BATF to Cali gun dealers - no guns for pot users

[Skeptic]

What this really amounts to is the Federal government placing a restriction on who can own a gun over and above the requirements set by the state. Yes I know those already exist but this is pushing it further, IMO

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/atf- ... s-14626488

[Reverenddel]

Yes, but not defending marijuana usage, when was the last time you saw a pothead get mad about anything other than running out of Cheeto's?

Maybe a lil' irritated that Papa John's is running late.

Otherwise? (shrugs) Impaired judgement, same as alcohol, follow the same rules.

[Skeptic]

Dang it , got distracted with work (the original 4 letter word) and forgot to mention - this is for registered users of California legal medical marijuana not just recreational users.

[Eutaw]

For a long time, I understood and supported several gun restrictions. I understood the reasoning behind them, as many people I have personally met should never, ever, own a firearm. And to be honest, I thought most of you were completely insane. However, I am beginning to see the light on this whole nanny-state crap. It is incredibly frustrating to all the "goings-on" from this unbelievable bureaucracy. I don't smoke pot, so this isn't the "My God what have they done!?" to change my opinion, its the overall idea of restricting a person's LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. So congratulations libs, I bleed red.

[thekinetic]

Just like the hypocrites..er feds to condemn one vice when they endulge in another just as bad. Gee wiz mr. government does that mean I can still drink and own a gun!

[Diomed]

Setting aside the bald unconstitutionality of federal drug regulation, this is entirely consistent with current law. Having a medical weed card only gets one out of state restrictions, it does nothing about the federal ones (it's still a Schedule I drug).

But hey, if you're a federally lawful user, you should be good to go. There are supposedly one or two people left in the federal weed program.

[rod]

Actually, I just read somewhere there are four people on the Fed weed program. You can say what you want about dope smokers, the bottom line is that it's still against federal law to twist up a marley, even in la-la-land. It might be a dumb law, but it's still the law.

[KaosDad]

Yes, but not defending marijuana usage, when was the last time you saw a pothead get mad about anything other than running out of Cheeto's?

Maybe a lil' irritated that Papa John's is running late.

Otherwise? (shrugs) Impaired judgement, same as alcohol, follow the same rules.

This. We are "fighting a drug war" just like we fought alcohol during prohibition with the same horrible results. Stress, divorce, child custody and joblessness have caused good people to do terrible things - when will we outlaw work, marriage and kids?

[OakRidgeStars]

The obligatory pot heads in cars kill more people than pot heads with guns post:

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/10/ ... 1317967183

So why isn't anyone calling for the revocation of drivers license for pot heads?

[RugerJoe]

No guns for the drug users but plenty of guns for the drug cartels? That's discrimination and it is not politically correct!

[Kreutz]

Actually, I just read somewhere there are four people on the Fed weed program. You can say what you want about dope smokers, the bottom line is that it's still against federal law to twist up a marley, even in la-la-land. It might be a dumb law, but it's still the law.

If you found yourself on the jury where a nonviolent adult was arrested while in possession of a small amount of weed for his own personal use, would you find him guilty because its "the law", or find him innocent because you know its the right thing to do?

[SHMIV]

Actually, I just read somewhere there are four people on the Fed weed program. You can say what you want about dope smokers, the bottom line is that it's still against federal law to twist up a marley, even in la-la-land. It might be a dumb law, but it's still the law.

If you found yourself on the jury where a nonviolent adult was arrested while in possession of a small amount of weed for his own personal use, would you find him guilty because its "the law", or find him innocent because you know its the right thing to do?

If your willing to ignore the law regarding one illegal substance, why not ignore the law on all the others?

[Kreutz]

Actually, I just read somewhere there are four people on the Fed weed program. You can say what you want about dope smokers, the bottom line is that it's still against federal law to twist up a marley, even in la-la-land. It might be a dumb law, but it's still the law.

If you found yourself on the jury where a nonviolent adult was arrested while in possession of a small amount of weed for his own personal use, would you find him guilty because its "the law", or find him innocent because you know its the right thing to do?

If your willing to ignore the law regarding one illegal substance, why not ignore the law on all the others?

Why have substances be illegal in the first place when that strategy has failed miserably? You're using the same argument the gun grabbers use, "if we make it illegal, it goes away".

Those that will use drugs are always going to use drugs. Should they venture out of their homes whilst under the influence they should be treated much as we treat public drunkenness. Criminalizing the drugs only creates a black market, ala Prohibition.

People have been using substances to affect their brain chemistry since Grog figured out rotten fruit made his head feel funny. Even monkeys will raid unattended bars in the Caribbean to get drunk, seen that one myself first hand.

[SHMIV]

Why have substances be illegal in the first place when that strategy has failed miserably? You're using the same argument the gun grabbers use, "if we make it illegal, it goes away".

Those that will use drugs are always going to use drugs. Should they venture out of their homes whilst under the influence they should be treated much as we treat public drunkenness. Criminalizing the drugs only creates a black market, ala Prohibition.

People have been using substances to affect their brain chemistry since Grog figured out rotten fruit made his head feel funny. Even monkeys will raid unattended bars in the Caribbean to get drunk, seen that one myself first hand.

I wasn't exactly making an argument, simply posing a question. The implied answer to my question is that you would, in fact, ignore the law when it came to other substances.

While I am pretty anti-drug ( rather, anti- the recreational use of drugs), I also am very pro- free will. The concept of free will is at the heart of this nations foundation. We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a man feels that smoking pot, blowing his nose, and shooting his arm are necessary in his pursuit of happiness... well, I think that he's an idiot, but he's got that right.

[Kreutz]

While I am pretty anti-drug ( rather, anti- the recreational use of drugs), I also am very pro- free will. The concept of free will is at the heart of this nations foundation. We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a man feels that smoking pot, blowing his nose, and shooting his arm are necessary in his pursuit of happiness... well, I think that he's an idiot, but he's got that right.

I've never smoked (either weed or tobacco) nor used any other illicit drug, but I strongly feel I have the right to do so if I choose.

So yes I would vote to acquit anyone on a possession charge regardless of the substance; the law be damned.