Gun Ownership + Medical Marijuana Use: Is it legal?

[gunnails]

Latin licentiosus, from licentia
Date: 1535
1 : lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2 : marked by disregard for strict rules of co


===================================================

Thanks, I always enjoy a new word.

 

[MountainBear]

If you want to shoot a gun, don't be drunk and don't be high, it's a simple concept.

Add if you want to shoot OR CARRY a gun...

Enough said.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Add if you want to shoot OR CARRY a gun...

Enough said.

Yep, but tell that to a high or drunk yahoo

 

[ZachS]

Yep.... there are definitely some drugs out there that are or can be dangerous to use recreationally. A few obvious examples include heroin, amphetamines, and alcohol.


Cannabis isn't.

It kills ambition and eventually the logic centers.. but whatever

You did not mention perhaps the most dangerous modern street drug: Meth. That stuff is nasty and quickly fries the conscience center of the brain

"amphetamines" doesn't include methamphetamine?

but agreed, that stuff's poison. seems like it works directly on the soul.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

"amphetamines" doesn't include methamphetamine?

but agreed, that stuff's poison. seems like it works directly on the soul.

I well-knew an ex-meth head who later murdered his beautiful wife and two little innocent children. It was horrible. Meth is unlike any other current amphetamine, IMO

 

[Trlsmn]

Add if you want to shoot OR CARRY a gun...

Enough said.

+1!

 

[treemanx]

Heres another curve-ball for you guys.....

Medical Marijuana is legally prescribed to individuals with severe medical problems and pain. So is Oxycontin, Vicodin, Oxycodone, Morphine, etc. If you have a valid prescription for these other controlled substances, why doesn't that affect ones ability to buy a gun or acquire a CHL? Do these things fit or belong in the same category (MM & perscription meds, both prescribed for pain)?

Next, I'll tell you the biggest difference between MM and alcohol. Stigma. Marijuana has been labeled a drug, and given that categorization it carries a negative connotation. For example, if pot was legalized do you think you could still get a job with a dirty UA? Probably not. But you likely will get a job with a little alcohol in your urine.

I have had the "luck" to have been injured multiple times severely in my life, and while I look no worse for the wear (still look just like Brad Pitt ), I could easily get a MM card for chronic pain. The fact is, even IF I wanted to, I wouldn't. I am not ready to extract myself from important aspects of society yet, which is pretty much what getting one of those cards does. Good luck getting a job (good luck getting a job anyways, huh?); good luck buying guns; good luck renewing your CHL; and have fun looking over your shoulder for Federal Agents.

 

[raftman]

Medical Marijuana is legally prescribed to individuals with severe medical problems and pain. So is Oxycontin, Vicodin, Oxycodone, Morphine, etc. If you have a valid prescription for these other controlled substances, why doesn't that affect ones ability to buy a gun or acquire a CHL?

I believe the Controlled Substances Act, which is federal law, puts these drugs into 5 categories, Schedules I-V. These "rankings" are based on things like safety, potential for abuse, and an accepted medical use, and maybe some other parameters I don't recall at the moment. A Schedule I drug is considered dangerous, with a high potential for dependence and abuse, and lacking any valid medical use. There is no way to prescribe a Schedule I, nor any way to legally possess such a drug. A Schedule II drug is a drug that has very high potential for abuse and so on, but has accepted therapeutic uses, and can be prescribed, oxycodone (and Oxycontin, which is the same drug, just in a controlled-release form) and Morphine fall into this category, and it basically goes down the list from there according this scale, Vicodin is Schedule III, Valium and Xanax would be examples of Schedule IV, and then there's Schedule V drugs like Lyrica, everything else, whether prescription (like one's blood pressure pills, or cholesterol meds) or OTC drugs, just isn't a controlled substance. At present, Marijuana is categorized as Schedule I. As far as federal law is concerned, it cannot be legally prescribed or possessed, which is why Percocet and Vicodin can be ok, and Marijuana isn't. When the 4473 or CHL paperwork asks if you're an unlawful user of a controlled substance, one must keep in mind that according to the Controlled Substances Act, all pot use is unlawful.

Curiously enough, there's a a couple of drugs out there, dronabinol and nabilone (Schedule III and II, respectively IIRC) that are synthetic THC (the "active ingredient" in pot) and these can be prescribed, possessed, and used legally. So one can use pot in pill form, and be a lawful user of a controlled substance.

May not make sense, may not be right, but for the time being, it is the law.

 

[Redcap]

I believe the Controlled Substances Act, which is federal law, puts these drugs into 5 categories, Schedules I-V. These "rankings" are based on things like safety, potential for abuse, and an accepted medical use, and maybe some other parameters I don't recall at the moment. A Schedule I drug is considered dangerous, with a high potential for dependence and abuse, and lacking any valid medical use. There is no way to prescribe a Schedule I, nor any way to legally possess such a drug. A Schedule II drug is a drug that has very high potential for abuse and so on, but has accepted therapeutic uses, and can be prescribed, oxycodone (and Oxycontin, which is the same drug, just in a controlled-release form) and Morphine fall into this category, and it basically goes down the list from there according this scale, Vicodin is Schedule III, Valium and Xanax would be examples of Schedule IV, and then there's Schedule V drugs like Lyrica, everything else, whether prescription (like one's blood pressure pills, or cholesterol meds) or OTC drugs, just isn't a controlled substance. At present, Marijuana is categorized as Schedule I. As far as federal law is concerned, it cannot be legally prescribed or possessed, which is why Percocet and Vicodin can be ok, and Marijuana isn't. When the 4473 or CHL paperwork asks if you're an unlawful user of a controlled substance, one must keep in mind that according to the Controlled Substances Act, all pot use is unlawful.

Curiously enough, there's a a couple of drugs out there, dronabinol and nabilone (Schedule III and II, respectively IIRC) that are synthetic THC (the "active ingredient" in pot) and these can be prescribed, possessed, and used legally. So one can use pot in pill form, and be a lawful user of a controlled substance.

May not make sense, may not be right, but for the time being, it is the law.

Just because something is "the law" doesn't make it right and doesn't mean you have to abide by it.

 

[redmistnmysight]

I worked with a close friend with cancer.......if you dont know the benefits of marijuana for the sick then you need to stop reading government propaganda from the 40s and 50s.

I have personally witsnessed it as a superior DRUG helping a very sick person. Opiate withdraw was almost as bad as chemo for the woman. Anyone that reads world medical information can come accross over 200 years of legit mary jane use that cures many ailments, you just dont find it in america because our corrupt government sees it as another way to make the richer rich. And if they could get past it your then asking the Federal government to saythey were wrong all this time and billions of dollars later. Marijuana is only a gateway drug because the regular folks that use it have to go to the a heroine dealer to get it. Is alchohol considered a gate way drug by the government? NO, if you had to go to a Coke dealer to get it it might be. As for guns and drugs.... They dont mix, wether it be Pot or Booze. Dont do it.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Most here (I believe) are not against it for true medical use.. but it is still a violation of Federal law, that can snag you up. Decisions, decisions

BTW chemo is very destructive to the body, I would never use it when there are far better and safer natural cures for cancer

 

[willseeker]

Well, good morning gentlemen!

As previously stated, we are all welcome to our opinions...please don't base them in ignorance.

I am guilty as any at hanging on to old beliefs. I was raised in a military family, have the utmost respect for local law enforcement, worked and paid plenty of taxes and oh well, I digress...pardon me.

Now the federal government? That's another matter. Less is better? Perhaps.

Yes, mind altering substances do not mix with guns. Can we all agree on that?
But IMO, it's none of governments business.

That marijuana is catagorized as a type 1 substance is antiquated. Heck, I have no idea how it ever got there in the first place!? Who started this witch hunt? Some genious from the nazi era?

As my opinions differ from some of you is evident...however we are similar in our enthusiasm for firearms. That we are involved in a site as this proves that most of us are responsible and sensible gun owners. As we question the quality and reliability of a particular gun, as well, we should question the validity of laws pertaining to certain drugs.

The refusal of government to issue a firearm permit based on the alleged use of pot is wrong...where does it end?
Do we start prohibition again?

As Dijital said...we agree to disagree.

Will

 

[phathom]

Personally, medical marijuana has saved the life of a relative of mine. My grandma in law had cancer, she had fought it for years and was losing. From all the chemo and treatments she had lost her will to do anything, including eat, anything she did eat, she would throw up because of being so nautious. She had no appetite and was losing weight at an alarmingly unhealthy rate. They prescribed her medical marijuana to stimulate her appetite, she was able to eat again and gain back some of her weight. Instead of dying then from being malnurished and letting the treatments tear up her body more, she was able to get back to a normal weight, fight the cancer off, and proceeded to die of old age several years later.
Quite literally, medical marijuana saved her life and I will support it.

She also lived in California, so her right to carry and own certain firearms was F-ed, but still, that's besides the point that it didn't make her a criminal and it did have a very valid medical use.

 

[Partsproduction]

Interesting post Phantom, I know a lady who is 86 and has lost her appetite totally. I've heard that appetite is controlled by a hormone that isn't produced in older people. Hormone therapy might be as effective for either chemo patients or the elderly.

Is alchohol considered a gate way drug by the government? NO

Maybe not by the government, and it may be that it's just people of a certain psychological makeup involved but most people who go on to other drugs started with alcohol or pot.

I refuse to hire anyone who uses pot in any form even with a medical marijuana card, it's a deceptive attempt to get past urinalysis in my opinion.
I get to choose the type of people who work for me (For a while yet anyway) and people who use substances to alter their consciousness don't fit into my concept of the kind of motivated self starters I need in my employ.

Anyone who really believes otherwise is either stupid, ignorant or a user themselves. Add to that the real concern about people getting wrapped up in a machine with 20 horsepower, the photos are gruesome.

So, to allow people who use pot to posses firearms means trusting them to know when their judgment is impaired. You say we don't hold drinkers to the same standard? I agree! Drinkers who carry guns are at least as dangerous as pot smokers carrying, maybe more. I don't know what the answer is but I sure know that adding another drug to the list of probable problems isn't a good answer.

 

[ZachS]

Just to make it clear to everybody, this isn't a law about who's allowed to carry guns or when they're allowed to use them, but who's allowed to own them at all in the first place.

 

[raftman]

Just because something is "the law" doesn't make it right and doesn't mean you have to abide by it.

Of course, and the last sentence of my post does suggest agreement with your statement. However, if one chooses not to abide by the law, they must also be mindful of the potential consequences. These potential consequences will always be a likelihood, unless the law is overturned. I never said that the law was right, was merely explaining why, in the eyes of the law, some controlled substances are okay and others are not. I do not agree with the "propaganda" that marijuana has no medical value, once more, just explaining the existing law.

That marijuana is catagorized as a type 1 substance is antiquated. Heck, I have no idea how it ever got there in the first place!? Who started this witch hunt? Some genious from the nazi era?

It certainly does sound like it. Here's what tends to surprise people even more: cocaine, opium, and methamphetamine are actually Schedule II drugs, and thus can be legally prescribed (cocaine is used as topical anesthetic for certain procedures and can't really be "prescribed" but is legal under certain circumstances). So, in theory, assuming there's a legitimate prescription, someone taking methamphetamine pills or using prescription opium can truthfully say they're not an unlawful user of controlled substances and thus CAN buy a gun or get a CHL.

 

[irehog66]

I'm very late to this discussion but I can add my two cents.

I am a right wing leaning kind of guy - have been CC for a long time. I have a brother that is a CC Sheriff deputy - WE have another brother that has a Medical Marijuana card - grows it, is a provider for a couple of people legally, and is also a CC guy here in Multnomah County. He submitted his paperwork properly and openly. He has two conditions that cannot be remedied with traditional pain killers, in fact they can exacerbate his condition. He does not walk around in a stupor or act like pot head at all.

If I was ever in the situation . . . I'd trust him with my life, more so than many sober yahoos I know that CC or OC.

 

[willseeker]

I'm very late to this discussion but I can add my two cents.

I am a right wing leaning kind of guy - have been CC for a long time. I have a brother that is a CC Sheriff deputy - WE have another brother that has a Medical Marijuana card - grows it, is a provider for a couple of people legally, and is also a CC guy here in Multnomah County. He submitted his paperwork properly and openly. He has two conditions that cannot be remedied with traditional pain killers, in fact they can exacerbate his condition. He does not walk around in a stupor or act like pot head at all.

If I was ever in the situation . . . I'd trust him with my life, more so than many sober yahoos I know that CC or OC.

Thank you.

Will

 

[pchewn]

Well, good morning gentlemen!



The refusal of government to issue a firearm permit based on the alleged use of pot is wrong...where does it end?

That's the whole problem right there! The government should not be in the business of issuing (or denying) firearm permits. Neither the Feds nor the State.

Then we wouldn't have to argue about whether or not the Feds or the State SHOULD, or COULD deny a permit because someone inhales some smoke from a burning weed, because the Gov would not be in a position to either deny or issue a permit.

 

[Stomper]

Well, good morning gentlemen!

Will

THAT RIGHT THAR IS FIGHTIN' WORDS... just WHO are YOU callin' a "gentleman"?