiot f***tard. Atheism is a denial that God exists. You are (somewhat) correct – there is no evidence of God’s existence. NOR is there any evidence that God does not exist. I have no issue with agnostics (I was one for much of my life). I have an issue with pretentious tw*ts like you pretending that you have knowledge of the inherently unknowable fact of God’s existence, you ignoranus.

          Atheism is EVERY BIT as much a religion as is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Jainism, Hinduism, etc. Eff off and expire, MinorLiar.

        • You can’t be an atheist and make no claims.

          Making no claims on the subject makes one an agnostic.

          Gnostic = knowledge. a-gnostic, purporting to have a lack of knowledge.

          Theist = A person who believes in theism, the existence of God or gods. A-theist = A person who rejects theism, therefore rejecting the existence of God or gods.

          An agnostic doesn’t know. A an atheist actively takes the negative side of the argument on the existence of God or gods.

          You’re either don’t know what these words mean, you’re an asshole or both. We can pretty well determine that you are, in fact an asshole, meaning that we’re not aassholes, if you like.

        • I, and a few others, had a similar conversation (except longer) with Miner about a month ago. The conclusion was that he was an agnostic by definition. As I said then, I don’t care if he wants to identify as an atheist, but words have meanings.

        • Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
          Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god, nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods (they lost me here, the very definition of DISbelief is: a LACK OF BELIEF)…
          Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”
          Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
          While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby: Most of this stuff sounds like it was written by miner probably because it’s his go to for copy/paste…

          From: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

          Disclaimer: NOT defending Miner or Atheism, just think arguments should be made based on factual information… I blame TRUMP…

        • Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

          It’s not a religion, true. But is most certainly is a belief system in that it is a belief system specifically based on the inverse of theism. It’s right in the name “atheist” if you look at how the prefix works and what “theist” actually means.

          It is, quite literally, an outright rejection of theism, which itself is defined as a belief in God or gods. Therefore by definition it is a belief system based on the rejection of the existence of God or Gods. And yes, it makes a claim: That there is/are no God/gods.

          1/religion will still have many facets of religion without necessarily being so but it can never not be a belief system.

          Agnostics are a whole other kettle of fish. They don’t claim to know. They don’t have faith in Gods’ or God’s existence but they don’t reject His/Their existence either. They’re usually defined as “a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God”.

          If asked “Is there a God or are there gods, in your opinion?” There are three broad answers.

          1. Yes. <– Theist. Claims that God/gods exist. Belief system.
          2. No. <– Atheist. Claims that God/gods do NOT exist. Belief system.
          3. I dunno. <–Agnostic. Doesn't claim to know. Belief system.

      • A very large portion of everything we have comes from plants. To include tobacco and the wood acquired from cut down trees to build homes with. That doesn’t change any federal prohibition or social stigma so what’s your point here?

      • minor49iq…you are a bible thumping meathead. Dope, booze has its place in some entertainment venues however when it comes to airplanes, firearms, vehicles, doctors, teachers, daycare and other such things where sobriety is paramount dope and booze has no place whatsoever.

        And you and your ilk must be hunter biden intoxicated to think you have a podium to preach fire and brimstone about banning firearms…sit down preacher man.

      • MinorLiar,

        Yeah, along with belladonna, ricin, ‘death angel’ mushrooms, and about a million other toxic plants.

        Are you stupid, or do you just PLAY stupid in the comments. Inquiring minds want to know.

    • What would YOU call Marijuana? Reefer, pot, Mary Jane, cannabis, weed, dope? Or do you prefer one of the 50 or so terms used by the DEA… Nixon did not make up the word “Marijuana”, it was introduced by Mexican immigrants in 20s/30s… So, relax, take your meds, watch “Reefer Madness” and chill out…

      • Remember Dupont did not want hemp fibers challenging their new invention of nylon.

        Follow the money and vested interests.

        • @neiowa
          Jamie Brocket I think its Ballad of The Titanic, sings aboyt the first mate carrying four hundred ninety seven and a half feet of rope. And yep, he’d been down in Mexico working in a rope factory

    • “Assault Weapons” is just a buzz word too. That doesn’t seem to stop people from believing in them.

    • “Bible thumping teetotalers away from liberating their minds and bodies.”

      I’m a Bible thumping teatotaler and I fully support your right to destroy your brain in whatever way you see fit.

      I’ve known enough old pot heads and drunks to be quite glad that despite trying pot and alcohol in my youth I did not care for either and so did not continue in their use.

      But I would not force my choice on others.

    • The atheists can talk a good game. But they have never been serious about making it legal. But it does help them to raise money in their political fights. Because fools will continue to donate money and vote for Democrats.

      “Rand Paul Complains That Democrats Squandered Their Opportunity To Enact Marijuana Reforms”

      “Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House and still couldn’t get cannabis reform bills passed,” Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) complained on Twitter last week.

      https://reason.com/2022/12/29/rand-paul-complains-that-democrats-squandered-their-opportunity-to-enact-marijuana-reforms/

      Atheists don’t believe in freedom. Because They don’t believe in accepting the consequences and responsibilities that go along with it.

      • Their goal, from the very beginning of the Puppet’s reign, was to get as much $$ approved for spending as possible. They don’t care about healthcare, inflation, pot, etc unless they can profit from it and/or increase their power.

        “People are concerned about inflation. How are we going to get this completely unnecessary spending bill through? Hey let’s call it the Inflation Reduction Act! Voters are too stupid to understand how inflation works! While we’re at it, let’s propose a $7T budget!” *Maniacal laughter*

        The really sad part is the people who believe those in charge care about anything other than themselves. Squabbles over issues like this are a distraction while they rob us blind and secure their power.

        • Everyone needs to go back and listen to President Eisenhower’s final address to the nation. Listen to it from beginning to end.

          Don’t “just cherry pick your favorite part of it”, the military industrial complex.

          He talks about the many dangers our country faces. Federal spending on the military, is one of them. But also the dangers of, federal spending on education. And the fact, in his own words, that the enemies of the United States, “are atheistic in nature”.

          Are there atheists who actually believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence? Yes there are. Unfortunately their numbers could only fill up an American Telephone booth. Or perhaps a German Volkswagen beetle.

        • “We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” -Ike

          Ernest Lawrence, whose name is now on both Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Lawrence Livermore National Lab, ushered in the era of academic Big Science. He found that if you did what government wanted, they would throw money at you…People whose entire labs were funded with less than $20,000 per year saw Lawrence getting hundreds of thousands, and then millions, from Uncle Sam and the race was on: Government was firmly in the science business and academics wanted to be in business with politicians.

          And corporations were going to control academic science by controlling politicians. Academics who “play the game” were going to get more funding and head up grant committees and panels.
          https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/12/26/eisenhowers-less-famous-warning-government-controlled-science-12219

          Speaking of education, private schools seem expensive until you account for how much money goes toward every public school student. Once you see that, private schools look like a bargain. If private schools can produce better results with less money, then why do we still have public schools? At a minimum, why don’t we have school choice vouchers? Notice how the pols and celebrities who push public schools on everyone send their own children to private schools. They don’t care about your children’s education. They only care about their personal wealth and power.

        • Dude, They are GOVERNMENT schools. Stop with the “public” code.

          In Iowa we now HAVE school choice vouchers. The educrate unions are unhinged (futher) over it.

          “$7,630 of per-student funds for private schools, home schools, micro-schools, instructional materials, and online learning — many of which are accessible from all rural areas. And estimates suggest that public schools will keep about $1,205 per pupil for each student who resides in their district but attends a private school.”

          The gov’t school offloads the expense of instructing/programming a child but still get $. So a net positive financiall for the school. PERHAPS fewer union school marms employed at gov’t schools. If they are not useless they may be able to find employment at a private school.

          I paid for my 4 kids to go private school K-8 as I didn’t want them indoctrinated by union (demtard) school marms. Cost/student MUCH less at the private school for better instuction.

  3. I’ll leave the bigger legalization debate for everyone else and just say, for myself: whether someone smokes weed or not (and I do not) should have no relevance to a person’s right to keep and bear arms. Or any other right guaranteed under the constitution.

    • I think the word L E G A L I Z A T I O N has been added to the banned words list.

      What George Orwell said a long time ago has come to pass. Books have been banned for quite a while now. Now they’re going after individual words.

  4. It does NOT matter at all what the NRA or Loesch thinks. Putting any attention to that is ridiculous and means nothing.

    There IS a federal prohibition still there and a question on the 4473.

    • So I take it that you also believe in all the ATF “rules” concerning firearms your government requires of you too? Just because your government tells you to believe it
      A barrel too short means you’re a dirty criminal worthy only of being fined $250,000 and 10 years in the federal pen, not to mention a felon for life and total arms disbarment. How is smoking a natural growing plant worse than a barrel 1/8″ too short? Is it worse than the drugs legally prescribed by “US Government recognized medical doctors? Why? Because your governemtn officials tell you so, that’s why. You know, the ones who don’t know a buttstock from a receiver, but make the laws you accept as legal. Yep the same ones who smoke tobacco, make tons of $$ off it’s being grown, do cocaine and smoke pot, but tell you it’s illegal to smoke or possess marajuana. Because the laws they make only apply to you.
      Believe me, as soon as the polis and Federal Government figure out how to federally oversee the growing, regulate it and get rich off of weed…they will. Until then it’ll be illegal for you to do the same.Don’t believe me? Look no further than alcohol and tobacco.

      • It doesn’t matter what I believe. But for your question…I believe the NFA should be abolished. I do consider it to be unjust.

        Wisdom must be applied. If we are to consider weed illegal then that’s what it is. I will not have rifles shorter that 16 inches without a tax stamp because that is not legal. It should be but it isn’t. If Texas can bypass it with it’s own suppressor law then we might have a winner.

        It comes down to who wins elections. The NFA will never go away as long as Democrats have a say in the matter.

  5. Weed should be legalized, yet we should more agressively warn people about the problems.
    It’s not the completely harmless and also medical wonderthing some hippies make it out to be.
    It can seriously hinder brain development, especially before the age of 25 when your brain finishes development. Also, anybody who had any contact with a mental health institution can tell you that the system is full of people with psychosis from THC. Not all consumers, but some do get hit pretty hard with the mental issues.
    Instead of banning it, put an additional $50 on the health insurance of it’s consumers. This is a fair free market solution to the risk they expose themselves to.

    • “Instead of banning it, put an additional $50 on the health insurance of it’s consumers“

      Now there’s an idea, a $50 surcharge for consumers of bourbon, beer and wine, decades of solid medical evidence indicate the negative health consequences of the substances.

      And tobacco products, a surcharge on the health insurance for these consumers is another great idea, thanks for the suggestion! The average lung cancer death costs society in excess of $250,000, the surcharge should be much higher on these products.

      And those who choose to ride motorcycles without wearing proper head protection should have a large surcharge, there’s no questions those who don’t wear helmets Will on average receive much more serious and expensive injuries placing a greater burden on the medical system, compromising the care for the rest of us who don’t do these stupid actions.

      Also, a significant surcharge on those overweight folks whose BMI indicates an increased risk of severe and expensive medical complications, eroding the quality of care for those of us who don’t commit the sin of gluttony.

      • Tobacco use already has insurance penalties and has for decades. As to the rest gov will tax whatever it is allowed to and others will take advantage of it so careful what you put out there.

      • there’s no questions those who don’t wear helmets Will on average receive much more serious and expensive injuries placing a greater burden on the medical system,

        For a person who bases a disbelief in one thing you certainly don’t mind using unproven talking points about something you obviously know nothing about.. Helmets restrict vision, hearing and head movement, a helmet increases rider fatigue and in the event of an accident MAY (a favorite word of the “experts”) cause more severe damage to the spinal cord… The “experts are quick to point out brain injuries but fail to note the number of paralyzed individuals caused by helmets… I DO NOT wear a helmet; I DO carry a half million dollars in personal and passenger injury protection… I’ve been riding for over 60 years and of the two accidents I’ve been in one was a patch of sand in a curve that caused me to lay the bike down and the second was caused by an idiot engaged on his fucking cell phone who “didn’t see me” when he tried to occupy the same space I was in. Neither time was I wearing a helmet and I did not suffer any head injury in either one in spite of the speeds involved… The real answer to motorcycle related deaths and injuries would be for automobile operators to get their collective heads out of their asses and start paying attention, stop driving impaired and respect the motorcyclists right to the entire section of highway that they are occupying at a particular moment because MOST serious motorcycle accidents involve a second motor vehicle the majority of which are automobiles…

        • You know what the ER docs call motorcycle riders who don’t wear helmets?

          Organ donors.

          They send the guys out with a cut down kit and a little cooler for a quick helicopter trip to ‘harvest’ the goodies.

        • Know what they call people with your mentality? Stupid… Old joke, you really need a better writer…

        • …and quit trying to run us down on purpose because ya don’t like ow we dress/appear.

      • miner. Serious question. Where’s all the money and resources we’ve saved from imposing all sorts of health and safety restrictions on people? Are we not, as a nation, in debt?

        .gov regulations never save resources or money. If they did we would have a budget surplus and massive tax cuts across the board. Where are they?

        • Meh, only 31,600,000,000,000 dollars in fed debt, oddly that’s about same number of SECONDS in one million years…

        • “gov regulations never save resources or money“

          Really?

          “SVB CEO Greg Becker lobbied the government to relax some Dodd-Frank provisions on regional lenders in 2015. Trump did in 2018.
          When Silicon Valley Bank busted, it had assets of $220 billion. Trump’s rollback lifted the “systemically important” threshold from $50 billion to $250 billion.“

          https://fortune.com/2023/03/11/silicon-valley-bank-svb-ceo-greg-becker-dodd-frank-trump-rollback-systemically-important-fdic/amp/

          “In May 2018, Donald Trump signed into law a bill rolling back Obama-era Dodd-Frank regulations enacted to take on “too big to fail” financial institutions in the aftermath of the Great Recession. The bill was pushed through the Republican-controlled Congress—with the help of 17 Democrats in the Senate and 33 Democrats in the House.

          The rollback raised the asset threshold for banks subject to enhanced scrutiny, like stronger regulations and stress tests, from $50 billion to $250 billion. As The Lever reported, SVB CEO Greg Becker had been lobbying for this change for years. SVB had just passed $50 billion in assets at the time Trump changed the regulations.

          By December 2022, SVB had $209 billion in assets—below the $250 threshold but evidently enough to have certainly necessitated some form of oversight and testing to see if it could survive the type of run that just occurred.

          What’s telling is how weak the conservative response has been. Venture capitalist libertarian tycoons clumsily beg for bailout funds despite their supposed disdain for government expenditure. Ron DeSantis, who voted to roll back Dodd-Frank in 2018, is now among the Republican chorus blaming the bank collapse on diversity and wokeness. In each increasingly frequent social crisis, the culprit is almost always deregulatory conservatism; not only are more and more people coming to understand Republican politics as socially untenable—it is being revealed as practically unjustifiable too.“

          https://newrepublic.com/post/171105/trump-rollback-dodd-frank-regulations-directly-led-silicon-valley-bank-failure

        • And on 3/13/2023 Barney Frank remember HIM (HINT: he’s the FRANK of the “Dodd/Frank” bill) in an interview on Bloomberg Radio said that the failure of SVT and Signature Bank (HINT#2: He sits ON the board the of Signature Bank) was NOT due to Trumps relaxing of regulations but rather the Feds rapid increase in interest rates outpacing the return on investments in the short term bond market… So, take your TRUMP bashing bullshit and shove it… Trump has been blamed for everything from everything from train derailments (debunked by NTSB) to the failure of the global economy (debunked by the original signatory of the regulations in question)… If that’s all you got STFU you’re just displaying your ignorance once again… But hey, just keep pushing the lies of the Left it is at least a form of entertainment on a rainy Monday… OBTW, Dodd/Frank is exactly why banks can charge up 29% interest on credit cards…

    • From what I was told re mental health it was mostly early onset schizophrenia (teens instead of 20’s) for those who may have genetic predispositions to it. I remember it wasn’t a popular theory but lost contact with that employee years ago.

    • Max, I love your handle!

      “What is Max Muller theory?

      From this claim Müller derived his theory that mythology is “a disease of language”. By this he meant that myth transforms concepts into beings and stories. In Müller’s view, “gods” began as words constructed to express abstract ideas, but were transformed into imagined personalities.“

      • And what if WE are nothing more than an elaborate dream in the mind of some galactic traveler in deep hibernation?… A hundred years from now who’s going to care?

      • MinorLiar,

        Please tell the class what part of “unknowable and unprovable” you don’t understand. We will wait with bated breath for your DEEP insights into the nature of God.

        Is it physically painful to be that stupid???

        • “your DEEP insights into the nature of God“

          I don’t have any deep insights into the nature of any God, in fact, I don’t have any reason to attach any credibility to any of the god claims.

        • MinorLiar,

          And, ONCE AGAIN, you beclown yourself. “I don’t have any reason to attach any credibility to any of the god claims” is a far cry from denying that God exists (which is, for your ignorant @$$, the DEFINITION of ‘atheism’). I would tell you to pick a lane and stay in it, but y’all are too stupid to understand the English language (perhaps explaining your IDIOT contention that Article II, Section 8 authorizes universal gun control – but you’re WAAAYYYYY too much of a pu**sy to respond to that).

      • “smoking tobacco is bad, smoking pot is good?“

        Yes, that’s correct! Tobacco use is heavily associated with lung and other cancers, while marijuana has little to no association with cancer of any type and may actually have an inhibitory effect upon tumor growth:

        “Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
        By Marc Kaufman
        May 26, 2006
        The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

        The new findings “were against our expectations,” said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

        “We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use,” he said. “What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/05/26/study-finds-no-cancer-marijuana-connection/ea496081-b529-4948-9960-9e725a376e5a/

  6. only a dope condemns something without either experience or facts.
    Now, dope, go drink your 5th of booze and ponder the stupidity of your comment.
    BTW more people are injured by drunks than ‘dopers’, behind a firearm or a steering wheel.

    • Only a dope would suggest that no one condemn murder if they haven’t been killed themselves. Theft is wrong. I shouldn’t have to forced to have something stolen from me before I can say that. Like saying that I must have 8 years of school and a doctorate before I can put a bandade on a cut.

      The facts: Yes God made weed. He made humans too. That doesn’t mean that all humans are harmless. He made tobacco too but people condemn that.

      • This will be a ‘all hands’ comment, not aimed at anyone person.
        All the negative responses show me a group of people with the same mindset as anti-2A people, closed minded, not well informed, or just bigots.
        MJ has side effects, ALL drugs/intoxicants do.
        MJ is a pain relief for chronic pain. Pain kills, a leading cause of suicide is PAIN, look it up.
        A drunk is more dangerous than most anything else. Drunks cause way more harm than some are willing to admit, prove me wrong.
        The first anti-MJ laws were passed to address the use in ‘undesirable’ minorities’, yea them. As a side note. the movie ‘West Side Story’ was part of the inspiration for a lot of anti- knife laws, especially in NYC,NY, just like the ignorance of ‘Reefer Madness’, caused hysteria.
        So, please reassess you possible locked and not really loaded mind sets I don’t care if you respond or not, I will read all comments.
        Thanks

  7. Blah blah blah…a huge proportion of the black n brown gangbangers in Chiraq smoke the herb. Jeronimo! in Minnesota absolutely knew that when he shot the supposed CCL fellow Philando with smoke billowing. I smoked a lot of marijuana back in the daze but none in 40 years. I’m “for” decriminalizing pot but don’t want a-holes driving high. Not officially a republitard but I’ll never vote Dim. I’m certain there’s many millions of old white guy’s like me…

      • Never saw a joint end (roach) at the gun range, but LOTS of shot up booze containers, cans and bottles.(open air range, public)
        What’s you point?
        Or are you just an ‘anti’ for the heck of it?
        As for lying on a 4473, how many drunks, or people on pain meds or anti depressants have to lie?

        • People lie. That is a given regardless. I wont disagree.

          Ranges that allow drunks to shoot are places for me to avoid.

        • The range I use is run jointly by the local gun club and the county. (a private/county facility)
          It is open, both air and use, even after hours, weekends etc, so public means public.
          Avoidance is not an option if ya need or want a certain set up, like for marked distance and steel targets.
          No, shooting while high is not a good idea, same for drunks,
          but I’ve met some ‘straight’ people at the range that scare me, and a lot of em are old white guys that had military experience, and ‘know how it’s done’.
          Drunk, high, or stupid, leave firearms alone.

        • Technically, drunks don’t need to lie on a 4473 any more than coffee users do. 11e uses DEA references based on The Controlled Substances Act (1970) with slight modifications created by DEA scheduling of substances.

          Alcohol is not a controlled substance. Anti-depressants may or may not be, depending on if they contain a narcotic.

          Pain meds and narcotic-containing anti depressants are an interesting question. Parsing the language of 11e, it says “unlawful user of”. This suggests that if you’re Rxed the drug by a proper authority you’re good to go. It’s only if you use this stuff recreationally that it would be a problem.

          Sorta raises a question about the guy who has surgery, has a few extra pills and keeps them. They were Rxed properly, but if he takes them without a doc’s saying so later on for another injury… does that make him prohibited since he wasn’t Rxed the drugs for this purpose?

    • “don’t want a-holes driving high“

      We already have a solution, police officers have been employing a ‘field sobriety test’ for decades to ascertain whether an individual is capable of operating motor vehicles safely.

      • “to ascertain whether an individual is capable of operating motor vehicles safely.”

        If only they could conduct that particular test before handing out a driver license…

        • No child left behind and citizenship/legal residency status optional for driver’s license here. Not even touching the potential exam fraud but at least taking the test is required for citizens.

        • So you are not opposed to signing a DMV 4473 form” swearing you’ll never drink alcohol or smoke tobacco to get/renew your driver’s license?
          Also , do you actually engage your brain before shifting your mouth into gear? ROFL. Nothing personal but ..ttttttt.

        • Country Boy,
          Are you replying to my comment? It was nothing more than a humorous comment. Now it’s really funny because you’re showing yourself to be the one who doesn’t “engage their brain before shifting their mouth into gear.” Reread the thread beginning with Miner’s comment to see if you can find the joke. Given your comments so far, I don’t have much confidence in you. Maybe you don’t have enough brain cells left? You’re a poor ambassador for pot use. Do the movement a favor, and stay at home. You aren’t helping the cause.

    • And all the violence is why? Because it’s illegal. Remember all the violence the US Gov caused making alcohol illegal and even got to form The BATF and FBI to fight what they caused. See a pattern here? (Make a problem, then form an an agency to further control We The People.)

  8. I got here to TTAG a bit late this morning, but I have(haz) a question regarding this statement by the article’s author:

    “…Castile’s marijuana use, which made it illegal for him to own a gun,…”

    I’ve inherited or personally built nearly all the guns I’ve ever had over my lifetime, and have rarely purchased from an FFL, so my knowledge of the 4473 is admittedly limited, though I did purchase a gun last year and had to go through the electronic version. Marijuana usage isn’t a federal felony, is it? That, in and of itself, wouldn’t have prohibited Castile or anyone else from owning a gun, if I’m understanding the law correctly.

    Lying about such usage on a 4473 may result in a prohibition (unless you’re a Biden).

      • Yes, but that is a precursor to the purchase of a gun. The author stated it’s a prohibition to the ownership of one. Meaning, the author is stating that if you already legally own a gun, then try a blunt for the first time in your life, you are prohibited from owning your gun from that point forward.

        The 4473 only affects FFL transfers. In a State that permits unregistered transfers between private parties, the marijuana issue is assumedly moot. The author is stating otherwise.

    • Marijuana usage isn’t a federal felony, is it?

      No it is not.. In the United States, the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law for any purpose by way of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Under the CSA, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I substance, determined to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Simple possession with no intent to distribute is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000.

    • You’re asking a question tangential to something I asked years ago.

      At what point do you stop being a “user”? It could rationally be argued that if you’re not smoking a joint while filling out the 4473, you’re not a user when you fill out the form.

      In this regard, there’s very little clarity. We know what makes a driver not a driver. They stop driving an exit the vehicle. They immediately go from “driver” to “pedestrian”.

      At what point does that happen for “user”? Is it related to demonstrable action, like the driver, or is it intent based? You quit using and you intend to stay quit, so you’re not a user any more. What if you use again? Were you always a user? Or did you cease to be a user while not using and then become a user again?

      It’s not a question that most Conservatives want to have. Mostly because they haven’t actually thought about it.

      Quite obviously, under the current rules, the lack of clarity is problematic. But addressing it gains no political clout for anyone so no one wants to discuss it. Much easier to leave it as something that can be enforced or ignored at will.

  9. who readily recognize the injustice and racially disparate impact of drug laws

    100% BS Progressive talking point. They think if they repeat it enough, you’ll actually believe it. No one is forcing you to sell or consume weed. Go get a real job. If you want to get high, then don’t break the law while you’re carrying your illegal drugs. Stay out of trouble while getting high, and the cops won’t show up. No one’s conducting a sting operation to bust some couple burning one in their home. If you can’t get that right, then you deserve to get in trouble.

    while enthusiastically supporting gun laws with strikingly similar historical roots and contemporary consequences.

    And who can forget your right to get high as laid out in the Bill of Rights?? One is not the same as the other. More propaganda.

    Okay, fine. Democrats want to treat pot as a right, just like arms? When you get a felony, that means no more pot for you, right? When you’re involved in an assault while high, then your pot privileges get revoked, right? If people think you’re depressed, then they flag you and come take your pot. What’s that? They don’t really want to treat it the same, and this is nothing more than a pro-pot propaganda piece? “C’mon guys! We’re just like you gun people. We need your help.” Go on and help them, and see where they are when you want help with your real rights.

    • “And who can forget your right to get high“

      Do you really believe the government has the right to dictate what I can and can’t put into my own body?

      So you are for the New York ban on sugary drinks?

      Is that position more or less government intrusion into personal life?

      And I don’t see in the constitution where the government is granted the right to dictate what a person can ingest, isn’t that a right reserved to the people?

      • Note that I never said I had a problem with pot usage. Take a deep breath and reread my comment. I have a major problem with propaganda, including stupid, racially-charged talking points. Pretending like the fight to legalize weed is in the same league as fighting for a Constitutionally protected right is laughable at best. This is their way of getting the “gun community” to join the fight.

        I predict more and more jurisdictions will be legalizing pot now that big money (like Big Tobacco) is behind the push. Politicians are salivating over the extra tax revenue. Legal pot will be taxed to death ensuring a thriving black market. But hey, Big Tobacco and the politicians will get their cut. That’s all that matters.

      • MinorLiar,

        “Do you really believe the government has the right to dictate what I can and can’t put into my own body?”

        Sooo . . . just for clarity’s sake, you are now DEFENDING the ‘limited authority’ view of the Constitution, the federal government, and its ability to control private lives????????

        Cool story, bro!! Now do the 2A.

        You are literally too fucking stupid to insult.

    • “Dude March 13, 2023 At 10:12

      Note that I never said I had a problem with pot usage. Take a deep breath and reread my comment. I have a major problem with propaganda, including stupid, racially-charged talking points. Pretending like the fight to legalize weed is in the same league as fighting for a Constitutionally protected right is laughable at best. This is their way of getting the “gun community” to join the fight. ”

      You might want to read up on George Washington (one of The Founding Fathers) and what business he was in. And also what he grew there. Google Mt. Vernon Distillery)…. and The Whiskey Rebellion while you’re at it.
      But the Gov. figured out a way to control alcohol manufacturing didn’t they? And the Gov. makes plenty of $$ off of it too.

      • Also do you see the possession of alcohol or tobacco being a prohibition on the right to bear arms mentioned on the 4473? No? I wonder why?
        BTW, in the Declaration of Independence it says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”.
        So yeah, that covers a lot of things IMO. Why you so against that liberty bro?

        • “Why you so against that liberty bro?”

          Quote me where I’m against liberty. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve been to Mount Vernon.

        • Sorry Dude, something’s acting up on my computer it seems. Copied the wrong qoute somehow.And it’s just did it again. Must be time to run the antivirus again.

  10. It’s almost like one is enumerated in the Bill of Rights and one isn’t.

    Consistency – preserved

  11. Honestly, I couldn’t care less about pot being legal. Want to smoke out? Be my guest. All I ask is don’t do so when at work or behind the wheel etc. Same with anything else that clouds the mind. Want to use meth, or crack, or opioids? Again, do so at your own risk. You can’t legislate morality and prohibitions have never worked.
    Nor do I agree with life time bans on firearms possession for non violent crimes. You did the time, paid the fine and should be square with the world. If you are too dangerous to have your rights restored, you are too dangerous to be out on the streets.

    • “All I ask is don’t do so when at work or behind the wheel etc.”

      Therein lies the problem. I’ve known tons of pot users over the years. Every single one of them has, at one time or another, been high on the job. Every single one. That’s why employers don’t want to hire pot heads. They’re fine in the morning. By mid afternoon, they’re dragging. I’m speaking from personal experience. Sometimes they’re useless by the end of the day.

      If they drive a work vehicle or operate machinery, then the employer’s liability could be worse if the employee was high during an accident. It never looks good if a client sees them smoking or smells them afterwards. It isn’t worth the trouble.

      • It shouldn’t be illegal to recreationally use pot assuming they are responsible for all of their behavior while high. Employers should not be forced to hire or continue employment of substance abusers when it impacts their business. Lot of shoulds will not be applied logically.

        • When the economy began picking up in my region about six years ago, employers couldn’t find employees because they couldn’t pass the drug test. I think that’s sad.

          I don’t have a problem with recreational drug use. I do think people get into the habit of it, and forget that life can be just as good, or even better, without it. The last employee I had that used pot told me it was a lie that it wasn’t addictive. He had tried to quit multiple times. I know it isn’t addictive for many people, but then again, neither is alcohol. There are a lot of lies on both sides of the pot issue.

        • Re lies on both sides always the case with heavy government intervention or monied corporate interests (sometimes a dot for the ven diagram)

      • Construction and maintenance companies prefer meth heads. (No, I’m not joking.)

        Damn do those dudes work hard. Sure, eventually the move from snorting to smoking or smoking to poking but until they step up their game they work real hard. When they step it up they might steal some shit. But mostly they no-call-no-show until they need more money.

        • Contractors like immigrant Hispanics. They show up on time sober and happy to be there. The big companies usually drug test because they don’t want the liability or headache of a druggie. Methheads are a PITA to be around. If they aren’t screwing you over, they’re talking your head off.

  12. The 4473 issue was to amplify the charges for firearm possession when someone was caught with dope. I have been on FBI raids where a felon was caught with firearms and they rarely get to the charging point because someone up higher in the USAG’s office strikes the charge.

    The last several years the subject seems to be swept under the rug for political reasons because traditional donor money doesn’t want it talked about or more likely, politicians don’t want to mention it because traditional donor money might be turned off.

    In any event it has just become a distraction because who knows if an applicant is lying on his 4473. Even if someone is caught later with cannabis it doesn’t mean the person was a user on the day they bought a firearm and very little effort will be spent on trying to collect evidence to make a determination for charges. The charge is a distraction and any time there is the possibility of confusing a judge or jury the prosecution won’t take the chance.

    Then there is jury nullification. The 4473 is just not very useful evidence against a violator, unless they are an FFL.

  13. The marijuana legalization crowd has always been a deceitful and dishonest group. In the past they have used cancer sick children to hide their total legalization argument. I understood marijuana to have medicinal purposes in the 1970s. Because in Sacramento California there was a grandmother who was arrested. For getting marijuana for her sick grandson. She had heard the stories that it helped people on chemotherapy.

    It wasn’t that long ago that you would hear on a regular basis, libertarians say “there’s nothing wrong with driving a car while smoking marijuana.” “Or using any intoxicant while driving.” Because they were completely against the DUI stops.

    It’s just a great example of how irrational illogical and quite stupid, these people really are. It is why I say they have never believed in freedom. Because they want to avoid the responsibilities and consequences that go along with it.

    Philando Castile was not killed because of his dark skin. He was killed because he refused to follow the instructions of the police officer. Who believed he was reaching for a weapon. Because Philando Castile was intoxicated while driving a car. Which made him apparently incapable of following the officers instructions.

    I have told this story before. Two years before Philando Castile was killed I was stopped by a police officer. And just like Castile I informed the officer that I had a gun. Unlike him I placed and held my hands on the steering wheel, and calmly asked the officer “would you like to see my permit?”

    Raising his voice he said nervously, “you have a gun???”
    “No no no I don’t need to see your permit.” “I just need to see your drivers license and vehicle registration and insurance.”

    I gave him my paperwork and he ran me through his system. Then he returned everything to me. He Told me to have a nice day any left.

    I believe the drug legalization crowd are the enemies of the people who support the second amendment. The drug legalization crowd has said that “if all drugs are legal, there will be no need for drug dealers to have guns.” And they say “all the crime will just go away.” They have always supported gun control.

    The idea that you would change a substances legal status, and that this would change the immoral behavior of criminals, just shows how incredibly the lack of understanding of what motivates criminals. It’s not about the $$$.

    It’s about having power. And as chairman Mao once said, “power flows out the end of a gun barrel.” The idea that criminals are going to give up their power, which they enjoy so much, shows just how out of touch the drug legalization crowd really is.

    The potheads supported raising taxes on businesses. Until they ended up having to pay those high business taxes. When a pot was legalized. Then they carried their left-wing a$$es to places like Colorado, and took their politics with them.

    And then they ruined that once free state.

    • The problem with this argument is that it contains a bunch of assumptions that have nothing to do with what is actually said by most people who say these things.

      Being against DUI stops is entirely different from saying “There’s nothing wrong with driving around impaired”.

      One need not support doing Thing X to believe that Thing X shouldn’t, in and of itself, be illegal.

      For example: I don’t support walking into a bar, or other public place, screaming racial epithets just to get attention, but I’ll damn sure defend your 1A right to do it.

  14. The turn of the century was in 1901, Marijuana was legal then. Republicans were for personal freedoms back then.
    Now, the new millennia started Jan 1, 2001.

    • You were arrested for public intoxication back then. Because, you were probably infringing on the rights of others. By being boisterous, loud, disturbing the peace. Accosting people. Stealing or damaging private property. Or perhaps you fell down, face first into the mud.

      And the authorities saved your worthless life, by picking you up, and preventing you from drowning. Placing you in a jail cell while you slept off your drunkenness.

      Of course they could have just left you to die in the streets.

  15. In the State of Oregon which pioneered marijuana decriminalization, the State went far, far beyond simply eliminating the penalties for marijuana possession, production and consumption. The State of Oregon created two corrupt bureaucracies, the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program and the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, that entered into a criminal conspiracy to expropriate the private property of innocent victims for the purposes of committing Federal felonies by issuing address specific grow site permits and cannabinoid processing licenses without the knowledge or consent of the property owner. While voters were led to believe that the scale of Medical Marijuana grows would be limited to only six plants, the OMMP adopted plant limits that allowed 6 mature plants, plus 12 immature plants over 24 inches tall, plus 24 immature plants under 24 inches tall. Growers who could also produce for multiple, alleged patients were allowed a total of over 500 plants.

    To add insult to injury, residential tenancy laws were amended to preclude eviction for utilizing a property for marijuana production, processing and trafficking. These address specific grow site permits and cannabinoid processing licenses could then be exploited to falsely implicate a property owner in a marijuana operation. It would seem that not one judge in the State of Oregon had the intelligence and integrity to actually read the relevant law then read the administrative rules policies and procedures that were adopted to implement the law. This is in context of civil forfeiture laws that would enable the State of Oregon or more likely the Federal government, to invoke civil forfeiture of properties utilized for marijuana production and processing. This legal reality has been exploited to extort acquiesce from landlords to utilizing their property for marijuana trafficking.

    In my own personal experience, Yamhill County Judge Ladd Wiles (aka “Former US Attorney for the State of Oregon, Amanda S Marshall ‘s cuckold”, Google it), gave my marijuana bootlegging tenant a free pass for shooting at my son with a 12 gauge shotgun in retaliation for efforts to evict.

    I am sorry, but I don’t perceive the marijuana industry as a champion of civil rights.

  16. In the first place, Marijuana is not dope. Dope comes from the poppy, which makes it an opiate, synthetics are called opioids, big difference.
    No one is talking about operating equipment while high, which is the same for alcohol use.
    Misusing firearms while drunk or high is also wrong and stupid – that is just common sense.

    Nixon demonized Marijuana because he did not like the politics of the anti war folks. There were enough old timers that believed in prohibition to support him. I will agree that many get somewhat dependant on the high, just like alcohol or sugar, but jailing them while letting violent criminals run free is just stupid.

    • Misusing firearms while drunk or high is also wrong and stupid

      Possession of a firearm while intoxicated is also treated as either a 1st or 2nd degree misdemeanor depending on the state… So, wrong, stupid AND illegal…

    • And if I’d been born in the 40s, I would have agree with Nixon on that issue. AND on winning, or ending, with honor, the demtards war in Vietnam. The hippy/”anti war folks WERE despicable oxygen thieves. Pampered princes/offspring of morons of the not greatest generation. (see the chicom’s demographic problem).

  17. We are either a free people or we are not. It really is pretty simple. I should be able to walk into a store and buy an Uzi and muffler and then go next door still equipped with my new sub gun and buy a bag of weed.

    If you believe otherwise then you are part of the problem.

  18. Max Mueller March 13, 2023 At 09:04

    Weed should be legalized, yet we should more agressively warn people about the problems.
    It’s not the completely harmless and also medical wonderthing some hippies make it out to be.
    It can seriously hinder brain development, especially before the age of 25 when your brain finishes development. Also, anybody who had any contact with a mental health institution can tell you that the system is full of people with psychosis from THC. Not all consumers, but some do get hit pretty hard with the mental issues.
    Instead of banning it, put an additional $50 on the health insurance of it’s consumers. This is a fair free market solution to the risk they expose themselves to.

    Also do you see the possession of alcohol or tobacco being a prohibition on the right to bear arms mentioned on the 4473? No? I wonder why?
    BTW, in the Declaration of Independence it says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”.
    So yeah, that covers a lot of things IMO. Why you so against that liberty bro?

    • There is one law that remains even after all the rest are removed.

      The law of the strong. If you ain’t strong you ain’t shit.

      • “Everyone passes!”

        If we are all created equal, the above is the only legitimate outcome.

        If we are all created equal, it is the responsibility of government, as the servant of the people, to fulfill our hearts’ desires.

  19. One thing I know is that there were no drug cartels until certain drugs were made illegal. And because of the drug cartels there’s now more human trafficking and more deaths from high concentrations of certain drugs and turf wars. And, you can’t even go to Mexico for vacation for fear of being kidnapped, tortured and or killed. the War on Drugs has been a total abject failure and it needs to end. Drug abuse and addiction and other problems that come with drug use are more manageable when this stuff is legal. The same thing happened during alcohol prohibition.

      • You’ve seen ALL of the US? STF out of Mexico.

        All but N. Dakota (an oversight) including Alaska and Hawaii, spent a lot of time in Mexico on the Gulf side in the late 70s and explored as much of Canada as I need to. Still, lots of out of the way places to see right here…

  20. I had to start using marijuana because the ignition interlock in my car doesn’t detect that.
    The interlock comes out in a month, thank goodnees I can go back to driving drunk again.
    My shutezing is a lot better when I’m drunk too.

    • That thing’s easy to bypass.

      *Not that I have done that for people. I would never violate the law or the spirit of the law. Ever. I totally respect the state and its rules. 100% respect for 100% of their rules, regulations and laws.*

  21. It is very interesting the number of people who, while unable to name ONE amendment to the Constitution (including the BOR), are experts on the 18th/21st amendments.

  22. Exactly why I am a libertarian, and not a ‘conservative’. OF COURSE driving drunk, or high, or shooting in either condition, is stupid. If you follow the comments of MinorLiar or dacian the demented, you would make posting comments while drunk/high illegal, too.

    Show me where the Constitution empowers ANYONE to regulate stupidity. People are, by their flawed nature, often stupid. That is what free will is all about – you have the right to be stupid. Most rational people try not to do that.

    I don’t shoot, or drive, when I’ve taken psychoactive substances. That is simply common sense. But it is also none of the government’s f***ing business, UNTIL I do something to cause someone else harm. “Minority Report” was a crappy movie, NOT a blueprint for Utopia.