Federal Court rules that people with Medical Marijuana Cards cannot legally buy Firearms

[wired]

So I'm reading the 10th amendment completely wrong?

According to the Supreme Court yes, you are.

 

[The Heretic]

So I'm reading the 10th amendment completely wrong?

Doesn't matter what it says.

Are you a lawyer?

Yes? Then don't ask me, I am not a lawyer - you already know the answers.

No? Go ask a lawyer - he/she will explain it to you - maybe not to your satisfaction, but they will generally be correct when it comes to what works in court and what doesn't - that is what they get paid for.

What the Constitution says and what works in court are two different things. If our justice system really went by the Constitution, we wouldn't even be discussing this issue.

 

[USMC-03]

So I'm reading the 10th amendment completely wrong?

No, your not. But the 10th Amendment is arguably the most ignored portion of the Constitution and until the States collectively reassert their appropriate status within the Federalist system this won't change.

Ultimately, this larger issue of creeping erosion of 2nd Amendment rights is why, in part, I refused to claim PTSD disability with the VA when I was encouraged to do so. Is it really much of a leap to now claim that PTSD makes a person a risk if they are "allowed" to possess a firearm?

 

[The Heretic]

No, your not. But the 10th Amendment is arguably the most ignored portion of the Constitution and until the States collectively reassert their appropriate status within the Federalist system this won't change.

Ultimately, this larger issue of creeping erosion of 2nd Amendment rights is why, in part, I refused to claim PTSD disability with the VA when I was encouraged to do so. Is it really much of a leap to now claim that PTSD makes a person a risk if they are "allowed" to possess a firearm?

Yeah - I didn't even go to the VA to get hearing aids when I could have.

If I can possibly avoid them I will.

 

[USMC-03]

My experience with VA care has been something of a mixed bag. Thankfully it's been for nothing critical. Hope to keep it that way.

My fear is that since the VA in a Federal entity it will be a conduit for restricting the rights of "disabled" veterans and of course that standard will shift at the whims of our overlords. "Say there Mr. USMC-03, you need an unaffordable procedure; the VA will cover that but since your firearms are a health hazard..."

 

[The Heretic]

Given their recent history I don't want to be on their radar at all, and I would have to be desperate to go to them given their quality of care and long waiting lines.

 

[that guy]

If someone drinks or smokes. Skydives, rides a motorcycle without a helmet or whatever and it doesn't impact another persons life or risk it, then who should be the one to judge their choices?
Not me, and to those that don't like the way I choose to live,, well that's easy, pound sand as I could really give a crap how others feel.

This nanny state BS is something we ALL should be able to agree on at least.

I 99% agree with this, but some of these types of things DO impact people beyond the actual actors. Smokers, for example, puts a huge burden on the health care industry, use up a lot of medicals resources, decrease employers' productivity and drive up insurance premiums. You can't deny that everyone pays for the negative impact of tobacco.

 

[The Heretic]

I 99% agree with this, but some of these types of things DO impact people beyond the actual actors. Smokers, for example, puts a huge burden on the health care industry, use up a lot of medicals resources, decrease employers' productivity and drive up insurance premiums. You can't deny that everyone pays for the negative impact of tobacco.

The argument that others have to pay for a person's foolishness is often joined with the argument that we have to pay for their healthcare. It is a cyclical argument.

First an assertion is made that we must all pay our "fair share" for healthcare for someone who is injured or sick. Then an assertion is made that someone isn't allowed to do something that might injure them or make them sick because of the cost burden on "society". It goes round and round. I've heard this many times applied to smoking, riding motorcycles (with or without a helmet), guns, etc. - i.e., one assertion justifies the other and the other assertion justifies the first, back and forth.

No one yet has ever offered me a satisfactory argument as to why I am responsible for someone else's healthcare costs.

Insurance premiums? Smokers and people with other health risks, pay more for healthcare and life insurance than those without those risks. At 62 I am rapidly approaching the point where my insurance goes up just because I am older - should we ban old age? Maybe old people should just be euthanized as they cost a lot more to care for?

Productivity at work? If someone isn't productive, let them go - works for me.

 

[wired]

Unenforceable restriction anyway. Am I a user of marijuana? Nope. I quit yesterday. Prove otherwise.

 

[The Heretic]

Unenforceable restriction anyway. Am I a user of marijuana? Nope. I quit yesterday. Prove otherwise.

Ninth district court considers med marijuana card to be proof.

 

[wired]

good reason not to get a card

 

[The Heretic]

good reason not to get a card

I don't need to get a card because I don't use it.

Maybe in five to ten years I may want to. I am hoping by then that this silliness will fade away.

 

[wired]

id get a card but I have no legitimate need for one and I stopped smoking pot yesterday .

 

[that guy]

No one yet has ever offered me a satisfactory argument as to why I am responsible for someone else's healthcare costs.

Like you I'm not inclined to tell somewhat what to do. Whether you should be responsible or not is one debate, but I'm talking about economic costs. Even if it's not cash out of your pocket, you are paying for the burden of tobacco use on society. You insurance premiums are most expensive because something like 10% of all health care spending goes toward tobacco-related health care.

Productivity at work? If someone isn't productive, let them go - works for me.

I'm talking about worker productivity in a macro economic sense. When employees get ill and/or die it costs companies money. That loss then gets spread around into prices, wages, etc.

 

[The Heretic]

Like you I'm not inclined to tell somewhat what to do. Whether you should be responsible or not is one debate, but I'm talking about economic costs. Even if it's not cash out of your pocket, you are paying for the burden of tobacco use on society. You insurance premiums are most expensive because something like 10% of all health care spending goes toward tobacco-related health care.



I'm talking about worker productivity in a macro economic sense. When employees get ill and/or die it costs companies money. That loss then gets spread around into prices, wages, etc.

Then, as I said, that argument attempts to justify enacting laws based on lifestyle risks. So we should ban:

Skydiving
Riding motorcycles
Shooting guns
Climbing mountains
Racing cars
Use of tobacco
Use of alcohol
Hunting
Hiking
Skiing
Surfing
Sailing
Fishing
Junk food
...

We should mandate (by law):

Health checkups every six months
Healthy eating
Moderate daily exercise
...

The question comes down to who owns your life? You or somebody else?

 

[that guy]

Not sure why you think I'm advocating we ban anything. I am just pointing out that there are macroeconomic costs to many of these things.

 

[The Heretic]

Not sure why you think I'm advocating we ban anything. I am just pointing out that there are macroeconomic costs to many of these things.

Maybe you aren't, but a LOT of others use that "cost" to justify all kinds of restrictive laws, rules and regulations.

Why even bring it up if it isn't an assertion used to justify restrictions?

 

[that guy]

I guess I'm just saying I don't believe in the premise that "People who smoke (or do other things) don't impact me." That's all.

 

[The Heretic]

I guess I'm just saying I don't believe in the premise that "People who smoke (or do other things) don't impact me." That's all.

At a certain academic level, any action by anybody else, has an "impact" on somebody else. I just stepped outside and shot a .22 short to see how loud it would be from a 22" barrel. That noise impacted my neighbors.

Of more impact is when I drive to work. The dust I stir up on the gravel road settles on the properties along the road. The car exhaust is breathed by everybody around the world. The energy I used to travel is no longer available to anyone. The noise of the car is heard by anybody within hearing distance. The fact that I compete for my job with others means that they may be denied that job because I am better at it.

Some of those "impacts" do infringe at a certain level on other's rights (pollution being the most obvious one), but we usually compromise on those since we all infringe to one degree or another.

At a higher level, above that compromise, I can assert that if I use marijuana at home to control pain, my "impact" on others is so slight as to be negligible - especially when compared to the impact of tobacco or alcohol. Indeed, if I used marijuana instead of prescription opioids, the impact would be beneficial and not detrimental.

And yet, marijuana (both possession and use) is illegal at the federal level.

My point is the attitude of restricting people's actions when those actions really have no or little detrimental impact - especially not a direct detrimental impact - on other's lives, is having a serious detrimental impact on everybody's lives.

 

[that guy]

My point is the attitude of restricting people's actions when those actions really have no or little detrimental impact - especially not a direct detrimental impact - on other's lives, is having a serious detrimental impact on everybody's lives.

Oh for sure. I think we were talking about different things.