GOP Congressman’s Bill Would Protect Marijuana Consumers’ 2nd Amendment Rights

[E4mafia]

Just treat it like alcohol and cigs. 21 to buy and use. Remove the stigma around it and remove the loss of employment and guns with it. Unless if you've been ding'd for doing something stupid like driving drunk as an example there is no need to keep up what the government spent years in making propaganda about it being the devil's lettuce and a gateway drug.

The most I've seen any group of stoners do is destroy a bag of chips and sit on a couch or get all into a movie/game they are playing.

But this also comes with the fact the gov would have to 180 on all those people incarcerated for possessing pot and our legal system would have a nightmare.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[RicInOR]

This 87-Year-Old Republican's Bill Would Restore the Second Amendment Rights of Cannabis Consumers in States That Have Legalized Marijuana

Under current law, marijuana users who possess firearms are committing a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

reason.com

 

[titsonritz]

There were a couple reasons it was originally criminalized federally, one was that it's derivative, Hemp, was a threat to the timber industry.

Paper and petrochemical, specially William Randolph Hearst and DuPont. The racist part was another angle of attack for the main purpose.

 

[Ridge Walker]

While I appreciate the sentiment regarding regulation overall, what the F-all does MJ law have to do with racism??

Everything is racist now.

 

[CRBMoA]

I did not get the memo. No doubt because I am a POC.

Actually, I identify as an American. We used to be a protected class.

 

[Ridge Walker]

This 87-Year-Old Republican's Bill Would Restore the Second Amendment Rights of Cannabis Consumers in States That Have Legalized Marijuana

Under current law, marijuana users who possess firearms are committing a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

reason.com

I am told New York is looking into having the ATF prosecute medical MJ card holders as de facto evidence of use to prosecute folks for appling for firearm BGC.

Court upholds ban on gun sales to marijuana card holders

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and the feds have told gun sellers they can assume a person with a medical marijuana card uses the drug.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[mhayd93]

Playing Devil's Advocate here: who gets to determine which mind-altering substances should and should not be regulated or outright banned? The "hard" drugs like meth and heroin seem to have very little support in being legalized; as a matter of fact, many marijuana advocates seem to make concerted efforts to prove that it is not a gateway drug and will not lead to the use of the "bad" drugs.

For those saying the Government has no business regulating which substances people ingest in their own home, does this also extend to "hard" drugs?

I have no real dog in the fight here, but I just always find it funny when marijuana users vehemently oppose restrictions (and those who support such restrictions) but then try to distance themselves from meth users and have no issues with that drug being illegal!

 

[slimmer13]

Playing Devil's Advocate here: who gets to determine which mind-altering substances should and should not be regulated or outright banned? The "hard" drugs like meth and heroin seem to have very little support in being legalized; as a matter of fact, many marijuana advocates seem to make concerted efforts to prove that it is not a gateway drug and will not lead to the use of the "bad" drugs.

For those saying the Government has no business regulating which substances people ingest in their own home, does this also extend to "hard" drugs?

I have no real dog in the fight here, but I just always find it funny when marijuana users vehemently oppose restrictions (and those who support such restrictions) but then try to distance themselves from meth users and have no issues with that drug being illegal!

I'm a little conflicted. Philosophically, yes the right to put whatever chemical a free adult wants to put into their own bodies should be absolute. The problem lies with the increased risk of collateral damage through property crime, child abuse etc.

The upside would be the overnight putting out of business of the worst of the worst as far as criminals go, the cartels, traffickers etc.

If in doubt I think we always err in the side of liberty. I seriously doubt a bunch more people will go out and start using heroin because it's legal. The savings in resources and stabilizing factor in Mexico would be huge.

 

[CRBMoA]

1.) Money

Legal Drugs are taxed - Illegal drugs are not.

/The End


If you are looking for any other fact based, rational criterion, you are wasting your time.

The constant is $$$.

 

[CamoDeafie]

1.) Money

Legal Drugs are taxed - Illegal drugs are not.

/The End


If you are looking for any other fact based, rational criterion, you are wasting your time.

The constant is $$$.

Indeed. Prohibition of the 30s; the gang warfare of that era. And what did we get NFA1934. And this was over liquor.

 

[WillametteWill]

Since he is jumping on firearms and the 10th amendment, can he include SBR's, suppressors, etc. to be purely state's rights as well.

Asking for a friend.

 

[Will_White]

Playing Devil's Advocate here: who gets to determine which mind-altering substances should and should not be regulated or outright banned? The "hard" drugs like meth and heroin seem to have very little support in being legalized; as a matter of fact, many marijuana advocates seem to make concerted efforts to prove that it is not a gateway drug and will not lead to the use of the "bad" drugs.

For those saying the Government has no business regulating which substances people ingest in their own home, does this also extend to "hard" drugs?

I have no real dog in the fight here, but I just always find it funny when marijuana users vehemently oppose restrictions (and those who support such restrictions) but then try to distance themselves from meth users and have no issues with that drug being illegal!

I tend to side with more liberty. I'd say make consumption of most things legal but increase penalties for drug associated crime and increase funding for drug rehab and education using the taxes collected. I also would continue to allow employers to drug test their employees and require either a clean test or enrolling in and attending a drug rehab program to receive government support.

 

[soberups]

While I appreciate the sentiment regarding regulation overall, what the F-all does MJ law have to do with racism??

This guy was head of the DEA from 1930-1962.

 

[soberups]

While I appreciate the sentiment regarding regulation overall, what the F-all does MJ law have to do with racism??

 

[Hueco]

Playing Devil's Advocate here: who gets to determine which mind-altering substances should and should not be regulated or outright banned? The "hard" drugs like meth and heroin seem to have very little support in being legalized; as a matter of fact, many marijuana advocates seem to make concerted efforts to prove that it is not a gateway drug and will not lead to the use of the "bad" drugs.

For those saying the Government has no business regulating which substances people ingest in their own home, does this also extend to "hard" drugs?

I have no real dog in the fight here, but I just always find it funny when marijuana users vehemently oppose restrictions (and those who support such restrictions) but then try to distance themselves from meth users and have no issues with that drug being illegal!

I think an argument can be made around the line of naturally occurring substances. Marijuana, mushrooms, peyote, etc. are naturally occurring and the government has no business regulating them just as it has no business regulating potatoes, corn, and carrots.

Another argument can be made around the externalities of the industry. The problem that I have with marijuana specifically is that the externalities are 100% self induced. The government doesn't get to make the substance illegal, thus creating the illegal trade and cartels and all the murder and exploitation that comes with that, only to then use the crime to state that the substance should therefor be illegal.

If pot were perfectly legal across the board, then the only potential externality becomes a user being so addicted and broke that they resort to crime to aid their addiction. The ratio of this sort of crime to legal use is no different than alcohol in that legal use dwarfs the number of people who have fallen so far as to resort to crime. So, we handle it just like any other crime - though I think we should have drug rehab for those who need it (not just for pot, but alcohol and harder drugs as well).

Regarding the harder drugs, I'm somewhat torn. Many people lead perfectly productive lives while imbibing cocaine or MDMA or LSD. On the other hand, no one leads a productive life who does krokodil. And somewhere in the middle are many other substances. I haven't given much thought to this and to your point, it deserves more.

Regarding all drugs, including the hard ones, research should be 100% legal. MDMA was banned in 1985 and it remains on Schedule 1. In limited trials, we're seeing that it holds immense benefits for those suffering PTSD, clinical levels of anxiety...it may hold some value as a pain reliever or quality of life booster for those chronically ill or with cancer...it may even hold value in everyday therapies (individual or couples counseling).

We're just now learning about these uses because research is piece-meal being allowed...think of where we would be if research had been allowed this entire time!?

There's also something just incredibly...patronizing...about big daddy government stating that I'm not allowed to have a substance or object. If I want a tank and can afford it, damn it I deserve it. If I want to get a babysitter for the weekend and take my wife and a brick of blow to a hotel and to never leave the bed, well, damn it I deserve it. You get the point.

 

[The Heretic]

For those saying the Government has no business regulating which substances people ingest in their own home, does this also extend to "hard" drugs?

Any and all items/substances/etc. that a person wishes to possess should be legal to possess. It is your body.

There are a few exceptions I have: Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons of the type that government possess. dangerous toxic chemicals, radioactive or biological substances (e.g. bubonic plague) that need special storage and handling - that if left to leak into water, air, ground, could harm someone.