An OK judge rules that the law banning marijuana users from possesing guns is unconstitutional

[tarosean]

The biggest problem I have with people who smoke pot is not the smoking of the pot, but the people they end up having to associate with in order to get ahold of the stuff.

My son lives in OK and there is dang near a dispensary on every corner. Really no different than a convenience store. (I went in one just as a curiosity). That said, in those recreational states the heavy users are still buying from the illegal sources as it’s substantially cheaper than the government licensed and taxed dispensaries.

 

[TTv2]

If smoking pot can’t prevent you from owning a gun then doing cocaine shouldn’t either…
Sorry this has to stop somewhere, this is nuts imo, however unpopular that is.

FWIW: as long as it illegal federally I would think this would fail, but I’m no lawyer.

What's wrong with cocaine? Sure, it's not a healthy or safe drug for people to use, but it's not like heroin or meth where people destroy themselves from using it and becoming addicted to it.

I have no idea about any of these drugs, but it seems like cocaine is a less addictive drug as I've known people who used the stuff, no longer do, and are decently functional people.

Maybe I have a bias, but I get the sense that all the war on drugs has done is it took safer, less addictive drugs and made the supply of them low, raising the price which opened up the search for cheaper, easier to obtain, but more dangerous drugs like meth, heroin, fentanyl, etc. I'd rather live in a world where weed, LSD, and coke are legal and used than one where it's all illegal and people are shooting up cheap narcotics that turns them into zombies.

 

[TTv2]

Agreed. I typed up responses to most of the arguments here and then deleted them. No point. I'm disheartened by the comments here. Are we really willing to let a bunch of drug addicts have easy/legal access to guns in some strange attempt to ensure that we have access to guns? Is this what we have become? Do people really think stoners are going to come out and vote for pro-2A candidates now that they're allowed to have guns?

Side note. This was an FPC case. I stopped supporting them when they were advocating for a bill that would accomplish the same thing this court decision attempts to accomplish.

Not everyone who smokes weed is a drug addict. I have friends that smoke the Mary Jane occasionally who are very pro 2A, believe in the right to self defense with any arms, and while I don't use the stuff, I understand that those who do shouldn't be lumped together as drug addicts.

Elon Musk once took a puff on Joe Rogan's podcast, should that make him a prohibited person? He doesn't strike me as an addict, not when he's the richest, most successful man on the planet.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

It's been readlily available for years and we wonder why the schools are so bad.The military has gotten pretty ruthless in cracking down on drug use-do you want stoners flying the planes, manning the missile sites and communication systems ?
Anti-gunners will claim that gun purchasers lie on the 4473 and therefore can't be trusted .

 

[Ks5shooter]

For what it's worth I feel if I can't work CDL driver here with THC in my system.why can you carry a gun. It's common sense.Gun and my 80 thousand pound rig are both just as deadly to be impaired and operating .Until a definitive test is brought into play there are too many variables on how impaired you are on marijuana.I do not want too lose or weaken my gun rights because someone wants to get high.Set the standard for impairment be able to test the impairment and I do not have a problem with it.

 

[Barbaroja]

Not everyone who smokes weed is a drug addict. I have friends that smoke the Mary Jane occasionally who are very pro 2A, believe in the right to self defense with any arms, and while I don't use the stuff, I understand that those who do shouldn't be lumped together as drug addicts.

Elon Musk once took a puff on Joe Rogan's podcast, should that make him a prohibited person? He doesn't strike me as an addict, not when he's the richest, most successful man on the planet.

Fine points here. All I will say to this is a lot of you have no clue how many of your lawyers, nurses, doctors, coworkers, fellow church goers smoke pot. It’s still taboo to the older generations so it’s kept very discreet. I promise you, you all know someone who uses cannabis that you would never expect, especially if you live in a legal state.
That said I lean libertarian with my thoughts on things like this so I generally don’t care what other people do/use.

 

[DeepSouth]

What's wrong with cocaine? Sure, it's not a healthy or safe drug for people to use, but it's not like heroin or meth where people destroy themselves from using it and becoming addicted to it.

FWIW, I never said anything was wrong with it. The point is the argument of, “if ___ is legal then ___ should also be legal” never ends. It will eventually be, because alcohol is legal no drug should be illegal. Alcohol being legal has the same thing to weed that weed had to do with meth, it’s a silly argument.


At least the Libertarian argument of, “what I grow in my yard, cook in my oven, and smoke on my couch is no one else’s business” is at least logical. Though I believe brought into reality it would be absolutely disastrous.


I’ll bow out now because of THR rule :1.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Yes, the old "as long as it doesn't affect me" argument. Never seems to work that way. I note that if someone posted that he ruined a fine or rare firearm though careless reloading practices he would be denounced as a moron who ruined something for the rest of us and shouldn't allowed to have water pistols.
One argument I would use is that it revokes a constitutional right by statute.

 

[buck460XVR]

I'm disheartened by the comments here. Are we really willing to let a bunch of drug addicts have easy/legal access to guns in some strange attempt to ensure that we have access to guns? Is this what we have become? Do people really think stoners are going to come out and vote for pro-2A candidates now that they're allowed to have guns?

So much for "shall not be infringed", eh?

But there is not a single state in the U.S. where Marijuana possession and use is legal.

Thirty-seven states may have removed their state-law criminal sanctions against possession and use, but so long as the Federal Controlled Substances Act continues to apply, possession and use is still illegal in those 37 states.

There's two different sovereigns involved here and you're bound by the laws of both.

You are just telling us things we already know. My point was not about the idiosyncrasies of the laws, but the creation of criminals simply because of them. With pot being legal(yes, by state law) in many states for over two decades, do we insist on fooling ourselves than one of those folks that have taken advantage of the new laws, have not since bought a new firearm from an FFL and had to answer question 21E? did they answer it correctly or intentionally and fraudulently answer it incorrectly? Apparently, it could be both? Pot is classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act. This means it is considered to have a high potential for dependency and no recognized medical use. Yet the FDA has approved numerous prescription drugs that are made with components of pot, because it is recognized and identifies many times, that there is a medical use. In 2013, the Department of Justice (DOJ), formally announced that it would not interfere with marijuana operations that strictly complied with state regulations. Why? This sums it up well.

As in: there's no real reason, other than the fact that is illegal for no real reason, that having smoked a joint last weekend should make you a prohibited person anymore then having had a 12 pack last weekend should.

...as for this,

Imagine that there is say, a construction company that has a tractor roll off of a construction project and causes an accident. They try to shield themselves from liability, and a former employee makes an accusation that everyone he knows who works there smokes pot. So they test everyone, and the driver pops hot. Now they are looking at liability.

This is no different than the use of alcohol or prescription drugs. Those same places already have policies in place about those, as well as policies in place about the use of pot, whether it is legal or not. Many of those same places have policies against the smoking of cigarettes because of liability from second hand smoke. As well they should.

Like a lot of gun control, the antiquated laws against the use of pot has it origins in racial bias. Even tho pot was legal back then, it was not popular or used regularly until the early 1900s, when there was a huge influx of Mexicans fleeing political unrest in their home country. With them, they brought the practice of smoking cannabis recreationally. And it took off. Next, it was Black Musicians. In 1936, a propaganda film called Reefer Madness was released. In the movie, teenagers smoke weed for the first time and this leads to a series of horrific events involving hallucination, attempted rape, and murder. A year later, the Marihuana Tax Act was passed(notice the Mexican spelling?). A huge instigator of that fear-mongering was the man behind the Marihuana Tax Act, Harry Anslinger. Anslinger was named the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics during the prohibition era. But once national prohibition ended in 1933, Anslinger turned his focus to marijuana. This is when racism and xenophobia really kicked in.

Harry Anslinger took the scientifically unsupported idea of marijuana as a violence-inducing drug, connected it to black and Hispanic people, and created a perfect package of terror to sell to the American media and public. By emphasizing the Spanish word marihuana instead of cannabis, he created a strong association between the drug and the newly arrived Mexican immigrants who helped popularize it in the States. He also created a narrative around the idea that cannabis made black people forget their place in society. He pushed the idea that jazz was evil music created by people under the influence of marijuana.

....the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Yo Mama]

My son lives in OK and there is dang near a dispensary on every corner. Really no different than a convenience store. (I went in one just as a curiosity). That said, in those recreational states the heavy users are still buying from the illegal sources as it’s substantially cheaper than the government licensed and taxed dispensaries.

Heavy users get an ounce a day. No need to get it off the street. The cost difference is not much, if you are thinking about low grade marijuana then yes it's cheaper. But the higher grade is same cost, if not cheaper.

 

[Yo Mama]

I have been waiting for this day to come for a long time. Sorry to all the bigots who targeted citizens with draconian and racist restrictions against the sanctity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Time to face the reality that marijuana doesn't turn people into raving lunatics.

@buck460XVR you took the words from my mouth!

Next, time to deschedule it, and release non violent inmates that should have never had their rights taken away from them.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

Since the Feds and a large number of politicians are pushing for more gun control, I doubt the federal laws will change. If anything they will be more harshly enforced.

 

[HEAVY METAL 1]

"Now they can’t carry their firearm or use them because they’re by default a restricted person for however long THC is measurable. That period of time can be up to 30 days depending on what test is used. There is no minimum level. It’s all or none." ---------the test measures metabolites, not active THC that gets you high because if you smoke a joint today you are not still high 30 days from now. The tests show you DID have some, not that you are presently impaired.

"Fine points here. All I will say to this is a lot of you have no clue how many of your lawyers, nurses, doctors, coworkers, fellow church goers smoke pot. It’s still taboo to the older generations so it’s kept very discreet. I promise you, you all know someone who uses cannabis that you would never expect..."

^^^^Absofreakinglutly spot on. When my state made it legal my wife said that her boss lamented that now people will be driving around while high. I told her to tell Cheryl that people have been driving high for years.

Using guns or driving any vehicle while your brain is bathed in any reality distorting chemical is a big no no.

As for the effects of alcohol vs. cannabis, we have all heard of bar fights and the need for bouncers at bars. How many fights are you aware of that have broken out at social gatherings where the participants were enjoying cannabis and no other substances? The root of cannabis prohibition is based on racisim as noted above and not on science. If science and relative harm potential were the threshold of legality then alcohol and especially tobacco would be illegal. Tobacco is basically death on the installment plan.

 

[Elkins45]

Yes, the old "as long as it doesn't affect me" argument. Never seems to work that way. I note that if someone posted that he ruined a fine or rare firearm though careless reloading practices he would be denounced as a moron who ruined something for the rest of us and shouldn't allowed to have water pistols.
One argument I would use is that it revokes a constitutional right by statute.

The problem with the "as long as it doesn't affect me" is that the argument falls apart on both ends of the scale. Few would argue that surgeons and heavy machinery operators should be allowed to be stoned until the first time they kill someone, but it's also unreasonable to say no intoxicating substances can ever be consumed by anyone because they might somehow cause a larger societal harm in some undefined way.

The problem of people who argue in absolutes is that the absolutes are almost always unworkable.

 

[jdc1244]

I see this more in the context of medical marijuana – those who are not ‘stoners’ – rather, responsible individuals for whom marijuana use improves their health and, in some cases, keeps them alive.

Rendering such individuals prohibited persons is unwarranted and wrongheaded.

 

[bdickens]

Some of you people don't read so good, do ya?

Nobody is saying it should be legal to carry while you are stoned any more than when they are drunk.

Agreed. I typed up responses to most of the arguments here and then deleted them. No point. I'm disheartened by the comments here. Are we really willing to let a bunch of drug addicts have easy/legal access to guns in some strange attempt to ensure that we have access to guns? Is this what we have become? Do people really think stoners are going to come out and vote for pro-2A candidates now that they're allowed to have guns?

Potheads sure cause a whole hell of a lot less trouble than drunks....

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

From what i have read the states that have legalized MJ have not realized the tax revenues they expected, users by the cheaper-and more potent illegal stuff.
In Vietnam Charlie encouraged drug use among US forces-and kicked our butts many times because of it.
As a lifetime teetotaler wine connoisseurs, social drinkers have emphasized to me repeatedly that the idea of social drinking is not to get as smashed as possible as soon as possible-.Is the same true for drug users ?
Yes, people have been driving high for years-in the Army in Germany in 1971 I lost a buddy to a stoned driver. Here in NJ police are going throughtraining to recognized drug impaired drivers. Cynic that I am, I'm waiting for the first bus crash.
And the prolonged drought in the western states, the battles over water will probably curtail cultivation.

 

[Bfh_auto]

The misuse of alcohol has caused much destruction - not sure why that makes alcohol a bad thing. Alcohol is great when used responsibly - like guns. Is marijuana the same way? It seems to be a harmless goldenboy in the media and popular consciousness but time will tell

Yes it actually is. After being shot in October. My brother brought me some to help me but take narcotics. I used it to take the edge off combined with an antispasmodic and Tylenol. I was able to stop taking oxycodone a week after. I used marijuana at night for 3 weeks and gave the rest back to my brother.
Alcohol also has medicinal purposes. Misuse by many doesn't warrant banning for all.
Just do the correct thing for the actual crimes like murder, rape, and theft. The rest will fall into place.
On the OP. I completely agree with the judge except it's federally illegal. On the positive side. It makes force the issue.

 

[wayneinFL]

I note that if someone posted that he ruined a fine or rare firearm though careless reloading practices he would be denounced as a moron who ruined something for the rest of us and shouldn't allowed to have water pistols.

I would denounce him as a moron. I wouldn't call for the federal government to ban him from owning firearms. You would?

You know one person who was killed by a stoned driver in the last 50 years? I knew way more people killed by drunk drivers before I was ever out of high school. I don't think the answer is banning alcohol.

As a matter of fact we tried that and it fueled a war against a black market for alcohol that the federal government couldn't sustain.

 

[Bfh_auto]

So much for "shall not be infringed", eh?



You are just telling us things we already know. My point was not about the idiosyncrasies of the laws, but the creation of criminals simply because of them. With pot being legal(yes, by state law) in many states for over two decades, do we insist on fooling ourselves than one of those folks that have taken advantage of the new laws, have not since bought a new firearm from an FFL and had to answer question 21E? did they answer it correctly or intentionally and fraudulently answer it incorrectly? Apparently, it could be both? Pot is classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act. This means it is considered to have a high potential for dependency and no recognized medical use. Yet the FDA has approved numerous prescription drugs that are made with components of pot, because it is recognized and identifies many times, that there is a medical use. In 2013, the Department of Justice (DOJ), formally announced that it would not interfere with marijuana operations that strictly complied with state regulations. Why? This sums it up well.



...as for this,


This is no different than the use of alcohol or prescription drugs. Those same places already have policies in place about those, as well as policies in place about the use of pot, whether it is legal or not. Many of those same places have policies against the smoking of cigarettes because of liability from second hand smoke. As well they should.

Like a lot of gun control, the antiquated laws against the use of pot has it origins in racial bias. Even tho pot was legal back then, it was not popular or used regularly until the early 1900s, when there was a huge influx of Mexicans fleeing political unrest in their home country. With them, they brought the practice of smoking cannabis recreationally. And it took off. Next, it was Black Musicians. In 1936, a propaganda film called Reefer Madness was released. In the movie, teenagers smoke weed for the first time and this leads to a series of horrific events involving hallucination, attempted rape, and murder. A year later, the Marihuana Tax Act was passed(notice the Mexican spelling?). A huge instigator of that fear-mongering was the man behind the Marihuana Tax Act, Harry Anslinger. Anslinger was named the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics during the prohibition era. But once national prohibition ended in 1933, Anslinger turned his focus to marijuana. This is when racism and xenophobia really kicked in.

Harry Anslinger took the scientifically unsupported idea of marijuana as a violence-inducing drug, connected it to black and Hispanic people, and created a perfect package of terror to sell to the American media and public. By emphasizing the Spanish word marihuana instead of cannabis, he created a strong association between the drug and the newly arrived Mexican immigrants who helped popularize it in the States. He also created a narrative around the idea that cannabis made black people forget their place in society. He pushed the idea that jazz was evil music created by people under the influence of marijuana.

....the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Thanks for taking the time to type that.
It's spot on.
For the uninitiated. Weed is like alcohol. A little bit takes some of the edge off pain, anxiety, etc. A lot turns you into a bumbling fool.
I believe moderation I'm all things is the key.
Unlike most gun owners. I believe if your not incarcerated you should have the right to protect yourself with a firearm. I don't care about people's pasts.

 

[TomVA]

This ruling is very well written and worth the full read. As I understand it, the ruling only prohibits the loss of your constitutional right to merely possess a firearm because you also merely possess marijuana, or are a "user" of marijuana (not under the influence), or are labelled a felon as a result thereof. It does not address the use or carry of the firearm and/or the use of marijuana while doing so. As with alcohol, it certainly remains illegal (and rightfully so) to operate a motor vehicle when your ability to do so is materially impaired by the use of marijuana. Likewise it does not address other activities while so impaired. It seems to be narrowly focused on firearm possession.

 

[HEAVY METAL 1]

"For the uninitiated. Weed is like alcohol. A little bit takes some of the edge off pain, anxiety, etc. A lot turns you into a bumbling fool."

^^^^^correct! years ago when I was a young man my father told me "Potheads just smoke to get as screwed up as possible." I asked where he got that information and he mumbled something unintelligible; in other words bovine scatology. I countered with that is not always true, you can indulge in just a little bit to relax to take the edge of a bad day as one might do with a couple of beers or one could intake more to the point of becoming functionally impaired. I said if you (meaning anyone) are drinking beer and telling me it's only for the taste and not the chemical effects then you are being disingenious. In any event I think we all agree that intake of any mind altering substances and use of firearms must be seperated by a sufficient amount of time such that one's abilities and judgement is not impaired. If you smoke a joint after work on Friday night and decide to go to the range on Sunday afternoon you are not a hazard to anyone. Again only the metabolites would show up in your system on Sunday; that would show you had some cannabis sometime in the past, but is not an indicator that you are high NOW because you wouldn't be.

 

[jmorris]

Alcohol has destroyed WAY more lives than pot could ever hope to.

Well, alcohol has been legal in this Country forever (except from 1920-1933).

Since The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, its been illegal. Although declared unconstitutional in 1969, it was replaced by the Controlled Substances Act the following year.

I figure it’s still Federally illegal for selective enforcement purposes. I would rather it either be enforced at the Federal level or removed from the books and left up to the States to create and enforce laws the voters approve of.

The 4473 being one of the “got ya” moments leaving it as law but allowing it to be broken by States across the Country.

 

[HEAVY METAL 1]

BLACKHAWKNJ, "From what i have read the states that have legalized MJ have not realized the tax revenues they expected, users by the cheaper-and more potent illegal stuff." Not sure where your information is from regarding the potency issue. FIRST OF ALL let me thank you for your service on behalf of our country, much respect to you sir.
Legal growers have the luxury of experimentation of crossbreeding for particular plant qualities and potency is NOT always the goal because cannabis users goals isn't to always get as distorted as possible. Sometimes breeding experimentation for potency is the goal though. I having never been in war cannot imagine the environment. I have talked to many VN vets about this issue. (I used to work for the VA) I said I don't think I would indulge because if someone is trying to kill me I want to be sharp and have my wits about me. They countered with after a while one's outlook becomes somewhat fatalisitic meaning if it's your time, it's your time. I would want everyone in my platoon to be sober. Not judging, just my feeling. To me guns and mind altering substances don't belong together at the same time meaning used at the same time. Not that they can't coexist in the same house just like you keep your beer in the fridge, but you don't swill 3 of them before you get behind the wheel to head to the shooting range.

 

[mljdeckard]

Here's the difference between pot and alcohol.

Alcohol has a statutory standard for intoxication. It's measurable. Alcohol doesn't linger in the body or bloodstream. THC does. It depends on the body fat of the individual and how much they use, it can be anywhere from a few days to well over a month. You can draw blood to definitively state the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream. THC is far more relative. You can detect it far longer after the fact than alcohol.

So if there is an incident where a person is suspected to have been under the influence, but they don't think to test for it until a few days after the fact, alcohol will be gone. THC might not be. Whether or not that is right or fair is for wiser men than me to decide, but it does make a difference in assessing guilt or liability.