Medical marijuana = no gun purchase

[peejman]

35 minutes ago, Omega said:

Well yea, anyone's driving privileges can be denied for many things including dead-beat dads which have nothing to do with driving.  MJ as most any other drug except maybe PCP, which they say can have affects way after use, wears off.  And while a urine test would show MJ use that does not mean impairment.  I bet police would be able to tell if impairment exists due to any reason, heck they have to have a reason to pull you over in the first place.

Right vs Privilege being the operative difference. Gun ownership is a right, driving a car is a privilege. What if a slander conviction resulted in losing your right to free speech for a year? What if having a fake ID resulted in losing your right to vote for a year? Even felons in prison still get to vote. 

[Oh Shoot]

5 minutes ago, peejman said:

...Even felons in prison still get to vote. 

Not those from TN.

And for certain offenses during certain year spans, they can never have the right restored.

- OS

[peejman]

4 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

Not those from TN.

And for certain offenses during certain year spans, they can never have the right restored.

- OS

True. I didn't read far enough down the page...   And interesting. I wonder why the ACLU hasn't made a stink of that. 

[JAB]

19 hours ago, Omega said:

1. And while a urine test would show MJ use that does not mean impairment.  2.I bet police would be able to tell if impairment exists due to any reason, heck they have to have a reason to pull you over in the first place.

 

I numbered the above statements for clarity in my response.

1.  That is my point - you could have people who are stoned out of their gourd but who claim, "That's showing up from where I smoked a little last weekend."  Conversely, you could have people who are sober at the time but who are charged because it shows up in their system where they smoked a little last weekend.  See, I'm not just talking about people who are seriously impaired while driving, carrying a handgun in public, etc. getting away with it.  I am also talking about people who really are not under the influence at the time being charged with DUI or carrying while impaired because they smoked some three days ago.  With alcohol there is not much room for doubt - you show a significant BAL then you are intoxicated (yeah, some hardcore alcoholics can have pretty high BALs and not really be impaired but they are a minority exception.)

2.  Do we really want 'was he stoned or not' to be determined in a court of law by a cop?  Sure, observed behavior can give probable cause to stop, search and so on but the opinion of a cop or a few cops being the sole determining factor - once it is determined that, yes, this guy smoked pot sometime in the last, two weeks - in whether or not a person is convicted of DUI from smoking pot?  Being able to say, "He was showing signs of..." in court is one thing and is valid as a reason to stop someone, etc. and maybe even as evidence to corroborate a definitive blood test and so on but when it can only be known that the person has smoked pot sometime in the last, two weeks or so to use that testimony as, basically, the main evidence upon which to convict someone isn't something I'd want to see.  Now, if the officer or another witness actually saw the guy smoking a joint, the joint was recovered at the scene of the arrest and a cloud of cannabis smoke issued from the car when the driver rolled his window down that would be different.  However, if the dude toked up at home and then decided he needed more potato chips and Hershey bars so immediately got in his car then the only, real evidence he had been smoking that night would be the officer's testimony that he was 'acting stoned'.  I have known people who pretty much acted stoned most of the time - and some of them didn't do any drugs.

As I said, before, I am not against legalizing pot.  Heck, people are going to get it, anyway and I don't believe the government should tell them they can't so rather than wasting money fighting a 'war' on pot that will never end legalize it, license it, tax it and turn it into an incoming revenue stream rather than an outgoing one.  Legalize private growing for personal use, as well (I also believe it should be legal to make 'shine for personal use and not just as fuel for vehicles - and I would be all over that.)  I just think that, unlike testing for being intoxicated with alcohol specifically at inappropriate times (like when driving), testing for being intoxicated with marijuana specifically at inappropriate times isn't really possible - or at the very least not as clear cut - at the present time and that would create many legal issues which could work for or against any given defendant and make giving a fair trial and determining guilt or innocence in such cases nearly impossible.  

Edited September 2, 2016 by JAB

[JAB]

20 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

TN does it too. TICS will deny purchase for an alcohol related offense within the last year -- it is considered "addiction" under 39-17-1316.

- OS

And you can't get a carry permit if you have been convicted of DUI, etc. within the past five years, right?  That is a little different, though, because in that case simply consuming the alcohol in the first place is not a crime - as long as one is of legal age and not caught driving, etc. under the influence.  The very act of using marijuana, for instance, is a federal crime and illegal in some states.  In other words, I see a difference between, "Have you been convicted of a crime involving alcohol within the past year," and "Do you smoke pot, sometimes?"

Besides that, isn't TICS basically just NICS with an unnecessary $10 fee appended?

[TrickyNicky]

1 minute ago, JAB said:

I numbered the above statements for clarity in my response.

1.  That is my point - you could have people who are stoned out of their gourd but who claim, "That's showing up from where I smoked a little last weekend."  Conversely, you could have people who are sober at the time but who are charged because it shows up in their system where they smoked a little last weekend.  See, I'm not just talking about people who are seriously impaired while driving, carrying a handgun in public, etc. getting away with it.  I am also talking about people who really are not under the influence at the time being charged with DUI or carrying while impaired because they smoked some three days ago.  With alcohol there is not much room for doubt - you show a significant BAL then you are intoxicated (yeah, some hardcore alcoholics can have pretty high BALs and not really be impaired but they are a minority exception.)

2.  Do we really want 'was he stoned or not' to be determined in a court of law by a cop?  Sure, observed behavior can give probable cause to stop, search and so on but the opinion of a cop or a few cops being the sole determining factor - once it is determined that, yes, this guy smoked pot sometime in the last, two weeks - in whether or not a person is convicted of DUI from smoking pot?  Being able to say, "He was showing signs of..." in court is one thing and is valid as a reason to stop someone, etc. and maybe even as evidence to corroborate a definitive blood test and so on but when it can only be known that the person has smoked pot sometime in the last, two weeks or so to use that testimony as, basically, the main evidence upon which to convict someone isn't something I'd want to see.  Now, if the officer or another witness actually saw the guy smoking a joint, the joint was recovered at the scene of the arrest and a cloud of cannabis smoke issued from the car when the driver rolled his window down that would be different.  However, if the dude toked up at home and then decided he needed more potato chips and Hershey bars so immediately got in his car then the only, real evidence he had been smoking that night would be the officer's testimony that he was 'acting stoned'.  I have known people who pretty much acted stoned most of the time - and some of them didn't do any drugs.

As I said, before, I am not against legalizing pot.  Heck, people are going to get it, anyway and I don't believe the government should tell them they can't so rather than wasting money fighting a 'war' on pot that will never end legalize it, license it, tax it and turn it into an incoming revenue stream rather than an outgoing one.  Legalize private growing for personal use, as well (I also believe it should be legal to make 'shine for personal use - and I would be all over that.)  I just think that, unlike testing for being intoxicated with alcohol specifically at inappropriate times (like when driving), testing for being intoxicated with marijuana specifically at inappropriate times isn't really possible - or at the very least not as clear cut - at the present time and that would create many legal issues which could work for or against any given defendant.  

 

I think a large part of that is that there isn't really much point at this point to a more sophisticated drug test. As things sit now the time frame of consumption is fairly immaterial. You have it in your system or you don't. Case closed. 

 

I believe that through legalization a demand for a better mouse trap, or in this case drug test would result in some money being spent on producing one. Don't forget too the difficulties that would currently arise due to the difficulties of procuring materials for valid data collection because of it's classification.

A company would have to find subjects willing to be monitored and tested through their consumption and after and bend over backwards to receive permission to even do the trial. And who knows if they would even be able to finish. Our government has a habit of pulling funding or flat out ignoring anything that goes against their current propaganda.

All that for a product no one really needs at this juncture and here we are using testing methods 30 + years old with no eye to the future.

[TrickyNicky]

3 minutes ago, JAB said:

 

Besides that, isn't TICS basically just NICS with an unnecessary $10 fee appended?

I had always been charged some fee or another until moving to GA. I asked the guy at the LGS what the charge for background check was and he looked at me like I just popped off the short bus  

Down here I pay sales tax and that's negotiable.

[JAB]

14 minutes ago, TrickyNicky said:

 

I think a large part of that is that there isn't really much point at this point to a more sophisticated drug test. As things sit now the time frame of consumption is fairly immaterial. You have it in your system or you don't. Case closed. 

 

I believe that through legalization a demand for a better mouse trap, or in this case drug test would result in some money being spent on producing one. Don't forget too the difficulties that would currently arise due to the difficulties of procuring materials for valid data collection because of it's classification.

A company would have to find subjects willing to be monitored and tested through their consumption and after and bend over backwards to receive permission to even do the trial. And who knows if they would even be able to finish. Our government has a habit of pulling funding or flat out ignoring anything that goes against their current propaganda.

All that for a product no one really needs at this juncture and here we are using testing methods 30 + years old with no eye to the future.

You could well be correct and I actually thought of that.  As you say, though, it is kind of a chicken and egg thing - how do you convince people to participate in a study which will basically require that they admit to illegal drug use and allow you to document it and, conversely, if legalized - meaning such studies would be easier to perform - how do you handle DUI type cases during the five or ten years it would take (probably at minimum) to develop such testing?

Believe it or not, although a lot of this seems off topic for this thread, there is a real, solid reason I see this as a concern in a manner that is very much related to the thread topic.  I don't believe that being even a recreational pot smoker should (necessarily) preclude buying a firearm but there are concerns when it comes to carrying a firearm.  Until more specific tests are developed legalized pot would, IMO, create too much of potential for problems that would lead not to a crack down on pot use while carrying (because there would be no way to specifically test for that) but to more draconian laws on carrying handguns, period and further limits upon to the ability to do so.  I believe we would see a reversal of much of the progress we have made, recently (such as the ability to legally 'carry' in one's vehicle without a permit.)  As a non-pot smoker, expanded carry rights are much more important to me than expanded weed smoking rights.  I don't want my right (privilege or whatever) to carry to face further limitations just because there is no, good way to tell who is stoned at that exact moment and who is not.  I can just hear the (largely pro pot smoking) liberals now:  "Since it is impossible to tell who is stoned while carrying and who is not the only, real way to deal with the issue is to severely limit or eliminate the ability of private citizens to legally carry.  If no one can carry a handgun then no one can carry a handgun while stoned."

Edited September 2, 2016 by JAB

[Omega]

Should we legalize Marijuana?  Yes, I think we should,  but that really is not the question now is it?  I think the bigger question is should the federal government decide a state issue.   The Feds have no business interfering in state law as long as those state laws don't infringe on the rights of it's people.

Some of us already see the feds infringing on our Second Ammendment rights by requiring background checks so this just ads to the infringement.  IMHO, I think a state law should trump a federal law within that state.  If a state doesn't have a law specifically outlawing something or it's federal property then fine but otherwise, no.  

Now, as far as legalization goes, I don't think it will significantly change anything.  Just look at CO, where I am from, they have to deal with this issue and have developed ways to determine if you meet the dui criteria:

Marijuana Legalization and Impaired Driving

Marijuana affects reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, concentration, and perception of time and distance. Getting high and getting behind the wheel of a car will get you arrested for a DUI; this law hasn't changed with the January 2014 legalization of marijuana.

As with alcohol, there is an established impairment level in Colorado: five nanograms of active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the active psychoactive component of marijuana—per milliliter of whole blood.

CDOT has been working alongside the marijuana industry, and other state and local agencies to develop policies and education efforts to inform marijuana users about the dangers of driving while impaired. See some frequently asked questions about the law and driving.

Use the quick links at the left to get more information on the drugged driving campaign in Colorado.

 

[Oh Shoot]

3 hours ago, JAB said:

And you can't get a carry permit if you have been convicted of DUI, etc. within the past five years, right? 

Only if you have another DUI that falls within 10 years.

3 hours ago, JAB said:

Besides that, isn't TICS basically just NICS with an unnecessary $10 fee appended?

TICS does serial number check, unlike NICS. Beyond that and the alcohol thing,  seems TICS will deny you for any criminal charge that was never resolved, while NICS only does it for one that would be disqualifying.

Those are the only differences of which I'm aware, but there may be more.

- OS

[JAB]

On 9/2/2016 at 1:29 PM, Omega said:

Should we legalize Marijuana?  Yes, I think we should,  but that really is not the question now is it?  I think the bigger question is should the federal government decide a state issue.   The Feds have no business interfering in state law as long as those state laws don't infringe on the rights of it's people.

Some of us already see the feds infringing on our Second Ammendment rights by requiring background checks so this just ads to the infringement.  IMHO, I think a state law should trump a federal law within that state.  If a state doesn't have a law specifically outlawing something or it's federal property then fine but otherwise, no.  

Now, as far as legalization goes, I don't think it will significantly change anything.  Just look at CO, where I am from, they have to deal with this issue and have developed ways to determine if you meet the dui criteria:

Marijuana Legalization and Impaired Driving

Marijuana affects reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, concentration, and perception of time and distance. Getting high and getting behind the wheel of a car will get you arrested for a DUI; this law hasn't changed with the January 2014 legalization of marijuana.

As with alcohol, there is an established impairment level in Colorado: five nanograms of active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the active psychoactive component of marijuana—per milliliter of whole blood.

CDOT has been working alongside the marijuana industry, and other state and local agencies to develop policies and education efforts to inform marijuana users about the dangers of driving while impaired. See some frequently asked questions about the law and driving.

Use the quick links at the left to get more information on the drugged driving campaign in Colorado.

 

I agree about the states' rights vs. federal law issue.  Interesting about the Colorado standard for DUI with THC.  I did not know that so I learned something.  Thank you.

There is still a potential problem for handgun carry, however.  In Tennessee, for instance, it appears that it is against the law to carry with any amount of alcohol in your system, period.  Unlike driving, there is no, established standard for what is 'over the legal limit'.  So, again, if that translated to having any amount of pot in your system meaning you can't legally carry then that person who smoked weed three days ago - even though he or she wasn't carrying or handling a handgun at the time - would still be in violation of the law.  However, maybe that would force states to create a 'standard' for intoxication while carrying not only from pot but also from alcohol, etc. rather than the 'even one sip is illegal' rule that appears to be in place, now.

Edited September 5, 2016 by JAB