CBD Oil & Cream And Firearms Ownership ??

[bill460]

What is happening now is simply a LOT of mass speculation. As far as I know, there have been no charges or cases brought forward against ANY firearms owner, challenging their right to firearms ownership, due to the use of CBD products. Be it oil, cream, or whatever.

Until this gets a run through the legal system, (assuming it ever does), it is nothing but speculation. I somehow doubt it ever will. Like it or not, Marijuana laws are becoming more progressive with every election. (Starting today Marijuana is legal in Illinois). With more states following suit all the time.

It's only a matter of time before the Federal Government is going to cave on the legality of Marijuana. Because right now it is a Federal Law with no teeth. In spite of the fact Marijuana is currently illegal at the Federal level. I can't think of one state that has had the Feds, (read DEA), come into their state, and start busting Marijuana sellers, and their customers. Which they have "legalized" with decriminalization laws, or by issuing, "Medical Marijuana Cards".

And it is very doubtful they ever will. For one thing it would be political suicide. Because it goes against public polling on the subject. It is basically a TU*D no one wants to stir, because it's only going to create a stink no one wants to smell.... Especially during a Presidential election year.

[JohnKSa]

What is happening now is simply a LOT of mass speculation. As far as I know, there have been no charges or cases brought forward against ANY firearms owner, challenging their right to firearms ownership, due to the use of CBD products. Be it oil, cream, or whatever.

1. Just to be clear, I don't believe that there's much chance of being prosecuted for CBD use. Those who are drug-tested as a condition of their job, or perhaps as a legal requirement due to some judgement could potentially get into a mess over this, but in general, prosecution seems very unlikely.

That's why I've tried to make it clear I'm talking about people who are concerned about following the law. If the concern isn't following the law, but just whether or not you will be prosecuted, I think that simplifies things tremendously.

2. Looking for prosecutions of gunowners as the evidence of potential legal pitfalls is problematic in a situation where there have been recent changes to the law. Even if the government does decide to pursue such prosecutions, it would be awhile before that information became available and we could then use it as a roadmap for what can happen.

3. There certainly is a lot of speculation, but there is also some pretty decent information available on the topic. The presence of speculation shouldn't cause us to dismiss the actual evidence that is available.

At this time, it does appear that there are potential legal issues that can arise from CBD use. To complicate the situation, it also appears that it can be quite difficult for a consumer to determine if their CBD product and the usage of it is legal or illegal since the legality hinges on circumstances that are not readily apparent to the user.

If you don't care about following the law and you aren't in a position where you are likely to be drug tested, then this is probably a much simpler question for you to answer.

If you are concerned with following the law or are in a situation where drug-testing is possible, it would be much wiser to hold off on CBD use until the laws are clearer and there is some idea of how the enforcement will be handled.

[Henry400]

CBD oil is markedly different than marijuana. There is no script required, and it is not something to be concerned with on a 4473. With that being said, The manufacture, distribution, and sales of CBD oils are not regulated, so you really need to be concerned about the purity and content of the product. CBD is supposed to come from hemp, not marijuana. While they typically only have a small fraction of a percentage of THC, it is possible, if they aren't concerned with purity, that the oil could have higher levels, which may lead to issues in testing. You have said that testing is moot, as you are retired. My main concern would be quality, purity, and consistency of product. With that all being said, I don't use it.

[HiBC]

I don't claim to know the answer.

I don't use any of it..

People get high with both cannabis sativa and cannabis indica Genus is cannabis,species is indica or sativa Both are controlled substances. .The actual plant is identified by genus and species.

When I look it up,many of the results differentiate between hemp and marijuana .The "internet information" overwhelmingly says hemp and marijuana are "different" OK. Its often repeated.

Folks say the difference is THC levels. OK.

Growing conditions can effect how much sugar is in an apple or ear of corn,but the plant is the same genus and species.

I have no doubt that some seeds,under the right conditions, have the potential to produce get-you-high pot,and some seeds produce mostly rope

There are male plants and female plants. The female plants produce the most THC. The most THC is in the flower tops. Sexual frustration has something to do with higher THC production. If male pollen reaches the flower,it goes to seed. Pot growers diligently clip off male flower tops to prevent pollination.

Waterng levels,light wave lengths,etc are manipulated to make higher THC levels

But before you tellme they are "different"......stoner dope and rope come from the same plant ; genus cannabis,species sativa

[bill460]

Originally Posted by HiBC

But before you tell me they are "different"......Stoner dope and rope come from the same plant ; genus cannabis,species sativa

This is true. And from a legal standpoint, can anyone prove that the ATF, along with other Federal agencies, do not look at it in the same way?

[BBarn]

Looks like the controlled substance list includes marijuana and marijuana extracts. However I didn't see any listing for Cannabis or Hemp. So they seem to have made (perhaps inadvertantly) a distinction between the sub-species. Add to that a now legal way for farmers to raise Hemp.

But there remains a risk for individuals since the feds might charge you with marijuana use and expect you to prove it was hemp or a non-THC cannabinoid product. In other words, guilty unless proven innocent.

[bill460]

Originally Posted by BBarn

.... Add to that a now legal way for farmers to raise Hemp......

And that is where it gets confusing, as well as almost impossible to distinguish from a legal standpoint. How can one law be deciphered as legal for one person, (farmers to grow it). And at the same time be illegal for another person, (firearm owners to use it)?

And remember, this was made legal for the farmers at the Federal level, by the Department Of Agriculture. The same applies to firearms law regarding Marijuana, hemp, or whatever.

The problem is not that a gun owner would not prevail in a court case. But as always, they would most likely be bankrupted trying.

[mehavey]

False Logic/Dilemma

- Is it OK to use a mind-altering substance? (NOW) we've decided that it is.
- Is it wise policy that such Users be given access to guns ? We continue to say probably not.

Apples & Oranges
Legal ≠ Wise

[bill460]

Originally Posted by mehavey

......Is it OK to use a mind-altering substance? (NOW) we've decided that it is. Is it wise policy that such Users be given access to guns ? We continue to say probably not.

Your entire analysis is nothing but, "Apples & Oranges". Because CBD Oil is not a, "mind altering substance". And it never has been.

[mehavey]

"CBD" (in deliberate quotes) contains elements that can/are picked up on drug tests being identified as THC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Legally, CBD products should only be produced from hemp plants with no more than 0.3% THC.
But there's no way for consumers to know for sure what's in the products they buy.

A 2017 study found that about seven out of 10 CBD products did not contain the amount of
cannabidiol stated on the label. And about one in five contained THC. A false-positive on a
drug test could have implications for people at work, and in their medical care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That being the case, you are then bassackwards in the presumption of non-use/innocence if you fail an initial drug screen.
And if the State's involved in that drug test -- for whatever reason -- you're in a climb-out-of-the-pit situation if/when on the State's CCW list.
You are assumed a User of Mind-Altering-Substance until proven otherwise.

Send any objections to this guy's lawyer....
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/affluen...oday-2020-1-2/


.

[bill460]

When you buy CBD Oil you have a choice. Many have 0% THC. Others are labeled accordingly up to 0.3%. You will not "get high" regardless of how much you take. It is not an intoxicant.

You do not need any type of prescription, "card", or license to purchase it. You can buy the stuff at hardware stores and gas stations. The same as you would light bulbs or windshield washer fluid. You can fail a drug test by ingesting Poppy Seeds from a Breakfast Croissant. I've seen it happen.

No one was fired or arrested. The guy was retested 3 days later and passed. CBD Oil would be no different. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, except you have no dirt.

[mehavey]

Throw that dirt into the wind, then and hope the wind doesn't blow it back at you.
If it does, and until you can wash it off, you're in limbo... at best.

I've never been too fond of Russian roulette -- even if the box is ...labeled ... "blanks."

[bill460]

This is always the trouble when you bring up these type of topics for discussion. Reality, along with common sense soon departs, and fantasy takes over. And your argument is all fantasy, because no one has ever lost their firearms over possessing or using CBD Oil.

Could they? Perhaps. But until anyone does it's all as I said....... Fantasy, and nothing more.

The Asteroid could hit at anytime as well. Are you going to worry about that? You should because the chances of it hitting are better than you or I losing our firearms from using CBD Oil.

[JohnKSa]

Because CBD Oil is not a, "mind altering substance". And it never has been.

If made properly it won't get you high, but it is "psychoactive". http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x...s+Psychoactive

So it's probably accurate to say that it is a "mind altering substance" while it is also accurate to say that it is not an intoxicant.

When you buy CBD Oil you have a choice.

Assuming it is made and labeled properly. This is one of the problems. According to one of the articles I provided earlier, independent testing of CBD products often reveals "surprises". And those surprises could make the product illegal in spite of the best efforts of the producer and the consumer. That would make its use illegal as well.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science...ing-to-science

That's what can make CBD products different from poppyseed. You can't accidentally buy illegal poppyseed, but you could buy a CBD product that was illegal.

You do not need any type of prescription, "card", or license to purchase it.

You do in some states. Furthermore, if it contains any THC at all, it is illegal in LA. In TX, possessing it if it has any detectable amounts of THC is a felony--which would disqualify a person from owning firearms.

Could they? Perhaps. But until anyone does it's all as I said....... Fantasy, and nothing more.

I think it's probably safe to say that no one has lost their guns because of CBD products. However, I think it's a mistake to conclude that it couldn't happen, that it's fantasy. The fact that it hasn't happened yet has a lot to do with the fact that "legal" CBD products have only been widely available for a very short time.

We won't know if it's "fantasy" or not until there's been enough time to see how enforcement and prosecution are going to be handled.

It seems that some people have already made up their minds about this topic, but for those who are actually interested in finding out the truth, there's some good information out there.

https://plantpeople.co/cbd-legal-states/

[bill460]

It, (CBD Oil), has gotten too big of a foothold in the market to call it back now. More are buying into it every day. Plus, once again it would be political suicide for the party who decided to ban it. Too many people depend on it for non narcotic pain relief.

Make it illegal at the height of an opioid epidemic in this country, and you won't be in office very long. Again, could it happen? Yes. But so can the Asteroid.

[JohnKSa]

It's not an issue of making it illegal.

1. It is still illegal in at least two states if it contains detectable amounts of THC.

2. If it is produced improperly, the product can be illegal even if it appears to be legal. For example, if it turns out to have been produced from marijuana plants instead of hemp plants, it is illegal even if it doesn't contain THC.

3. It is illegal if it contains too much THC which, according to multiple sources can happen easily.

Again, I don't see CBD as being a huge risk factor, but it does have the potential to cause some real legal problems, especially for people who might be drug tested.

Dismissing it as fantasy isn't wise. Understanding the issues that surround the topic is a much more prudent approach and will likely keep a person from running into trouble even if they do choose to use CBD.

[HiBC]

I prefer to leave the activities of the 20th Century in the 20th Century.
Suffice it to say,I found it necessary to exercise adult choice making.
My employer announced that my machinist job was in a hazardous environment.
It also was true the parent corporation that owned my employer developed some very sensitive technology during Desert Storm for detecting trace chemical agents on the battlefield.
That technology was applied to reading a persons drug use history as it is stored in a strand of hair.

It was a good job and I was living the American Dream. There was a fork in the road and I took it. I'm not interested in going back.

I value my RTKBA . I take the 4473 seriously.

However,I was in high school in the late 1960's. Graduated in 1970. I live in a university town in Colorado.

My opinions and comments on cannabis are reasonably well informed.


I'm fairly neutral on personal pot use,from a semi- libertarian point of view.
But I'm not a proponent. The rosy picture pot advocates portray with all their talking points and 22 year old "experts" is a bunch of BS,IMO.

I know individuals who lost their touch with reality after long term regular use of pot.
Paranoid schizophrenia is a life altering tragedy...and yeah,No! Guns aren't a good idea.
Others just wasted their years and fortunes smoking dope,eating Cheetos,and listening to Cheech and Chong,or Pink Floyd,or playing Dungeons and Dragons. None of those are bad.

But these folks did not realize their potential.

Now schools are funded by pot. Teachers Unions have stretched HIPPA laws to pretty much eliminate drug testing.
Its not unusual for Colorado teachers to "give themselves a tune up" during working hours.
Does anyone really think middle school kids are too stupid to figure it out?

Not only that,Mommy,or Daddy,or Mommy and Daddy,or any number of other family compositions are getting high at home.

What will we learn in 25 years about kids who have been stoned since 11 yrs old?

It is what it is. States are realizing billions of dollars in revenue for dealing the drugs they used to put us in jail for.They will take the money. Its not going away.

But the point of this post is not the merits of the products.

The OP is asking a question to take care of himself. How to deal with what IS.

You do what you want. I think the policy transmitted to the military and Federal employees is a valuable clue.

It compromises credibility to sweep that policy under the rug

[Mainah]

Even if you're not under the influence of something you can't figure out what's legal anymore.

[nstoolman1]

Why doesn't someone who uses it now, go in and buy a drug kit and test themselves? See what the results are. If negative let us know through a third party. If positive do the same.

[JohnKSa]

That wouldn't tell you much. Even if it has no THC at all, if it was made from marijuana plants rather than hemp plants, it's illegal per current federal law.

I'm not saying that it's likely someone would get caught in that case, just pointing out that right now the laws are a mess and no one knows how enforcement/prosecution will be handled.

In my opinion, it would be smart to give things a chance to settle down, give the laws a chance to get hammered out, watch for some enforcement and prosecution to get a feel for how things will be handled.

[HiBC]

JohnKSa,just to add to the chaos

How is cannabis sativa different from cannabis sativa ?

Hemp is cannabis sativa. Marijuana is cannabis sativa.

[JohnKSa]

Yup, it's a mess. There's a legal definition that separates Hemp from Marijuana, but the reality is that even if you start out with Hemp (according to the legal definition) you may end up with Marijuana (according to the legal definition) by the time it's ready to harvest.

[bill460]

Originally Posted by John KSa

Yup, it's a mess.

Which is why no District Attorney or prosecutor would touch it with a 10 foot pole. They would end up spending tens of thousands of dollars or more, on what amounts to a frivolous, unwinnable case. Not to mention it would go totally against public opinion. Especially today, with all of the nonsense going on in the world that actually needs legal and financial action.

Most cities, counties, and states don't have enough taxpayer money to keep the pot holes filled in their roads, or the rust and corrosion on their bridges painted. Or keep their schools open. Let alone have enough to waste on this kind of meaningless crap.

In a way I wish it would happen to some rich, high profile type, with money to burn, and nothing but time on his hands. It would get a lot of press and attention, and it's doubtful when it was all over there would be any type of conviction. Because the laws as they stand are so completely convoluted.

They made this entire mess, (or else allowed it to develop), by combining all of these ridiculous, "legalization laws", that accomplish nothing but contradict Federal laws. All creating a tangled up legal mess that Clarence Darrow could not sort out.

[HiBC]

Which is why no District Attorney or prosecutor would touch it with a 10 foot pole.

I have not studied law.I'm not a lawyer. I might be wrong. But I'll try.

There s a certain amount of twisting that goes on to weasel an interpretation from a law that was never intended by the author(s) .The commerce cause comes to mind.
And bureaucratic agencies are given the power to make regulations with force of law.
Congress passes thousand page laws...or 3000 page laws without reading them,and Governors and Presidents sign them.

How many pages in the Constitution?

With this sort of malpractice,no wonder such bungles occur. Add to that a Supreme Court confused about their role ( Activism and re-engineering society...the more Narcissist role,IMO,or staying in their lane...reading and applying the Constitution)

AS things stand right now,the States may pass laws declaring the State will not prosecute marijuana laws. OK.

But hold on. If the Fed Gov't has controlled substance law which makes pot unlawful, it does not matter if the states decline to prosecute pot laws,it does not become lawful. Its still a Federal violation.

Federal Firearms law has provisions that include controlled substances.

In these cases,state marijuana laws are irrelevant. A pot legal state does not change criminal liability for Federal Firearms/controlled substance/prohibited person felonies.


Proceed at your own risk.

As far as passing drug tests,a trafficker is not necessarily a user. A trafficker might get busted for multiple felonies while still being able to pass a drug test.

[5whiskey]

Which is why no District Attorney or prosecutor would touch it with a 10 foot pole. They would end up spending tens of thousands of dollars or more, on what amounts to a frivolous, unwinnable case. Not to mention it would go totally against public opinion. Especially today, with all of the nonsense going on in the world that actually needs legal and financial action.

Well, I don't fully disagree with you that most prosecutors would see that for the can of worms that it is. But... that's poor advice to broadcast wholesale nationwide. In general, the feds far under-prosecute lies on the 4473 in the first place. And I don't mean for petty stuff like confusing CBD users, I mean for people who indicate they are not under indictment when they are (among other things).

The advent of the CBD industry has thrown a grenade into a lot of the laws on the books, both at the state and federal level. I am of the opinion that, for the sake of clarity, marijuana will have to be de-scheduled eventually. The .3% or less THC products that are now legal in most jurisdictions look, smell, and feel identical to stoner dope. I live in a state that has exempted CBD products so long as they contain less than .3% CBD. Since allowing that, a number of herbal wellness businesses have sprung up. Many of them are looking to legitimately expand into this newly legal market and comply with all laws (legal compliance in this arena is somewhat of a bear right now in my state). Many others are looking for a nice legal looking front to run a glorified head shop, banking on the plausible deniability of not "intentionally" selling illicit drugs. The difference between the two is not always so obvious.

Products include hemp flower, most of which is compliant with the .3% or less rule. Some of it is not, however. It looks, smells, and feels just like marijuana bud. Most shops give their customer a little slip of paper noting that it is a legally compliant CBD product to present to the police if it is ever found. As you can imagine, this doesn't work with all police. As you can also imagine, the packaging and legal compliance pamphlet often accompanies marijuana with THC to try and fool police.

On top of all of this, many well meaning shop owners who strive to comply with the legalities must be very careful and strict as to where they source their product from. Many products advertise as being CBD only, when in fact they have THC levels WAY over the limit. Something tells me there is some underground knowledge as to which brands misrepresent, and these brands misrepresent purposefully. Some shop owners who are less into the "high seeking" culture may purchase wholesale amounts of this illicit product believing it to be in compliance with the law, when it is not. If they are ever investigated or the product is tested, the excuse "I didn't know, and it was advertised as legal" may not prevent them being criminally charged. Even though they may not be convicted, they will spend time, money, and hassle going through the legal system.

This has a plethora of affects on many laws, including the prohibition on possession of firearms while being an illegal drug user. Drug tests typically do not get reported to NICS or any other LEO agency, unless you work for one or are on probation. If it's the latter, you likely can't possess a firearm legally anyway. At any rate, I am of the opinion that the marijuana plant needs to be either entirely legal or entirely illegal for the sake of clarity. This halfway stuff makes legalities surrounding it a mess. Which is why I believe the OPs question can't be answered for 100% positive. I don't think a prosecutor would ride to the gates of hell to prosecute you for possessing a firearm while using CBD products with .4% THC instead of .3%. But I can't promise that. This is legal issues that cannot be predicted with certainty across all jurisdictions. You also cannot count on lack of public support in every jurisdiction. Older active churchgoers in rural Southern areas will likely see anything that looks like marijuana as still being the "devil's lettuce," so if they wind up on the jury all bets of instantly winning is off.

All of this, but I still think there is like a .01% chance of getting in legal trouble coupling CBD products with firearms. But I think there is a chance.