Pot measure would not trump fed gun law

[Silver Hand]

What matters is the police spend most of there day finding a roach, seed or a plastic bag that is considered a schedule 1 narcotic. Amphetamine is classified as a lesser charge, Including manufacturing.
Can some one tell me why things are this way?

 

[hermannr]

Well, whether there is a ton of revenue is kind of a side issue to it being poison for someone's gun rights if they are dumb enough to toke a joint every night and still walk around packing a gun, thinking the state legalization makes them immune from the federal law.

Maybe that's what bugs me personally about this measure. Those who are promoting it see it as a cash cow. That's the only reason, or at least the foremost reason, the pols seem to support it. They want the additional money. I don't think they give a rip about anything on the down side of this.

Dave: I want you to think about this: Prohibition (18th amendment) was passed with the same arguments that you are using against I 502. What did prohibition accomplish? It made a lot of 2 bit criminals very wealthy, a lot of innocent people died, we got the NFA34, a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens became criminals...and alcohol was still available, however at a higher price that the state had no control over. Why was the 18th amendment repealed? Because it cost the country a lot of money and it did not work...coersed social engineering is all it was.

So, what is the "War on Drugs"? Exactly the same thing as prohibition was, just a different potential intoxicant. What has been the outcome of the "War on Drugs"...exactly the same as Prohibition...the country has wasted billions of dollars trying to enforce a misguided law (that should really be judged unconstitutional...why do I say that...well if it is not an unconstitutional law, why did they bother to pass the 18 amendment to do exactly the same thing to alcohol?)

If pot is legalized, taxed or untaxed, the state will save tons of funds just in attempted enforcement of a law that cannot be enforced. If it is taxed and controlled like liquor, the state will profit (as long as they do not get greedy and excessively tax it). The gangs (just like prohibition) will loose their main source of funds, and at least some of the gangs will be finished...why...no money...no appeal.

Criminals obtain weapons, even if it is illegal. People that wish to be intoxicated, will find a way...even if it is illegal...freedom is the best way to handle both situation. Pot is(was) the poor man's intoxicant. It was cheap and easy to grow yourself...so why do we have so many burglaries? Poor people want to forget their misery, but we have taxed liquor out of the poor people's price range, and made a plant the natural intoxicant comes from, illegal to grow.

IMHO: If pot is allowed to be legally available, a lot of meth users would rather switch than fight...you remove the market and that problem would go down at the same time. On top of that MJ is a medically valuable plant that needs to be researched much more throughly....especially as to it value in curing glaucoma.

If you are religious, either Cristian or Jewish, consider Proverbs 31:6-7 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those with heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."

Oh, may I add one other thing: If you consern is that everyone will be smoking pot if it is legal...when they repealed the 18th amendment, did everyone start drinking? No, those that wish to be intoxicated, will, those that do not wish to be intoxicated will not...no matter what the law is.

 

[PiratePast40]

There are other issues yet to be addressed. One is the ability to quantify the amount of intoxicant in a persons blood stream. Alcohol is easy to detect and quantify but the intoxicants in marijuana cannot be easily quantified, i.e., how much is in a persons blood stream is not easily measured. We can find out if any THC is in a persons system but not how long ago it was introduced or if the person is likely to still be under the influence.

Even if marijuana was legal nationwide, as is alcohol, the issue of intoxication or "under the influence" is still unresolved.

There are many occupations where people are subject to random drug screening under safe workplace laws or fitness for duty regulations. That means that these people can have NO traces of intoxicants in their systems and marijuana can give a positive indication 30 days after injestion. What's bizarre about this is that federal law allows you to have as much oxycodone in your system as the doctor prescribes but zero marijuana, regardless of state law.

 

[Morpheus]

There are other issues yet to be addressed. <snip>
Alcohol is easy to detect and quantify but the intoxicants in marijuana cannot be easily quantified, i.e., how much is in a persons blood stream is not easily measured. <snip>

Even if marijuana was legal nationwide, as is alcohol, the issue of intoxication or "under the influence" is still unresolved.

If someone is impaired, they are impaired. Throw the book at them. How you test, well, that is the hard part. Maybe we need a reflex test of some kind, something actually more complex than the field sobriety test. Not sure how to figure this one out, but I'm sure that someone smarter at it than I can figure it out. IF we actually put some effort into it.

There are many occupations where people are subject to random drug screening under safe workplace laws or fitness for duty regulations. What's bizarre about this is that federal law allows you to have as much oxycodone in your system as the doctor prescribes but zero marijuana, regardless of state law.

Yeah, funny how people ignore that Prescription Drug abuse is the fastest growing drug of choice by teenagers. Still illegal for them to use mind you. There is a reason why a lot of doctors are a bit more careful about prescribing Oxycodone. Of course, there are lots out there that will write a script for a few extra bucks. Hell, if you think about it the manufacture doesn't care who takes it as long as people keep buying it. They are drug dealers after all... Just legal ones...

As for someone coming to work high on legal drugs, no excuse on this one. Considering most of the labels on the bottles you get form the pharmacist say 'don't drive or use heavy machinery while taking this' that should be a clue that if you do those things, you may be breaking the law.

 

[Dave Workman]

Dave: I want you to think about this: Prohibition (18th amendment) was passed with the same arguments that you are using against I 502. What did prohibition accomplish? It made a lot of 2 bit criminals very wealthy, a lot of innocent people died, we got the NFA34, a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens became criminals...and alcohol was still available, however at a higher price that the state had no control over. Why was the 18th amendment repealed? Because it cost the country a lot of money and it did not work...coersed social engineering is all it was.

So, what is the "War on Drugs"? Exactly the same thing as prohibition was, just a different potential intoxicant. What has been the outcome of the "War on Drugs"...exactly the same as Prohibition...the country has wasted billions of dollars trying to enforce a misguided law (that should really be judged unconstitutional...why do I say that...well if it is not an unconstitutional law, why did they bother to pass the 18 amendment to do exactly the same thing to alcohol?)

If pot is legalized, taxed or untaxed, the state will save tons of funds just in attempted enforcement of a law that cannot be enforced. If it is taxed and controlled like liquor, the state will profit (as long as they do not get greedy and excessively tax it). The gangs (just like prohibition) will loose their main source of funds, and at least some of the gangs will be finished...why...no money...no appeal.

Criminals obtain weapons, even if it is illegal. People that wish to be intoxicated, will find a way...even if it is illegal...freedom is the best way to handle both situation. Pot is(was) the poor man's intoxicant. It was cheap and easy to grow yourself...so why do we have so many burglaries? Poor people want to forget their misery, but we have taxed liquor out of the poor people's price range, and made a plant the natural intoxicant comes from, illegal to grow.

IMHO: If pot is allowed to be legally available, a lot of meth users would rather switch than fight...you remove the market and that problem would go down at the same time. On top of that MJ is a medically valuable plant that needs to be researched much more throughly....especially as to it value in curing glaucoma.

If you are religious, either Cristian or Jewish, consider Proverbs 31:6-7 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those with heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."

Oh, may I add one other thing: If you consern is that everyone will be smoking pot if it is legal...when they repealed the 18th amendment, did everyone start drinking? No, those that wish to be intoxicated, will, those that do not wish to be intoxicated will not...no matter what the law is.

You have missed my point entirely. Is that on purpose?

It's not the measure, it's the emphasis on the money the state can rake in, while not making it clear that federal law will continue to trump state statute-by-initiative, especially as it pertains to firearms ownership.

We're not talking about...at least I am not talking about ... criminals getting guns. I'm talking about law-abiding people who may not get it that a state initiative is not going to get them a pass if they get popped for pot while packing a piece, or if they smoke it and then answer "no" to the 4473 question.

I'm not campaigning against the measure by reporting one of the serious problems with the effort to pass the thing. The devil is in the details.

Maybe some people don't want to talk about this but I think it's a necessary discussion to have, and right now.

Now just for the record, I won't hunt with anybody who's had a drink or two, either. I've seen hunting parties where the guys come in and have a beer or two at lunch and then head back out with a rifle. There's no difference between drunk and stoned when it comes to loaded guns in my proximity, thanks all the same.

 

[Morpheus]

<snip>
We're not talking about...at least I am not talking about ... criminals getting guns. I'm talking about law-abiding people who may not get it that a state initiative is not going to get them a pass if they get popped for pot while packing a piece, or if they smoke it and then answer "no" to the 4473 question.

I'm not campaigning against the measure by reporting one of the serious problems with the effort to pass the thing. The devil is in the details.

Well the form does say 'unlawful user of.' So it would be an interesting court case if it was lawful in your state, then you could answer No legally. Right? Of course, some Fed may say it is illegal at the Federal level, so you lied. Hmm. That is one hell of a detail, for sure!

Now just for the record, I won't hunt with anybody who's had a drink or two, either. I've seen hunting parties where the guys come in and have a beer or two at lunch and then head back out with a rifle. There's no difference between drunk and stoned when it comes to loaded guns in my proximity, thanks all the same.

I'm with you here on this one. Someone shows up to shoot and is under the influence of something, I'm going to ask them to leave and go somewhere else. If they are belligerent, I'll leave and report their ***.

 

[Redcap]

I'm with you here on this one. Someone shows up to shoot and is under the influence of something, I'm going to ask them to leave and go somewhere else. If they are belligerent, I'll leave and report their ***.

Be sure not to drink coffee or take aspirin (or any thing else, for that matter) before you go shooting. You'll be under the influence of something.

 

[Morpheus]

Be sure not to drink coffee or take aspirin (or any thing else, for that matter) before you go shooting. You'll be under the influence of something.

If someone showed up hopped up on Redbull and espresso, I would do the same thing... But, with that said Sir, you are a smart a**.

 

[Redcap]

If someone showed up hopped up on Redbull and espresso, I would do the same thing... But, with that said Sir, you are a smart a**.

Don't "sir" me, maggot. I work for a living.

Glad you won't be sticking around at any shooting spots. That way I won't feel compelled to offer you a beer.

 

[Dave Workman]

Northwest gun owners debate legalized pot


<broken link removed>

 

[Morpheus]

Sir, I'm glad you work for a living, someone has to these days.

 

[coop44]

Actually this is not true. A medical assistant/CNA or an LPN can perform phelebotomy on patients.

I thought that was reading the bumps on your head?


btw ANYTHING you consume affects how you think, the brain (and the body) is a chemical engine.

 

[flyingSM]

Nothing in the constitution says that marijuana is illegal. However it does say that if a law isn't mentioned in the constitution then it is up to the states. I think if the measure passes that point is going to be a big issue and it won't be as cut and dry as "its against federal law so you are still breaking the law". It all has to start somewhere. And as for people dying from it i think someone mentioned 100 people? I think no one has ever died directly from marijuana. Nor have i ever read about someone stoned causing an accident while driving. All cases I've heard that involved pot also involved some other tote of drug. If i an wrong about that please someone show me credible evidence to the contrary. Also i have heard a story about someone who did crash while rolling a joint but that is a case of distracted driver not impaired.

 

[hermannr]

especially as it pertains to firearms ownership.

We're not talking about...at least I am not talking about ... criminals getting guns. I'm talking about law-abiding people who may not get it that a state initiative is not going to get them a pass if they get popped for pot while packing a piece, or if they smoke it and then answer "no" to the 4473 question.

This has already been through the court with the medical MJ user in Jackson? Co Oregon. Sheriff refused to give the person a CHL...she appealed and then sued. The Medical MJ user won...the Sheriff had to issue her a CHL.

The question is are you an illegal drug user...she was not deemed to be such by the courts, both state and federal court. The Sheriff even tried to appeal to the US Supreme Court...but they did not grant him a hearing so the Federal Appeals court ruling stood...she could not be denied a CHL just because she was a Medical MJ patient and was abiding by state law.

 

[flyingSM]

I think the case in Oregon said that issuing a cpl had nothing to do withthe 4473 form since the form is aboutbuying a gun and a cpl is about carrying one and has nothing to do with buying a gun nor does it give you the right to buy a gun.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Well, it is actually "current events" because I-502 is on the November ballot and I think you would be surprised at the number of people who think that just because the state makes it legal, they're going to get a pass.

It's sort of like that nutty woman on election night 2008 in Chicago who told, I think it was an NBC news correspondent, that she would never have to worry about her house or car payments ever again.

Spin it however you'd like, this is still old news.
State drug laws do not supersede federal laws regarding drugs.

This applies to all state marijuana laws past, present, and future.
It will continue to apply to all state marijuana laws as long as marijuana is still classified as a schedule 1 drug federally.

Also, you dont have to remind me how clueless the average citizen is. I've given up trying to fix "stupid" long ago.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

We're not talking about...at least I am not talking about ... criminals getting guns. I'm talking about law-abiding people who may not get it that a state initiative is not going to get them a pass if they get popped for pot while packing a piece, or if they smoke it and then answer "no" to the 4473 question.

You're talking about criminals regardless. As soon as someone "packs a piece" or fills out a 4473 after lighting up, they are engaging in criminal activity.

Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Being aware of your criminal activities is not a requisite for being a criminal.


I dont think marijuana should be illegal what-so-ever. Unfortunately, until federal and state law makers can pull their heads out, marijuana will continue to carry legal repercussions.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I think the case in Oregon said that issuing a cpl had nothing to do withthe 4473 form since the form is aboutbuying a gun and a cpl is about carrying one and has nothing to do with buying a gun nor does it give you the right to buy a gun.

Exactly.
To be clear though, if it's found that you're a marijuana user (medical or not) and you don't admit it on the federal form 4473, you are violating federal laws and are still subject to penalty, e.g. you can be arrested, imprisoned, and fined.

 

[PiratePast40]

Exactly.
To be clear though, if it's found that you're a marijuana user (medical or not) and you don't admit it on the federal form 4473, you are violating federal laws and are still subject to penalty, e.g. you can be arrested, imprisoned, and fined.

Since medical marijuana laws have been on the books for several years and in several states, are there any cases of this actualy happening to a state approved medical marijuana patient or to anyone else?

 

[Redcap]

Exactly.
To be clear though, if it's found that you're a marijuana user (medical or not) and you don't admit it on the federal form 4473, you are violating federal laws and are still subject to penalty, e.g. you can be arrested, imprisoned, and fined.

We all, each and every one of us, violate laws every day. I'm violating some right now.