Medical marijuana users fight for gun rights

[OakRidgeStars]

I have my X-large bag of popcorn at the ready. This should be a good discussion

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/04/medic ... un-rights/

[Reverenddel]

I will use the Stoner credo for this:

"Dude...wait...what?"

Agreed, this should be entertaining.

[davasmith]

I will comment first here saying, "Medical marijuana is in no way a motive to violate laws. It is a medicinal supplement, given by a dr. who has a diploma from a college that states they are confident of their findings." As to carrying a weapon (concealed or open) while under the influence of said medicinal products, the same violation should apply to being intoxicated and carrying. Ain't that simple? Habeas Corpus, due process....... Hmmmmm I wonder what that means.... IMHO

[WRW]

I will comment first here saying, "Medical marijuana is in no way a motive to violate laws. It is a medicinal supplement, given by a dr. who has a diploma from a college that states they are confident of their findings." As to carrying a weapon (concealed or open) while under the influence of said medicinal products, the same violation should apply to being intoxicated and carrying. Ain't that simple? Habeas Corpus, due process....... Hmmmmm I wonder what that means.... IMHO

Well put.

[Diomed]

They're still federally prohibited. Until Congress starts rewriting some laws nothing will change.

[SgtBill]

Hell my daughter has been telling me for several year's now that I should toke on the silly weed for my problems and if it was legal in Va. I most likely would.
I have no problem with it when it is given on a RX from a real Dr.
Bill

[gunderwood]

I have no problem with it when it is given on a RX from a real Dr.
Bill

+1

They're still federally prohibited. Until Congress starts rewriting some laws nothing will change.

Fat chance of that happening.

[Diomed]

Hell my daughter has been telling me for several year's now that I should toke on the silly weed for my problems and if it was legal in Va. I most likely would.
I have no problem with it when it is given on a RX from a real Dr.
Bill

Well, Bill, you're in luck, because it actually is legal in Virginia, and has been for over thirty years: Possession or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes permitted. Of course, if you don't have cancer or glaucoma, you're left out in the cold. And, of course, nobody seems to prescribe it or stock it, but it'd be legal for them to do so, 'cept for the feds saying it ain't.

[Reverenddel]

I think it should be prescribed to people with sticks up their keisters. Maybe they'd relax a bit, and stop being so difficult.

Everyone so danged uptight lately.

Remember, they try to DIVIDE people to make them WEAKER, and EASIER TO CONTROL!

It's all semantics. As said by Hippies, with Dorito crumbs on their hemp hooded pullovers.

[Tweaker]

I agree big time Del! I almost dosed my mother during college. If there was ever a candidate for medical marijuana it was her!

I fail to comprehend why access to a plant should invalidate a civil right protected in the United States constitution. Is that the position of anyone here? We probably all agree that being baked and leaving your house with a heater is a poor choice.

Should anyone who purchases a bottle of liquor, receives prescription painkillers or is suffering from a high fever or other temporary medical deficiency be forced to turn their guns in Mr. & Mrs. America?

Are we adult free citizens? In my line of work, you are required to self police and restrict yourself from duty if you are unfit for any reason (fatigue, medication, illness). Seems to work just fine. I don't know why this should be different.

I think it is very ridiculous to require a prescription from a medical professional to consume a naturally occurring plant.

[Jumper501]

I have been thinking about this since I heard it on the news this morning, and I think I have worked out my opinion on this.

Owning and/or carrying a gun is a right. No ifs ands or buts.

Concealed carry is a privilege. Something that can be taken away if you do not fit into a certain criteria.

Marijuana is a controlled substance that alters your state of mind. She has a prescription to take it. I think we can assume that she can take it daily. Which means she would be under its effects daily. So when would she CC when she is not under the effects and can they guarantee that she won't. Public safety is the responsibility of the sheriff. Is it in the interest of public safety to have someone who is under the influence carry a firearm?

Let me ask it another way. Would you go to the range with someone who was high? I know if I was at a range, and someone at the other end of the range was smoking weed I would pack up my toys and go home.

I am all for medical marijuana. Wish we could get it here for my turrets, since it has been shown in some studies to help that. If it was and they told me that I couldn't have a CC permit because I was on it, I think I would be OK with that. Or I would not take it and keep my CC.

[totes6]

Owning and/or carrying a gun is a right. No ifs ands or buts.

I agree with that

Concealed carry is a privilege. Something that can be taken away if you do not fit into a certain criteria.

What ever happened to "Shall not be infringed." Personally I do not view any form of carry as a privilege, but is a right. Currently most state governments do not view it that way, but I am (as are many others) working to change it back so that state law views it as a right.

Marijuana is a controlled substance that alters your state of mind. She has a prescription to take it. I think we can assume that she can take it daily. Which means she would be under its effects daily. So when would she CC when she is not under the effects and can they guarantee that she won't. Public safety is the responsibility of the sheriff. Is it in the interest of public safety to have someone who is under the influence carry a firearm?

Alcohol is a controlled substance that alters your state of mind, don't believe me, try buying it from a store that does not have an ABC license. But just because you drink does not mean you cannot have a CHP in Virginia. I have not met a gun owner that disagrees with the laws against carrying a gun while drunk. And yes there are some that like a glass of wine or some other small amount of alcohol with dinner. But this comes back to the fact that the government is there to punish acts of wrong doing against its citizens. Until I have been actually wronged by a third party the government is supposed to stay out of it. As long as that gun stays in its holster whether they are drunk or high, where is the harm to a citizen? I am personally tired of this Nanny State that has sprung up in our government trying to protect us from "Possible Harm".

Let me ask it another way. Would you go to the range with someone who was high? I know if I was at a range, and someone at the other end of the range was smoking weed I would pack up my toys and go home.

First off I would call this a Red Herring. I seriously doubt a person would get much further than the front door to the Range if they were high. Back to the Alcohol analogy, when was the last time you saw a drunk shooter at Blue Ridge Arsenal or Silver Eagle Group or the NRA range? They wouldn't allow if not for common sense than at the very least liability of that shooter does something stupid with weapon on the line cause they were intoxicated.

[SgtBill]

Well I take pain pill's every day for over 3 year's now. I don't like it and wish I could stop but the pain won't let me. Each morning I get up with my alarm set to 8 A.M. to take my first dose of gaba penten 1200 miligrams and my first dose of morphine 30 miligrams. At 4 P.M. I take my next dose of gaba penten 1200 miligrams again. Then at 8 P.M. another dose of morphine 30 miligrams. At midnight I take another 1200 miligrams of gaba penten. This ammount of pain medication let's me function with the pain that I have as opposed to laying on the couch in screaming pain or put an end to the pain forever.

But I don't get high on any of it or the combination of the medications. Many of my friends know about all the pain meds that I am on and they know that I ain't no more crazy now then I was before I started the pain management plan.
So should I loose my CWP because of the morphin or not.
P.S. I was on this pain management plan last year during the shoot and meet did anybody see any problems with me other then my being a little crazy.
Bill

[Jumper501]

OK, I don't know how to do the quote thing,

Her right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed. Just the option of carrying concealed. I do not know of any court ruling that says CC is a guaranteed right under the 2nd amendment, but I have not researched it. If someone can find an applicable ruling, I may change my opinion on the matter.

We cannot keep and bear arms in any manner in which we choose. There are standards that have been set and we all adhere to. I am going camping in the national forest next week, because I do not have a CC yet I will have to keep my gun in a locked case and unloaded. Is my 2nd amendment right being infringed by this law? Not sure about that but I will follow it even though I don't agree with it.

You say the range thing is a red herring. I don't think so. People go to work high, hell I knew guys in Afghanistan that stood guard in towers while high. Chain of Command didn't press the issue and investigate though. So it is possible to function. But lets imagine another scenario. She gets up in the morning takes her prescribed medication then realizes she is out of lucky charms and now really wants some. So she straps on her CC piece and walks to the corner store. On the way she sees someone she thinks is acting suspicious, is a bit paranoid and out of it due to her medication, the suspicious person makes a sudden move and she shoots them. Who knows what the intent of the person was, but a lawyer is going to have a field day in court with her and probably the sheriff's dept. for letting her CC. Not to mention all the anti gun activists out there.

All I am saying is that I think the sheriff acted correctly. Without further guidance of legislature he defaulted to the position of public safety, which is his job. We will see if the court thinks he is right.

Sgt. Bill, I don't think that the pain meds that you need to take are the same as medical MJ. I think the list of side effects are much different.

The following are some of the common side effects of using marijuana:

* Trouble remembering things
* Slowed reaction time
* Difficulty concentrating
* Sleepiness
* Anxiety
* Paranoia (feeling that people are "out to get you")
* Altered time perception
* Red, bloodshot eyes

Morphine Immediate-Release

All medicines may cause side effects, but many people have no, or minor, side effects. Check with your doctor if any of these most COMMON side effects persist or become bothersome when using Morphine Immediate-Release:

Constipation; dizziness; drowsiness; headache; lightheadedness; nausea; restless mood; sweating; vomiting.

[Tweaker]

The following are some of the common side effects of using marijuana:

* Trouble remembering things
* Slowed reaction time
* Difficulty concentrating
* Sleepiness
* Anxiety
* Paranoia (feeling that people are "out to get you")
* Altered time perception
* Red, bloodshot eyes

Jumper, every one of those "side effects" with the possible exception of anxiety/paranoia are identical to the side effects of BEING OLD. Would you suggest that old people be barred teh right to arm bears as well? The .gov tried that on an old lady in DE, so it is not a joke or far fetched.

When you tried to claim MORPHINE is less of a concern than the evil plant, I have to just conclude that you have things all out of perspective. Did your dad get all hopped up on pot and beat you your whole life or something?

[Jumper501]

Tweaker, I never said that anyone should not have the right to bear arms. Nobody is saying that she does not have TRTBA. They just denied her a CC permit.

You also mis-understand my intent. I never said pot was an evil plant, or that i have any problem with it, but can you honestly say that you would go hunting, or to the range with someone who was smoking pot at the time?

Is there anyone here that thinks you can consistently be safe with a firearm while smoking pot?

[Jumper501]

FYI, I do not agree with the logic being used by the sheriff in court. He is saying that due to federal law saying you can't own a gun if you are a drug abuser he should not issue a CC permit. He is over stepping his authority making the call that she should not own a gun if she has not been convicted in court of being a drug abuser, that is not his place so in the pretext he should not have denied the permit ap.

However I still attest that it is unsafe and irresponsible to CC while under the influence. If you have a prescription for something that means you need it on a regular and continuing basis. Does she really NEED this prescription if she can choose not to take it if she is going to drive or CC? It raises some interesting questions in my mind.

[gunderwood]

Tweaker, I never said that anyone should not have the right to bear arms. Nobody is saying that she does not have TRTBA. They just denied her a CC permit.

Does not compute....whirl, whoosh, POP!

[Tweaker]

Again, we all agree that it is a poor choice and an error in judgement to be UNDER THE INFLUENCE of any substance that alters your mental and physical capabilities while potentially utilizing lethal tools. That has not been debated here, but you keep bringing it up. I agree with you but it is neither the point of the article nor the subject of our discussion.

I don't want to seem contentious, friend. I just want to underscore teh differences in the positions. I do very much have a problem with denying someone's freedom due to such a situation as that being discussed. Pot takes effect very quickly and leaves the body (effects, but not indicators) quickly also. Assuming one even consumes pot on a daily basis, I personally see NO problem with someone who protects themselves all day and consumes THC in the evening at home.

I very much have a problem with a blanket denial of freedoms based on ASSUMPTIONS (you even stated that you assume one to be under the influence 24/7). I feel adults and citizens ought to be treated as such until their actions/behaviors prove that they are not deserving of the free exercise of their actions, as they are harming others and their freedoms.

Puffin' a doobie does not meet that very simple and critical threshold.

I'm going out on a limb here but:
I have been around high people quite a lot, and I have seen no one become more violent. There may be a reduced mental faculty, but I still don't think that should preclude one the ability to defend themselves, especially in their home. High or not, do you think one cannot recognize being violently attacked or choose a course of action that will protect themselves?

Life is full of choices and risks. While we may not all agree on someone's actions, I don't think it should be up to the state to intervene in this one. If your behavior increases your legal liability or potentially makes your defense more difficult, that is part of being responsible for your actions. I am a believer in individual rights, so it takes a pretty clear situation for me to deny civil liberties. I know most here will not agree with me here, but that is okay too.

[gunderwood]

I very much have a problem with a blanket denial of freedoms based on ASSUMPTIONS (you even stated that you assume one to be under the influence 24/7). I feel adults and citizens ought to be treated as such until their actions/behaviors prove that they are not deserving of the free exercise of their actions, as they are harming others and their freedoms.

+1