Woman using cannabis denied conceal carry

[EPS]

 

[EPS]

BASICALLY it says they can drug test you and you can refuse it .and then they will get a warrant . And the state might not charge you .
But the Federal government can charge you

 

[EPS]

But in my case, what hair?

Yeah, they talked bout the hair test in class. Hazmat some real deal stuff goin' on.

Yep now for hazmat it's a big deal I let my Hazmat endorsement expire and didn't renew it.

 

[awshoot]

Another conviction from a new thread: Federal - Ruling on Marijuana specific to 4473 - 7th Circuit

 

[Uberpatriot]

Heroine:

View attachment 545290

Heroin:
View attachment 545291

Doh!

 

[MannyGlocks]

I've not read all the posts in this thread, mkay?

But, last night I read of folks advocating 'magic mushrooms' to get the legal ok...

So, no weed, but shrooms be ok for firearm license?

What next?

Legalize heroin and it's familiars?

Now, with some Conservatives willing to embrace and engage liberals with mutual 2nd A agreement (though I cast a jaundiced eye as to whether there's any real hope with that idea) which group do you think endorses recreational drug use?

Liberals or Conservatives?

And, is doing so healthy and wise?

Yeah, didn't think so...

 

[Flymph]

I've not read all the posts in this thread, mkay?

But, last night I read of folks advocating 'magic mushrooms' to get the legal ok...

So, no weed, but shrooms be ok for firearm license?

What next?

Legalize heroin and it's familiars?

Now, with some Conservatives willing to embrace and engage liberals with mutual 2nd A agreement (though I cast a jaundiced eye as to whether there's any real hope with that idea) which group do you think endorses recreational drug use?

Liberals or Conservatives?

And, is doing so healthy and wise?

Yeah, didn't think so...

Actually a lot of third parties are the main advocates for this, decriminalization and legalization of narcotics, and they fall on both sides of the spectrum.
Last I heard, libertarians and green party members both favor this.

I'm not voting any drug to be legalized, except on a federal level. I saw how the promise of mountains of weed brought these wicked pilgrims to ravage our communities with their ignoranceand kombucha!

 

[MannyGlocks]

Flymph,

Do you approve of taking recreational drugs?

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Sucks that happens to people. Just because some drink doesnt mean they drink and carry. Same goes for smoking.
Some folks need it for certain reasons some like to relax but might not like to drink. Wish they'd just legalize it federally and be done with this nonsense.

 

[PNWguy]

Actually a lot of third parties are the main advocates for this, decriminalization and legalization of narcotics, and they fall on both sides of the spectrum.
Last I heard, libertarians and green party members both favor this.

I'm not voting any drug to be legalized, except on a federal level. I saw how the promise of mountains of weed brought these wicked pilgrims to ravage our communities with their ignorance and kombucha!

I had dinner with an ex-girlfriend a couple of months ago who is a liberal. She is also the VP of Addiction Recovery Centers of America.

She is also a former addict (hence the EX part...) and now doesn't partake in anything. Except nicotine.

She was completely against the legalization of marijuana citing how it is actually a gateway drug and how her and thousands others used it before getting hooked on coke and heroin. She also was big advocate of the wall being built mainly for the effect on drug trafficking.

I voted for the legalization of it for medicinal uses in AZ. I've known a couple of folks who used it with great success in treatment of chemo side effects and other things.

My mom is actually considering using it for her condition. She can't use it across the border in Idaho, so wants to come to my house over in Washington and try some and see if it helps.

There is an interesting documentary on Netflix called Murder Mountain which chronicles the marijuana industry in Humboldt County, California. I have a buddy from there and he said the show did't show a fraction of the sketchy stuff that went on there.

It was interesting to see how all the hippies and pot growers wanted legalization, then now that they have it, they found out how the government completely ruins things when they get involved. Now, with all of the regulations, fees, and taxes, nobody can afford to be legit growers and authorities are cracking down on the small time grows.

Of course, they blame "corporations" for being the only ones that can make a profit due to economy of scale. Stupid potheads still vote for democrats and others who take away freedoms and impose more and more Big Brother government.

But, they are all brainwashed morons who are under complete control of the media.

 

[awshoot]

... She was completely against the legalization of marijuana citing how it is actually a gateway drug and how her and thousands others used it before getting hooked on coke and heroin. ...

Because coke and heroin being illegal totally stopped her from becoming an addict? Except it didn't of course. Wherever extreme profits are to be made, there will be business to supply the demand. It can be above board tax paying business, or criminals, but the demand will be satisfied. The real question should be how to help those caught up in the addiction and the evidence is that the drug war method has failed for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it causes public services such as cops/EMTs etc., to be seen as enemies (the worst thing about the Drug War has been the way it has eroded the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4A, and how that erosion will certainly seep into 2A analyses). Portugal is a case in point -- after decriminalizing ALL drugs, they saw declines in drug use and reductions in harm from drug use. And saved money. 14 Years After Decriminalizing All Drugs, Here's What Portugal Looks Like

This debate between Glenn Greenwald and GWB's drug czar is worth every second:

There is an interesting documentary on Netflix called Murder Mountain which chronicles the marijuana industry in Humboldt County, California. I have a buddy from there and he said the show did't show a fraction of the sketchy stuff that went on there.

It's a great series -- the sketchy stuff of course, is due to prohibition and the types of businesses prohibition attracts, namely criminal enterprise.

It was interesting to see how all the hippies and pot growers wanted legalization, then now that they have it, they found out how the government completely ruins things when they get involved. Now, with all of the regulations, fees, and taxes, nobody can afford to be legit growers and authorities are cracking down on the small time grows. ...

Part of the problem was that many were probably expecting to get prohibition prices and that just isn't going to happen in a legal market. This isn't to say that onerous regulations don't have a negative impact as well and I certainly don't doubt that those who can afford to write $10k campaign donation checks to politicians, are in a good position to sway the way regulations are written/applied in favor of corporate interests. It's the same with any type of farming -- the family farm is a dwindling enterprise whether it's focused on wheat or pot.

 

[PNWguy]

Because coke and heroin being illegal totally stopped her from becoming an addict? Except it didn't of course. Wherever extreme profits are to be made, there will be business to supply the demand. It can be above board tax paying business, or criminals, but the demand will be satisfied. The real question should be how to help those caught up in the addiction and the evidence is that the drug war method has failed for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it causes public services such as cops/EMTs etc., to be seen as enemies (the worst thing about the Drug War has been the way it has eroded the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4A, and how that erosion will certainly seep into 2A analyses).

Well, I really don't have a dog in this fight, but the woman gets paid half a million a year because she is an expert on addiction issues. So if she says pot is a gateway drug and legalization will make things worse, I tend to believe her.

 

[stickman]

Don't do drugs, drugs are bad... M'kay?!

Medication good...like opioids?

 

[Pandaz3]

I have never seen that question!

Then you are not paying attention when filling out a 4473, it asks about drugs, including marijuana. The 4473 is a FEDERAL form as it is a required for a Federal Background Check. Federal meaning Federal laws, not Local laws, apply and Marijuana is against Federal law. Period. They do not recognize "Medical Marijuana", it is against Federal Law. You are signing that you have read each question on that form. Feds can drill down in local files, such as Medical Marijuana cards.

Local officials can use the result of the Federal background check. HOW they use them is the question and each County could be different.

I do not care, none of my maladies are currently treated with Marijuana and even if they start it does not mean I would have to give up my current guns. I could not buy any more, but with the new rulings I shoud be able to putter along...…. until the new background checks for buying my 20 monthly rounds of ammo.

 

[awshoot]

Well, I really don't have a dog in this fight, but the woman gets paid half a million a year because she is an expert on addiction issues. So if she says pot is a gateway drug and legalization will make things worse, I tend to believe her.

Opinion vs evidence. I go with evidence. As for how much a person makes, I'm reminded of the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

 

[11Charlie]

Then you are not paying attention when filling out a 4473, it asks about drugs, including marijuana. The 4473 is a FEDERAL form as it is a required for a Federal Background Check. Federal meaning Federal laws, not Local laws, apply and Marijuana is against Federal law. Period. They do not recognize "Medical Marijuana", it is against Federal Law. You are signing that you have read each question on that form. Feds can drill down in local files, such as Medical Marijuana cards.

Local officials can use the result of the Federal background check. HOW they use them is the question and each County could be different.

I do not care, none of my maladies are currently treated with Marijuana and even if they start it does not mean I would have to give up my current guns. I could not buy any more, but with the new rulings I shoud be able to putter along...…. until the new background checks for buying my 20 monthly rounds of ammo.

Sarcasm much?

 

[awshoot]

...
I do not care, none of my maladies are currently treated with Marijuana and even if they start it does not mean I would have to give up my current guns. I could not buy any more, but with the new rulings I shoud be able to putter along...…. until the new background checks for buying my 20 monthly rounds of ammo.

Even now, a person who uses MJ and buys ammo is at legal risk (up to 10 years' of risk): Woman using cannibus Denied Conceal Carry

 

[Joe13]

She was completely against the legalization of marijuana citing how it is actually a gateway drug and how her and thousands others used it before getting hooked on coke and heroin.

That is false and has been disproven many, many times.

(No one I've known that uses pot regularly has ever escalated to harder drugs)

It's the equivalent of 30 round mags being the cause of mass shootings.

An addict is an addict. (Nicotine is ok cuz it's never killed anyone)

A criminal is a criminal.


They will get what they want despite rules.



I've said this many times and believe it to be the only solution:

Make everything legal and let God sort it out after the fact....

 

[PNWguy]

Opinion vs evidence. I go with evidence.

Whose evidence? Yours, or a woman whose job is to work with addicts every day and who has dealt with, been one, and treated thousands of people affected by drugs for decades?

I don't see how you can dismiss her evidence and experience if you're being intellectually honest.

 

[Joe13]

Whose evidence? Yours, or a woman whose job is to work with addicts every day and who has dealt with, been one, and treated thousands of people affected by drugs for decades?

I don't see how you can dismiss her evidence and experience if you're being intellectually honest.

The Netherlands did decades of studies around the subject - your lady friend is flat wrong and biased by her own experiences.

Do a little web surfing and you will find dozens of scientific studies debunking that myth.