The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 7, 2011, 02:55 PM   #1
Steven_Seagal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2010
Posts: 239
ATF punishing Medical Marijuana users

This was a post I saw on another Message Board and I thought it was worth discussing. The ATF (federal govt) is overstepping their bounds and meddling in affairs that they need to keep their noses out of. This has big ramifications, not only because I support medical marijuana use, but because the Federal Govt is trying to bully the states into doing their bidding. Corrupt as ever


Excerpt:

DENVER — You can have your gun, or you can have your medical marijuana. But the Obama administration now says you can’t have both.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in the crosshairs for a recent memo prohibiting gun merchants from selling firearms to anyone who uses marijuana, including those with state-issued medical-marijuana cards.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-gun-sale-ban/
Steven_Seagal is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 03:00 PM   #2
Destructo6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: Nogales, AZ USA
Posts: 3,802
"State" does not equal, "federal."

The ATF is a federal entitiy and they are following federal law.

By the same token, if you pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint with "legally obtained" medical marijuana, don't be surprised if you are arrested and charged, and your car is seized.

There is no federal medical marijuana card.

Not liking that fact, does not change reality.
__________________
God gave you a soul.
Your parents, a body.
Your country, a rifle.

Keep all of them clean.
Destructo6 is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 03:01 PM   #3
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
Link not working

But: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=464253

But yes, federal law still trumps state law. As much as it might suck
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 03:09 PM   #4
Steven_Seagal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2010
Posts: 239
I understand that federal trumps state, but if the state decides to pass a law, that should be honored by federal, imo. Isn't that what sovereignty is all about?

This administration has stated several times that they would recognize state laws with regards to Medical Marijuana and would not actively pursue enforcement of federal marijuana laws where states had allowed medical marijuana. Looks like they are going back on their word. Not only that, they take it one step further and punish gun owners.

I know several people who have smoked herb their whole life and have never committed a violent crime, yet I know two people who were Oxycontin junkies and ended up in prison for robbing people to support their habit, yet Oxy users can still have guns. If you punish one segment of prescription drug users, punish the others that could pose problems. I don't even think Marijuana users as a whole really cause that many problems anyway. But I digress, as that is only my opinion and should not be taken as a statement of fact
Steven_Seagal is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 03:43 PM   #5
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
not actively pursue enforcement of federal marijuana laws
But they aren't. They are pursuing enforcement of federal firearms laws.

I don't agree with it either. Yet it is what it is.

I suppose the same case could be made for a stage 3 cancer patient on high dose opioids. However, opioids are not illegal at the federal level when prescribed and taken as prescribed. Marijuana is always illegal by federal law, prescription or not.
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 03:49 PM   #6
Destructo6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: Nogales, AZ USA
Posts: 3,802
Quote:
yet Oxy users can still have guns
Simply because, unlike marijuana, Oxycontin and other schedule 2 drugs have an accepted medical use in the USA.

If that Oxycontin is in your possession, but not prescribed to you, it is the same as having a bag of weed or cocaine: illegal.

This is very basic CSA stuff.
__________________
God gave you a soul.
Your parents, a body.
Your country, a rifle.

Keep all of them clean.
Destructo6 is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 03:50 PM   #7
Shadi Khalil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 4,953
Are you suggesting we punish people who take prescription pain killers simply for being sick? Not everyone who takes pain medicine (percscribed by a doctor) will rob or kill to get their drugs. However, their are plenty of people who use pain killers illegally and that is not something the law takes lightly.
Shadi Khalil is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 04:23 PM   #8
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,155
Drinking alcohol is legal (after a certain age) in all states of the Union. Most every person here would agree that alcohol and firearms do not mix. So why would marijuana and firearms mix? Prescription or not, marijuana alters a persons thinking processes, and slows down reaction time. Same as some other prescription drugs. Ever read the warnings “do not drive a vehicle or operate large and / or dangerous equipment” while using certain prescription drugs? A firearm can be dangerous equipment, no?

I got in a bad motorcycle accident in 2006. I was taking Vicoden like it was candy. Normal dosage was one tablet every 4 to 6 hours. My Doctor had me taking one tablet every two hours. To put it crudely, I was effed up for about two weeks. There is no way I could have safely handled a firearm. No way.
Mike38 is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 08:03 PM   #9
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,185
Quote:
You can have your gun, or you can have your medical marijuana. But the Obama administration now says you can’t have both.
Actually, that would have been the Johnson administration.

The prohibition on ownership of firearms by users of illegal drugs was enacted in 1968.

Marijuana has been Schedule I since 1970.

Federal law trumps state law on drug policy since 2005.

Why does this suddenly come as a surprise to anyone?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 08:14 PM   #10
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
Quote:
I understand that federal trumps state, but if the state decides to pass a law, that should be honored by federal, imo.
What part of "trumps" are you missing? Trumps means the federal law supercedes state law. So how would the federal laws "trump" state laws if the feds had to "honor" the state law...

If the feds had to "honor" state laws... than state law would "trump" federal law...

Brnet
hogdogs is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 08:32 PM   #11
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,297
State law "trumping" Federal law, or the other way around, isn't the issue here. This is NOT a case of the Federal DEA breaking down doors and arresting people with medical marijuana cards for violations of Federal drug laws. This is about Federal firearms laws.

Fact: Despite laws in a few states, marijuana is illegal under Federal law.

Fact: To purchase a firearm from an FFL, the buyer must fill out, and sign under penalty of perjury, a (Federal) Form 4473.

Fact: One of the questions on this form asks if you are a current user of illegal substances.

Ergo ==> If you are using marijuana medically, you ARE a user of a (Federal) illegal substance, and it's a Federal form required under Federal law, so you cannot honestly answer the question "No." And the FFL can't sell you the firearm if you answer the question "Yes." If you check the "No" box, you may get the firearm but you commit perjury when you sign the form and hand it to the FFL, and you may face later consequences for falsifying a Federal form.

Catch-22.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 08:46 PM   #12
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Back in the 70's the federal government was sued about investigational use of medical marijuana. The settlement provided a way that the Feds GAVE marijuana to certain indivuals that were enroled in the plan. There are still some people receiving MM FREE from the Feds. So much for equality under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass...w_Drug_program
hermannr is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 08:56 PM   #13
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
medical marijuana
A contradiction in terms with little if any unbiased research. I did a college paper on this subject and it seems that every lab in Kalfornia that has tested it has found use after use and yet when many other labs with no obvious agenda test it they find no medical use whatsoever that would justify legalization.

This is a popular and illegal drug that IMHO a certain very large crowd has determined to legalize under the pretense of medicine. I like burgers... it doesn’t make them medicine...

The 2A is a constitutional right, the funny stuff isnt... Choose to use the funny stuff and like it or not the law is the law.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 09:18 PM   #14
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven_Seagal
I understand that federal trumps state, but if the state decides to pass a law, that should be honored by federal, imo. Isn't that what sovereignty is all about? ...
Whatever your opinion may be, it doesn't work that way, and it has never worked that way.

This topic was extensively discussed here and here.

The bottom line:

[1] The question on the 4473 is: "Are you an unlawful user,..., of marijuana ...or any other controlled substance?..."

[2] Under 18 USC 922(g) --
Quote:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

....

(3) who is an unlawful user of ... any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

....

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. ...
[3] Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law (21 USC 812), and can not be prescribed lawfully under federal law.

[4] Since marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, it may not be prescribed lawfully under federal law. And therefore anyone using marijuana, even under state medical marijuana laws, is, under federal law, an unlawfully user of a controlled substance.

[5] SCOTUS in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) upheld under the Commerce Clause, federal criminalization of the production and use of even home-grown cannabis and even where States approve its use for medicinal purposes.

[6] ATF is doing nothing more than acting in accordance with current federal law. If you don't like the law this way, Congress can change it. Write your Congress people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hermannr
Back in the 70's the federal government was sued about investigational use of medical marijuana. The settlement provided a way that the Feds GAVE marijuana to certain indivuals that were enroled in the plan. There are still some people receiving MM FREE from the Feds. So much for equality under the law.
Those four people are the only ones left in a long closed formal clinical trial. And they are now the only lawful users of marijuana.

Federal law allows for limited, lawful prescribing of drugs that can't otherwise be lawfully prescribed. It must be done under a formal research protocol and subject to oversight by an Institutional Review Board, as part of the clinical trial and investigation of new and novel drugs and therapies.

That what was done with marijuana in this case, and it's done all the time with other drugs. Are you suggesting that the government doesn't have a sufficient interest in the testing of new drugs to provide for a legal means for such drugs, which could not otherwise be lawfully distributed, to be used for investigational purposes?
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 09:33 PM   #15
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,185
My question is this: why is a 40-year-old regulation suddenly news?

This isn't a new law. It isn't a new policy. It isn't some ATF revenge trip. This was simply a reminder letter to dealers. If the gun culture is really this out of touch, we're in bigger trouble than I thought.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 11:05 PM   #16
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
Since I think the "Medical Marijuana" laws are just ways for the potheads to get the weed I have no objection to the ATF rules in this case.
If there are truly needs for MM then I would want an exception if proof were offered that did not involve a Dr. who just prescribed it to make a buck.
Jery
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old October 7, 2011, 11:12 PM   #17
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 1,397
I hope those of you who doubt that pot can be effective when used medicinally never get cancer like my brother. He found california medically prescribed pot products to be the only effective medicine the doctors tried. Pot helped ease his suffering greatly.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen.
Be Here Now.
amd6547 is offline  
Old October 8, 2011, 12:36 AM   #18
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
worth mentioning

things are getting much more hairy for Californians, especially the business owners trying to live life day to day and week to week.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-dispensaries/
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old October 8, 2011, 12:43 AM   #19
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Since I think the "Medical Marijuana" laws are just ways for the potheads to get the weed I have no objection to the ATF rules in this case.
If there are truly needs for MM then I would want an exception if proof were offered that did not involve a Dr. who just prescribed it to make a buck.
Jery
who says this isn't already the case sometimes? Do you think every person that uses medical marijuana is just trying to 'beat the system'? Do you think every Dr out there is only worried about making some extra cash? I am sure many Doctors are more ethical than that, and one could make a heavy argument about what you said w/regards to prescribed pills. Neither here nor there, but the pills are much more lethal than a little pot(Corey Hamm dying at 33, michael jackson, anna nicole smith, etc....and if you care less about these people and have no sympathy, I am sure there are many no-names from everyday life that suffered the same fate). Pot is more lethal if you include the 'drug war'. People are scared of change, but life would go on. I respect other countries views on alcohol and drugs sometimes...kids in America grow up binging, getting away with stuff for adrenaline fun, but the bigger picture is much less narrow in my opinion....

PS- Am I a pothead because of my views? I can assure you I am not and I don't even smoke tobacco let alone pot
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old October 8, 2011, 12:51 AM   #20
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
I'll take a stab at that

Quote:
My question is this: why is a 40-year-old regulation suddenly news?

This isn't a new law. It isn't a new policy. It isn't some ATF revenge trip. This was simply a reminder letter to dealers. If the gun culture is really this out of touch, we're in bigger trouble than I thought.
I think the reason surrounds the fact that the issue is an ongoing fight in this country, and the trends over the yrs have been maybe leaning towards the reversal of many trends that started pot on this downward spiral many decades ago. People are tired of this kind of thing being such a big issue when it is very probable(as multiple Presidents have admitted as example), that many of the lawmakers use drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc anyways like many human beings inevitably do.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old October 8, 2011, 06:46 AM   #21
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Actually, that would have been the Johnson administration.

The prohibition on ownership of firearms by users of illegal drugs was enacted in 1968.

Marijuana has been Schedule I since 1970.

Federal law trumps state law on drug policy since 2005.

Why does this suddenly come as a surprise to anyone?

Excellent post.
The ATF is not punishing anyone: The ATF is enforcing federal law. The US congress passed the bill outlawing the use of dope and a US president signed that bill into law. Those who don't like this law can petition their congressmen to change it.

Last edited by thallub; October 8, 2011 at 08:31 AM.
thallub is offline  
Old October 8, 2011, 07:23 AM   #22
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,185
Quote:
I think the reason surrounds the fact that the issue is an ongoing fight in this country, and the trends over the yrs have been maybe leaning towards the reversal of many trends that started pot on this downward spiral many decades ago.
There's nothing ongoing about it. Nobody has even brought this issue up to me in years. The ATF makes one announcement, and all of a sudden, it's front page news and everybody's outraged and yelling about it this week.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 8, 2011, 10:30 AM   #23
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,611
1. We just concluded a long thread on this.
2. The issue was clearly answered. The Federal law is the one that counts.
3. The thread goes off the rails quickly with discussions of marijuana itself and/or long diatribes about the Founding Fathers that have little to do with the thread topic.

Since the question has been asked and answered several times plus leading to acrimony - my regrets, but Closed!
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12282 seconds with 7 queries